ASRock's Latest BIOS Removes SkyOC Feature

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

56 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is no reason for a cpu to be locked. None. Zip.

 

There ARE reasons for which you may not want to oc on some chipsets.

i'll give you a pretty good one, price variability, so that not every one will have to spend $500 on a CPU mobo combo

[Derangel]

3 hours ago, Sunako said:

I'm glad to see the OC on non K chips discontinued for that fact it lessens the chances of what was going on in late 90's and early 2000's with venders selling prebuilt systems

with lower spec CPU's then Overclocking them to make it seem like they were a higher part inside. I know most of use here could care less about prebuilts and blame people for not understanding the spec/s and partlist inside a machine but for dear old grandma and grandpa out there that might be upgrading and just want to use a PC this protects them.

Now that you mention it I remember hearing about that happening. A lot of companies did that as I recall.

[Sauron]

17 minutes ago, LawrenceBarnes2013 said:

i'll give you a pretty good one, price variability, so that not every one will have to spend $500 on a CPU mobo combo

Give me one good reason for unlocked cpus to cost more. They cost the exact same to make and do not require specific motherboards to run if you don't care about overclocking. It's just because intel is afraid cheaper cpus that only have a lower frequency than higher end ones would cannibalize the sales of current unlocked cpus.

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Give me one good reason for unlocked cpus to cost more. They cost the exact same to make and do not require specific motherboards to run if you don't care about overclocking. It's just because intel is afraid cheaper cpus that only have a lower frequency than higher end ones would cannibalize the sales of current unlocked cpus.

One : have you been inside intel to tell me they coast the same to make and develop, cause i'm damn sure they don't 

Two : intel isn't afraid or anything, it's just a simple matter of making diverse products so that there is something in reach for every one 

Three : intel as for any other company has to make money 

[Belgarathian]

8 hours ago, Comic_Sans_MS said:

You should be able to SLI a GTX 970 with a 980 if you wanted too, there would be a performance increase.

THERE IS NO GUARANTY with overclocking anyway, so why would having a "Locked" CPU unlocked mater?

You can... You would have to use unlinked explicit multi-adapter in DX12. Heck, you can even use a Fury X and a 750ti if you really wanted to.

 

That said, the issue is more about how the software, game engine, and drivers manages frame pacing, intervals, and rendering between two vastly different cards. About the only game that can do this at the moment is Ashes of the Singularity, and there was a good write up here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9740/directx-12-geforce-plus-radeon-mgpu-preview

 

As for the Intel k vs non-k and overclocking... Yes, they're all from the same wafer but they're binned due to defects. If there is a shortage in a lower-tier, then you may find the upper tier chips being used to help with shortages. Overall however, OC performance on a chip is likely to limited and highly variable as Intel has to assume that all chips in that bin are as good as the worst chip so there are no failures. So yes, Intel is being greedy... But you're the guy who wants to pay another $50 for a Z series MB and squeeze another 200mhz from your CPU, so why shouldn't they? 

[Sauron]

19 minutes ago, LawrenceBarnes2013 said:

One : have you been inside intel to tell me they coast the same to make and develop, cause i'm damn sure they don't 

Two : intel isn't afraid or anything, it's just a simple matter of making diverse products so that there is something in reach for every one 

Three : intel as for any other company has to make money 

1) the silicon is identical, the only difference is they are told not to allow tinkering with the multiplier or bclk. These are facts on the way cpus are made and you don't need to have been on the engineering team at intel to know it. Why do you think it was possible to unlock them through the bios? In fact all cpus that use up the same space on the wafer cost about the same to make, the prices are only different to allow for market scalability.

2) "afraid" is a figure of speech, but how many 6600ks do you think they would sell if you could overclock 6400s?

3) oh trust me, they make multiple times the money they need. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with making a lot of money, but that won't stop me from complaining about this sort of tactics that do nothing to benefit the customer.

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

11 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 

I agree with most of what you said, thanks for clarifying the manufacturing part, but still i stand by what i said about diversity, and about the third part, i'm not so sure, yes i agree they're making more cheez than they should be, but it's just the way the industry works, and us complaining about it won't do shit 

[-BirdiE-]

People who are outraged by this are simply people who don't understand business, and are upset they don't get top level features for less.

 

Intel does this for the same reason that software companies sell different feature levels for their software. The cost is not in the product itself, but in the R&D that goes into creating the product.

 

So let's say you develop some really advanced software with insane amounts of features, and it cost you a lot of money to make. If people want to use your product with all the features you're going to charge a certain amount for that. The problem is that not everyone needs ALL those features... So you release a cut-down version of that software for less, so that it makes sense for these people to buy your product as well.

 

Sure, you could give them the fully-featured version at that price, and physically (or digitally) giving it to them wouldn't cost you any more, but then there would be zero reason for anyone to buy your higher tier product. Now that no on is buying your higher tier product, it is much more difficult to make back the money you invested in developing the software, likely resulting in you raising prices back to where they were initially.

 

The fact that they sell cut-down products is what allows them to sell you products that are cheaper than fully featured ones.

 

 

I look at it like this: You've developed that software, have two different feature levels, and give it to Best Buy to distribute. Best buy then starts giving away a crack that unlocks all the features with your lower level offering. I think you'd be pretty quick to put a stop to that too.

[Dabombinable]

Lel, time to revel in the glory that is LGA775. FSB overclocking on all bar the shitiest OEM motherboards.

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

People who are outraged by this are simply people who don't understand business, and are upset they don't get top level features for less.

 

Intel does this for the same reason that software companies sell different feature levels for their software. The cost is not in the product itself, but in the R&D that goes into creating the product.

 

So let's say you develop some really advanced software with insane amounts of features, and it cost you a lot of money to make. If people want to use your product with all the features you're going to charge a certain amount for that. The problem is that not everyone needs ALL those features... So you release a cut-down version of that software for less, so that it makes sense for these people to buy your product as well.

 

Sure, you could give them the fully-featured version at that price, and physically (or digitally) giving it to them wouldn't cost you any more, but then there would be zero reason for anyone to buy your higher tier product. Now that no on is buying your higher tier product, it is much more difficult to make back the money you invested in developing the software, likely resulting in you raising prices back to where they were initially.

 

The fact that they sell cut-down products is what allows them to sell you products that are cheaper than fully featured ones.

 

 

I look at it like this: You've developed that software, have two different feature levels, and give it to Best Buy to distribute. Best buy then starts giving away a crack that unlocks all the features with your lower level offering. I think you'd be pretty quick to put a stop to that too.

You seem to miss the fact that it was not good business on Intel's behalf.  They could have gone to the board manufacturers before launch to assure that locked CPUs stay "locked".  They obviously did not.  Not a single motherboard manufacturer would say no to a request like that from Intel.

 

Intel fucked up to the benefit of the consumer.  Motherboard manufacturer's (SM, AsRock) understood this mistake and decided to grab some extra customers.

 

Now Intel is in damage control, when they did not have to be.  They would still make a killing with unlocked BCLKs on all CPUs.  They are doing what monopolies (yes, they have an effective monopoly on CPU performance) do, squeeze every last cent they can from their customers.  A dick move, simply put.

 

3 hours ago, LawrenceBarnes2013 said:

I agree with most of what you said, thanks for clarifying the manufacturing part, but still i stand by what i said about diversity, and about the third part, i'm not so sure, yes i agree they're making more cheez than they should be, but it's just the way the industry works, and us complaining about it won't do shit 

This guy.  Even when you admit you don't know shit, you think you are right.  You are wrong.  Give the customer the product and leave them alone.  Last I checked, boosting the BCLK on a CPU does not do harm to anyone.  If a customer wants to push their locked CPU, let them;  void the warranty (hard to prove, but w/e).

 

Anyways, cat's out of the bag.  Firmware is available, and in a New York minute your i5 6400 can still run at 3.5GHz.  They might find a way to stop it on newer motherboards, but the ones out now are golden for cheapskates like me.

 

You still fail to understand(or acknowledge) that no matter the clockspeed you set a locked CPU at, you won't break it.  Time for someone to do the research... and this is coming from a dummy BTW (Me). 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, stconquest said:

You seem to miss the fact that it was not good business on Intel's behalf.  They could have gone to the board manufacturers before launch to assure that locked CPUs stay "locked".  They obviously did not.  Not a single motherboard manufacturer would say no to a request like that from Intel.

 

Intel fucked up to the benefit of the consumer.  Motherboard manufacturer's (SM, AsRock) understood this mistake and decided to grab some extra customers.

 

Now Intel is in damage control, when they did not have to be.  They would still make a killing with unlocked BCLKs on all CPUs.  They are doing what monopolies (yes, they have an effective monopoly on CPU performance) do, squeeze every last cent they can from their customers.  A dick move, simply put.

 

This guy.  Even when you admit you don't know shit, you think you are right.  You are wrong.  Give the customer the product and leave them alone.  Last I checked, boosting the BCLK on a CPU does not do harm to anyone.  If a customer wants to push their locked CPU, let them;  void the warranty (hard to prove, but w/e).

 

Anyways, cat's out of the bag.  Firmware is available, and in a New York minute your i5 6400 can still run at 3.5GHz.  They might find a way to stop it on newer motherboards, but the ones out now are golden for cheapskates like me.

 

You still fail to understand(or acknowledge) that no matter the clockspeed you set a locked CPU at, you won't break it.  Time for someone to do the research... and this is coming from a dummy BTW (Me). 

 

 

 

 

 

Intel never meant for LGA771 Xeons to be overclocked either, let alone on LGA775 motherboards which have (obviously) a different socket. 4.4GHz for just over a month and I had i5 4440 performance without damaging the CPU at all. The same goes for my Pentium III 1000EB, which I both run on a 150MHz FSB (1.125GHz, 1.75V) without causing any damage as well.

[stconquest]

7 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Intel never meant for LGA771 Xeons to be overclocked either, let alone on LGA775 motherboards which have (obviously) a different socket. 4.4GHz for just over a month and I had i5 4440 performance without damaging the CPU at all. The same goes for my Pentium III 1000EB, which I both run on a 150MHz FSB (1.125GHz, 1.75V) without causing any damage as well.

What they did is not unethical in a business sense.  That does not take away from the very clear indication of corporate greed and general lack of respect for their consumers.  I am not referring to the tiers of similar CPUs, but the fact that they fuck up and don't turn it into a positive image campaign:

 

"Look at us giving value to customers when we don't have to.", instead of:  "Oops, f u."

 

People that overclock religiously will still buy K-Series CPUs.  The budget guys will get a great locked CPU that can OC later on down the road, most of them will choose to upgrade in three years anyways.

 

[MageTank]

To those of you with Windows 10 pro, disable windows update through group policy editor. I have a bad feeling a microcode update will be pushed out to further force this bios update on the people that overclocked. If you stop windows update, and keep your current BIOS, then you will be 100% clear of this.

[-BirdiE-]

2 hours ago, stconquest said:

You seem to miss the fact that it was not good business on Intel's behalf.  They could have gone to the board manufacturers before launch to assure that locked CPUs stay "locked".  They obviously did not.  Not a single motherboard manufacturer would say no to a request like that from Intel.

You think it should have been required that Intel specifically state to the motherboard manufacturers "you are not to use our chipset to create workarounds for locks we put on our CPUs"? I think they expected that to be common sense... as would I.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

You think it should have been required that Intel specifically state to the motherboard manufacturers "you are not to use our chipset to create workarounds for locks we put on our CPUs"? I think they expected that to be common sense... as would I.

In short:  Yes.

 

I thought you understood business?  Giving consumers the ability to gain more CPU performance by spending $30 more for a Z-Series board makes money for the board manufacturers.

[-BirdiE-]

7 minutes ago, stconquest said:

In short:  Yes.

 

I thought you understood business?  Giving consumers the ability to gain more CPU performance by spending $30 more for a Z-Series board makes money for the board manufacturers.

Ok... This is about motherboard manufacturers creating H-Series boards capable of overclocking non-K Skylake CPUs. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Intel to have to explicitly say "please don't use our technology to create work-arounds for our locks"

 

Not sure how me thinking that implies I have trouble understanding business...

 

EDIT

Apparently they put it on their Z-series motherboards as well, but it's not specific to Z series.

[stconquest]

On 2/5/2016 at 8:18 PM, -BirdiE- said:

Ok... This is about motherboard manufacturers creating H-Series boards capable of overclocking non-K Skylake CPUs. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Intel to have to explicitly say "please don't use our technology to create work-arounds for our locks"

 

Not sure how me thinking that implies I have trouble understanding business...

You actually made me go look. 

 

No, it is about Z-Series boards and locked chips.  Z-series boards are made to handle pushing hardware limits.  H-Series boards are capable but, iirc, they were troublesome as far as OC'ing Skylake CPUs.

 

Z-Series boards are made to overclock on.  Let the people overclock damnit! 

 

BTW, the bios' are out in the world.  OC'ing on locked CPUs will probably continue without a hitch.

 

Ok, I am letting that last one slide as I would start to have a bit too much fun.

[-BirdiE-]

12 minutes ago, stconquest said:

You actually made me go look. 

 

No, it is about Z-Series boards and locked chips.  Z-series boards are made to handle pushing hardware limits.  H-Series boards are capable but, iirc, they were troublesome as far as OC'ing Skylake CPUs.

 

Z-Series boards are made to overclock on.  The the people overclock damnit! 

 

BTW, the bios' are out in the world.  OC'ing on locked CPUs will probably continue without a hitch.

 

Ok, I am letting that last one slide as I would start to have a bit too much fun.

It's actually about ALL chipsets. Not Z-series specifically.

 

Here's an LTT video about this feature on an H170 board.

 

 

 

[-BirdiE-]

And all the things I said before still stand. Intel should not have to announce to their motherboard partners they're not allowed to do something Intel OBVIOUSLY would not want them to do.

 

As for why they should be able to release locked chips, see my post from before.

[stconquest]

21 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

It's actually about ALL chipsets. Not Z-series specifically.

 

Here's an LTT video about this feature on an H170 board.

No, it is not about ALL chipsets.

 

That is one H-Series board that has been modified to allow overclocking.  ALL Z-Series boards are capable of overclocking, and are quite available to the general consumer.

 

Go find me that SM H170 mobo in a store.

18 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

And all the things I said before still stand. Intel should not have to announce to their motherboard partners they're not allowed to do something Intel OBVIOUSLY would not want them to do.

 

As for why they should be able to release locked chips, see my post from before.

 

What stands?  That business deals function under a pretense of assumption?  Just stop.  Intel should have instructed the board manufacturers before launch.  That is good business practice.  Intel was stupid, end of story. 

 

Anyways, I am not arguing this line anymore.  Businesses partners function with agreements, not assumptions.

[-BirdiE-]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Go find me THAT SM H170 mobo in a store.

It's not out yet, but that's hardly relevant.

 

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Intel should have instructed the board manufacturers before launch.  That is good business practice.  Intel was stupid, end of story. 

Businesses partners function on agreements, not assumptions.

If you think it is realistic for a company to think of every single unwelcomed thing the other company could do and put it in writing before signing an agreement, you are a very confused person.

 

They likely put in a general clause to change things like this if they don't like them, which is what they're exercising in this situation to stop this feature.

[stconquest]

4 minutes ago, -BirdiE- said:

It's not out yet, but that's hardly relevant.

 

If you think it is realistic for a company to think of every single unwelcomed thing the other company could do and put it in writing before signing an agreement, you are a very confused person.

 

They likely put in a general clause to change things like this if they don't like them, which is what they're exercising in this situation to stop this feature.

Thanks for the insult.  You are still wrong. 

[-BirdiE-]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Thanks for the insult.  You are still wrong. 

Seems like a valid argument.

[Lays]

Newest BIOS for the Z170 OC Formula I just bought still has it enabled.

 

When I boot up it says "Press X to enable Sky OC"

[LittleCarrot]

I just wouldn't update my bios.