Intel to restrict overclocking in Nehalem?

R

rflcptr

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
6,900
Source.
Source.

Acccording to these, it's in the mainstream offerings, but Bloomfield will still be 'unlocked.' Hopefully just a motherboard thing, though.
 
Intel has always restricted overclocking to some degree on all their processors except the Extreme Edition CPUs. This is nothing new. Trust me the motherboard manufacturers will get around anything Intel can come up with to keep the CPUs from overclocking.
 
Consider the source before you take too much stock in this article. That said, it’s easy to understand why this would be the case, as most enthusiasts these days look at the Intel’s Extreme Edition processors as overpriced, though I just got my QX9650 and I’m happy.

To be honest, I don’t see a lot of value in the Extreme Editions myself, other than I do have my QX9650 running at 3.33 GHz by simply uping the multiplier, stock cooling and voltage. I’ll need a better cooler to go higher and remain 100% stable. I went the QX9650 because I wanted maximum stability at high speeds without the need for FSB overclocking. Others would say that’s bunk and just overclock like mad, and they have a point. But overclocking is still a bit of luck of the draw.

At any rate, I wouldn’t be too surprised is overclocking on mainstream CPU’s isn’t limited more so than now, though I imagine there will still be some options.
 
Dan_D said:
Intel has always restricted overclocking to some degree on all their processors except the Extreme Edition CPUs. This is nothing new. Trust me the motherboard manufacturers will get around anything Intel can come up with to keep the CPUs from overclocking.
Click to expand...
I don't know... as the articles point out, now that portions of the northbridge are being integrated into the CPU, I can see them locking the CPU's down tighter now. Sounds like a legitimate concern... Only time will tell.
 
Intel wouldn't lock out overclockers... it would be like giving a great big present to AMD. "Here, take all the enthusiasts, we don't want them anymore!"

And in other news, AMD just forwarded this story to every tech news site on the intarweb...
 
Menelmarar said:
I don't know... as the articles point out, now that portions of the northbridge are being integrated into the CPU, I can see them locking the CPU's down tighter now. Sounds like a legitimate concern... Only time will tell.
Click to expand...

That's true. I hadn't thought about it in that way but you are correct. If they integrate north bridge features into the CPU they may very well lock the chips down more so than they have with more recent processors. Even if they didn't we might not see the same type of gains in Nehalem that we saw in the Core 2 processors. Adding all that stuff into the CPU might very well limit clock speeds.

We'll know more when the chips get closer to release.
 
RCGodward said:
Intel wouldn't lock out overclockers... it would be like giving a great big present to AMD. "Here, take all the enthusiasts, we don't want them anymore!"

And in other news, AMD just forwarded this story to every tech news site on the intarweb...
Click to expand...

That isn't necessarily true. Even if they have less overclocking headroom than AMD chips, their performance might still make them compelling. If they offer more performance and the right price point Intel won't have anything to worry about.

Case in point: The Pentium 4 processors overclocked FAR better than their AMD counterparts but still offered lower performance even at high clock speeds than their AMD counterparts did. Even with similar pricing everyone went with the chip that performed the best, not the one that overclocked the most.
 
Frag0Lution said:
Well can you blame them? RMAs are annoying.
Click to expand...
I don't get the impression that Intel gets a lot of cpu's RMA'd back to them.

There are so many solid thermal protections built in now, you can't even hurt them running them with an improperly mounted HSF. About the only way to damage them is prolonged overvolting.

I think the no overclocking stance started waaaay back when a few mom and pop computer shops, a few bad apples, got caught selling overclocked cpu's as higher end parts at higher prices. Fraudulent business practice with Intel's name partially associated with it.
 
Menelmarar said:
I think the no overclocking stance started waaaay back when a few mom and pop computer shops, a few bad apples, got caught selling overclocked cpu's as higher end parts at higher prices. Fraudulent business practice with Intel's name partially associated with it.
Click to expand...

Back in the early 90's I bought a P90 from a company called Zenon (found them in Computer Shopper). A year or two later when I took that PC apart to upgrade it I found my P90 was really a P75 overclocked.
 
Intel doesn't care about enthusiasts. It would be foolish of them to put our preferences above those of their larger markets. We are not a market with the purchasing power of OEMs like Dell, HP, and Gateway. And you know what? If the performance of a stock Intel CPU was above that of an overclocked AMD CPU at the same price point, I think a lot of enthusiasts would still buy Intel CPUs anyway.

It's also very unlikely that Intel would do this to try and alienate enthusiasts - more likely, they have legitimate concerns about low-cost processors being overclocked and sold as more expensive ones in certain markets. This is bad for the consumer, since they're buying a CPU which is much more likely to fail. This is also bad for Intel, as they're losing out on revenues and their image would be hurt if these overclocked CPUs failed.
 
I still think Intel would be making a big mistake by doing this. Sure, there may be a much bigger market in mainstream OEM's that companies like Dell buy in absolute bulk, but look at the image it's projecting. Something tells me the image of "hardware nazi" won't help them out much.
 
ethraax said:
I still think Intel would be making a big mistake by doing this. Sure, there may be a much bigger market in mainstream OEM's that companies like Dell buy in absolute bulk, but look at the image it's projecting. Something tells me the image of "hardware nazi" won't help them out much.
Click to expand...

Again the design of the Nehalem processors may actually be what limits the overclocking more than anything. We really need to wait and see.
 
[rant]

Did anyone click through to the article about the 45nm AMDs? (this) It's a little off topic but what a garbage article.

Moreover, AMD's chips are not famous for their overclocking capabilities, while Intel's chips can reach dazzling frequencies using only air-based cooling systems. Yet, the new frequency for the Deneb chip appears to have been achieved using a "secret" ingredient: the company's upcoming SB780 southbridge chip, that gives the processor a welcome overclocking boost.
Click to expand...

dazzling? "secret" ingredient?

Who writes this crap? :confused: I don't mean the topic, I mean the actual writing. I just felt like I lost some brain cells after reading that. Unless it's a language barrier thing for the author, which is possible.

[/rant]

Back on topic, I would have to agree that it could be strongly linked to the complication of the new architecture. There are a lot more variables involved with an on board memory controller and quick path interconnect that could be hosed if someone starts messing with frequencies. Not that people wouldn't no what they're doing, but it would make any errata in the architecture a lot more prevalent. Also, think how much more everyone would love Intel if they bring back overclocking to where it is now in the 32nm shrink. Take it away until they perfect the new design and then bring it back to make it seem like they're doing it for the customers. ;)
 
One thing I found out trying to overclock my Gateway is that the northbridge doesn't control the FSB. There is a completely separate clock generator chip that takes an input from the CPU (BSEL lines 0-2) and generates the desired FSB frequency. To overclock, the clock generator actually has a control register that determines what speed to overclock to. In my Gateway's case, those control registers aren't supported so the only way I can overclock is to directly alter the input from the CPU's BSEL lines (i.e pad mod the CPU).

Typical overclockable clock generator
http://www.silego.com/resources/pdf/xSLG505YC56Dr11_05312007.pdf
CR15 and CR16 control the final output of the FSB.

My Gateway's clock generator
http://www.silego.com/resources/pdf/xSLG84516T_TSSOPr10_03212006.pdf
notice that CR15 and CR16 fall under the "reserved" head (CRs14-28) and the chip probably doesn't know how to read them, so no overclock for me.

Now all Intel has to do to prevent overclocking is embed the FSB clock generation functions into the CPU just like they did with frequency multiplier for the final CPU speed.
 
I'm missing something.

From a totally theoretical standpoint, can't the CPU *not* tell time unless the crystal is embedded? Can't you always, albeit with much difficulty, manually increase the speed of the clock? I'm talking on a hardware level. It doesn't seem practical, but I don't see how they can logically block all overclocking.

Also, about the more complicated architecture, that would make sense. But a better statement would be "There is currently no way to overclock these chips, although one may be developed in the future." As stated above, I just don't see the logic behind this whole thing, other than making it too difficult to be worth it.
 
ethraax said:
I'm missing something.

From a totally theoretical standpoint, can't the CPU *not* tell time unless the crystal is embedded? Can't you always, albeit with much difficulty, manually increase the speed of the clock? I'm talking on a hardware level. It doesn't seem practical, but I don't see how they can logically block all overclocking.

Also, about the more complicated architecture, that would make sense. But a better statement would be "There is currently no way to overclock these chips, although one may be developed in the future." As stated above, I just don't see the logic behind this whole thing, other than making it too difficult to be worth it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but most clock crystals are surface mounted now and require special hardware or hella good skilz to replace. So they're going for the "too risky to be worth it' approach. If you screw up, you're left with a dead motherboard that's obviously been modded.
 
Dan_D said:
Again the design of the Nehalem processors may actually be what limits the overclocking more than anything. We really need to wait and see.
Click to expand...

+1 on the possibility that Intel pulled a "B2 Phenom" with Nehalem. Maybe the architecture is severely limited when it comes to OCing...
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Intel doesn't care about enthusiasts. It would be foolish of them to put our preferences above those of their larger markets. We are not a market with the purchasing power of OEMs like Dell, HP, and Gateway. And you know what? If the performance of a stock Intel CPU was above that of an overclocked AMD CPU at the same price point, I think a lot of enthusiasts would still buy Intel CPUs anyway.

It's also very unlikely that Intel would do this to try and alienate enthusiasts - more likely, they have legitimate concerns about low-cost processors being overclocked and sold as more expensive ones in certain markets. This is bad for the consumer, since they're buying a CPU which is much more likely to fail. This is also bad for Intel, as they're losing out on revenues and their image would be hurt if these overclocked CPUs failed.
Click to expand...

1) While true that their main concerns are major OEM's, I don't see how catering to the enthusiast crowd by maintaining overclocking potential will in any way shape or form hurt their OEM market, so that point is moot.

2) Even overclocked processors will still show the correct model number in windows as well as the BIOS and during POST and has been the case for at least the last several years, so that's a non issue as well.

It is also important to note that while the enthusiast market is relatively small, our influence is far greater than our numbers suggest. We all have friends and family, most of which are not as knowledgeable as we are in computers and they probably come to us for advise. Many of us also work in the IT field and have significant influence over what type of hardware our clients use. I'm just one person, but I'd estimate that there are close to a thousand computers out there that are running hardware based on my recomendation.
 
Menelmarar said:
I don't get the impression that Intel gets a lot of cpu's RMA'd back to them.

There are so many solid thermal protections built in now, you can't even hurt them running them with an improperly mounted HSF. About the only way to damage them is prolonged overvolting.

I think the no overclocking stance started waaaay back when a few mom and pop computer shops, a few bad apples, got caught selling overclocked cpu's as higher end parts at higher prices. Fraudulent business practice with Intel's name partially associated with it.
Click to expand...

Back in the day I heard a story locally about a computer shop selling celeron 300A chips that overclocked to 450 as PII 450 cpus as back then the motherboards saw both chips as PII chips. And I can remember when celeron 300A's were $140 and the PII 450 were $400. Anyway the comperstore locally got federal charges on there shoulders.
 
heatlesssun said:
Consider the source before you take too much stock in this article. That said, it’s easy to understand why this would be the case, as most enthusiasts these days look at the Intel’s Extreme Edition processors as overpriced, though I just got my QX9650 and I’m happy.

To be honest, I don’t see a lot of value in the Extreme Editions myself, other than I do have my QX9650 running at 3.33 GHz by simply uping the multiplier, stock cooling and voltage. I’ll need a better cooler to go higher and remain 100% stable. I went the QX9650 because I wanted maximum stability at high speeds without the need for FSB overclocking. Others would say that’s bunk and just overclock like mad, and they have a point. But overclocking is still a bit of luck of the draw.

At any rate, I wouldn’t be too surprised is overclocking on mainstream CPU’s isn’t limited more so than now, though I imagine there will still be some options.
Click to expand...

I want a 9650 because so far all the multipliers suck on the regular yorkfield quads, and I dont want to be limited by what FSB my board can handle. So far I know my 780i will do 1900fsb, but with an 8x multi that will only leave me at max oc of 3.8ghz

Also if that rumor is true, with the 9650 and a 790i and maybe 8gb of DDR3, i dont see myself upgrading my PC again majorly for quite some time.
 
Peteman100 said:
+1 on the possibility that Intel pulled a "B2 Phenom" with Nehalem. Maybe the architecture is severely limited when it comes to OCing...
Click to expand...

I don't think they pulled a B2 Phenom but rather it may be that the Nehalem simply doesn't overclock that well because of the integrated memory controller. If you look at it none of the Athlon 64's ever hit record speeds. X2's, Phenom's and other chips with integrated memory controllers were all mediocre overclockers. I think that while Nehalem won't overclock like the Core 2's do I think that they'll out clock the AMD parts.

I seriously doubt Nehalem will be the shitty overclocker that Phenom processors are.
 
Complain about something worth complaining about, like having to wait for Nahalem's release date, now that is the sucketh.

This is not the first time I've heard of articles and rumors of Intel supposedly restricting overclocking, I heard back in the P4 533mhz fsb days and the P4C 800mhz fsb days, still no limit, funny how AMD hasn't been picked on by these no-overclocking articles like Intel has.

My thoughts, AMD's associates planned this bullshit article(s).
 
RangerSVT said:
Complain about something worth complaining about, like having to wait for Nahalem's release date, now that is the sucketh.

This is not the first time I've heard of articles and rumors of Intel supposedly restricting overclocking, I heard back in the P4 533mhz fsb days and the P4C 800mhz fsb days, still no limit, funny how AMD hasn't been picked on by these no-overclocking articles like Intel has.

My thoughts, AMD's associates planned this bullshit article(s).
Click to expand...

Exactly. Intel hasn't really restricted overclocking since the Pentium 133MHz SY039 chips as far as I know.
 
Menelmarar said:
You mean, other than that they still restrict changing the cpu multiplier...?
Click to expand...

Can you change the multi on AMD chips besides the "Black Edition"?

1333FSB 12x Multi
1333FSB 11x Multi
1333FSB 10x Multi
1333FSB 9x Multi

Example of products , being sold, by Intel, with a different price standpoint for different types of consumers, it would be much harder for them to release different FSB products, it's business, not personal.
 
RangerSVT said:
Complain about something worth complaining about, like having to wait for Nahalem's release date, now that is the sucketh.

This is not the first time I've heard of articles and rumors of Intel supposedly restricting overclocking, I heard back in the P4 533mhz fsb days and the P4C 800mhz fsb days, still no limit, funny how AMD hasn't been picked on by these no-overclocking articles like Intel has.

My thoughts, AMD's associates planned this bullshit article(s).
Click to expand...


the release date? Whats wrong with it? You can get a quad that runs at 4.0+ghz if you look hard enough, I seriously think Nehalem is overhyped, I may be wrong, but thats how I feel at the moment.
 
I don't care if i have to buy a slower chip from AMD,

If i can't overclock it... I'm not buying it

We all know overclocking is half the fun of building a new rig.
 
Konceptz said:
the release date? Whats wrong with it? You can get a quad that runs at 4.0+ghz if you look hard enough, I seriously think Nehalem is overhyped, I may be wrong, but thats how I feel at the moment.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Nahalem is overhyped? I'm interested in this CPU because of the drastic change it has taken.....I mean, the people who hyped about the Q9450 over the Q6600, I agree, they should be pinched on the arm for being so gullable, but the Nahalem seems to be heading in the all-right directions, making this product, ultra hype for all the right reasons.
 
Even though they restricted the multipliers you can still get very nice overclocks. It certainly hasn't stopped people from getting over 1GHz over the stock speed.
 
ethraax said:
Even though they restricted the multipliers you can still get very nice overclocks. It certainly hasn't stopped people from getting over 1GHz the stock speed.
Click to expand...

multis have been locked since Intel left Socket 7 in 1995. No one has ever broken the multiplier lock to this day, though some have certainly tried.

However, any time Intel changed sockets they could have locked down the FSB (e.g. Slot 1 to socket 370, or 478 to 775). They've never done it and I doubt they will with this transistion.
 
I was under the impression the multiplier is what you pay for. Chips are genreally made the same way just some are locked at 6, 7, 8 and so-on.. With a little variations in bus speed, and cache and such..

Would I be correct to assume that?
 
f1y said:
I was under the impression the multiplier is what you pay for. Chips are genreally made the same way just some are locked at 6, 7, 8 and so-on.. With a little variations in bus speed, and cache and such..

Would I be correct to assume that?
Click to expand...

You're correct, but some people don't think of it that way, some people think they're being robbed because their 6x multi chip should have been a 10x multi.
 
Menelmarar said:
You mean, other than that they still restrict changing the cpu multiplier...?
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call that a restriction when we have motherboards that are capable of 500MHz+ FSB speeds.

RangerSVT said:
Can you change the multi on AMD chips besides the "Black Edition"?

1333FSB 12x Multi
1333FSB 11x Multi
1333FSB 10x Multi
1333FSB 9x Multi

Example of products , being sold, by Intel, with a different price standpoint for different types of consumers, it would be much harder for them to release different FSB products, it's business, not personal.
Click to expand...

No you can't. Only the Black Edition can have the multiplier adjusted. When it comes to the Phenom the multiplier adjustment is absolutely essential for overclocking. Without that adjustment Phenom's don't overclock for crap.

Konceptz said:
the release date? Whats wrong with it? You can get a quad that runs at 4.0+ghz if you look hard enough, I seriously think Nehalem is overhyped, I may be wrong, but thats how I feel at the moment.
Click to expand...

We will have to wait and see. Niether you nor I have any idea what kind of performance we can really expect out of Nehalem. So how can it be overhyped? We'll have to wait and see.

Patrick1 said:
I don't care if i have to buy a slower chip from AMD,

If i can't overclock it... I'm not buying it

We all know overclocking is half the fun of building a new rig.
Click to expand...

All I care about is performance. If there is an Intel chip that is faster than overclocked AMD CPUs at stock speeds I'll buy it whether I can overclock it or not. Again this rumor about restricted overclocking in Intel processors comes up every generation and its' never been true. If anything restricts the overclocking of Nehalem it will be the integrated memory controller. Even then I expect it to overclock better than Phenom processors which even with multiplier adjustments don't overclock for shit.

ethraax said:
Even though they restricted the multipliers you can still get very nice overclocks. It certainly hasn't stopped people from getting over 1GHz over the stock speed.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

ryan_975 said:
multis have been locked since Intel left Socket 7 in 1995. No one has ever broken the multiplier lock to this day, though some have certainly tried.

However, any time Intel changed sockets they could have locked down the FSB (e.g. Slot 1 to socket 370, or 478 to 775). They've never done it and I doubt they will with this transistion.
Click to expand...

More than likely Intel won't restrict overclocking in any meaningful way.

f1y said:
I was under the impression the multiplier is what you pay for. Chips are genreally made the same way just some are locked at 6, 7, 8 and so-on.. With a little variations in bus speed, and cache and such..

Would I be correct to assume that?
Click to expand...

Not true at all. What you are paying for is a guaranteed clock speed. The multiplier is simply a fact of the processors design. For overclocking considerations you do pay for a higher multiplier but the higher you go in terms of processor models the less overclocking headroom you are likely going to have. So many people pick a lower multiplier chip, but not the lowest and overclock that. Most overclockers seem to be looking for bang for their buck beyond all other considerations.
 
f1y said:
I was under the impression the multiplier is what you pay for. Chips are genreally made the same way just some are locked at 6, 7, 8 and so-on.. With a little variations in bus speed, and cache and such..

Would I be correct to assume that?
Click to expand...

That sort of reminds me of how I read that the Vista install DVDs are all the same and it just installs the version tied to your product key.

Anyway, it wouldn't make much sense for them to make them much faster for no reason. This is because... well if a Q6600 cost the same but performed at 2.8GHz stock (not too much faster), who the hell would jump on the thousand dollar and up processors? Fewer people would buy the high-end chips in the low-end ones weren't low-end.

Also, Dan_D is right that you also pay for the guaranteed speed. Since all chips are made different and you can't GUARANTEE that something like a Q6600 would overclock to 2.6GHz... you might have a bad chip, but since it performs as advertised it's fine - Intel is covered because they sold you what they advertised.

I also find it hard to believe that the unlocked multiplier thing is achieved by solely adjusting a small portion of the chip. It seems to me like it would be a major design change... not like changing some bit from 0 to 1 as some people in this thread are making it out to be.
 
ethraax said:
That sort of reminds me of how I read that the Vista install DVDs are all the same and it just installs the version tied to your product key.

Anyway, it wouldn't make much sense for them to make them much faster for no reason. This is because... well if a Q6600 cost the same but performed at 2.8GHz stock (not too much faster), who the hell would jump on the thousand dollar and up processors? Fewer people would buy the high-end chips in the low-end ones weren't low-end.

Also, Dan_D is right that you also pay for the guaranteed speed. Since all chips are made different and you can't GUARANTEE that something like a Q6600 would overclock to 2.6GHz... you might have a bad chip, but since it performs as advertised it's fine - Intel is covered because they sold you what they advertised.

I also find it hard to believe that the unlocked multiplier thing is achieved by solely adjusting a small portion of the chip. It seems to me like it would be a major design change... not like changing some bit from 0 to 1 as some people in this thread are making it out to be.
Click to expand...

Actually yes, the multiplier is set in a read-only type of register in the processor after fabrication. Whether it's via fused bits, laser etching, or a special programming interface, no one knows. But there have been people who've accidentally unlocked their processors enabled a disabled core, etc.

If you think about it, it costs a lot less to make every processor in a series identical then set the features and specs during packaging than it would it they had a different mask for each speed level or feature set.

Oh and yeah, every Vista DVD has every edition and license type on the DVD. So an OEM Home Basic disc can be used install Ultimate Upgrade or Business Retail. If you install without a key you can even pick which version you want to install. The only difference between DVD's is 32bit vs 64bit.
 
Dan, I'm curious about the P54C SY039 you mention.

How did it prevent overclocking?

I only ask because I took my P54C 100MHz to 133MHz with little issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top