Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Haswell CPUs Could Be Easier to Overclock

By - Source: TechPowerUp | B 18 comments

During IDF in Beijing Intel announced that its CPUs would become significantly simpler to overclock.

Intel has announced that the Haswell series of CPUs would be a lot easier to overclock. Like previous generations, the chips would feature a base clock frequency of 100 MHz, however, on Haswell CPUs users will be able to change this depending on the model.

Previously, the base frequency would also be applicable to the other modules in the chip, such as the memory controller. The problem with that system is that a deviation of just 7 MHz would destabilize some of the other controllers, even though the processor would keep working fine.

Consequently, Intel has thought to let owners of '-K' series CPUs change the base clock frequency to values such as 125 MHz or 166 MHz, while the other modules such as the memory controller would still run on a base clock of 100 MHz. Non '-K' series CPUs would likely not have an unlocked base clock modifier, even though in the past users could overclock non '-K' series CPUs through altering the base clock without touching the multiplier.

Back to the present, the maximum multiplier value tied to a 100 MHz base clock will be 80x, and the maximum would be lower for the other base clocks. For example, the maximum multiplier for a 125 MHz base clock would be 64x, and the maximum for a 166 MHz base clock would be 48x. Either way, in all three cases the maximum CPU frequency would be no higher than 8.0 GHz.

It will be interesting to see if these changes will actually yield in higher overclocks.



Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 18 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 30 Hide
    gsxrme , April 16, 2013 9:45 AM
    They better not use the same damn paste they used in the Ivy Bridges!
  • 18 Hide
    basketcase87 , April 16, 2013 11:08 AM
    Quote:
    O/C is easy on my sandy bridge 2600k, I press a button and it overclocks the CPU and ram 20% on my Asus mobo. Haswell is going to be easier than that?

    You're doing it wrong.
  • 11 Hide
    Soda-88 , April 16, 2013 10:28 AM
    And here's me thinking it doesn't get any easier than changing multiplier/vcore...
Other Comments
  • 30 Hide
    gsxrme , April 16, 2013 9:45 AM
    They better not use the same damn paste they used in the Ivy Bridges!
  • 9 Hide
    aramisathei , April 16, 2013 9:53 AM
    Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this any better than just using the core multiplier?
  • 3 Hide
    fil1p , April 16, 2013 10:06 AM
    This sounds pretty good, I just hope that they use flux-less solder rather than thermal paste between the chip and the IHS. At least on the K series of CPU's, after all they are aimed at overclockers.
  • -3 Hide
    fil1p , April 16, 2013 10:19 AM
    EDIT: Accidental double post
  • 1 Hide
    slomo4sho , April 16, 2013 10:27 AM
    Easier? How does more complexity equate to being easier? One could assert that you can have greater success through the manipulation of two variables than just a single variable but I am not seeing how this equates to an easier overclock...
  • 11 Hide
    Soda-88 , April 16, 2013 10:28 AM
    And here's me thinking it doesn't get any easier than changing multiplier/vcore...
  • 8 Hide
    ihog , April 16, 2013 10:44 AM
    Overclocking is simple enough as it is for Sandy/Ivy Bridge; what we want is better overclocking ability/potential.
  • -3 Hide
    InvalidError , April 16, 2013 11:05 AM
    Quote:
    Overclocking is simple enough as it is for Sandy/Ivy Bridge; what we want is better overclocking ability/potential.

    If Intel had surprise success with improving timing margins to provide 1GHz higher average clock yield, they would simply launch a product lineup with most of that 1GHz factored in.

    With multipliers locked across all lower-end models, Intel ensures that overclocking headroom remains relatively modest compared to what it used to be when most low/mid-range chips were still overclockable by at least 33% by simply changing FSB clock ratio.
  • 18 Hide
    basketcase87 , April 16, 2013 11:08 AM
    Quote:
    O/C is easy on my sandy bridge 2600k, I press a button and it overclocks the CPU and ram 20% on my Asus mobo. Haswell is going to be easier than that?

    You're doing it wrong.
  • 1 Hide
    raytseng , April 16, 2013 12:04 PM
    "even though in the past users could overclock non '-K' series CPUs through altering the base clock without touching the multiplier."

    I think the author may not be aware that non '-K' CPUs have partial unlock, so to OC a non-k, most enthusiasts would actually touch the multiplier first to add +4 before touching the clock.
  • 2 Hide
    anonymous_user , April 16, 2013 3:21 PM
    Why not get rid of the "K" processors and just let us overclock all CPU models using a multiplier. That would be nice.
  • -1 Hide
    tului , April 16, 2013 5:07 PM
    Piss on Haswell unless it's an LGA2011 chip I'm not interested. Stop screwing your higher paying customers Intel.
  • 0 Hide
    SuperGamerBoy , April 16, 2013 11:32 PM
    So, will they run cooler than sandy bridge
  • 0 Hide
    ojas , April 17, 2013 1:26 AM
    OK, slightly incorrect article. BCLK overclock might be available on all processors.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6898/intel-details-haswell-overclocked-at-idf-beijing
  • 1 Hide
    BSim500 , April 17, 2013 1:40 PM
    Quote:
    Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this any better than just using the core multiplier?

    It should greatly benefit non-K chips. The biggest winners from this should be the Pentium's & i3's which have no available "K" versions or Turbo Boost and have been virtually frozen at under 3.5GHz for 2 generations now with typically only +/- 5% BCLK to play with... Many people have been crying out for the return of super-overclockable budget dual-cores ever since the i3-530 Clarkdale (with 2.93GHz -> 4.3GHz overclocks) got "upgraded" to the i3-2100 (with 3.1 -> 3.3GHz overclocks) when Sandy Bridge locked "core" and "uncore" frequencies together...

    In fact, overlocking on BCLK-locked Sandy & Ivy Bridge i3's has been so poor that 1st-gen "i" series BCLK unlocked 2010-era i3-530's are still faster in many benchmarks than the 2 years newer Ivy-Bridge equivalents. Examples:-

    WINRAR:-
    i3-530 @ 4.3Ghz = 3,802KB/s
    i3-3220 @ 3.3GHz = 3,557KB/s

    Fritz Chess:-
    i3-530 @ 4.3Ghz = 7,713
    i3-3220 : 3.3GHz= 6,352

    If this BCLK-unlock is "across the board" and not just limited to premium "K" chips, then it's great news for Haswell i3 owners, as a stock 3.4GHz i3 could be OC'd to 4.25GHz (with 1.25x / 125MHz BCLK) and not just limited to 3.5-3.6GHz as current Ivy & Sandy i3's.
  • 0 Hide
    SessouXFX , November 24, 2013 12:34 AM
    Bring on Haswell-E!
  • 0 Hide
    ashfadlk , December 23, 2013 10:47 PM
    it seems Haswell has something more than we think..