Intel to allow OC on non Skylake K cpus?

[NumLock21]

According to benchlife.info, Intel seems to have allow for overclocking on non Skylake K cpus. Previous cpus, only the unlock K models, supports overclocking. Lock cpus oc some bit, through BCLK, but users aren't able to set a very high BCLK value. This time, looks like Intel has allow for BCLK overclocking on those locked Skylake cpus as from the cpu-z screenshot, we can see the FSB set to 133MHz! Now if lock cpus can oc through bclk, is there any point of grabbing a unlock cpu?

 

source

translate

[79wjd]

The FSB could also run at 133 by default. 

[DXMember]

no biggy...

I had a i5-2500 (non-K) and was able to put multiplier as high as x38

But I suppose that was more of a motherboard feature...

Was using Gigabyte P67-DS3 or something along those lines came with Gigabytes easy OC software which allowed to change the multiplier.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

no biggy...

I had a i5-2500 (non-K) and was able to put multiplier as high as x38

But I suppose that was more of a motherboard feature...

Was using Gigabyte P67-DS3 or something along those lines came with Gigabytes easy OC software which allowed to change the multiplier.

IIRC on sandy bridge the multiplier could be increased by up to 4 on non-K CPUs.

[DXMember]

IIRC on sandy bridge the multiplier could be increased by up to 4 on non-K CPUs.

I was running a stock heatsink, didn't help me much

 

but if you look at the CPU-Z screenshot again you would notice this is a low powered chip running at 0.48 V and x15 multiplier.

I assume this is stock clock for it

[LucidMew]

I was running a stock heatsink, didn't help me much

 

but if you look at the CPU-Z screenshot again you would notice this is a low powered chip running at 0.48 V and x15 multiplier.

I assume this is stock clock for it

 

Or, in one of the C States that is low power.

[Cheddle]

unless its 1.5ghz at stock speeds... I am pretty sure we are looking at a normal 133mhz FSB

[Norman_the_Owl]

You know that the reason base clock overclocking doesn't work anymore is because of inherent stability problems in the chipset, right? It's not something Intel can turn on or off...

[Techhog]

Or, in one of the C States that is low power.

Look again. x15 is the maximum multiplier.

[Syntaxvgm]

this looks like raising the base clock, nothing new if the multiplier is still locked. 

[MageTank]

This is odd. I thought the 6400T was an i5 variant. I also thought the T versions were 35w TDP, as suggested from the leaks we saw a month or so ago. Guess this chart is incorrect now: 

[linuxfan66]

Its leaks. always take with a grain of salt

[Biased Opinion]

K parts are still worth it for better binned parts.

[linuxfan66]

K parts are still worth it for better binned parts.

[NumLock21]

This is odd. I thought the 6400T was an i5 variant. I also thought the T versions were 35w TDP, as suggested from the leaks we saw a month or so ago. Guess this chart is incorrect now:

From the article, the CPU is a core i5, after oc the bclk, CPU-z read it as a core i7.

[Biased Opinion]

Think you gonna hit that 5ghz without mulits, aim higher.

[Django]

This is odd. I thought the 6400T was an i5 variant. I also thought the T versions were 35w TDP, as suggested from the leaks we saw a month or so ago. Guess this chart is incorrect now: 

 

 

I'd would rather believe that chart over the claim of the CPU-z screen shot being an i5-6400T. It should be obvious to anyone who knows just a little about Intel CPU's that it's not the i5-6400T.

 

Things that are blatantly incorrect in the CPU-z pic, TDP, cache, number of threads. And people are using this to justify coarse bclk overclocking on locked CPU's! LMAO