Skylake BCLK OC removed by intel - does it matter?

a3venom said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10021...egular-cpu-bclk-overclocking-is-being-removed

Simple question - if it is a bios update, can't any person with half a brain just choose not to update it? What's the big deal here that I am missing? Is there more to "microcode" updates?
Click to expand...

Intel can (and probably will) have Microsoft include the microcode update in an on-the-fly critical Windows update, in which case Windows will fail to boot on overclocked systems. They've already done this at least once in the past with the Pentium G3528 Anniversary Edition CPU and non Z-series chipsets. Many motherboard manufacturers were all but advertising the ability to overclock the G3258 on non-Z chipsets and then Intel laid down the hammer big time.

The only solution for the above was to either flash an updated BIOS that disabled overclocking or manually intervine to stop Windows from loading the microcode update at bootup.
 
Not really, you can keep the old BIOS but OC'ing using BCLK can be damaging to your CPU. While it was fun when it lasted the fact is Intel never intended certain products for OC'ing, they retain the right to have control over how their CPU's are used to include how their chipset interacts with said CPU.
 
^ 10 years on forum and telling kids not to play with fire lol. It's not gonna do shit to your CPU, it's not gonna cause global warming. You can remove the heatsink and fan and still your CPU wont die, why? because it is 2016 and things shut down when too hot. Long term OC silicon damage is essentially the same thing as ocing with multiplier
 
NoxTek said:
Intel can (and probably will) have Microsoft include the microcode update in an on-the-fly critical Windows update, in which case Windows will fail to boot on overclocked systems. They've already done this at least once in the past with the Pentium G3528 Anniversary Edition CPU and non Z-series chipsets. Many motherboard manufacturers were all but advertising the ability to overclock the G3258 on non-Z chipsets and then Intel laid down the hammer big time.

The only solution for the above was to either flash an updated BIOS that disabled overclocking or manually intervine to stop Windows from loading the microcode update at bootup.
Click to expand...

Thanks, i dont think i ever update windows anyways.
 
Trimlock said:
Not really, you can keep the old BIOS but OC'ing using BCLK can be damaging to your CPU. While it was fun when it lasted the fact is Intel never intended certain products for OC'ing, they retain the right to have control over how their CPU's are used to include how their chipset interacts with said CPU.
Click to expand...

Intel has a right to what they will warranty a CPU for, not what the buyer can do with it. I could buy a stack of 5960X and wipe my ass with them if I wanted to, they're mine.
 
LigTasm said:
Intel has a right to what they will warranty a CPU for, not what the buyer can do with it. I could buy a stack of 5960X and wipe my ass with them if I wanted to, they're mine.
Click to expand...

Yeah that makes more sense, even though big ass tech sites are viewing this as a really good move by intel to "protect" their customers from overclocking non K chips and blowing up a city if something goes south.
I really wish it wasn't a monopoly at times like this.
 
Personally, If I was Intel I would not go back and kill the chips that are already sold. They could just as easily recall their unsold stock and update them so that no new non K CPU sold will not overclock. Doing an update like this in the field is just a dick move if you ask me...
 
Intel is a dick move company. Do you expect them to not dick move things to their benefit?
 
Actually, yes since there is no need to actually update stuff that was already sold since it is not a true errata fix and it would be a nod towards early adopters of said hardware...

companies do silent revisions while in production all the time without updating stuff that is out there working just fine.
 
Yes, it matters because it's pointless to remove the capability. Intel should be criticized for this.
 
Yet, you guys will continue buying Intel. Yeah, stick it to them with your opinion they could not care less about.
 
ManofGod said:
Yet, you guys will continue buying Intel. Yeah, stick it to them with your opinion they could not care less about.
Click to expand...

People buy CPUs based on speed. Intel still beats amd in this sense. So why spend more for less just to "show the man"?
 
auntjemima said:
People buy CPUs based on speed. Intel still beats amd in this sense. So why spend more for less just to "show the man"?
Click to expand...

Which basically means that your opinion does not mean squat to them. :eek: If you want to overclock, buy a K processor because, if not, you will not.
 
Another case of people just bitching because a big bad company took something away from the little folks. The unlock was very poorly implemented and gained close to zero traction on this forum or any of the other forums I check out. Core features of the CPU were disabled when the unlock was used and you couldn't even check the temperature of the CPU you were trying to overclock. Fact is people spend more time bitching about Intel removing this than they spent actually using it.
 
You know, overclocking has it's origins in pushing hardware farther than the manufacturer intended you to.

I think this is a piss poor move by Intel. I can understand it business-wise, I just think it is pretty crappy from an enthusiast standpoint, and I'm pretty on-the-fence about Intel pretty much being able to issue microcode updates without the express authority of the owner. Sure, you can argue that by opting into automatic updates you have consented - but that's under a false pretense that these updates are for security and stability, not to F you out of something just because the manufacturer can.
 
Ocellaris said:
Another case of people just bitching because a big bad company took something away from the little folks. The unlock was very poorly implemented and gained close to zero traction on this forum or any of the other forums I check out. Core features of the CPU were disabled when the unlock was used and you couldn't even check the temperature of the CPU you were trying to overclock. Fact is people spend more time bitching about Intel removing this than they spent actually using it.
Click to expand...

Yea, it didn't gain traction because it was only useful for the i3. Given its always better to OC using the multiplier and to get unlocked i7's and i5's amounted to just a few dollars doesn't shock me one bit.
 
ManofGod said:
Yet, you guys will continue buying Intel. Yeah, stick it to them with your opinion they could not care less about.
Click to expand...
lol, crappy AMD CPUs aren't a good alternative to a relatively small problem.
 
It would make sense if AMD had counterparts. When it takes 5GHz to match a 3.5GHz i3, unlocked AMDs are pretty irrelevant. Sure it's thrilling to overclock, but there ought to be a good return of performance. It's like overclocking circa 2008 processors today; pointless. I abhor Intel for this move as I am no shill, but I cannot ignore the performance of Intel processors being on a completely different plane and wish the best for Zen.
 
Not having the option is kind of a dick move. Intel fucked up and they should deal with it. sure they can disable it after the fact but it's outta the bag now.
When looking at the skylake series, I almost bought a 6400 I5 but if I overclocked it, it would run full speed all the time. I went 6700k just for that reason.
 
Am I the only one who didn't see this flying much higher than a lead zeppelin?:)
 
Eldata said:
Am I the only one who didn't see this flying much higher than a lead zeppelin?:)
Click to expand...

The second I saw it hit the web, I knew Intel was going to shut it down quickly. Glad I went ahead & got the i5-6600K instead lol.
 
^
The main point of this thread was to confirm that Intel has no way to shut it down, if you are already using it you can continue to use it for the rest of your life.
It's like your parents telling you not to smoke weed, you are still going to do it, you just have to choose not to listen to them.
And there is a night and day price difference b/w 6600k and 6400 over here
 
ManofGod said:
Yet, you guys will continue buying Intel. Yeah, stick it to them with your opinion they could not care less about.
Click to expand...


when AMD has something faster, then I will buy it when available. As of right now, that is not the case.
 
This matters because if the hack had never come out, Skylake-EP would have been released with the same flaw, which would have likely permitted BCLK overclocking of the high core count chips. But, since it wasn't withheld, some people got a month of overclocking a lame i3 to save a small amount of money, when we could have had a real performance revolution with an overclockable Skylake-EP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top