Dirty move by Intel

[alexc026]

Recently Intel has stated that they will release a microcode update to disable overclocking on non k skylake CPUs. I really think this is extremely stupid because paying an extra $50-75 dollars for an unlocked CPU is stupid. Intel should make their processors cheaper and should have more unlocked CPUs. Don't say that you won't just update your bios because that is not how a microcode update works. The microcode can be updated via a bios update or Windows will automatically download and install the microcode update as long as the update is digitally signed by Intel. Another example of Intel being dirty. When the pentium g3258 was released you could overclock on h81, h97, b85, z87, z97, but then Intel realized that they could release a microcode update to force people to get a z87/97 motherboard so they could get more money. What happened was Windows update would automatically install the update and if it detected you were using a chipset other than z87/97 it would automatically blue screen and you would have to disable the overclock to allow you to be able to use your computer. These are really dirty moves especially because when skylake was released Intel was bragging about how you could change the baseclock.

Source: 

 

[shadowbyte]

we've been clockblocked

[SaulHeno]

I'll get the pitchforks

[byalexandr]

And this is why we need AMD, right there.

 

Proof's in the puddin'.

[Idefix]

I see your point, but Intel is a company, not a friend. The whole idea is to make money. By doing this, they thus can squeeze more money out of us. Economically (for intel) this is a good move. But yes, they could make the unlocked CPUs cheaper and have higher customer satisfaction

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

You have only been able to overclock k cpus sense the dawn of time I personal don't give a shit and wish Asrock  never did this. Like come on did anyone think Intel would let this happen. 

[evilarceus]

I'm pretty sure this news is a week old now.

[Whorax]

4 minutes ago, shadowbyte said:

we've been clockblocked

This made me lol.

[Mazeman03]

clock blocked

[Dash Lambda]

So they disabled an overclocking loophole on CPUs that are meant to not be overclockable... Yeah, I'm not seeing the "dirty move".

[SaulHeno]

Just now, ONOTech said:

I hate to play the Devil's advocate, but the CPUs were meant to be locked in the first place. You shouldn't be mad that it was patched up when it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

Regardless, they have locked their CPUs since Sandy Bridge. I fail to see how this is different. Yes, it sucks, but did we really not anticipate this?

You got a point,i mean why would they bother selling the unlocked chips if you can do the same with non-k chips?Clearly wasnt intentional.

[themctipers]

Remember mad overclocking on a Q6600?
Remember going 4.2ghz on a p4?

Remember overclocking a i5 750 to get the same preformance as the more expensive i5 760?
What ever happened to those days

[evilarceus]

Either way, the processors are not even meant for overclocking. It's not a "dirty move" if Intel is patching something that's not supposed to be happening.

[Guest]

I feel like this was unnecessary. There were a good amount of compromises by going locked skylake and using BCLK OC'ing. 

 

And if anything, it probably pushed a lot of hardware and made AMD even more irrelevant by appealing to the budget market.  

[alexc026]

9 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

So they disabled an overclocking loophole on CPUs that are meant to not be overclockable... Yeah, I'm not seeing the "dirty move".

I see your point but Intel just screwed over a bunch of consumers who thought that they could purchase a non k CPU to overclock.

Also the non k CPUs can be overclocked with baseclock on skylake chips but you can only overclock 3-5% more. With the bios update it allowed CPUs the feature to overclock much more. The non k chips are multiplier locked but that doesn't mean the chip is not overclockable it just means that you will be able to overclock it less.

[Dash Lambda]

Just now, alexc026 said:

I see your point but Intel just screwed over a bunch of consumers who thought that they could purchase a non k CPU to overclock.

Also the non k CPUs can be overclocked with baseclock on skylake chipsbut you can only overclock 3-5% more. With the bios update it allowed CPUs the feature to overclock much more. The non k chips are multiplier locked but that doesn't mean the chip is not overclockable it just means that you will be able to overclock it less.

Intel didn't screw them over, they fixed an error. The motherboard companies advertising overclockable non-k chips are the ones that screwed people over.

[MageTank]

My only problem with this entire situation, was that Intel came out and advertised the unstrapped clock gens as a feature. This was advertised before Skylake's release, it was hyped by Intel and several reviewers, and it is the sole reason this BCLK overclocking was allowed. Now that we started doing it to bypass the god awful 6600k/6700k prices (Seriously, $420 for a 6700k? No Thanks) it becomes a problem? Sorry, but it feels like they waited for us to buy into the hype, before pulling the rug out from under us. 

 

Oh well. I archived the non-K overclocking BIOS's and disabled windows update with GPE. My overclocking is here to stay.

[SImoHayha]

12 minutes ago, ONOTech said:

I hate to play the Devil's advocate, but the CPUs were meant to be locked. You shouldn't be mad that it was patched up when it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

They've locked their CPUs since Sandy Bridge (excluding BLCK OC'ing). I fail to see how this is different. Did we really not anticipate this? Like, c'mon now...

 

Now, if you're angry at Intel screwing over people who bought locked motherboards and CPUs, that's completely different, and I agree with you. But you're mad at Intel for the sake of locking a feature? Nah fam

My friend. K CPU's are no different from Non-K CPU's. The only difference is that the multiplier is unlocked nothing more and nothing less.  Just because it has " K " in it doesn't make it any different besides the multiplier is unlocked.

 

Why do you think people found ways of overclocking old AMD CPU's? So they could overclock a CPU without having to to purchase the " Black Edition " or " Unlocked edition " Basically all you need to Overclock a CPU is extra VCore, Cooling, Power Phases ( Mosfets ) coolers and that's really it.  

[alexc026]

5 minutes ago, evilarceus said:

Either way, the processors are not even meant for overclocking. It's not a "dirty move" if Intel is patching something that's not supposed to be happening.

Baseclock overclocking is a feature that exists on skylake CPUs which is on all CPUs so the CPUs were not specifically made for overclocking but that doesn't mean they can't overclock.

basically what Intel has done is an attempt to reduce baseclock overclock ability.

[alexc026]

4 minutes ago, MageTank said:

My only problem with this entire situation, was that Intel came out and advertised the unstrapped clock gens as a feature. This was advertised before Skylake's release, it was hyped by Intel and several reviewers, and it is the sole reason this BCLK overclocking was allowed. Now that we started doing it to bypass the god awful 6600k/6700k prices (Seriously, $420 for a 6700k? No Thanks) it becomes a problem? Sorry, but it feels like they waited for us to buy into the hype, before pulling the rug out from under us. 

 

Oh well. I archived the non-K overclocking BIOS's and disabled windows update with GPE. My overclocking is here to stay.

I totally agree with you.

[IanDrexP]

It could be the motherboard manufacturers who used this to their advantage to increase sales and Intel had nothing to do with it. Did you ever think that could be the case?

[alexc026]

Just now, IanDrexP said:

It could be the motherboard manufacturers who used this to their advantage to increase sales and Intel had nothing to do with it. Did you ever think that could be the case?

Maybe but the fact Intel is trying to end a feature they incorporated into skylake CPUs is stupid.

[DannyRyu]

" G3258 was released you could overclock on h87, h97, b85, z87, z97, but then Intel realized that they could release a microcode update to force people to get a z87/97 motherboard so they could get more money. "

Erm Intel doesn't make money off of mobos.

[IanDrexP]

Just now, alexc026 said:

Maybe but the fact Intel is trying to end a feature they incorporated into skylake CPUs is stupid.

I never heard them advertise Non-K overclocking as a "feature". I only heard from motherboard manufacturers that they found a way through the BIOS and etc that you can OC a Non-K CPU.

[stconquest]

If there was any real performance improvement (other than binning) from the K-Series i5/i7 (to the general consumer), they would not have scrambled to change things the way they did.  After introducing the pliable locked CPUs to the market they turn around and cripple their performance for an extra buck.  It, just like previous iterations of K-Series CPUs, is a dirty marketing tactic.

 

You consumers that attempt to justify the existence of the K-Series should really stop.