RIP, Overclockable Intel Non-K Chips, We Hardly Knew Ye
Intel blocks overclocking on locked chips by...doing nothing.
In a development sure to disappoint enthusiasts, it turns out that Intel's 'locked' Non-K 13th-Gen Raptor Lake models are not overclockable like the previous-gen Alder Lake chips. We verified that the previous-gen non-K chips can still be overclocked, but unfortunately, the newer 13th-Gen models cannot. According to our industry contacts, it doesn't look like the situation will change any time soon.
Intel's 12th-Gen Alder Lake processors came with an unexpected surprise — the locked non-K models were overclockable despite Intel's continued policy of restricting overclocking to its pricey K-series models. Sure, Intel released a statement warning that overclocking the locked Non-K chips could damage them, but you could still overclock them at will on certain motherboards.
Intel never officially unlocked the Non-K chips — overclocking was only possible because the company issued an early pre-release microcode to OEMs during the development cycle that accidentally allowed manipulating the chips' BCLK setting, thus enabling overclocking. Intel disabled that feature in its final go-to-market public versions of the chip microcode, but crafty motherboard makers created BIOSes that could still load the older microcode either manually or automatically when a user changes the BCLK setting.
Thus, overclocking the Non-K chips came to be. Nearly all the motherboard vendors used this tactic to unlock the chips, but they originally restricted the feature to expensive Z-series boards that only supported DDR5 memory. Using that expensive gear with the value-centric locked chips didn't make sense, pretty much relegating locked-chip tuning to extreme overclockers.
However, MSI and Asus eventually made a few B660 models that supported DDR4 memory, like the MSI B660M Mortar Max we used to test for this article and the ROG Strix B660-G and -F Gaming motherboards. Those boards brought the promise of affordable locked-chip overclocking to the masses, Intel's wishes be damned.
As you can see above, the hack still works with the Alder Lake Core i7-12700 on the B660M Mortar Max motherboard with the latest BIOS. We've circled the setting that allows you to enable the old "Non K OC" microcode that Intel accidentally let slip, thus engaging BCLK overclocking.
Unfortunately, that same microcode doesn't work with the Raptor Lake chips — as you can see in the second image, the option to use the old microcode disappears when you install the 13700 on the same motherboard.
For Raptor Lake, we're told that Intel simply didn't make the mistake of issuing a pre-release microcode with the feature unlocked, so motherboard makers don't have a version to enable BCLK overclocking on locked chips.
So Intel basically stopped the practice by not making the mistake of giving the motherboard makers an opening. Ultimately, overclocking Non-K chips didn't go out with a bang — it was more of a whimper.
At least for now. Intel and its motherboard partners have long engaged in a cat-and-mouse game wherein the motherboard vendors enable overclocking when they shouldn't, like they did the last time around with Skylake in 2016 and then with Alder Lake, or enable features like AVX-512 that they shouldn't, like when Intel had to kill twice before it was truly disabled. So it's feasible that non-K overclocking could return, even though we're told it doesn't look likely with 13th-Gen Raptor Lake.
All of this is a bad look for Intel as it assures its chips are locked down from overclocking. Sure, Intel has taken at least one step in the right direction recently by enabling memory overclocking with locked chips on B-series motherboards. However, the company's nonsensical decision to lock the SA voltage prevents you from gaining much extra performance with affordable DDR4 memory, so it's only the slightest of improvements.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Intel's overclocking segmentation practices have earned the company billions by milking enthusiasts for every dollar to enable overclocking. Meanwhile, AMD allows it freely on almost all of its chips and platforms. AMD currently suffers from high pricing on its lower-end motherboards, but the locked overclocking features from Intel could leave it vulnerable on the low end of the market if AMD's board pricing improves.
Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.
-
-Fran- The argument of "OC could damage your chip". Well, yeah, no kidding. So Intel allows OC on K SKUs because they're danger free, but still void your warranty if you do OC? LOLReply
Why can't they just be honest and just say "we love segmenting the market artificially to squeeze every single penny out of you all". And hey, just to drive the dagger deeper, AMD allows OC in most, if not all, SKUs and in both their top and middle range motherboards. Still segmented, but less aggressively. It bears mentioning, every single time, to just make people aware.
I wonder how the Intel apologists will defend this one now xD
EDIT: Typos.
Regards. -
bobalazs What this means, that it's always up to the manufacturer what secrets they wish to release, what functions to allow or disallow. Too bad you can't just hack it by yourself, that you would figure out how to unlock it again. It's not a physical thing, a firmware does it, as i have read.Reply -
PlaneInTheSky Well, who cares. Overclocking gets you nothing nowadays, a 0.1% boost in performance while tacking extra cost onto your electric bill.Reply -
-Fran-
Overclocking makes the most sense for lower end SKUs; remember OC'ing was born out of a want/need to squeeze more performance out of cheaper parts to compete with higher SKUs. It's always been a high risk & high gain endeavor for people looking to do it. Having OC exclusively for higher end parts is stupid and has always been, but Intel has been doing it for years now, so people got used to it and forgot why "OC" came to be in the first place.PlaneInTheSky said:Well, who cares. Overclocking gets you nothing nowadays, a 0.1% boost in performance while tacking extra cost onto your electric bill.
Regards. -
edzieba
Both Intel and AMD state that overclocking their CPUs will void the warranty.-Fran- said:The argument of "OC could damage your chip". Well, yeah, no kidding. So Intel allows OC on K SKUs because they're danger free, but still void your warranty if you do OC? LOL
Why can't they just be honest and just say "we love segmenting the market artificially to squeeze every single penny out of you all". And hey, just to drive the dagger deeper, AMD allows OC in most, if not all, SKUs and in both their top and middle range motherboards. Still segmented, but less aggressively. It bears mentioning, every single time, to just make people aware.
GD-106:
Overclocking AMD processors, including without limitation, altering clock frequencies / multipliers or memory timing / voltage, to operate beyond their stock specifications will void any applicable AMD product warranty, even when such overclocking is enabled via AMD hardware and/or software. This may also void warranties offered by the system manufacturer or retailer. Users assume all risks and liabilities that may arise out of overclocking AMD processors, including, without limitation, failure of or damage to hardware, reduced system performance and/or data loss, corruption or vulnerability. GD-106
Intel used to offer the 'Performance Tuning Protection Plan' that explicitly extended warranty coverage to overclocking, but that was discontinued in 2021. -
TerryLaze
Ever since intel came up with that 'unlimited power' gimmick overclocking has become pretty much useless for the normal person looking to improve their budget system.-Fran- said:The argument of "OC could damage your chip". Well, yeah, no kidding. So Intel allows OC on K SKUs because they're danger free, but still void your warranty if you do OC? LOL
Why can't they just be honest and just say "we love segmenting the market artificially to squeeze every single penny out of you all". And hey, just to drive the dagger deeper, AMD allows OC in most, if not all, SKUs and in both their top and middle range motherboards. Still segmented, but less aggressively. It bears mentioning, every single time, to just make people aware.
I wonder how the Intel apologists will defend this one now xD
EDIT: Typos.
Regards.
A locked CPU with unlimited power reaches the same level of performance as the unlocked part.
The only thing you lose with the locked parts is going for insane clocks using exotic cooling.
The locked 12900 gets a 33% boost in performance, show me one RYZEN CPU that gets anywhere close to that kind of an boost with overclocking.
https://www.computerbase.de/2022-03/intel-core-i9-12900-test-alder-lake/2/ -
thestryker While completely expected it's still a shame that this is the case. The only positive is that most of the chips that would benefit the most from BCLK OC are just ADL rebrands anyways so you can just get 12th gen.Reply
It really doesn't because they're still clock limited which is why the 12400/12500 on that graph are almost identical in performance. Higher end parts always have, and likely always will, benefit the least from overclocking. The 12100/12400 utilizing BCLK OC can get 15-25% more performance than using any default boosting method depending on workload.TerryLaze said:Ever since intel came up with that 'unlimited power' gimmick overclocking has become pretty much useless for the normal person looking to improve their budget system.
A locked CPU with unlimited power reaches the same level of performance as the unlocked part.
The only thing you lose with the locked parts is going for insane clocks using exotic cooling.
The locked 12900 gets a 33% boost in performance, show me one RYZEN CPU that gets anywhere close to that kind of an boost with overclocking.
https://www.computerbase.de/2022-03/intel-core-i9-12900-test-alder-lake/2/ -
TerryLaze
But the difference in price of a simple mobo and one that has bclk enabled ( plus possibly the more expensive cooling) can also get you a CPU that has 15-25% more cores/performance.thestryker said:The 12100/12400 utilizing BCLK OC can get 15-25% more performance than using any default boosting method depending on workload.
This doesn't help you if you need the high clocks, but most people don't. -
thestryker
That's not a particularly accurate statement either as there's a $20 price difference between the MSI Mortar and Mortar MAX (both DDR4 B660 boards with the latter supporting BCLK). I believe there's also a fairly inexpensive DDR4 Asrock Z690 board as well.TerryLaze said:But the difference in price of a simple mobo and one that has bclk enabled ( plus possibly the more expensive cooling) can also get you a CPU that has 15-25% more cores/performance.
This doesn't help you if you need the high clocks, but most people don't. -
TerryLaze
And there is a $100 difference between a cheap board and the MSI mortar non-max.thestryker said:That's not a particularly accurate statement either as there's a $20 price difference between the MSI Mortar and Mortar MAX (both DDR4 B660 boards with the latter supporting BCLK). I believe there's also a fairly inexpensive DDR4 Asrock Z690 board as well.
And a $100 better CPU on the cheapest board will still be faster than a $100 lower CPU on a $100 better board.
You could go from the 12400 to the 12600k with $100.