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

  • thewhat - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    Because the 980X is a 6 core and the 950 is a 4 core!

    It doesn't make sense to compare a 6 core to a 4 core when there's an $800 price difference.

    A 1366 4 core (preferably at the same CPU speed) would make much more sense to see the differences in various architectures/sockets.
  • SteelCity1981 - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    ok and the diff in performance would be what now? if they are showing you the diff and how well the new 2 gen cpu's are to even a $1000 cpu what makes you think that the Core i7 950 which is slower in performance then a 980X would fair? I mean it's common logic that if the 2nd gens can run almost on par in many bench test with a 980X then obv it's going to run better then the Core i7 950's.
  • kake - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link

    Damn you Intel! Damn you to hell!!

    I have been living with an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ since 2003ish. This was mostly because I liked the Soundstorm that did a very good Dolby Digital Live output. For the last eight months I've been having to run it at about 2/3rds speed because all the caps on the motherboard burst, and it ran at 80C all the time. The GPU fan died and I wired a 80mm fan on top of it, but it had overheated once too often to do any 3D work. The DVD burner wouldn't read or write, the DVD reader wouldn't open except under duress. The SATA bus started to scramble any data read or written through it, the second LAN port (the good one) died, and the USB would usually demand a musical chairs routine with the mouse and keyboard to get them to work.

    So last week I bought all the bits and built a very reasonably priced (370 with shipping and tax) i3-530 based HTPC. I've never seen anything so gorgeous as the first time I played Avatar in 1080p on the plasma.

    And now you tell me all this?

    Damn you Intel, I'm sick of progress.
  • juampavalverde - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link

    There is a technological reason to bury 2 sockets that are still alive? they are screaming performance yet! i dont get what intel wants with this behavior, ¿Hate from the IT sector? i love the performance, but it is designed in a so closed and trickery way, and completely dropping two nice and stablished platforms, this thing wants to be hated. I hope amd destroys this crazy ideas of intel with llano oem sales, even being inferior in cpu performance.
  • Googer - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    What exactly does a Lifestyle processor do?
  • mino - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    Probably cuts your hair while playing Crisis :)
  • Googer - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    More like it shops for a convertible for you while you worry about your hair loss in your mid life Crysis.
  • Googer - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    More like it shops for a convertible for you while you worry about your hair loss in your mid life Crysis.
  • Googer - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    I understand what the difference between unlocked, regular, and power saving CPUs are. But what exactly does Intel mean by a Lifestyle processor? How is it different from the others? What exactly is a "Lifestyle CPU"?
  • zepi - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link

    What does the mystical "load power" mean? Does it mean running Prime95, Furmark, both or even something "real world" like Starcraft 2?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now