[Techspot] BCLK overclocking non-K Intel Skylake CPUs is now possible, tested here

[The Sauce]

The OCing is being done entirely on the BLCK, it's not going to reach K chip OC's. You'll see mild OCing with this. Well...I would not have expect it to reach K series OC's on the BLCK alone.

This is what I am thinking. How many people are really going to get their BCLK up to 127 without torturing the rest of the components beyond tolerances? Then you have to deal with individual mfgr straps again...that always pissed me off. I'm thinking not worth it.

 

[crashtech]

This is what I am thinking. How many people are really going to get their BCLK up to 127 without torturing the rest of the components beyond tolerances? Then you have to deal with individual mfgr straps again...that always pissed me off. I'm thinking not worth it.

Which components do you mean? Skylake decoupled PCIe:

From the Anandtech "BCLK Overclocking Intel’s non-K Skylake Processors: Coming Soon" article:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9848/bclk-overclocking-intels-non-k-skylake-processors-coming-soon

 

[Magic Carpet]

Question. Can Intel disable this type of non-K overclocking thru a routine microcode update?

 

[dark zero]

Question. Can Intel disable this type of non-K overclocking thru a routine microcode update?

Hardly. but they can nerf that somehow

 

[MrTeal]

Which components do you mean? Skylake decoupled PCIe:

From the Anandtech "BCLK Overclocking Intel’s non-K Skylake Processors: Coming Soon" article:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9848/bclk-overclocking-intels-non-k-skylake-processors-coming-soon

I haven't tried Skylake locked OCing, but do they new BIOSes on the H170 and B150 chipsets allow you to turn down the multiplier on the ring bus as well?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Hardly. but they can nerf that somehow

That's what happened to some of my non-K Turbo 1150 overclocks. I had to fiddle a lot, to get back Turbo OC capability back. All, thanks to a nasty Intel microcode update

 

[Headfoot]

Hardly. but they can nerf that somehow

Source for "Hardly"?

 

[Madpacket]

Question. Can Intel disable this type of non-K overclocking thru a routine microcode update?

Yes. And history has shown they have done this already.

It's simple economics for them. If these lower priced (lower margin) CPU's start cutting into Intel's higher margin SKU's they'll figure a way out to nerf this.

I figure they're leaving it alone for now as they have big margins on their Z10 chipsets but if this really catches on or motherboard manufacturers open this up on the lower priced boards Intel will likely step in.

 

[crashtech]

I haven't tried Skylake locked OCing, but do they new BIOSes on the H170 and B150 chipsets allow you to turn down the multiplier on the ring bus as well?

I was hoping someone would answer this by now, because I don't know...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Kaby Lake will improve on BCLK OC. Intel is going full in on this, its not going away anytime soon.

 

[Shmee]

It looks like it is not just on ASrock. Looks like a bunch of BIOS are now supporting it. http://overclocking.guide/intel-skylake-non-k-overclocking-bios-list/

 

[Abwx]

It looks like it is not just on ASrock. Looks like a bunch of BIOS are now supporting it. http://overclocking.guide/intel-skylake-non-k-overclocking-bios-list/

It also look like Intel is not eager to support thoses functionalities, to say the least.

http://www.hardware.fr/news/14498/intel-fait-pression-asrock-sky-oc.html

To summarize Asrock has been quietly summoned...

 

[Conroe]

It also look like Intel is not eager to support thoses functionalities, to say the least.

http://www.hardware.fr/news/14498/intel-fait-pression-asrock-sky-oc.html

To summarize Asrock has been quietly summoned...

Did you even try to read that link? Intel is fine with Z170, maybe not H170, B150 or H110. Non-Z OC may be DOA.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asrock-non-z170-chipset-overclock,30915.html

ASRock has decided to remove SKY OC technology from these motherboards’ feature lists since it is not compliant with Intel Skylake CPU specifications.

It could be they just remove the feature from the "list" and the boards will still support it.

 

[Burpo]

B150 & H170
"ASRock told Tom's Hardware that it had decided to withdraw the OC SKY technology feature list for these boards because it does not meet specifications of Skylake processors."

 

[Phynaz]

It also look like Intel is not eager to support thoses functionalities, to say the least.

http://www.hardware.fr/news/14498/intel-fait-pression-asrock-sky-oc.html

To summarize Asrock has been quietly summoned...

To summarize you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Imagine if Ford segregated their vehicles for sale like Intel does their CPUs.

You wouldn't be allowed to have a back-up camera on any vehicle that sold for less than $50,000, and the mfg would sue any dealer that installed a back-up camera on a cheaper vehicle.

Yeah, that's what Intel is doing here, preventing BCLK OC on motherboards with less than Z170 chipsets.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Yeah, that's what Intel is doing here, preventing BCLK OC on motherboards with less than Z170 chipsets.

But what about K chips on non-Z motherboards? Can we overclock them at all?

 

[VirtualLarry]

But what about K chips on non-Z motherboards? Can we overclock them at all?

Not according to Intel, no.

 

[Conroe]

It more like a supplier telling Ford it cant use a part out of spec.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Not according to Intel, no.

Yeah I know, but I was able to overclock K SKUs on B85/H81 boards with ease. Are you saying, no more free lunch?

 

[PPB]

It more like a supplier telling Ford it cant use a part out of spec.

Silly argument because Intel doesnt expose the truth behind their "spec" and if you are not a EE involved its design you probably would never know if its just arbitrary BS or not. However, past experience indicates SKL BCLK oc works just fine if you dont mind disabled iGP, AVX or lower pstates. So much for out of spec and their own slides touting bclk oc capabilities.


It wont be surprising that people nicknamed after Intel uarchs will believe everything Intel PR shoves down their throat, tho.

 

[Conroe]

It's spec for only Z170 chipsets. If you want to play you have to pay and it's Intel's sandbox.

Honestly with Z170 boards going for $80 I don't think these two boards could be sold for much less. The real feature on those boards is the VRM. Without overclocking they may as well just have a cheaper simple little three phase VRM.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Honestly with Z170 boards going for $80 I don't think these two boards could be sold for much less.

Right, there's some surprisingly cheap Z170 boards out there, especially considering how new is the LGA1151 platform in general.

 

[crashtech]

Does anybody know if the temp monitoring problem is going to be fixed, or is even fixable?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Anyone else see that ASRock has PULLED their "SKY OC" BIOSes from their site?

There's a new BIOS, with "Microcode x74", version 3.00 for my Z170 Pro4S. I'm afraid to flash it, in case they pulled the BCLK OC capabilities from it.

Does anyone else think that SKL BCLK OC (non-K), is more "hokey" than non-Z OC using Haswell G3258 CPUs? At least with the G3258, we could still utilize the iGPU (and QuickSync!), and still tell temps and power usage.

The SKL BCLK OC I have on a G4400 (4.455Ghz) is nice, and all, but it keeps the CPU from throttling down under lower load, keeps me from reading the temp, and I can't use the iGPU.

I'm not entirely happy with it, for those reasons.

OTOH, even with the CPU usage pinned at 100% (BOINC on both cores), the CPU seems to have enough spare juice for Skype (with degraded resolution, due to lack of spare CPU), web browsing, and internet radio, without skips (as long as I use a certain version of the web browser).

Edit: On the other hand, I was thinking of going into my bedroom and using my Lenovo IdeaPad 100S (Atom Z3735F, 2GB/32GB), but I decided to stay in my living room, just to use my 4.455Ghz G4400 rig, just because it's so darn fast. (And I'm testing the new Firefox 44.0, it's faster and just as good as my previous favorite browser, Waterfox 40.1.0.)