Intel to Stunt Overclocking on Sandy Bridge CPUs

[hixbot]

it was only a matter of time before they put a stop to it. overclockers are getting more performance than they pay for, according to intel. they can't sell their top of the line CPUs if you can get better performance from a cheap one.
I'm sure they'll still sell an unlocked CPU at an insane price. The clock may be fixed, but if the mulitplier is unlocked, you can still overclock.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]This should simplify motherboard design, and make it slightly cheaper and simpler.[/citation]
Yeah, dude, "simplifying motherboard design" (argument that could take on appleboys "argument's" creativity) to reduce costs for end users was exactly what Intel was after.

/facepalm

 

[Guest]

1. I highly doubt Intel & mb manufacturers will shut out their enthusiast users in this manner.

2. lol @ Enthusiasts to AMD... Yea once they begin to price gouge, we'll see who's still cheering them on.

3. AMD still sucks.

Goodbai.

 

[mouettus]

[citation][nom]welshmousepk[/nom]in further news, intel today announced they are allowing for only a single RAM slot on their new mobos, No PCI expansion slots, and no longer supporting aftermarket coolers. they are also creating a new oATX spec, using an octagonal shape only supporting dodecahedronic case, built specifically by a guy named borris who works in accounting.[/citation]

lol epic humor! shame we can't vote you more than 20 thumbs up!

 

[mavroxur]

I'm at a loss for words...

 

[gr33nf00t]

What would really suck is if since Intel is such a big portion of their business, mobo companies go along with this because it is cheaper to them to manufacture boards for these chips, and then they neglect their AMD based boards, so either way the consumers lose. I wouldn't be surprised if this was Intel's idea in the first place: to strong arm AMD out of the market. Wouldn't be the first time.

Hopefully that's not how it goes down, that way competition stays fierce, allowing the consumer to get the best product for the best price.

 

[enzo matrix]

[citation][nom]one-shot[/nom]They said the same about Bloomfield/1366 i7s being unable to overclock, too.Does anyone remember this?http://news.softpedia.com/news/Int [...] 4019.shtmlI'll believe it when I see it.[/citation]
But no one had engineering samples to test that on like they do here.

 

[dgingeri]

[citation][nom]edilee[/nom]What this guy said. If AMD's Bulldozer series ends up being impressive then Intel might have have just cut it's own throat. Intel chips are top dog because of their ability to be overclocked to values way above stock and some base performance advantages over AMD chips..without this their popularity might slip off a bit.[/citation]

I have a feeling Bulldozer will be impressive, in the server arena. It just isn't the type of design that would do well for desktop processors. It needs more FP/MMX/SSE resources for desktop use. Bulldozer has massive integer performance capacity, but very low FP/MMX/SSE capacity. AMD needs a mirror image if this for a desktop chip: 8 FP/MMX/SSE processing pipelines, 2 integer pipelines, and 8 address units per "dual" core. They also need to ramp up the L3 cache size on their chips to begin to compete with Intel in the high end.

 

[Guest]

I am beginning to think bad thoughts about Intel management... the cycle turns back to AMD.

 

[kezix_69]

I think overclocking is overrated anyway.

 

[enzo matrix]

On another note, this will have no effect on the market. Hell, when AMD had 64-bit dual cores faster than anything intel had, intel still had the majority of market share.

 

[utengineer]

If Intel lost every overclocking customer to AMD....it wouldn't even put a dent in their revenues. They sell billions in the business class client and server market.

[citation][nom]kokin[/nom]That's a big claim you have there. I hope you have the balls to say that same statement 5-10 years down the line.[/citation]
Will AMD even be around in 10 years? They just had their first profitable quarter in like 4 years.

 

[TeraMedia]

What does this mean for MB manuf's who overclock a bit at stock settings? In many of the THG reviews, you see that Gigabyte or MSI etc. increase the base clock rate by a couple of % points - apparently to show faster benchmark times than their competitors. If this article is correct, then that practice may need to stop as well.

Not that I care about tweaked clock rates, but it does mean that Intel may also be attempting to level the MB playing field in their favor.

 

[eddieroolz]

Way to shoot your own foot, Intel.

 

[DjEaZy]

... so where is the fun in that?

 

[Sykar]

Doesn't matter really, Iðm gonna buy the other socket they have in plans anyways.

 

[dgingeri]

[citation][nom]utengineer[/nom]If Intel lost every overclocking customer to AMD....it wouldn't even put a dent in their revenues. They sell billions in the business class client and server market.Will AMD even be around in 10 years? They just had their first profitable quarter in like 4 years.[/citation]

actually, it's been 2 and a half to three, I believe. They've been in worse situations, back in the early pentium days. They didn't have a marketable chip from the late 486s until the K6-2 and operated at a loss for almost 5 years, then they made enough profit in one year to offset their debt from five. They'll survive, if from nothing else, their graphics products will sustain them.

They're currently matching nvidia step for step in the most profitable sections of the market. Sure, they don't have the fastest single gpu products, but they have the fastest at $100-175. That will keep their CPU products from dragging them down.

When Bulldozer comes out, they'll have a very competitive product for the server market, which is far more profitable than the desktop chips.

 

[aaron686]

Plot to force people to buy their expensive "high end" unlocked cpu's. Intel dropped the ball there. I really hope there is a way around this.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]one-shot[/nom]They said the same about Bloomfield/1366 i7s being unable to overclock, too.Does anyone remember this?http://news.softpedia.com/news/Int [...] 4019.shtmlI'll believe it when I see it.[/citation]

Thank you. Every time Intel comes out with a new CPU some site claims that someone with access to Intel pre release CPUs will stunt or stop OCing. And then the CPU comes out, OCs great and they shut up.

Really wish they would stop doing that because man its annoying to hear it with every gen of Intel CPUs.

[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]Sounds like they are tired of people getting more performance out of the $200 i7 920 (if bought at MicroCenter ) than the $1000 i7 965/975 lolThere may still be overclocking people....it will just have to all be multiplier based[/citation]

If that were true then why did they release the Core i7 875K with a unlocked multiplier for less than $1k? In fact its at about $350 +/- depending on the vendor which is not that bad.

I think this is just another attempt to claim something without enough info. Hell Intel was touting their 22nms ability to clock really high on a really low voltage. I doubt they would talk about that if they want to stop OCing. It would be a bad move too.

 

[utengineer]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]The people complaining don't seem to understand Intel is making the right moves, because they are so self-absorbed they fail to see the bigger picture.This should simplify motherboard design, and make it slightly cheaper and simpler. This will work out better for the 99%+ people who don't overclock, or even know what it means.So, for most people, it's a good thing. They will almost certainly offer a version that allows overclocking as well, for only slightly more, or for specific models.So far, AMD isn't an option anyway. You can run a base i7 930, and it will still beat an overclocked AMD processor, and use less power doing it. Sandy Bridge should be faster (although, nothing is ever certain), so, until AMD comes out with something faster, looking at an AMD platform for overclocking still won't make any sense, except where it does now - below where Intel sells their Bloomfields.[/citation]
Intel already simplifies their MB. Just check out their mainstream and entry level solutions. These are used in business class solutions.

[citation][nom]scook9[/nom]Sounds like they are tired of people getting more performance out of the $200 i7 920 (if bought at MicroCenter ) than the $1000 i7 965/975 lolThere may still be overclocking people....it will just have to all be multiplier based[/citation]
Intel's first roll-out of Sandy Bridge is for the mainstream market. Overclockers will be given choices with the Sandy Bridge-E platform which will have a range of processors to choose from. I think most of the people commenting are just getting their panties bunched up prematurely. That being said, I will anticipate SB-E, get a 6/8 core proc and rest assured whatever AMD puts out will 6-months to a year behind in dev. This is the circle of life people and Intel is the Lion King!

 

[Syndil]

Brand loyalty is a mental deficiency, so I'm tired of hearing from all the fanboys, AMD, Intel or otherwise. Buy whatever is the best product at the best price at the time; who gives a flying fig about who made it. Staying loyal to a brand means subsidizing that brand whenever they are not providing the most bang for the buck.

And OC'ing IS an absolutely pointless hobby. Glad to see at least some people get it. Posting higher benchmark numbers will not make your penis any bigger.

 

[Strider-Hiryu_79]

[citation][nom]CTPAHHIK[/nom]There is always option two -> AMD[/citation]

Don't forget option 3 = bend over backwards, become zombified and pay through the nose for a Mac computer. Because "it just works". /sarcasm

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]CTPAHHIK[/nom]There is always option two -> AMD[/citation]
Option two? AMD is MY #1 !

 

[lejay]

[citation][nom]drwho1[/nom]he only said: yesterday, today and tomorrow.... nothing about next week[/citation]
Erhm,... A one day timemachine is still pretty cool.

 

[wawa sxm]

i think theres a market for both and people who want to overclock should have that option as you can't deny that huge market...the unlock multiplier should be implemented on key segments not just the most expensive cpu....i dont think the community would be oppose to a slightly higher price for the option to overclock...but in the end mobos manufactures have big competition and they'll work it out...intel only has to worry about amd and with all the cash intel throwing at RnD amd can't keep up