Can you overclock a skylake i3?

[SuperCookie78]

Since the BCLK isn't attached to different parts of the computer can't you push a cpu farther in terms of this type of overclock? So can you do this on i3's? if so has anybody done it?

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

It's a locked CPU so I'd assume you can't. I've tried to overclock my i3-4150 and that went nowhere.

[MageTank]

Since the BCLK isn't attached to different parts of the computer can't you push a cpu farther in terms of this type of overclock? So can you do this on i3's? if so has anybody done it?

Tried my Pentium G4400, no dice. Digital Foundry only managed 103 BCLK as well, and it wasn't stable. Would say its a no-go, unless we are just unlucky. Do not buy a non-K Skylake processor if you intend on overclocking it. 

[comicsansms]

You can do a very small over clock.

Isn't worth it.

[PaulKolby]

Since the BCLK isn't attached to different parts of the computer can't you push a cpu farther in terms of this type of overclock? So can you do this on i3's? if so has anybody done it?

nope not really

[daniellearmouth]

There has only really been one outlier of a non-i5 and non-i7 CPU that is overclockable, it being the Pentium G3258.

 

There are no unlocked i3s, meaning they can't be overclocked.

[Megahurt]

Seems like only the K CPUs have the BCLCK unlocked.

 

[byalexandr]

It's a locked CPU so I'd assume you can't. I've tried to overclock my i3-4150 and that went nowhere.

Amen to that. Can't even touch my 4170's BCLK.

[SuperCookie78]

Amen to that. Can't even touch my 4170's BCLK.

 

Tried my Pentium G4400, no dice. Digital Foundry only managed 103 BCLK as well, and it wasn't stable. Would say its a no-go, unless we are just unlucky. Do not buy a non-K Skylake processor if you intend on overclocking it. 

 

It's a locked CPU so I'd assume you can't. I've tried to overclock my i3-4150 and that went nowhere.

these are all hasewell parts that has the BLCK bound to other component like memory timing 

 

Seems like only the K CPUs have the BCLCK unlocked.

 

thank you its a good video

[MageTank]

these are all hasewell parts that has the BLCK bound to other component like memory timing 

 

thank you its a good video

No. The Pentium G4400 is a Skylake Pentium, not a Haswell part at all. I could not get mine to run even 102 BCLK stable. It is safe to conclude the answer to your question is a simple: "No.". Unless specifically mentioned by Intel, i doubt we will see another unlocked Pentium, or any overclockable i3's. 

[SuperCookie78]

No. The Pentium G4400 is a Skylake Pentium, not a Haswell part at all. I could not get mine to run even 102 BCLK stable. It is safe to conclude the answer to your question is a simple: "No.". Unless specifically mentioned by Intel, i doubt we will see another unlocked Pentium, or any overclockable i3's. 

sorry about that my mistake

[MageTank]

sorry about that my mistake

No worries. I just don't believe we will see another unlocked Pentium for quite some time. The G3258 was an anniversary chip, and an i3 that can overclock well would severely cut into i5 sales to the point in which they would become irrelevant for most games. 

[SuperCookie78]

No worries. I just don't believe we will see another unlocked Pentium for quite some time. The G3258 was an anniversary chip, and an i3 that can overclock well would severely cut into i5 sales to the point in which they would become irrelevant for most games. 

well if they priced it at $149 i think it would be fine. anyways the minimum requirements for games is moving into quad core. for just cause 3 it "needs" an i5. this will probably make the uneducated consumer buy the i5. anyways i digress 

[MageTank]

well if they priced it at $149 i think it would be fine. anyways the minimum requirements for games is moving into quad core. for just cause 3 it "needs" an i5. this will probably make the uneducated consumer buy the i5. anyways i digress 

Those requirements are always bogus. You will even see some games that also says "Core i7 4790k or FX 8350" even though those two chips are worlds apart. I've run many games whose minimum requirement is an i5, on a G3258 overclocked. I also know that those games with an i5 minimum will run just fine with an i3. If they price an i3 even cheaper, while allowing it to overclock, it won't be fine at all. It will cause exactly the problem i listed above. It will undercut their own market, causing people to buy i3's instead of i5's, simply because the i3 is cheaper, and performs better. If they let the i5's BCLK go super high, it will do the same thing to the unlocked i5 and i7 market.

 

Point is, they did this once before, and learned from that mistake. I doubt they will ever do it again. Intel's market segmentation is already perfect. The G3258 captured the $50-$70 CPU market perfectly for what it was, but I doubt we will see that happen again.

[SuperCookie78]

Those requirements are always bogus. You will even see some games that also says "Core i7 4790k or FX 8350" even though those two chips are worlds apart. I've run many games whose minimum requirement is an i5, on a G3258 overclocked. I also know that those games with an i5 minimum will run just fine with an i3. If they price an i3 even cheaper, while allowing it to overclock, it won't be fine at all. It will cause exactly the problem i listed above. It will undercut their own market, causing people to buy i3's instead of i5's, simply because the i3 is cheaper, and performs better. If they let the i5's BCLK go super high, it will do the same thing to the unlocked i5 and i7 market.

 

Point is, they did this once before, and learned from that mistake. I doubt they will ever do it again. Intel's market segmentation is already perfect. The G3258 captured the $50-$70 CPU market perfectly for what it was, but I doubt we will see that happen again.

or we just get a 6 core consumer part for the same price as current gen i7 and just move everything else down. which might make developers actually use 4 cores at 100% by making more people have it

[MageTank]

or we just get a 6 core consumer part for the same price as current gen i7 and just move everything else down. which might make developers actually use 4 cores at 100% by making more people have it

Why would intel cut into their X99 sales? We are just now at the point where Quad Cores are being properly used. They still have a long life span left in them. If people need more than 4 cores, there is already a market for that, and it is still quite cheap too. The difference between X99 and Z170 is about $20-$50 on average, if you really need the extra cores. 

 

I know what you are going to say. "They should increase the core count of the X99 SKU's too!". They did. They call them "Xeons". 

 

More cores is not the solution. We are not core-bound at the moment. There is a reason we are not seeing gigantic leaps in performance when new CPU architectures are released. Gaming performance difference between the 6700k and 4790k is about 3-5% at best. Compare the X99 SKU's to the Z97 SKU's, and you will see that those extra cores also do very little for gaming. Very few games (I am talking less than 5% of all the available titles on the PC) use more than 4 cores, 8 threads. The ones that do, could be better optimized in the first place. 

 

I believe this topic has met its end. I answered your question, as have others. If you want to continue this debate on market segmentation and why its a terrible idea to make low end CPU's faster than mid-high CPU's, and why more cores on a consumer platform is bad, feel free to PM me.