Well... is better to watch how the situation goes... remember that Kabylake is just Skylake with more features and better iGPU.... so, if you OC Skylake, you won't need Kabylake, ruining the sales.
Well... is better to watch how the situation goes... remember that Kabylake is just Skylake with more features and better iGPU.... so, if you OC Skylake, you won't need Kabylake, ruining the sales.What are you talking about? Intel's released a new socket with every tock, regardless of whether the previous socket was overclockable. Intel isn't going to change sockets before Kabylake.
Can you give me a link that for " what you understand:? I have a Z board but not a high end expensive one . 154$
Yea my bad, I meant to say expensive Z170 boards not H110 etc. Also your board (ASUS Z170-A) should get the BIOS as elmor was able to OC the Core i5 6400 up to 4.8GHz on that mobo.
one more thing,
ASROCK released the bios for the Z170 OC Formula through the xtremesystems.org official Asrock thread.
H97? A 6500 won't run on an H97 board . . .
Intel will block this & then the usual apologists will say that you weren't meant to overclock on a non Z board et al. Anyway this is probably done to counter whatever little headwind Zen may gather, but in a year's time it'll be back to where non Z87 & Z97 overclocking is atm btw Intel has officially blocked overclocking on the latter via BIOS (firmware) updates, not just the Pentium G3258, & was confirmed by ASUS & Asrock staff on two separate forums that I'm on.You guys are really overestimating how willing people are to overclock. Intel may put a stop to this, but it won't be because enough people are choosing overclockable i3's over i5's.
LOL, Intel's not going to BLOCK this. It's up to motherboard manufacturers and Intel's not going to get involved, anymore than they did with bclk overclocked Nehalem.
OCing via bclk is not the same as OCing via multiplier. Blck way can cause instability while multiplier is pretty much straightforward way that limits the possible issues only to CPU and max.stable clock it can achieve.If they accept this, then what could be their reasoning for not releasing an unlocked i3?
If the i3 is unlocked anyway, bclk or multiplier, what's the difference?
OCing via bclk is not the same as OCing via multiplier. Blck way can cause instability while multiplier is pretty much straightforward way that limits the possible issues only to CPU and max.stable clock it can achieve.
This is a nice "free" performance Skylake i3 users get but not nearly as elegant as what "K" buyers get. Enter bios, change stock multi to ~43x, lower IMC multi to 38/39, leave vcore at stock, adjust memory clock(XMP), save settings. Profit.
Hasn't anyone tried a Skylake Xeon in a desktop board yet?
Intel really hasn't commented on it.
WCing with cheap Seidon AIO, I'm running it at 4.2Ghz at slightly below stock Vcore with 16GB DDR3 @ 2400Mhz (Kingston Savage CL11). Usually I have balanced power profile on so speedstep is running the chip at very low clocks and voltage so it is very power efficient.This.
BTW, I recall you bought a 4690K a while back. What were you able to OC it to?
OCing via bclk is not the same as OCing via multiplier. Blck way can cause instability while multiplier is pretty much straightforward way that limits the possible issues only to CPU and max.stable clock it can achieve.
This is a nice "free" performance Skylake i3 users get but not nearly as elegant as what "K" buyers get. Enter bios, change stock multi to ~43x, lower IMC multi to 38/39, leave vcore at stock, adjust memory clock(XMP), save settings. Profit.
I know, but in the end the result is the same. An overclocked i3.
If it were really likely to cause instability when done to a reasonable level, I doubt the mobo makers would be allowing it.
Then again we can change a lot of BIOS settings that can cause a crash...
they always allowed you settings that can't work stable,
if they can sell a few more MBs because it can OC non K CPUs via BCLK they will enable it, look back at the 775 days, unless Intel behind the scenes prevents them,
bclk OC will always be a bit more difficult because you are still overclocking other things, uncore/memory clock will go up with it, so you have to compensate lowering multipliers and such, also the IGP will be unstable probably and they seem to force you to disable it, also it seems to disable the temp readings, it might also affect other things that need to be tested, like using power saving features, sleep and so on...
they always allowed you settings that can't work stable,
if they can sell a few more MBs because it can OC non K CPUs via BCLK they will enable it, look back at the 775 days, unless Intel behind the scenes prevents them,
bclk OC will always be a bit more difficult because you are still overclocking other things, uncore/memory clock will go up with it, so you have to compensate lowering multipliers and such, also the IGP will be unstable probably and they seem to force you to disable it, also it seems to disable the temp readings, it might also affect other things that need to be tested, like using power saving features, sleep and so on...
WCing with cheap Seidon AIO, I'm running it at 4.2Ghz at slightly below stock Vcore with 16GB DDR3 @ 2400Mhz (Kingston Savage CL11). Usually I have balanced power profile on so speedstep is running the chip at very low clocks and voltage so it is very power efficient.
I believe Intel will not have any problem to allow this only on the very expensive Z170 motherboard models.
This way only overclockers will bother to OC a Pentium or Core i3/5 and normal users will opt for a cheaper motherboard to pair it with a locked Core i5 or even Core i7.
If you need a $150-200+ motherboard to just OC a $70 CPU then for the same price most users will go for a $50 motherboard + $190-200 Core i5.
I've installed the non-K OC beta BIOS onto a ASRock Z170 Extreme4. 4.3GHz and climbing with an i3-6100, results in a day or so.
It's available today on $99 boards.
Just wiped out the price argument you have been using this week.