Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nehalem: The End Of Mainstream Overclocking?!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 10, 2008 6:15:34 PM

Check it out: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

Quote:
As we told you some time ago, Intel has put in what can only be called an overclocking lock in the upcoming LGA1160 processors which are currently going under the codenames of Lynnfield and Havendale.

As Intel seems to want to push the much more expensive Bloomfield platform to overclockers, the company implemented a lock that prevents these new processors from being overclocked by adding two PLL clock generators, one inside the CPU itself and one in the PCH.

This might not sound like it's a big problem in itself, but what Intel has done is that these two will clock generators will reference eachother and this means that just changing the bus speed won't have any effect if you're trying to overclock the CPU as it will dissregard the information from the PCH if it's not a correct value.


If this turns out to be true then prepare your pockets. I expect at least a 50% performance increase in order to spend more than U$1000 on the mobo + CPU. But, anyway, perhaps the uber-enthusiasts don't mind spending U$1000+ *only* on a Core 2 Extreme. Overpriced chipset + Overpriced processor + Overpriced memory = Overkill.

Let's pray that they decide to put the integrated memory controller into the "mainstream version" (which is unlikely).
May 10, 2008 7:12:37 PM

intel's ****ing everybody up. They **** nvidia and now their ****ing the customers..... but we can always boycott intel.
May 10, 2008 7:26:46 PM

Maybe they have a lot of ppl cooking their cpu's and trying to RMA them...if that's the case, I'd lock them too.
Related resources
May 10, 2008 7:28:13 PM

**** intel, i'm sorry but whats going on with them, Working with Microsoft, Bitching at Nvidia, now Screwing us over?

They know they can get away with this, lock their processors and charge 1000+ dollars for the "unlocked" processors.. because they have no competition right now.

**** them man, and what the sad part is, although this is frustrating most of us will buy their products anyways.
May 10, 2008 7:29:14 PM

SABOT chill. And you spelled 'chocolate' wrong under your avatar. lol.

Yep, it's a good time to scream "WTF!". But knowing enthusiasts, fanboys, and rich kids, this will not decrease their sales.

This might give AMD a chance to hit back. I'm pretty certain AMD will leave the ability to overclock on their Denebs. We can only wait.
a c 172 à CPUs
a c 197 K Overclocking
a b å Intel
May 10, 2008 7:32:39 PM

If everyone in all the tech forums decided to boycot Intel, Intel would never notice. The vast majority of computer users just want something good enough at a price they are willing to pay.
May 10, 2008 7:32:48 PM

royalcrown said:
Maybe they have a lot of ppl cooking their cpu's and trying to RMA them...if that's the case, I'd lock them too.
Yep.

May 10, 2008 7:41:54 PM

To what jsc said, the opposite is true. Intel can't be getting tired of people attempting an RMA after CPU fries...because not that many people do it. Seems like a majority here, but it's nothing when you add in the rest of the market. There's got to be another reason. My thought is price. Like someone above said...they can charge $1000 for an unlocked CPU without any competition.
May 10, 2008 7:50:02 PM

frozenlead said:
To what jsc said, the opposite is true. Intel can't be getting tired of people attempting an RMA after CPU fries...because not that many people do it. Seems like a majority here, but it's nothing when you add in the rest of the market. There's got to be another reason. My thought is price. Like someone above said...they can charge $1000 for an unlocked CPU without any competition.


That prob is true, but then maybe amd can catch up (relative to performance at a lower price of course, not absolute performance)
May 10, 2008 7:52:55 PM

If AMD pulls out a CPU, with GPU technology that increases a games performance incredibly, or even a faster GPU, and sells it for 300 bucks.. Intel will be forced to pull its prices down.

We need AMD, thats a Given. Without AMD, there is no competition, and We lose. We miss out, We suffer.

Competition = Better products, lower prices
1 company = Slow progression, overpriced products.
May 10, 2008 7:58:13 PM

Hey people? Why are you taking a fudzilla article to be the truth? you have to be kidding right? Fudzilla goes along the same lines as the Inquirer. I think you guys need to take that article with a grain of salt before you take as gospel.
May 10, 2008 8:04:38 PM

AMD!!! We need you!!! Get off your @$$ and provide some frack'n competition. It's all your fault!!!!! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
a b à CPUs
May 10, 2008 8:10:51 PM

If this story did in fact turn out to be true, I think I'd end up going back to AMD. (I'm on my first Intel CPU ever). I'd like the "ability" to OC if I wanted to. Not to mention I can't afford the highest of high end systems anyhow.

I agree with sacre, we need competition to promote research and keep prices down.
May 10, 2008 8:14:12 PM

We are talking fudzilla here. The same people who said with reliability that the 45nm Intel cpus would be delayed by a quarter or 2
May 10, 2008 8:18:30 PM

Fudzilla is not a good source of information why do people still post crap from there. Usually there is a hint of truth in their articles but for the most part thats all that place is....a haven for spreading FUD.

Im sure Intel will lock down their budget and mainstream CPUs eventually. On the other hand, im sure they are not going to leave the overclockers out to dry. Maybe now they will give people a reason to buy a more expensive CPUs, perhaps similar to black edition processors from AMD, not just a single $1,000 CPU. Right now you can go out and pick up a 2.4Ghz Q6600 and overclock it to what is im sure better performance then we will see from their first next gen CPU offering.

Its too early in the year to be worrying about this stuff anyway, seriously. This stuff isn't even coming out until late this year, probably early next year anyway.
May 10, 2008 9:03:02 PM


OH NOES this would completely remove the ability for anyone to use the old tried and tired argument of "But at least Intel chips overclock better" when comparing chip benchmarks that are about equal.

Oh... how TRAGIC. :cry: 

or not. :na: 

Actually to be serious: I have been expecting something like this for several years. This can actually be a GOOD THING if somebody considers system stability to be more important than the ability to overclock. (Which describes MOST users.)

If this turns out to be true: we can expect to see a lot of threads about this topic.
May 10, 2008 9:42:49 PM

lol. Well, about Fudzilla: they have been pretty accurate regarding the news about Nehalem and GPUs. They talked about Tylersburg and Larrabee very soon, just as The INQUIRER (say what you will, but it turned out to be "true"). The INQ had an article about "many Intel mini-cores, called Larrabee" back in 2006. :pt1cable: 

Oh, and BTW, can you find many Q9450s and Q9550s around?! O.O And I'm not talking about just 10 of them at some freaking website (actually, I have never seen a Q9550 ANYWHERE). The 45nm Quads *ARE* delayed. Q1 had just a paper-launch for those nice investors. :hello: 

It's just speculation, anyway. But that's the way the world goes on. :bounce: 
May 10, 2008 9:54:57 PM

That sucks

I can live without bleeding edge performance so AMD FTW
May 10, 2008 11:27:01 PM

Could it be that maybe cpus arent that great anymore? Until multithreading becomes reality, cpus seem to be slowing down. Now if this is true, Intel shows just how powerful they are. Look at USB3, another potential for Intel to show its strength. And yes, lets not forget who declared the gpu dead, and then went into investing billions of dollars into graphics., like that flew over everyones head? Intel, the sleeping giant, dont wake em, cause this time they may be going after YOU
May 10, 2008 11:37:07 PM

hah, i dont think Intel is bluffing here. I mean, as a manufacturer, how would you feel if people were buying your 80$ e2100s and OCing them to match your 300$ e6850s, not very good. Again, this is an attempt to matintain the heriarchy and ensure profits. there was no reason to get a E6700 if you were an OCer, so just get the E6600 and OC like hell, which is what most people did. so , Intel will try and stop this.
May 10, 2008 11:48:44 PM

I guess there is such thing as future-proofing now.
May 10, 2008 11:53:23 PM

Oh therell be ways, like the old days, not easy like today. And much more dangerous to your components
May 11, 2008 12:02:37 AM

Hows this for a possibility? Say its true. 45nm Intel chips are hard to find, especially higher cpus. Lets say they want to clean up that market. How? Elimanate ocing on the new Nehalem, allow ocing 45nms to sell down, once sold down, create another "new" Nehalem one that oces, but good ol Intel "listens" to its customers. Bait n switch
May 11, 2008 12:07:52 AM

I think overclocking is the spiritual foundation of the computer enthusiast market. The concept of overclocking symbolizes the quest to purchase overachieving components, and squeeze the most performance from them. Regardless of whether you have purchased a $100 or $1000 processor, if you are an "enthusiast", you will push your processor and your system...because that is what you like to do.

Remove that capability, and then we will buy Dells again for office productivity/term papers, and then buy consoles for our gaming.

Alternatively, AMD will step up, and become the "enthusiast" platform, and leave all the corporate/late adopters to Intel.
May 11, 2008 12:14:36 AM

A couple more quick points:

1) Show Fudzilla some love. They do a decent job, and they probably do no worse than any other specialty news media that tries to stay at the cutting edge of news events.

2) I like to think Intel won't outsmart themselves out of pure arrogance. But my analysis is that this is exactly what happened with the e8400--they drank their own KoolAid about the overwhelming superiority of quad cores, and thought "in 2008 how could anyone settle for a measly dual core, thus we must price our lowly dual core 3 GHz 45 nm chip at $185 and only make a few of them." They could have sold them for $299 and sold out of them, for the level of performance they deliver.

3) Moral of the story; this is a very realistic scenario.
May 11, 2008 12:16:42 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Hows this for a possibility? Say its true. 45nm Intel chips are hard to find, especially higher cpus. Lets say they want to clean up that market. How? Elimanate ocing on the new Nehalem, allow ocing 45nms to sell down, once sold down, create another "new" Nehalem one that oces, but good ol Intel "listens" to its customers. Bait n switch


Stop trying to figure out Intels secret plan.
May 11, 2008 12:41:48 AM

OK, heres whats going on. Theyve moved the north bridge on die for the lynnefield chips. No ocing from them. Period. However, on the Bloomfield, theyve actually created a special northbridge as well as chip (Bloomfield) for the enthusiast. My quesion is, how exspensive will being a cpu enthusiast become when using Intel products?
May 11, 2008 12:46:20 AM

Im afraid itll make alot of people resentful, when the moneybagged people come in spouting their 733+ rigs if the costs are high
May 11, 2008 12:56:23 AM

Im thinking about making a post about Nahalem saying, is Nahalem going to a be haves or haves not solution? Itll all come down to how much. Intel is greedy. Success has run its course. Instead of making less money, and doing everything "Bloomfield", theyre trying to milk the enthusiast community. Im afraid as I said earlier, enthusiast may become LEETness
May 11, 2008 1:06:00 AM

Like Ive been saying, it only opens the doors to competition, which at least in AMDs case is welcome, but to us, it sucks
May 11, 2008 1:12:49 AM

@amdfangirl...

I just wondered if you are related to jewel, because your crayon guitar resembles her crayon guitar, it's uncanny !

@Husky McTarFlash, yeah, it's what overclockers and Linux users do, try to get their computer to go faster...personally, I actually use mine to do things with...ironic.
May 11, 2008 1:35:04 AM

Quote:
^ who's Jewel?

LOL you poor young thang you
May 11, 2008 1:42:23 AM

Songwrite/singer. Shell save your soul
May 11, 2008 1:43:44 AM

Quote:
What? I don't get this!!!! Is he/she a songwriter/singer/forum member?


good question, no one knows really...
May 11, 2008 1:51:20 AM

Yea but Jewel is cool too. Who will save your soul...good music
May 11, 2008 1:52:49 AM

Its funny that you are all complaining about this "locked" cpu. 2 things to be said about this.

1) Look at the source, everything that is coming out right now unless it is directly from Intel should be considered speculation and taken with a grain of salt.

2) I don't care what anyone else says, the majority of people that own an Intel processors(or AMD) DO NOT overclock them. Sure most people on this board have OC'd their rigs to get the most performance, but most everyday users either aren't aware of OC'ing or don't want to "risk" it. This wont hurt Intel in the least if it turns out to be true.


If this does turn out to be true, I guess we all better get our hands on LGA775 CPUs so that we can have our fun before they all run out.
May 11, 2008 1:54:39 AM

I have to comment on the "paper launch" of the 45nm's.

Available for the last month at Microcenter, the Q9450 for $299 was a good deal, and still available. I got mine the first day, returned it 5 days later for another one, as the original had a stuck temp sensor.


And the Wolfdales are everywhere on these forums, getting awesome overclocks with very little voltage or heat.

Maybe Intel said WOAH!

Giving everybody a Corvette for the price of a sedAN was a bad business move. Anybody can OC a $200 cpu to way past the speed of a $1100 unit.
May 11, 2008 1:58:37 AM

No, its not the end, just seperate platforms/cpus. But what it will mean is this. If youve got the money, it may become an even better experience for enthusiasts. Those left behind with less dollars wont like it tho, but I guess thats life. And lets give FUD some credit here, hes usually right, or on target. This is too big to goof on. He isnt being lied to, this is the future. Expect to spend more money on Intel systems in the future if youre into ocing. Like I said tho, how much more?
May 11, 2008 2:10:29 AM

Intel has tried to do this in the past.
Usually, it was because people were OCing chips, then charging more.
I agree with trying to curb that type of ripoff.
Most OCers who burn a chip, own thier problem, and pay for a new one. Intel would rather sell two chips, than get a little extra for one.
If, and it is a big IF, intel tries to prevent OCing, there is probably a great reason.
I think it is because smaller processes are likely to fry without warning, if too much voltage is used.
If Intel does go that route, they will leave some kind of workaround. They have too many friends in the OC community.
May 11, 2008 2:14:12 AM

Hope its not coding for the PLLs. Or pinning. Nothing too drastic anyways
May 11, 2008 2:26:02 AM

The lynnfield has many advantages for mainstream, power being one, costs another. Bloomfield will be good hopefully for enthusiasts if theres a dedicated push from Intel etc. But itll come down to costs. Im thinking its not like a EE type thing. Itll be variable, but expensive, as therell be fewer mobos made for this platform, being as exclusive as itll be, so thatll cost more, then theres the system Ram, will there be advantages to that as well? If so, the demand will be so small theres another higher cost, and finally we come to Intel itself. Will their low/mid Bloomfields be expensive also? Edited for spell
May 11, 2008 2:31:50 AM

LOL!!!
May 11, 2008 2:32:01 AM

I have to comment on the "paper launch" of the 45nm's.

Available for the last month at Microcenter, the Q9450 for $299 was a good deal, and still available. I got mine the first day, returned it 5 days later for another one, as the original had a stuck temp sensor.


And the Wolfdales are everywhere on these forums, getting awesome overclocks with very little voltage or heat.

Maybe Intel said WOAH!

Giving everybody a Corvette for the price of a sedAN was a bad business move. Anybody can OC a $200 cpu to way past the speed of a $1100 unit.
May 11, 2008 12:10:50 PM

keithlm said:


Actually to be serious: I have been expecting something like this for several years. This can actually be a GOOD THING if somebody considers system stability to be more important than the ability to overclock. (Which describes MOST users.)



There is allso one one more reason for this to be true. Some bad ventors sell overclocked versions of prosessors to some ordinary computer users, so that they can make more profit with them, without telling to the consumer that the prosessor is actually overclocked. The computer works fine one, two years and after that if it becomes unstable... well the customer is in situation where he has no clue what is wrong and deside to buy a new computer... in worst case from the same ventor...
So this is bad for those who like to overclock (like many readers in this forum), but good for ordinary customer who can be sure that he gets what he pays for.
May 11, 2008 12:15:56 PM

Granite3 said:
I have to comment on the "paper launch" of the 45nm's.

Available for the last month at Microcenter, the Q9450 for $299 was a good deal, and still available. I got mine the first day, returned it 5 days later for another one, as the original had a stuck temp sensor.


And the Wolfdales are everywhere on these forums, getting awesome overclocks with very little voltage or heat.

Maybe Intel said WOAH!

Giving everybody a Corvette for the price of a sedAN was a bad business move. Anybody can OC a $200 cpu to way past the speed of a $1100 unit.


While that makes sense, I wonder what percentage of Intel CPU users actually overclock their processors. I'd image a very tiny percentage, so I don't see how Intel's bottom line is affected by people getting more performance than they've paid for.

EDIT: fixed frack'd grammar.
May 11, 2008 1:28:19 PM

If this wasnt backed by what we currently know, thered be Intel people alllll over this. This is going to happen. From now on, ocing cpus will be ab exclusive scenario, which will cost more. All thanks to Intel, whos going to say, its the only way they can do this, and you should be thankful theyre doing it
May 11, 2008 2:44:59 PM

Here's a new bit of info if anyone hasn't seen it yet.
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/080508/bloomfield1b.jpg

Two things interest me about this slide. The first is the bit about the ability for quad graphics. I'd be interested to know if this is for Nvidia graphics or ATI graphics. The second is that the memory bandwidth is less that I have been hearing. This slide suggests that the memory bandwidth is 16 GB/s per direction for 32 Gb/s total. That's about 20% slower than HT 3.0 . Of course this slide could be fake as I don't think the reliability of these Chinese sites has been established yet. I will say that I found the link to this on Fudzilla so that alone should call into question the validity of this.
May 11, 2008 3:08:24 PM

But isnt the bw less a problem now that its IMC?
May 11, 2008 3:16:17 PM

The memory bandwidth is triple channel DDR3-1333 for a total of 32GB/s. That's 32GB/s of memory bandwidth to the CPU. It has nothing to do with the bandwidth of Quick Path or anything else.
May 11, 2008 3:42:57 PM

sciggy said:
Its funny that you are all complaining about this "locked" cpu. 2 things to be said about this.

1) Look at the source, everything that is coming out right now unless it is directly from Intel should be considered speculation and taken with a grain of salt.

2) I don't care what anyone else says, the majority of people that own an Intel processors(or AMD) DO NOT overclock them. Sure most people on this board have OC'd their rigs to get the most performance, but most everyday users either aren't aware of OC'ing or don't want to "risk" it. This wont hurt Intel in the least if it turns out to be true.


If this does turn out to be true, I guess we all better get our hands on LGA775 CPUs so that we can have our fun before they all run out.


You are correct about the average user not overclocking their pocs but the people that do OC are the people that determine the supremecy of one chip over another. Now here is what I mean. When your neighbor / mother / aunt wants a new computer who do they go to. They go to you, me, pretty much the kind of people that hang out in here. What are you going to tell them? You are going to tell them to make sure to get a computer with a AMD proc not because they want to OC but because in your mind it's the best proc. It's us that determines the direction of products coming out of the manufacturers. Just let Intel know and believe me they will pay attention even though we are the minority.
!