Sandy Bridge - Overclocking Bye-Bye?

hafiqb

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
66
Hi have just read an article on Anandtech on the upcoming Sandy bridge. The previous info on fixed bus seems to be true, meaning that overclocking is only possible using CPU multiplier and this will remove most of the fun in overclocking today...

I think its a bad idea and depending on AMD's upcoming Bulldozer performance (and AMD's decision whether or not to follow Intel) will be very interesting and this may actually turn bad for Intel.

The 890 Chipset from AMD is ahead of Intel, too bad the CPU's are not, if AMD has a good chipset and a good CPU I may make the jump or rather wait for LGA2011.
 

Mk32

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
213
Well they are the K edition cpus for overclockers. Like the i7-860k
 

BillParrish

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
7,520
For serious "tweakers" like me, yes, the "fun" is dead. And my favorite "buy low, OC high" pastime will be gone. On the other hand, anyone who can read should be able to OC a K series and find its "sweet spot" in about 30 minutes. Big fun /not

Intel does not really care what we think, the march to a "computer on a chip" is relentless and we are such a small market share they dont care other than to pay lip service and force us to pay to play. No serious gamer in the world gives a shit about Intel onboard GPU (Look mom it will play WoW at 1024x768 !!! /barf ) . The point Anand makes about it basically coming along for free does not impress me. I dont want or need it but have no option.

On the other hand the performance increase is real and AMD does not have a chance in hell of matching that at a lower price point. I hope to be wrong, they have done it before and maybe they just have to be close. I too think AMD does have an opportunity here with a high performance cheap(er) CPU.

Now if Intel actually made some improvements in the onboard memory controller to get the most out of performance memory (P chipset) and give us more memory bandwidth without worrying about burning the whole cpu up, that would be good. One can hope.

Still a little eary to throw in the OCing towel but it does not look good compared to "the old days" of 4 years ago with the C2D introduction.

Intel giveth and Intel taketh away.
 

hafiqb

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
66
With c2d intel came back to the game ( btw they were the reason I came back to the pc). Small market share yes, but just look how many forums, overclocking stats and competition... This is good PR for any company. Motherboard manufactures, ram manufacturers they all rely on overclocking to promote their hardware.

A small but very visible and vocal community can make a difference. I hope that amd get the hint and deliver, this is their chance.
 

overclocking101

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
74
I think locking the bus speed on cpu's is a bad move by intel. BUT honestly intel never intended cpu's to overclock it was motherboard makers that enabled bus overclocking to begin with so who's to say there wont be a work around eventually. If not I think intels stock with go down and amd's will go up. Mainly because multiplyer overclocking is not that simple. look at anyone wiht a K cpu or extreme edition cpu 90% of them use a combo of multi and bus speed because increasing the multiplyer does not increase badnwidth, nb freq, uncore freq etc.
 

5k077

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
158
Every good thing must come to an end I guess. Looks like I'm an AMD guy again. Pity :p
 

Rebel44

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
2,284
Socket 2011 CPUs (6+ core highend Sandy bridge) will allow overclocking AFAIK. They should be released in Q3 2011.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,280
Socket 2011 CPUs (6+ core highend Sandy bridge) will allow overclocking AFAIK. They should be released in Q3 2011.

Technically true. But initially, only server motherboards (which have no overclocking options whatsoever and require the use of astronomically expensive memory, such as registered or fully buffered ECC memory) will likely be available upon that socket's launch. This will limit the initial availability of the LGA 2011 CPUs to Xeon-branded processors since the regular i7s will have both buffered and ECC memory support internally disabled during manufacture.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,600
Explains why OCZ is getting out of the overclocking RAM business. No future.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,280
Explains why OCZ is getting out of the overclocking RAM business. No future.

Actually, OCZ is getting out of the cheaper commodity RAM business. And most of the people who buy such commodity RAM tend to run that memory permanently at stock JEDEC speeds and timings as officially supported by the motherboards such memory is installed on.

OCZ will continue to sell higher-end, highly-"overclocked" RAM at premium prices (say, $50 or more per GB as opposed to the $20-ish per GB prices that we're currently seeing with commodity RAM).
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,280
To whom? The writing is on the wall.

In that case, then they are restructuring their high-end memory lines to use native higher-speed parts (such as DDR3-1600 modules that are native DDR3-1600 parts) And native DDR3-1600 parts are currently much more expensive than native DDR3-1333 or native DDR3-1066 parts on a per-GB basis. That's because they found absolutely no money whatsoever to be made from the cheaper commodity RAM that's nearly always native DDR3-1333 or lower-speed parts. So in other words, the ICs and other components going into those modules will be designed to run at or higher than the modules' rated (advertised) speed by the chip maker (not related to OCZ).

And nearly all of the current "DDR3-1600" modules are native DDR3-1066 or DDR3-1333 parts.

I stated mine based only on their original intentions. Something must have changed since I last checked.
 
Last edited:

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
To quote famous person:
"The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"

First there will be K series - yes multiplier oc is boring but I'm overclocking to get better performance than i can afford at stock prices (and usually better than any cpu sold in shops)

Second - anand says there might be some multiplier adjustment even in normal chips.
 

needmorecarnitine

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,609
And nearly all of the current "DDR3-1600" modules are native DDR3-1066 or DDR3-1333 parts.


That doesn't make sense.

They are almost the same apart from its potential to run at different speeds. Its not like there is something about DDR3 1600 or higher that is a different part that you won't find on lower ram (apart from heatsinks). The manufacturer will test the ram and then guarantee that it will run X-X-X-X at X.XV
 

Ehren8879

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,385
The P67 chipset will allow you to set memory speed, so higher frequency memory isn't gonna be useless.

Overclocking is going to be exceptionally easy, regarding with the "K" series. It'll come down to non-k parts having a limited overclock, if the turbo multipliers are open.
 

Cali3350

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
4,699
If Intel prices the K series chips with a 50% premium then overclocking is essentially dead. If they dont there is still plenty out there to do with it.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
I don't get what the OC fuss is all about. When intel locked out multipliers, people made a big fuss. Now intel brings it back with the K series, and people make a big fuss. Sure, you may not be able to use the BCLK ("fsb") to make any significant overclocks, but you can still get very high OC's with multipliers (probably higher infact) as you don't have to be concerned with pushing your RAM or chipset past their stability.

Sure it would be nice to have both options open, but if I had to pick ONE it would certainly be multiplier overclocking.
 

Skull_Angel

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,629
ew... multiplier overclocking, I sure as hell ain't payin' no premium for an unlocked multi.
 

todlerix

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
2,244
I don't get what the OC fuss is all about. When intel locked out multipliers, people made a big fuss. Now intel brings it back with the K series, and people make a big fuss. Sure, you may not be able to use the BCLK ("fsb") to make any significant overclocks, but you can still get very high OC's with multipliers (probably higher infact) as you don't have to be concerned with pushing your RAM or chipset past their stability.

Sure it would be nice to have both options open, but if I had to pick ONE it would certainly be multiplier overclocking.

From what I gather you don't desire, at least as much as some, to fine tune the overclocking.

Tweaking voltages by the slightest amount, getting every mhz possible in every component.

Personally I'm a lazy overclocker, I prefer the multiplier method. bump by 1.0x or 0.5x, burn in, check temps, check for errors done.

Its an extremely small market that does overclocking, and even smaller market does the 'extreme overclocking' or 'fine tuning'.

Until intel announces their reasoning everything is speculation. It sounds like they want to prevent people 'burning holes' in their CPUs via X Y Z.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,280
ew... multiplier overclocking, I sure as hell ain't payin' no premium for an unlocked multi.

Sure, you might pay an effective premium of what a decent aftermarket HSF would cost for the almost-limitless multiplier unlocking. But some of the regular "locked" CPUs will have a limited unlock of the maximum turbo multipler.
 

Cali3350

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
4,699
I don't get what the OC fuss is all about. When intel locked out multipliers, people made a big fuss. Now intel brings it back with the K series, and people make a big fuss. Sure, you may not be able to use the BCLK ("fsb") to make any significant overclocks, but you can still get very high OC's with multipliers (probably higher infact) as you don't have to be concerned with pushing your RAM or chipset past their stability.

Sure it would be nice to have both options open, but if I had to pick ONE it would certainly be multiplier overclocking.

The fuss is that you probably cant buy a 200 CPU and get a High Performance part like you currently can with the I7 920. Intel will be making us pay more for the unlocked multipliers or will be limiting what each price range can "maximumly" overclock to. If Intel says that their $200 CPU can only overclock to 3Ghz then thats it, game over.
 

sram

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
1,395
I read most of the article and I have two comments:


1- All the fun is in overclocking....why would you do this intel? AMD, you now have a chance I think. Make good overclockers cpus and I'll be happy to switch.

2- Who would benefit from the integrated graphics? I mean, if you are already a hardcore gamer and you always buy high end cards, this won't help you.....right? Only those who buy systems with no dedicated video cards may benefit and get better video performance, but then again those who don't spend $$$ on video cards don't really play games...........I don't really get it.

Thanks.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
1- You're high if you think this is going to somehow benefit AMD in any way that actually matters. Most people aren't going to say "oh, i'm going to go buy this crappier CPU becuase I can "fine tune" it's overclock by a few more MHz"

2- Your nearsightedness doesn't stop there... The on-die graphic is going to be a great thing especially for the mobile market. This isn't all about you being able to play your games.

Intel didn't get to where they're at by now having a clue about what the market wants/needs.
 

Ehren8879

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,385
(snip)The on-die graphic is going to be a great thing especially for the mobile market. This isn't all about you being able to play your games.

+1

Should make for cheaper latops as well. Less complicated mainboards since you don't have to accomodate for a discrete GPU or pay for a seperate worth-a-damn GPU at all. What I do see is this cutting deep into AMD and nVidia's mobile market since now, besides gaming or photo, there's little reason to have more GPU power in your laptop.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
Yep, I have no doubt it will make for cheaper manufacturing costs, though i'm not so sure us consumers will see those savings. However, a less complex mainboard typically means less power consumption which means less heat, which means less cooling which means lighter laptops with longer battery life. Obviously all this remains to be seen, but it's a very realistic possibility with on-die graphics.
 

Gimpy04

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
135
1- You're high if you think this is going to somehow benefit AMD in any way that actually matters. Most people aren't going to say "oh, i'm going to go buy this crappier CPU becuase I can "fine tune" it's overclock by a few more MHz"

2- Your nearsightedness doesn't stop there... The on-die graphic is going to be a great thing especially for the mobile market. This isn't all about you being able to play your games.

Intel didn't get to where they're at by now having a clue about what the market wants/needs.

If AMD makes a competitive CPU to start with, then the ability to overclock will be significant.
 

Sycraft

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
4,932
I don't get what the OC fuss is all about. When intel locked out multipliers, people made a big fuss. Now intel brings it back with the K series, and people make a big fuss. Sure, you may not be able to use the BCLK ("fsb") to make any significant overclocks, but you can still get very high OC's with multipliers (probably higher infact) as you don't have to be concerned with pushing your RAM or chipset past their stability.

Sure it would be nice to have both options open, but if I had to pick ONE it would certainly be multiplier overclocking.

The big deal is overclockers are largely doing it for bragging rights. They are kind of like the people who hotrod car sound systems way past anything useful. They like to push the limits so they can show it off.

I mean realistically for most people's uses, there's no need to OC. The processors are fast enough that they aren't he problem. It is fairly limited areas you find out that you need higher speed CPUs, and in many of those (professional areas) stability is key so OCing it out.
 

SeaFoam

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
5,067
1- You're high if you think this is going to somehow benefit AMD in any way that actually matters. Most people aren't going to say "oh, i'm going to go buy this crappier CPU becuase I can "fine tune" it's overclock by a few more MHz"

2- Your nearsightedness doesn't stop there... The on-die graphic is going to be a great thing especially for the mobile market. This isn't all about you being able to play your games.

Intel didn't get to where they're at by now having a clue about what the market wants/needs.

Umm wrong. This is all about being able to play games. Why would I give a shit about overclocking if I was using it for productivity?
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
For serious "tweakers" like me, yes, the "fun" is dead. And my favorite "buy low, OC high" pastime will be gone. On the other hand, anyone who can read should be able to OC a K series and find its "sweet spot" in about 30 minutes. Big fun /not

Intel does not really care what we think, the march to a "computer on a chip" is relentless and we are such a small market share they dont care other than to pay lip service and force us to pay to play. No serious gamer in the world gives a shit about Intel onboard GPU (Look mom it will play WoW at 1024x768 !!! /barf ) . The point Anand makes about it basically coming along for free does not impress me. I dont want or need it but have no option.

On the other hand the performance increase is real and AMD does not have a chance in hell of matching that at a lower price point. I hope to be wrong, they have done it before and maybe they just have to be close. I too think AMD does have an opportunity here with a high performance cheap(er) CPU.

Now if Intel actually made some improvements in the onboard memory controller to get the most out of performance memory (P chipset) and give us more memory bandwidth without worrying about burning the whole cpu up, that would be good. One can hope.

Still a little eary to throw in the OCing towel but it does not look good compared to "the old days" of 4 years ago with the C2D introduction.

Intel giveth and Intel taketh away.

Heyhey. Do you remember "back in the day" when intel chips were fully locked and you had to drill part of them to unlock stuff. Maybe their going to go back to that! Which would make OC alot more hardcore...

Also...CPU OCing is a bit...redundant for most people now. GPUs is where it's at yo. I overclocked my soundcard..
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
Umm wrong. This is all about being able to play games. Why would I give a shit about overclocking if I was using it for productivity?

From your perspective maybe, which means absolutly nothing to intel or the market in general. nVdia and AMD have already met your requirements with descrete video cards. There's more at stake here than what "gamers" think is worthwhile, so no, it's not all about games. There are lots of benefits to this, you not seeing it is your problem. Not to mention I think you completely missed the point, there are two topics, the overclocking and the integrated video.
 
Last edited:

firas

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,458
The fuss is that you probably cant buy a 200 CPU and get a High Performance part like you currently can with the I7 920. Intel will be making us pay more for the unlocked multipliers or will be limiting what each price range can "maximumly" overclock to. If Intel says that their $200 CPU can only overclock to 3Ghz then thats it, game over.

this is what I also thought.

it was fun explaining to non tech friends how I’m a part of a secrete underground world (the bragging part I know) where we buy a $200 CPU and make it faster than a $600 one in few magical clicks. I guess it won’t be underground anymore, others now will know that we’re the “K” chips guys and we pay a premium for that “K” and there is nothing hardcore about how we oc it.

The big deal is overclockers are largely doing it for bragging rights. They are kind of like the people who hotrod car sound systems way past anything useful. They like to push the limits so they can show it off.

I mean realistically for most people's uses, there's no need to OC. The processors are fast enough that they aren't he problem. It is fairly limited areas you find out that you need higher speed CPUs, and in many of those (professional areas) stability is key so OCing it out.

what car you drive? because if it’s anything more than a box with 4 wheels it’ll be for bragging :rolleyes:

 

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,924
The big deal is overclockers are largely doing it for bragging rights. They are kind of like the people who hotrod car sound systems way past anything useful. They like to push the limits so they can show it off.

I mean realistically for most people's uses, there's no need to OC. The processors are fast enough that they aren't he problem. It is fairly limited areas you find out that you need higher speed CPUs, and in many of those (professional areas) stability is key so OCing it out.


OCing a 3 GHz Processor to 4+ will make huge difference in gaming and other applications like video streaming. So I won't consider it a show off, it is a NECESSITY
 
Last edited:

ilkhan

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2002
Messages
13,535
OCing a 3 GHz Processor to 4+ will make huge difference in gaming and other applications like video streaming. So I won't consider it a show off, it is a NECESSITY
CPU overclocking only makes a difference if you are CPU limited. Some games are, some games aren't. Depends on the game and resolution/setting and what your GPU/other-hardware is.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
+1

Should make for cheaper latops as well. Less complicated mainboards since you don't have to accomodate for a discrete GPU or pay for a seperate worth-a-damn GPU at all. What I do see is this cutting deep into AMD and nVidia's mobile market since now, besides gaming or photo, there's little reason to have more GPU power in your laptop.

Explains why AMD is making such a hellish-hard push into the mobile market, now. If they don't control the platform "vision" "fusion" then Intel can take it ALL away from them.
 

maverick786us

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
1,924
CPU overclocking only makes a difference if you are CPU limited. Some games are, some games aren't. Depends on the game and resolution/setting and what your GPU/other-hardware is.

I agree but the video card can only be as good as the information that the CPU is feeding to it. An OverClocked CPU can feed faster information to a GPU so that it can perform well
 

Michaelius

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
4,684
The big deal is overclockers are largely doing it for bragging rights. They are kind of like the people who hotrod car sound systems way past anything useful. They like to push the limits so they can show it off.

I mean realistically for most people's uses, there's no need to OC. The processors are fast enough that they aren't he problem. It is fairly limited areas you find out that you need higher speed CPUs, and in many of those (professional areas) stability is key so OCing it out.

Majority don't OC for sport or for bragging. Majority will oc to get higher performance out of lower priced chip.
 

SeaFoam

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
5,067
From your perspective maybe, which means absolutly nothing to intel or the market in general. nVdia and AMD have already met your requirements with descrete video cards. There's more at stake here than what "gamers" think is worthwhile, so no, it's not all about games. There are lots of benefits to this, you not seeing it is your problem. Not to mention I think you completely missed the point, there are two topics, the overclocking and the integrated video.

From the prospective of most people on this site - I hope.

This is [H].
 

MrWizard6600

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
5,779
This is physically impossible unless Intel is now shipping all their CPU's with integrated quartz frequency generators.

No, Intel if you want your pulse train from the board then god damnit I'm going to drill through the traces on the motherboard and splice in my own function generator.

edit:
Anand said:
With Sandy Bridge, Intel integrated the clock generator, usually present on the motherboard

no way. so what... they're doping silicon with quartz? You do still need a stone to do this right? wtf? No it must be some 3rd party chip which is just protected by the IHS...

Well, if this is the case, I wont be buying any more intel products.
 
Last edited:
Top