Biostar Introduces Non-K CPU Overclocking With HyperOC

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unlocked multipliers make OC wonderfully easy...I still dont understand why someone would buy a locked CPU and OC via BLK when a much easier (universally supported) feature already exits.

Are -K skus really that much more expensive?
 


Yes. For example, right now the i5-6400 (2.7 GHz) is $189.99 and the i5-6600k (3.5 GHz) is $279.99. That is an extra $90 you can toss into your GPU or just pocket for something else. The i5-6400 does have a relatively low clock speed, but the i5-6500 (3.2 GHz) is only $204.99, so even getting the part with the higher multiplier you are saving $75. If I thought I could get about 4 GHz out of either of these lower-end Core i5s, I wouldn't hesitate to buy them instead of the i5-6600k.
 
For Skylake in the US, prices are greatly inflated over MSRP right now. Supply has not met demand.

Besides, BCLK overclocking was the thing to do with 1st Gen Intel chips, basically the entire lineup was overclockable to some extent.
 
Yes, in most cases they are. The real interest, to me anyhow, will be to see if these features get extended to the non-Z motherboards, which will really offer something for a lot less. If you can overclock these chips on a non-Z board with a locked chip, that opens serious performance up for budget builds.
 

How is multipliers which are only available on K-CPUs more universal than BCLK which works on everything from Celerons to i7, K or otherwise?

How much easier can overclocking be than ramping up BCLK? That's how it used to be done until Intel tied BCLK to SATA, PCIe, USB, etc. with locked P2/P3/P4/Core2.

BCLK overclocking should also be possible on B170 and H170 motherboards.

It does not get much more potentially universal than that.
 
BCLK overclocking might be available on other boards with a BIOS update, but none of the OEMs have confirmed that any of their non-Z170 motherboards can overclock yet. ASRock mentioned it to us, but we are waiting for something more definite.
 
Unlocked multipliers make OC wonderfully easy...I still dont understand why someone would buy a locked CPU and OC via BLK when a much easier (universally supported) feature already exits.

Are -K skus really that much more expensive?
Click to expand...

Pointless question is pointless; you can look at prices on your own time.

Furthermore, if someone wants a budget build, then an i3 that can likely overclock to nearly 5GHz is a very enticing option. It''ll be even more so if we get BCLK overclocking on the lower end chipsets too like ASRock claims is possible.
 
Bclk should work on every board. It has I all of the ones I've used. It just got a little complicated when it got changed to incremental increases (I've seen 12.5,25,33,42.5,50,etc) skylake is unique because the chipset lets us go back to 1mhz increases.
 
Can't wait to see what the xeons will do. They're highly binned chips to start with. 1230 v5 for 245 might get you well over 4 ghz. Sounds like a bloody bargain to me. K chip appears to be pointless in Skylake series.
 
My understanding is, they won't do anything. New Xeons are going to require a specific chipset board that does not allow the BCLK overclocking. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the word I heard.
 

The reason why Intel CPUs hit a brick wall around 4.8GHz is signal timings within the chip. The ability to use BCLK for overclocking won't magically make the laws of physics go away. All it does is give you a tiny bit of extra flexibility to try different BCLKs with different multipliers to see if you can squeeze a few extra MHz or possibly reduce latency between cores and memory that way.
 
Why waste your time and money. Intel has bumped these cpu's up so slow they may as well be celeron level at this point. Only CPU I would suggest is the 5820K. Intel killed PC sales. In 2007 consumer and workstation cpu's were on par. Today consumers use quad cores while workstations have 14 core Xeon monsters. Programmers dont program support for more cores because consumers dont have more cores.
Overclocking non K cpu's wasn't an accident. Intel sales decline and they loosen there hold. Next Intel will increase core count.
 
I haven't built a PC since the 775 days, where I really enjoyed messing with FSB and RAM ratio's to tweak things to the max. Today's up the voltage and multiplier almost seems like cheating on the K series. I honestly don't think allowing enthusiasts to play a bit with BCLK will hurt the bottom line if anything I bought more cheap processors back in the day because of it. It might even get people excited enough to open their wallets a little more often. I bet 98% of CPUs would never be overclocked even if Intel allowed it since most people don't see it as a viable option. Overclocked chips are like the Corvettes and Vipers of the car world that people envy and talk about but don't consider owning themselves, but they do drive sales with a halo effect.
 

Mainstream programs aren't written to use more cores because most algorithms used in mainstream software do not thread very well - two or more cores has been standard on desktops for over 10 years now and the majority of everyday software still relies heavily on single-threaded performance. Even if there was a sudden breakthrough that made pervasive threading simple and efficient, game developers would still have the issue of making their software usable with lower spec PCs if they do not want to alienate millions of potential sales.

The main reason PC sales are slowing down is simply that non-gamers have little to no motivation to upgrade their 4-5 years old PCs and laptops: their 5-7 years old Core2Duo will remain sufficient for Facebook, Youtube, Netflix, Word, Excel, etc. for another 5-10 years. Of course, CPU performance stagnation on top of rising Intel CPU prices is not helping either.

Phones and tablets are approaching a similar situation too: sales growth is decelerating now that nearly everyone who wants one already has one and a growing fraction are choosing to keep their devices for a longer time because their old devices are still good enough.

I used to upgrade something in my PCs nearly every year. In my i5-3470, I haven't upgraded anything in three years. At this rate, it may remain my main PC for 5-7 years instead of the usual 3-4.
 
I see your point but no gamer uses a PC like a games benchmark test. Most have voice programs, browser, and other programs running all at the same time. The OS is running services and the result is multiple programs spread across several hyper threads. One very important thing is dX12 which supports 6 physical cores instead of 4. While less sudden dx12 is stilling to be the breakthrough to allow good use of a few more cores.

Gamers have no motivation to upgrade either. Whats the point of upgrading a CPU for a few percentage points of performance. Most just turn to the GPU upgrades. See this is why I suggest a 2011-v3 with a huge number of lanes for GPU domination.

Now your right that core count isn't good but its still the next thing Intel will try. We are headed toward the limit of what CPU makers can do on a single cpu layer. Soon they will need to make the most powerful single core they can for a layer and stack it up.
 

I have 50-100 programs and background processes running all the time, including Chrome and Firefox with dozens of open tab. All that background stuff only uses 5-10% of my i5-3470. If you profile CPU usage while playing most games, you see only about 1.5 core worth of actual CPU usage in mainstream titles. How much is DX12 going to change that? My guess is not as much as people are expecting it to. Before we can even discuss that, you have to convince gamers to give up on Windows 7 and upgrade to Windows 10 which is a prerequisite for DX12.
 
How much is DX12 going to change that? My guess is not as much as people are expecting it to. Before we can even discuss that, you have to convince gamers to give up on Windows 7 and upgrade to Windows 10 which is a prerequisite for DX12.
Click to expand...
Kind of goes back to my "programs dont program for because gamers dont have" point. Once they do things will get better over time. Now beings Microsoft is behind DX12 that means enough money to move heaven and earth for a change. I rely on the ago old saying about guns. Its better to have a gun not need one than to need a gun and not have it. Given the small cost difference I say go for the 5820K. Its better to have the cores than need them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom