Overclocking Controversy

It wasn’t until the Pentium II that Intel started shipping multiplier locked CPUs. Before then you could set the multiplier on your CPU to anything that was supported by the line, and if you had a good chip and good enough cooling you just overclocked your processor. Intel’s policies changed once remarking, the process of relabeling and reselling a lower spec CPU as a higher one, started to take off.

While multipliers were locked, Intel left FSB overclocking open. That would be an end user or system integrator decision and not something that could be done when selling an individual CPU. However, ever since before the Pentium III Intel had aspirations of shipping fully locked CPUs. The power of the enthusiast community generally kept Intel from exploring such avenues, but we live in different times today.

Two things have changed Intel’s feelings on the topic. First and foremost is the advent of Turbo Boost. So long as Intel doesn’t artificially limit turbo modes, we now have the ability to run CPUs at whatever clock speed they can run at without exceeding thermal or current limits. We saw the first really exciting Turbo with Lynnfield, and Sandy Bridge is going to expand on that as well. On the flip side, Intel has used Turbo as a marketing differentiator between parts so there’s still a need to overclock.

The second major change within Intel is the willingness to directly address the enthusiast community with unlocked K-series SKUs. We saw this recently with the Core i7 875K and Core i5 655K parts that ship fully unlocked for the overclocking community.


The K-series SKUs, these will be more important with Sandy Bridge

With Sandy Bridge, Intel integrated the clock generator, usually present on the motherboard, onto the 6-series chipset die. While BCLK is adjustable on current Core iX processors, with Sandy Bridge it’s mostly locked at 100MHz. There will be some wiggle room as far as I can tell, but it’s not going to be much. Overclocking, as we know it, is dead.

Well, not exactly.

Intel makes three concessions.

First and foremost we have the K-series parts. These will be fully unlocked, supporting multipliers up to 57x. Sandy Bridge should have more attractive K SKUs than what we’ve seen to date. The Core i7 2600 and 2500 will both be available as a K-edition. The former should be priced around $562 and the latter at $205 if we go off of current pricing.

Secondly, some regular Sandy Bridge processors will have partially unlocked multipliers. The idea is that you take your highest turbo multiplier, add a few more bins on top of that, and that’ll be your maximum multiplier. It gives some overclocking headroom, but not limitless. Intel is still working out the details for how far you can go with these partially unlocked parts, but I’ve chimed in with my opinion and hopefully we’ll see something reasonable come from the company. I am hopeful that these partially unlocked parts will have enough multipliers available to make for decent overclocks.

Finally, if you focus on multiplier-only overclocking you lose the ability to increase memory bandwidth as you increase CPU clock speed. The faster your CPU, the more data it needs and thus the faster your memory subsystem needs to be in order to scale well. As a result, on P67 motherboards you’ll be able to adjust your memory ratios to support up to DDR3-2133.

Personally, I’d love nothing more than for everything to ship unlocked. The realities of Intel’s business apparently prevent that, so we’re left with something that could either be a non-issue or just horrible.

If the K-series parts are priced appropriately, which at first indication it seems they will be, then this will be a non-issue for a portion of the enthusiast market. You’ll pay the same amount for your Core i7 2500K as you would for a Core i5 750 and you’ll have the same overclocking potential.

Regardless of how they’re priced, what this is sure to hurt is the ability to buy a low end part like the Core i3 530 and overclock the crap out of it. What Intel decides to do with the available multiplier headroom on parts further down the stack is unknown at this point. If Intel wanted to, it could pick exciting parts at lower price points, give them a few more bins of overclocking headroom and compete in a more targeted way with AMD offerings at similar price points. A benevolent Intel would allow enough headroom as the parts can reliably hit with air cooling.

The potential for this to all go very wrong is there. I’m going to reserve final judgment until I get a better idea for what the Sandy Bridge family is going to look like.

The Roadmap & Pricing The Test
Comments Locked

200 Comments

View All Comments

  • teohhanhui - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link

    Just something like nVidia Optimus? Perhaps Intel could come up with a more elegant solution to the same problem...
  • hnzw rui - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link

    Hmm, based on the roadmap I actually think the i7-2600K will be priced close to the i7-875K. The i7-950 is supposed to drop to $294 next week putting it in the high end Mainstream price range (it'll still be Q3'10 then). Also, all the $500+ processors are in the Performance category (i7-970, $885; i7-960, $562; i7-880, $562).

    If the i7-2600K goes for $340 or thereabouts, I can already see supply shortages due to high demand (and the eventual price gouging that would follow).
  • liyunjiu - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link

    How are the comparisons between NVIDIA low end discrete/mobile graphics?
  • tatertot - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link

    Hey Anand,

    How could you tell that this sample had only 6 execution units active in the GPU vs. the full 12?

    Was it just what this particular SKU is supposed to have, or some CPU-Z type info, or... ?

    thx
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link

    Right now all desktop parts have 6 EUs, all mobile parts have 12 EUs. There are no exceptions on the mobile side, there may be exceptions on the desktop side but from the information I have (and the performance I saw) this wasn't one of those exceptions.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • steddy - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link

    "all mobile parts have 12 EUs"

    Sweet! Guess the good 'ol GeForce 310m is on the way out.
  • mianmian - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link

    The mobile CPU/GPU usually has much lower frequency.
    I guess the 12EU mobile GPU will perform on pair with the desktop 6EU one.
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link

    That seriously doesn't make sense. Couple of possible scenarios then.

    -Performance isn't EU bound and 2x EUs only bring 10-20%
    -The mobile parts are FAR faster than desktop parts(unlikely)
    -The mobile parts do have 12 EUs, but are clocked low enough to perform like the 6 EU desktop(but why?)
    -There will be specialized versions like the i5 661
  • DanNeely - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link

    Actually I think it does. Regardless of if they 6 or 12EU's it's still not going be a replacement for any but the bottom tier of GPUs. However adding a budget GPU to a desktop system has a fairly minimal opportunity cost since you're just sticking a card into a slot.

    Adding a replacement GPU in a laptop has a much higher opportunity cost. You're paying in board-space and internal volume even if power gating, etc minimizes the extra power draw doubling the size of the on die GPU will cost less than adding an external GPU that's twice as fast. You also can't upgrade a laptop GPU later on if you decide you need more power.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - link

    I spoke too soon, it looks like this may have been a 12 EU part. I've updated the article and will post an update as soon as I'm able to confirm it :)

    Take care,
    Anand

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now