Intel teases wider range of overclockable CPUs for future platforms — VP Robert Hallock says budget builders 'deserve the same level of features' as more well-heeled enthusiasts
Intel could create modern counterparts to the Core i3-9350K and Pentium G3258.
For over a decade, Intel has been consistent in restricting its unlocked, overclockable K-series CPUs exclusively to the mid-range and high-end CPU segments. Rare exceptions to this strategy have included the Pentium G3258 and Core i3-9350K. However, PC Games Hardware reports that Intel is looking to change this strategy in the future, and plans to introduce more overclocking-friendly CPUs at more affordable price points.
This news was shared in an interview with Robert Hallock, Intel's vice president and general manager of its enthusiast channel business. Hallock stated that overclocking-capable CPUs should not be reserved just for PC enthusiasts who pay the most money, further noting that PC enthusiasts are not any more enthusiastic if they spend $500 on a CPU. "...They are still PC enthusiasts, and they deserve the same level of features, and that is what we intend to deliver in our roadmap." Hallock also claimed we will see "more and more unlocked SKUs over time" from Intel.
Hallock's remarks suggest that Intel is focusing on competing more with AMD in the budget/entry-level CPU market and looking to improve its standing with the enthusiast community after a long run of incremental refreshes and relatively uncompetitive products. However, his wording made it clear this won't be an overnight change. Possibly, we might not see any new budget-friendly chips with overclocking capabilities until after Nova Lake launches.
Regardless, it is a welcome sight to see Intel promise to deliver fully unlocked products for budget-minded enthusiasts in the DIY desktop market. In the past, Intel has been notorious for raising a high barrier to entry for CPU overclocking, forcing enthusiasts to buy an unlocked Core i5 or Ultra 5 CPU and a Z-series motherboard at a minimum to unlock multiplier-based OC support.
This is a trait that the DIY community has complained about for years, and something AMD has capitalized on for over a decade. For instance, AMD offers full overclocking support on the vast majority of its Ryzen CPUs and offers unrestricted multiplier overclocking on its mid-range B-series motherboard chipsets.
There are still questions Intel has not answered, particularly regarding motherboard support. If Intel wants to provide true competitiveness with AMD in this area, having multiplier overclocking support on its B-series chipsets will be important. Without this change, budget-minded buyers will be stuck having to buy an expensive Z-series motherboard no matter what to unlock overclocking support. But as someone who was deep in the AMD trenches during the Ryzen resurgence, we have no doubt Hallock understands the ingredients necessary to create a competitive platform ecosystem.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.
-
DS426 Good -- AMD needs more competition, both at the low-end and high-end.Reply
Not clear to me though why this strategy couldn't start with Nova Lake? Maybe not initial launch but later once down-binned and semi-defective output accumulates enough to sell those products on the market as cheap overclockers. -
usertests Overclocking is less relevant than ever before, unless you're using a Raspberry Pi or something.Reply -
hotaru251 Reply
intel was the one who locked OC'ing your CPU SKU.(k signified unlocked) since at least 25yrs ago.bolweval said:How so?
There was a MB that let you OC non oc cpu and they made MB vendor update bios to block it.
Intel was always the one who wanted you to pay more to OC. AMD let 90% of their cpu's be OC-able regardless of sku.
depends. overclocking also included undervolting which is still very usefulusertests said:Overclocking is less relevant than ever before -
bolweval Reply
But how is this another desperate move?hotaru251 said:intel was the one who locked OC'ing your CPU SKU.(k signified unlocked) since at least 25yrs ago.
There was a MB that let you OC non oc cpu and they made MB vendor update bios to block it.
Intel was always the one who wanted you to pay more to OC. AMD let 90% of their cpu's be OC-able regardless of sku.
depends. overclocking also included undervolting which is still very useful
Edit: AMD doesn't allow overclocking on all their CPU's either? -
TerryLaze Reply
Intel had BCLK overclocking until 6th gen, so the 7th gen in early 2017 was 25 years ago?!?!?!?!?!hotaru251 said:intel was the one who locked OC'ing your CPU SKU.(k signified unlocked) since at least 25yrs ago.
There was a MB that let you OC non oc cpu and they made MB vendor update bios to block it.
Intel was always the one who wanted you to pay more to OC. AMD let 90% of their cpu's be OC-able regardless of sku.
depends. overclocking also included undervolting which is still very useful
If the rumors are true and AMD only made a single mask for zen 6 that is 12cores then there will be no low or mid range from amd, it would be completely crazy for them to cannibalize chips to sell for cheap.DS426 said:Good -- AMD needs more competition, both at the low-end and high-end.
They might sell zen 5 CPUs as zen 6 low end.
In the same vein the future intel CPUs that will be overclockable might be the exact same skus that you can overclock now just in the future they will be considered mid to low end. -
usertests Reply
What do we define as "low end"? $199 initial MSRP or less? The 9600X launched at a fairly obscene $279 MSRP for 6 cores. And the price drifted down, as they tend to do.TerryLaze said:If the rumors are true and AMD only made a single mask for zen 6 that is 12cores then there will be no low or mid range from amd, it would be completely crazy for them to cannibalize chips to sell for cheap.
They might sell zen 5 CPUs as zen 6 low end.
AMD is going to make 8 or 10 cores using the 12-core CCD. If the lowest is 8 cores, I guess they would set the MSRP anywhere between $249 and $299. 10-core at $299 to $379, 12-core somewhere in the $400s, 12-core X3D gaming flagship at $499-549.
It's worth noting that one leaker said there will be a 6-core in the lineup. I don't think that should get made from a 12-core CCD, but it's AMD's choice.
Nova Lake is expected to launch before Zen 6, so it could provide some pressure for AMD to lower $/core for its lineup. It's also expected to provide an X3D competitor for the first time, which could help keep pricing in check. So I doubt AMD would be charging $600+ for 12-core Zen 6 X3D.
The actual costs for AMD to make these desktop chips are probably low. Same leaker said the 12-core CCD will be 76mm^2, which is normal and won't cost very much even if it's on TSMC N2X. The IOD could be larger than the current 122mm^2 (TSMC N6), and on a more expensive node. -
Paolooliva This is my opinion.Reply
AMD has 76.2mm2 chiplets.The Tile CPU was said to be 98mm2 for the smooth one and 154mm2 with the "large" L3.
The problem for Intel is that for gaming, AMD only needs one Zen6 chiplet (X12) and 3D... the Intel equivalent? X8 P + X16 E + L3 = 154mm2? Even with 4 fewer E cores, it won't change much.
For the flawed models, the motherboard die would remain the same.In MT, the calculation is too complex... (IPC x P core frequency and E cores vs. all "P" cores for AMD), but the production on the N2P/N2X penalizes the hybrid, because the E cores don't take advantage of the N2P/N2X.
The only way for Intel to win is if the PL3 493W rumor were true (X52), because the AM5 can't handle those watts... but what about the cost? The MB, what? 16 layers and 24 phases with a 150-200A VRM? And the dissipation? 500W requires a custom, high-end system... and how much would the system cost?
P.S.
I find it difficult for Nova to come out before Zen6... in January 2026, the top Epyc ES processors were already running at 4GHz... back then, Nova ES processors moved the L3 to a separate die, then Intel changed everything, and now there's even talk of a lower core count... never mind a finished die. -
rluker5 I like the sounds of a new 9350k. If they made that with a 4+4+4 die it could do unexpectedly well. A 2+0+4 new G3258 is going to have performance issues with dual cores not being enough, then the help being on another die.Reply
E cores can really help when there aren't enough CPU threads so long as the primary threads don't wind up going to them, and they are on the compute tile.
It is some low hanging fruit for a NVL refresh cycle.