Why aren't all CPUs overclockable?

[Oaklandmurphy]

Is there any technical reason to lock a CPU clock? Is it just a sham to force people to pay more for overclockability or is it actually more expensive to produce an unlocked processor? Also, why is it that only Intel seems to do this. All of the vishera CPUs were overclockable, so why not the core series?

 

[octavecode]

Some chips can't handle OC so they lock those for safety reasons but sometimes to get ppl to pay more money.

 

[n0ns3ns3]

because manufacturers want more money.

 

[Oliver_21]

Unlocked CPUs are chips that demonstrated a better overclocking potential hence they decided to unlock them

But as many people mentioned here because they can get more money if they make unlocked CPUs more expensive

However I head every single CPU is overclockeable but some of them are much better for example the haswell non K CPUs are very bad at OC compared to sany or ivy bridge whereas you can OC a non K skylake CPU through BCLK and get very admirable OC capabilities (as long as you have a Z170 mobo and downgrade the bios version to v1.0)

Here's the proof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiw2r-_AdGM

 

[scuzzycard]

Is there any technical reason to lock a CPU clock? Is it just a sham to force people to pay more for overclockability or is it actually more expensive to produce an unlocked processor? Also, why is it that only Intel seems to do this. All of the vishera CPUs were overclockable, so why not the core series?

It's business strategy. For example - A Pentium G3240 and an i7 4790K are the same silicon, but the Pentium has 2 cores disabled, hyperthreading disabled, 5MB of its cached disabled, the ability to run 1600MHz memory disabled, and it is multiplier-locked at 3.1GHz.

It's true that there is a binning process and that sometimes these capabilities are disabled because the CPU was an inferior sample, but Intel's yields are outstanding so most of these CPUs are crippled just to meet the demand for the target market segment.

 

[sizzling]

Agree most of it comes down to business strategy, the cost to make most things bares no relevance the cost the consumer pays, just look at how much cost increase there is with most phones if you go for 64gb storage over 32gb. The cost to the manufacture is going to be tiny but you can pay £50-£100 more. Car automatic gearboxes are cheaper to make than manual but in the UK you pay a premium.

 

[Tradesman1]

In large part because all CPUs are individual items, you can take a ton of any particular model of CPU and all will be slightly different. K models (OCable) are primarily the better binned chips, but even then how well they will OC will differ, take the 4770K as an example

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/01/intel_haswell_i74770k_ipc_overclocking_review/6#.V66Yi00rJD_

They also break things down even further to offer a variety of 'CPUs' to meet most any budget 😉

 

[mitsoevo]

I have an intel i5 6600k, however there is also an intel i5 6600, there is no difference besides my k model can be overclocked, it is as simple as flicking a switch for them to determine whether the 6600 is able to be OC or not. that being said they do make sure that the k models are the better quality of the bunch, this usually makes no difference noticeable difference if you arent OC the cpu but its adds a little reasoning to the cost difference, however most of the cost is just profit for them, which is fair enough, its their product they have the right to charge what they want, and if they didnt have oc and non-oc models then the price would be somewhat of an avg therefor those who arent going to oc are spending money which they otherwise wouldnt have to.

 

[scuzzycard]

It's also not just about keeping end users from overclocking certain SKU's, but also to prevent counterfeit chips from being on the market. This used to happen all the time before Intel started locking multipliers in the P-II days.