Intel Removes "Free" Overclocking From Standard Haswell CPUs 339
crookedvulture writes "With its Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge processors, Intel allowed standard Core i5 and i7 CPUs to be overclocked by up to 400MHz using Turbo multipliers. Reaching for higher speeds required pricier K-series chips, but everyone got access to a little "free" clock headroom. Haswell isn't quite so accommodating. Intel has disabled limited multiplier control for non-K CPUs, effectively limiting overclocking to the Core i7-4770K and i5-4670K. Those chips cost $20-30 more than their standard counterparts, and surprisingly, they're missing a few features. The K-series parts lack the support for transactional memory extensions and VT-d device virtualization included with standard Haswell CPUs. PC enthusiasts now have to choose between overclocking and support for certain features even when purchasing premium Intel processors. AMD also has overclocking-friendly K-series parts, but it offers more models at lower prices, and it doesn't remove features available on standard CPUs."
Does MHz matter anymore? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there anyone besides a small group of people who benefit from higher clock rates? Most people I know would pick battery life over performance on mobile devices. Desktops have been "powerful enough" for at least the past 5 years. Is it just about bragging rights at this point?
Can't say I'm surprised (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that AMD is no longer a threat to them, they can go back to their old tricks again.
Re:That is dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I would, for one. Unless you're using Xen or HyperV, VT-d doesn't really benefit you.
Re:Is it necessary these days? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it necessary these days? (Score:4, Interesting)
Pick a decade and stick to it, rather than picking and choosing facts. People dont burn out their CPU's anymore when overclocking, and thats been true for an entire fucking decade now. Seems to me that you never overclocked anything, ever, and are using lots and lots of excuses now to rationalize your irrational fear of it ("idle task"
Re:Sales Pitch (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 8 Client Hyper-V REQUIRES VT-d. Otherwise there is no first-party VM solution for Windows 8 and you're have to install VirtualBox or WMware. Windows 8 doesn't default to installing into Hyper-V when the requirements are met as the parent suggests. Hyper-V is a feature that needs to be installed on all machines. Once installed then Windows 8 boots the hypervisor first then boots Win8 from the drive as a highly privileged VM. Performance for most things is near where it would be if the OS was on bare metal(thanks to the required VT-d instructions). "Host"(i.e. that highly privileged VM you boot to) 3D game performance does take a noticeable hit however even with no other VMs running so I leave the Client Hyper-V turned off most of the time. I'm guessing that Intel knows this and figures that overclockers won't give a shit about running type-1 hypervisors on their gaming desktops. Still a dick move though. Microsoft should get pissed at them but I doubt that would matter anymore or at least not as much as it used to.
I keep seeing this mentioned without any backing (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me make this very clear: back in the days of the Athlon versus the Pentium IV, Intel had the disadvantage because the damn thing was designed primarily for SSE2, and they had a decode imbalance in the design. The Athlon had 3 x87 FPU pipes which made it superior despite the P4's faster clock...but once developers targeted SSE2, the Pentium IV matched the Athlon in FPU, and outclassed it on ALU operations (since both chips had dual 64-bit SSE2 units).
With the introduction of the Core 2, Intel switched to a 4-wide decode and DUAL 128-bit SSE2 units, allowing 2 instruction / cycle throughput, TOASTING the Athlon 64 in all matters of performance. Almost two years later AMD countered with Barcelona, which also had dual 128-bit SSE2 units, but was castrated by their 3-wide decoder. It was a match for Core 2 at the same clocks, but they couldn't match the clocks Intel had.
With the new Core series of chips, and the reintroduction of Hyperthreading, Intel wiped the floor with AMD in anything multithreaded, and they steadily increased single-threaded performance with each new iteration. Dual AVX 256-bit units in Sandy Bridge also potentially DOUBLED Intel's FP throughput. At the same time, AMD moved away from FP performance with Bulldozer, which shared dual 128-bit AVX execution units between two cores. Even with twice the cores AMD still lagged behind in peak FPU throughput, because the shared decode units meant roughly two-wide decode when all cores were heavily-loaded.
So today AMD is not the destination for high FPU throughput, and they really have not been for a decade. I really cannot understand your claims to the contrary.
Re:Does MHz matter anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen lots of weird bugs vanish when even "factory overclocked" parts are put back at stock settings.
If I were you I'd post no bug reports if you oc anything policy.
And I'd go through you bug reports and lable anything from an oc'r as "bug possible oc failure, will not investigate, closed".
It's like someone who hot-rods his car screaming at shell about their gas because their car only gets 10mpg.
Mycroft