BCLK Overclock still works?

[kuRey_o31]

Does BCLK overclock still works? I just found out that we can still do this by reverting the bios update but I'm not so sure since the last update is on April 2016. Anyone here still had an overclock non-k CPU? I need to save to get a better GPU (RX480) so that is why I'm not getting the 6600k. I'm planning to get a i5 6400 and overclock to 4.5 and then get the I7 6700 non K or kabylake by 2018

 

[synphul]

I think if you want to do any real overclocking you'd be better off with a k series cpu and a z series motherboard. It was momentarily possible before the microcode was updated via more recent bios updates. Win10 also pushes intel microcode updates and while they can be changed in the registry the next time windows updates you'll get the microcode update and have to fix it again. Win10 home for example you can't turn off/disable updates so you'll be fighting it over and over.

The new baseclock setting is separate from the pcie baseclock which is a good thing but I believe it's still tied to the ram so it may not be possible to get to 4.5ghz. Depending on the motherboard (h110, h170 etc), if it's designed for a 65w tdp cpu and you overclock it higher than an 88w tdp cpu that could stress components on the motherboard as well.

There's also the issue they ran into here, "The only problem about the “special BIOS” is the fact that you can’t read out the core temperature. No matter which tool you use, you will always see 100°C." That sounds like a pretty bad problem to me, the time I especially want to see my temps reported as close to accurate as possible is when I'm overclocking. Not have my ability to read core temps crippled at the worst possible time.
http://overclocking.guide/overclocking-non-k-intel-skylake-cpus-performance-tests/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10021/skylake-overclocking-regular-cpu-bclk-overclocking-is-being-removed
https://www.techpowerup.com/219923/intel-pushes-cpu-microcode-update-which-cripples-overclocking-non-k-skylake-cpus

 

[rgd1101]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from kuRey_o31 : "BCLK OC 6400 still works?"

Planning to get a used i5 6400 and BCLK OC it to 4.5ghz (much cheaper than 6600k)
I'm aware of its cons (unable to get accurate CPU temp.) but I will actually get a noctua nhd15 for this

is this a good plan? will the BCLK works? I know intel asked the mobo manufacturers to remove it but as far as I know, we can still download the old bios to do this. (planning to get the non-k 6700 after 1 and a half year) Don't have enough money because I need to save as much as I can to have a decent GPU (RX 480)

 

[philipew]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from kuRey_o31 : "BCLK OC 6400 still works?"

Planning to get a used i5 6400 and BCLK OC it to 4.5ghz (much cheaper than 6600k)
I'm aware of its cons (unable to get accurate CPU temp.) but I will actually get a noctua nhd15 for this

is this a good plan? will the BCLK works? I know intel asked the mobo manufacturers to remove it but as far as I know, we can still download the old bios to do this. (planning to get the non-k 6700 after 1 and a half year) Don't have enough money because I need to save as much as I can to have a decent GPU (RX 480)

As written here, BCLK is the base clock (set by default at 100 MHz) used to determine the frequency for the CPU, the FCLK, Uncore (Cache), and the MEMory. These four use their own multiplier of the BCLK frequency. For example the CPU Ratio would use 46 to get 46 x 100 = 4600 MHz (4.6 GHz), FCLK would use 10 to get 10 x 100 = 1000 MHz (1 GHz), the Uncore (Cache) ratio would use 45 to get 45 x 100 = 4500 MHz (4.5 GHz) and the MEMory would use 32 to get 32 x100 = 3200 MHz.

So if you increase the frequency of BCLK you immediately increase the frequency of CPU, FCLK, Cache and MEM. That's what I call "presto" overclocking. However, one should not get carried away with increasing BCLK. Past 2-3 % of increase (from 100 MHz) it's better (and more stable/accurate) to simply adjust the respective multiplier of the four (CPU, FCLK, Uncore (Cache), and MEM). For me BCLK is best for "fine" tuning because it shouldn't be increased much, mostly for stability reasons.

So when/how can it be used beneficially ? Well, here is my own example: I can do 4.6 GHz (multiplier 46) but not 4.7 GHz (multiplier 47) because my budget air cooling can't quite keep up with it overtime (especially in the Australian summer with an ambient temp. of 32 C). And although I could manage 4.65 GHz (half-way through), I can't set the CPU Ratio (multiplier) to 46.5 either (decimals are not possible for this). So I turned to BCLK which by the way accepts decimals like 101.09, 101.1, etc. By setting BCLK at 101.1 without changing any of the multipliers I get: CPU Ratio 46 x 101.1 = 4650 MHz (Bingo !), FCLK 10 x 101.1 = 1011 MHz (some benefits here too for latency), Uncore (Cache) 45 x 101.1 = 4549 MHz, and MEM 32 x 101.1 = 3235 MHz (minor benefits here but still some).

Of course you may have to adjust other things a little, like if your MEM cannot go over 3200 for example, then you reduce its multiplier to 31 to get 31 x 101.1 = 3134 MHz (won't even notice a difference in games), and of course you would have to increase CPU VCore voltage to say 1.380 V (for my i5 6600K CPU) to cope with the higher frequency (doing it via BCLK doesn't change this... I wished). But my goal of reaching 46.5 GHz is achieved, and rather "elegantly" (= no sweat).

Better still!!! I have been running for the past few weeks at 4.65 GHz with Bclk at 103.34 MHz - using Vcore of 1.390 V to get the 1.380 V - 1.392 V operating range, multipliers Core/Uncore/Mem at 45/40/31 giving me in MHz 4650/4133/3203. Natuarlly, Fclk is at 1033 MHz. The performance increase with these settings (4.65 GHz CPU) is noticeable and the rig is extra stable. I think that Vcore at 1.380 V may already be sufficient (it's almost fully stable on Prime95) but the 12 mV extra to the next range above gives it extra "oomph" and stability under load in particular. It gives me great temps too... love it like that and won't change anything. This is a great setting and an excellent illustration on how useful Bclk tuning can sometime be..

N. B. Running Core/Uncore at a ratio of 1:1 will cost you 30 to 50 mV more in CPU Vcore (meaning a lot more heat) and is hardly worth the extra performance (if any).

My settings 6600K on Gigabyte Z170XP SLI LGA1151 DDR4 ATX:
[1]- CPU Core Ratio: 45 = 4650 MHz
[2]- CPU Base Clock (Bclk): 103.34 MHz
[3]- FCLK Frequency For Early Power: 1 GHz (x10)
[4]- Uncore Ratio: 40 = 4133 MHz (= 515 MHz below Core)
[5]- CPU Flex Override: Disabled <--- 1/4
[6]- Intel Turbo Boost Technology: Disabled <--- 2/4
[7]- CPU Thermal Monitor: Enabled <----------- 1/7
[8]- CPU EIST Function: Enabled <----------- 2/7
[9]- Voltage Optimization: Enabled <----------- 3/7
[10]-Residency State Registration (RSR): Disabled <--- 3/4
[11]-Hardware Prefetcher: Enabled <----------- 4/7
[12]-Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch: Enabled <----------- 5/7
[13]-Extreme Memory Profile (X.M.P.): Profile 1
[14]-System Memory Multiplier: 31 = 3203 MHz
[15]-Memory Enhancement Settings: Relax OC
[16]-Channel Interleaving: Enabled <----------- 6/7
[17]-Rank Interleaving: Enabled <----------- 7/7
[18]-CAS Latency: 15
[19]-tRCD: 17
[20]-tRP: 17
[21]-tRAS: 28
[22]-Command Rate (tCMD): 1
[23]-CPU VCore Loadline Calibration (LLC): High
[24]-CPU VCore: 1.390 V
[25]-CPU VCCIO: Normal <-------
[26]-CPU System Agent Voltage: Normal <-------
[27]-PCH Core: Normal <-------
[28]-DRAM Voltage (CH A/B): 1.360 V
[29]-Internal Graphics: Disabled <--- 4/4

The whole point here though is that I started from 4.6 GHz, which was already my "fully" stable overclock. BCLK was used merely for "refinement", not for initial (major) overclocking. IMO this is the best way to use BCLK with its ability to accept decimals (which is consistent with its "fine tuning" purpose). As I wrote above, beyond say a 2-3% increase of BCLK (from 100 MHz), it is preferable to use the CPU multiplier instead (going higher faster without also requiring major multiplier adjustments) and then close in with BCLK only for fine tuning "at the finish".

Of course this is more for "hardcore" overclockers (I prefer "enthusiasts") because frankly 4.6 GHz or 4.65GHz really doesn't make much difference at all for playing games (except that the temp. is clearly higher). But it's there for the taking.

Keeping things simple should always be part of any valid solution (for everything in life). Go easy on your OC and you will also enjoy it ;-).

By the way, I just found something similar done here, under "What to expect?" ("...which we increased more to 4750 MHz with a bClk of 101 MHz"):
https://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6513/9/how-to-overcloc...

 

[L0stChild]

it still works.
honestly comes down to 2 points.
1. I recommend it for budget builds
2. if the difference between 6400 and 6600k costs less than the set of ram you have then i would just get the 6600k.

you're somewhat going into overclocking blindfolded. it can also be headache if the mobo doesnt exactly support the ram then u come into problems that could lead to other problems and u fix that but u create another one then u end up buying this and that and damn.. u coulda saved urself that much time and headache just going with the k chip and not have all that to work around.

but i have to say the best part about it is the thrill of being able to do it.. sorta makes u a badass lol
its fun but can be a risky fun.
do it but dont drop 3grand on other parts and smack a 6400 chip in it.

 

[philipew]

Does BCLK overclock still works? I just found out that we can still do this by reverting the bios update but I'm not so sure since the last update is on April 2016. Anyone here still had an overclock non-k CPU? I need to save to get a better GPU (RX480) so that is why I'm not getting the 6600k. I'm planning to get a i5 6400 and overclock to 4.5 and then get the I7 6700 non K or kabylake by 2018

For the difference in price being so little, I don't think that it's worth it. Besides, comparing two Intel processors (a 6400 and a 6600) by the maximum frequency of their clock is like comparing two Ford cars (a Focus and a Mustang) by the maximum RPM of their engine (a flat-4 for the Focus against a V8 for the Mustang). Both running at 4500 RPMs (4.5 K), the Mustang will still easily be winning the speed contest. In fact it would still be winning even if the Focus' engine were screaming and red-lining at 9000 RPM while spitting fire.

The two chips are different chips altogether. The i5-6400 is rated for 65W (think about the Focus), which is the same as other standard Core i5 Skylake parts – but the i5-6600K, which has a higher speed and is "properly" unlocked for overclocking, demands a peak of 91W (think about the Mustang) from the PSU. As most (but not all apparently) know, there is a lot more than the 'RPM of the engine' determining the speed of a car, just as there is a lot more than the 'frequency of the clock' to determine the speed of a CPU.

The i5-6400 isn’t simply a K-edition chip unlocked for overclocking - the chance to tweak is only limited to certain boards (e.g. a cheap Asrock z170 pro 4) with the right BIOS (i.e. an old BIOS that still supports it). The Core i5-6400’s main competition comes precisely from the i5-6600K, which is pricier but only by a rapidly diminishing handful of dollars. The 6600K is clearly more powerful by design with its serious overclocking potential. In useful processing speed comparisons, the two CPUs that most often figure together are the i5 6600K and the i7 6700K (both Mustang category).

Have a look at the CPU BOSS site, or UserBenchMark (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-6600-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6400/3514vs3512), or even other benchmarks (http://www.trustedreviews.com/intel-core-i5-6400-review-benchmarks-page-2) to check their comparison of the 6600 (scoring 7.8/10 and 74) and the 6400 (scoring 7.4/10 and 69) under similar conditions and parameters and the difference tends to increase with the clock frequency.

The winner is very clearly the 6600K. Besides, you can buy a 6600K and overclock it go to 4.8 GHz with good cooling (preferably water) without having to be limited to "only" 4.5 GHz (https://uk.hardware.info/reviews/6513/how-to-overclock-skylake-processors). Being on a good modern motherboard, my 6600K using the latest BIOS now at 4.7 GHz beats any 6400 flat out, probably even a 6400 running at 5 GHz and fitted with a "latest" cooling loop bathing in liquid nitrogen.

By the way, I have heard of the 6600K having been sold almost cheaper than the 6400 (not guaranteed but the difference must be very small). You have a valid point in wanting to rather save money for a better PSU, or a more powerful graphics card, or a 144 Hz gaming monitor, or more and/or faster memory, but in this case the difference is not sufficient to justify the sacrifice IMO.

There are also some serious disadvantages in overclocking a non-OC chip. Look here to have an idea. This is effectively serious shite: (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-intel-skylake-core-i5-6500-review) under "How to overclock a locked Intel Skylake CPU" in the LEFT margin, and in particular the list under: "BCLK Overclocking also has the following issues you should be aware of:"... quite a list.

In the here and now, the Core i5 6600K is a strong product - at worst it provides mildly enhanced performance over its predecessors, at best it's noticeably faster and should help to reduce CPU bottlenecking during gameplay. For those looking to buy or construct a new, capable gaming PC, the i5 remains the default choice and the 6600K is the best iteration yet. So all in all, really not worth even mentioning 6400... better dump the donkey and get the race horse, the breed made for racing, the mustang.