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

[.vodka]

It seems you still need a K CPU to be able to properly overclock via bclk even on a Z chipset.

Raise the bclk on a non-k CPU and you lose a lot of its features. We don't need bclk oc on K CPUs due to the unlocked multiplier... bclk oc is useless with all these drawbacks (no power management, broken avx, no turbo, no igpu/quicksync, etc) on non-k CPUs... unless you don't care for all of these.

I don't know if that's going to be solved in future BIOS updates to be up to par with Nehalem overclocking. It should be, unless Intel nerfed it, even though we have all the evidence they're going full speed ahead with the feature in kaby lake.

 

[Madpacket]

If these settings are not in alignment with the specifications given to the board manufacturers by Intel, they're going to respond.

That's must be some tasty Kool-Aid, can I have some?

More on topic, the point I was making which seems to have gone over your head is the Core i3-6100 is a very low power dual core which could easily be overclocked on the lowest end motherboards. You do not need a Z series board to overclock these chips successfully as AsRock demonstrated.

 

[Burpo]

Obviously my statement is factual, if they're pulling the flash's.

 

[Madpacket]

It seems you still need a K CPU to be able to properly overclock via bclk even on a Z chipset.

Raise the bclk on a non-k CPU and you lose a lot of its features. We don't need bclk oc on K CPUs due to the unlocked multiplier... bclk oc is useless with all these drawbacks (no power management, broken avx, no turbo, no igpu/quicksync, etc) on non-k CPUs... unless you don't care for all of these.

I don't know if that's going to be solved in future BIOS updates to be up to par with Nehalem overclocking. It should be, unless Intel nerfed it, even though we have all the evidence they're going full speed ahead with the feature in kaby lake.

You make a valid point. The Skylake Bclock overclock stuff is poorly implanted anyways on "supported" chipsets. It's great Intel is advancing (actually regressing if you think about it) with KabyLake to throw us poor folk' a bone like back in the Nehalem days.

 

[Madpacket]

Obviously my statement is factual, if they're pulling the flash's.

Everything every monopoly does is ethical and factual. You must be right, my apologies for the confusion here.

 

[Madpacket]

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You're only hurting yourself.

Right this $367 CAD ($262 USD) I'm choosing not to spend is really hurting me. What will I ever do?

https://imgur.com/5tCPSGZ

The only way this potentially would hurt me is if I needed to buy this or had no system to start with. But given the inflated prices of these components outside the centre of the universe (USA) there exits much better options for the same or less money.

 

[Madpacket]

There is already Non-Z memory overclocking implemented on some boards. I wonder if you could OC K chips with that. This board is certainly capable of some mild overclocking. Lack of expansion options but hey, it's dirt cheap! With computer chips changing sockets nearly every generation, I see little reason to spend much money on a board unless you need extra functionality/warranty. This bare minimum works just fine (ASRock H110M-HDS + 6700K + 2x8GB DDR4), and if it dies 3 years later, fair enough, 6700K will be very easy to sell, put the memory into your next build, *lake or whatever is the latest. I bet, U.2 will come as standard by then, might upgrade your storage as well. Easy peasy and for less $.

And if you need more MT power and/or mGPU capability, 115x is just the wrong socket, all together. 2011 is where you should be.

I think this is a more sensible approach and it really doesn't cost much more at least in Canada to get a real quad core Skylake setup and cheap H series board (with similar features) over a Z series board plus a gimped i3-6100.

At least with the G3258 you only had to change the multiplier until they McUpdated it into a useless processor on Windows 10 which could be fixed with reverting files back (annoying but fixable). With bclock overclocking on 1151 you're always going to have the negative issues to deal with.

It's just too bad Intel is artificially holding these CPU's by locking them and forcing unnecessary Z chip purchases to have any non K overclocking. Perhaps ShintaiDK's right and they'll revert back to better times when competition was higher and improve the bclock overclocking with Kabylake.

 

[Burpo]

Everything every monopoly does is ethical and factual. You must be right, my apologies for the confusion here.

No problem.

 

[cainn24]

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.

They've integrated the BCLK overclocking features into the mainline BIOS, along with a microcode update to address a prime number calculation bug, that's all. I have two Asrock Z170 boards and I have recently updated the BIOS on both of them so I am able to confirm with first-hand experience.

 

[Shmee]

They've integrated the BCLK overclocking features into the mainline BIOS, along with a microcode update to address a prime number calculation bug, that's all. I have two Asrock Z170 boards and I have recently updated the BIOS on both of them so I am able to confirm with first-hand experience.

Well that's good on their part then.

 

[pantsaregood]

Any word on whether or not this is expected to be correctable? Some of the symptoms are a little odd given that I wouldn't expect them to be related to the BCLK.

 

[cainn24]

In order to facilitate BCLK overclocking the part of the CPU that prevents it (which is the Power Control Unit) has to be disabled. As a consequence we lose any feature that either wholly or partly relies on the CPUs power management architecture. It's a pretty brutal hack really.

Moving forward perhaps some reverse engineering efforts will yield a BCLK OC solution that allows the PCU to remain active, or perhaps there might even be some cooperation from Intel.

That last possibility might seem unlikely at first blush but it occurred to me that since companies like ASRock have agreed to refrain from releasing motherboards with BCLK OC capabilities based on non-Z170 chipsets , which is a decision that appears to have been made in response to pressure from Intel, that perhaps they might have a bone thrown their way. On the other hand I wouldn't really argue if someone wanted to characterize this as wishful thinking. It probably is.

 

[crashtech]

Newest BIOS (2.90) on my ASRock Extreme4 seems to have broken or disabled BCLK OCing...

 

[Burpo]

It says it at the download screen..
1. Update CPU microcode to 0x76.
2. Remove SKY OC function.

Seems up to the user if they want to download/use it, but you can always go back if you wish to bclk overclock.

 

[crashtech]

Better idea, find another hobby until Intel pulls its head out, or AMD gets back into the game. Not currently a fan of their strong-arm tactics.

The previous OC BIOS already had it set up to where "Sky OC" had to be explicitly enabled by the user.

 

[AtenRa]

Newest BIOS (2.90) on my ASRock Extreme4 seems to have broken or disabled BCLK OCing...

Rumour: Intel may block overclocking on non-K Skylake CPUs

http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...may-block-overclocking-on-non-k-skylake-cpus/

 

[Burpo]

Hmm, I go to bios page.. I read what it says about new bios..
1. Update CPU microcode to 0x76.
2. Remove SKY OC function.

But I download it anyway & put it on my machine.. Now I'm pissed because it does what it says? Ok

 

[crashtech]

It's no rumor. BCLK OCing might have re-ignited interest in modifying PCs as a hobby, but as it stands we're back to the boring same-old same-old.

 

[crashtech]

Hmm, I go to bios page.. I read what it says about new bios..
1. Update CPU microcode to 0x76.
2. Remove SKY OC function.

But I download it anyway & put it on my machine.. Now I'm pissed because it does what it says? Ok

Ha, I wondered about you but now it's clear where your biases lie. I don't think you'll find anyone on this board who thinks I am an AMD fanboy or Intel basher, but this frankly sucks. It's not really any of your business, but I make it a point to test out everything. I have reverted to a previous BIOS, but there's no reason to think there won't be other ways of disabling BCLK OC in the works.

 

[Burpo]

I just think motherboard manufacturers overstepped their boundaries initially, in a rush to sell boards. At least the files are out there, and can be used. They can't take them back, and I bet they're going to be passed around.

I have no biases. I'm pissed at my icecream man. He won't give free sprinkles anymore

 

[MrTeal]

I just think motherboard manufacturers overstepped their boundaries initially, in a rush to sell boards. At least the files are out there, and can be used. They can't take them back, and I bet they're going to be passed around.

I have no biases. I'm pissed at my icecream man. He won't give free sprinkles anymore

They were never really free. He just gave you a taste to keep you coming back for more.

 

[crashtech]

I'm sure Intel has done the math and sees no upside to letting BCLK OC to continue. But for my part, this little maneuver has greatly diminished the desire to spend money on new PC hardware anymore. I've been wanting to go back to analog audio for a while, and that's where my dollars will go moving forward.

 

[crashtech]

I just think motherboard manufacturers overstepped their boundaries initially, in a rush to sell boards. At least the files are out there, and can be used. They can't take them back, and I bet they're going to be passed around.

The newest BIOS is a poison pill. Reverting to an earlier version does not restore BCLK OC functionality.

 

[nerp]

Well, not surprising. If you want to OC, buy an unlocked chip. Anyone who spent money to do this should have understood the gamble.

 

[SuperJaw]

The newest BIOS is a poison pill. Reverting to an earlier version does not restore BCLK OC functionality.

I've switched between Gigabyte's P95 fix bios and back to the prior OC bios on my z170x-UD3 no problem (and OC'd my i3 6100 afterwards).