Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel Puts the Lock on Overclocking 327

Posted by michael from the stop-in-the-name-of-love dept.
Patrick Schmid writes "Intel included an overclocking-prevention mechanism into the 915/925 chipsets. So far, only Asus and Gigabyte know how to override it. You can start from the beginning or jump to where we discuss the overclocking lockout."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Puts the Lock on Overclocking More

Intel Puts the Lock on Overclocking

Comments Filter:

  • Market Share (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drsmack1 ( 698392 ) * on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:49PM (#9496320)
    Do these sorts of things hurt their business? I wonder how many would not buy into Intle knowing that there are these sorts of things built in? I imagine that the big corps don't care.

    • Re:Market Share (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:52PM (#9496362)
      Remember... all the big OEMs are pushing the high-end gaming systems to the "new breed of computer users". Just as there's a resurgence in IT spending, there's a new breed of home PC user that doesn't mind paying $3000+ for a high-end system. No, corporate America doesn't give a rip about overclocking cause they care about their warranties. But there's a growing group that does... and choices like this make them turn to AMD. AMD has better, cheaper 64bit support. And they still make overclocking easier. Intel is cutting off their nose to spite their face. Funny... you'd think Intel would learn from Microsoft's example instead of repeating the same mistakes...

      • Re:Market Share (Score:5, Informative)

        by ValourX ( 677178 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:36PM (#9496986) Homepage
        If anything, the overclocker group is *shrinking*, not growing. Back when there was a huge difference with OCing, it had a following. Nowadays it isn't nearly as popular or as common a practice not necessarily out of technological restriction so much as a lack of need for an insignificant gain in speed.

        -Jem

        • Re:Market Share (Score:5, Insightful)

          by angle_slam ( 623817 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:06PM (#9497367)
          I agree. Back when you could overclock a Celeron nearly 50% (from 400 MHz to about 600MHz), there was big benefits from OCing. Now, who really cares if you can get your 2.8 GHz processor to 3.2 GHz. This generation's games don't even push the 2.8 GHz processor that much anyway.

      • Support (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:48PM (#9497148)
        The problem with overclocking is support. That "new breed of computer users" are idiots. Now that overclocking can be done in the software on most computers, it's accessible to people who don't know better than to kick the speed up 2x. Remember people who would run the Add New Hardware Wizard in Windows 95 to add stuff they didn't have? These are the people Intel is afraid of (and rightly so).

        Yeah, they're not supported, and they don't get warranty support. But that's not gonna stop them from getting mad at Dell/Gateway/etc when they won't replace the CPU they fried (remember, these people are dumb). Their attitude is likely to be: "if it was going to break the computer, why'd you let me do it?".

        Also, Intel's interested in making installing a new processor as easy as possible, which means idiot proofing the things. If you can't overclock it, that's one less way to fry it. Again, fewer support calls, fewer stupidly angry customers.

        • Re:Support (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:09PM (#9497414) Homepage
          Now that overclocking can be done in the software on most computers, it's accessible to people who don't know better than to kick the speed up 2x ... These are the people Intel is afraid of (and rightly so).

          A nice theory, but if this were the case, there would be no reason for the stepping B chip to remove the ability to disable the 'feature'. The fact is, Intel would much prefer power users to buy a very-high-margin Xeon or Extreme Edition or whatever new multi-core CPUs they have coming up (all of which they currently avoid, because the hefty cache and other features make them very poor for overclocking). They decidedly do not want them taking the latest bargain-basement equivalent to the Celeron 300A and overclocking the shit out of it.

          At worst, a conspicuous bridge that needs to be soldered on the CPU like AMD used to do is more than obscure enough to keep out the people who don't know what the hell they're doing. It should not require trickery from motherboard manufacturers to work around actual electronics on the chip. The last thing I want is to have to my CPU and motherboard and other components engaged in electronic warfare with one another.

          I'm really really tired of people trying to protect the 'stupid people'. Let natural selection eat these morons (or at least their money). Please. For the good of the human race.

      • 1% is hardly "cutting off their nose" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:51PM (#9497190) Homepage Journal

        I'm quite certain that even a 1% estimate exagerrates the number of overclockers rather significantly. Sure they spend more money on their systems than regular users, but not on the CPU -- it's going to the latest bleeding edge 3D accelerators, the fastest CAS2 memory they can find, the fastest HDD's they can find, etc.

        If most overclockers were busy overclocking the fastest CPU's Intel sells, maybe it would make a difference, but most overclockers are trying to get that bleeding-edge performance without paying the bleeding-edge price. Intel loses nothing by stopping the practice.

        We're also getting well into the hardware performance ranges where overclocking by even 10% is a major accomplishment that requires very serious cooling. It's not like the PII/III days when you could get as much as a 50% boost over the rated speed (rare, but it did happen.)

        Even most overclocking fanatics I've known over the years don't bother overclocking their latest systems. It's not worth the risk of frying the CPU and destabilizing the system for less than a 10% performance boost when you can go with a dualie board of cheaper CPUs instead.

        • Re:1% is hardly "cutting off their nose" (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:33PM (#9498419) Journal
          I'm quite certain that even a 1% estimate exagerrates the number of overclockers rather significantly.

          But it's a very vocal 1% of users. The 1% that many others look to to discover what's "best". How many people bought athlon CPUs back in the day because it was very overclockable, because of the implied quality?

          Witness Tom's hardware and a million other sites, which have long been a big proponent of overclocking...

      • Truly, I think that's only half the equation. It's cheaper for Intel to produce one chip architecture and then lock it down at slower speeds than it is for them to provide multiple chip architectures for various speeds. That may be part of why they feel they have to lock down the chips--because otherwise someone who wanted a 3.0 GHz processor might only pay for a 2.6 GHz processor (the horror!) and overclock it.

      • Re:Market Share (Score:3, Informative)

        by aztektum ( 170569 )
        Try not to sound like Intel beat ur dog and poured sugar down your gas tank next time.

        This lockout is built into their new chipset, not the processor. Last I looked there were motherboards out there using non-Intel chipsets to run their processors.

    • Re:Market Share (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:55PM (#9496396) Homepage Journal
      No, these help their business. The percentage of people that overclock their machines is probably very small. However, the people that are willing to spend money upgrading their hardware are much more common. So Intel capitalizes on the fact that more people are willing to spend money on upgrades than to overclock.

      Very few people will "not buy into" Intel because there are mechanisms like this in place... because most people don't know that overclocking exists, and many of the people who do aren't going to overclock anyway. No loss for Intel.

      • Re:Market Share (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WormholeFiend ( 674934 )
        I understand your point, but if that is the case, why put any overclocking mechanism in the first place?

        If the people who don't care about it don't overclock and buy upgrades, is Intel trying to force the small minority of OCers to buy upgrades as well, instead of squeezing in extra speed/mileage from older chips?
        • It might be something like the NVidia deal from a while back: They had similar products that were priced differently, and with a firmware update you could get the more expensive product without buying it. A lot of hardware sites describe a chip by comparing its overclocked state to a higher-up product. For example, a 2.6GHz overclocked CPU that runs like a 3.0 - but you save $150.

        • Re:Market Share (Score:3, Informative)

          by Kiryat Malachi ( 177258 )
          They don't have to do any extra work to allow overclocking; it's a natural artifact of how the chipmaking process works. All chips, at the start, are capable of being top-speed. After manufacture, they're tested and sorted as to what their actual maximum stable speed is, individually. Because there's no actual die-level differences on these chips, external factors are what tell it how fast to run. You feed it clock and a multiplier number, and it tries to run at that speed, whether or not it actually ca

      • Re:Market Share (Score:5, Insightful)

        by amRadioHed ( 463061 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:31PM (#9496933)
        No, these help their business. The percentage of people that overclock their machines is probably very small. However, the people that are willing to spend money upgrading their hardware are much more common. So Intel capitalizes on the fact that more people are willing to spend money on upgrades than to overclock.
        I can't imagine this will do anything but hurt them. The people who were going to spend the money to get a faster intel chip before are still going to. The people who were going to buy an intel chip and overclock it are now just going to buy an AMD. How is this possibly going to get them any new sales?
        Very few people will "not buy into" Intel because there are mechanisms like this in place... because most people don't know that overclocking exists, and many of the people who do aren't going to overclock anyway. No loss for Intel.
        Sure, very few people will "not buy into" Intel because of this, but ZERO people will buy Intel just because of this. few > ZERO, thus it's a net loss for Intel.

    • Re:Market Share (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 )
      "I wonder how many would not buy into Intle knowing that there are these sorts of things built in?"

      I find it unlikely Dell customers are buying machines thinking about overclocking.

  • So now I can't burn out my processor? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trigun ( 685027 ) <evil@evil e m p i r e . a t h .cx> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:49PM (#9496321)
    Sounds fair. Now if only Intel would agree to not abuse this by artificially locking processors to manipulate market prices.

    I can hope.

  • Anything to make a buck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:49PM (#9496325)
    Sure... wouldn't want to be able to overclock easily... gotta make us upgrade to the next, best, faster CPU. Maybe if AMD stops gaining market share from Intel, Intel will lighten up on those of us that want to overclock.

    • Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:58PM (#9496457) Homepage Journal
      Why Intel bothered to lock these chips from overclocking doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe they want to ensure that users are getting what they pay for, and not more, but if it can be unlocked easily enough, I don't see why Intel would bother. It doesn't seem like best practice is being utilized in this kind of prohibitive design mechanism.

      • Re:Agreed (Score:5, Informative)

        by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:07PM (#9496602) Journal
        Several years ago some white box OEMs were selling overclocked systems as though they contianed the rated chip. I don't know how common it was, but that was the offical reason that Intel clamped down hard on the practice. When it was just geeks in their houses saving a few bucks it was a minor loss (probably good advertising--Intel generally has the better manufacturing process and most overclocking headroom), once frad was diluting their brand and really reducing revenue they stepped in and put a stop to the practice.

    • Re:Anything to make a buck... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:59PM (#9496464)
      Would overclocking really hurt Intel's sales of high-end chips much? The kind of person who is going to overclock their processor is doing it because they can't afford the faster processor, or just because they can and want to be l337. Either way, that's not a lost sale.

      The only reason I can see for preventing overclocking is to stop resellers selling systems with overclocked chips in to cut costs. You could prevent that by having the BIOS display a big warning message saying "This system is overclocked and may be unstable - phone Intel now" to alert normal users.
      • But if it's too easy then increasing numbers of people will become attracted to the idea of saving a couple of hundred dollars...

      • Re:Anything to make a buck... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonimo Covarde ( 669695 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:21PM (#9496785)
        Intel is also looking to cut down on RMAs. There are a suprising number of asshats that overclock components then attempt to RMA components that fail. Read any overclocking forum or bbs and you find a fair amount of people that have no problem trying to defraud vendors when they burn their chip out from overclocking/overvolting.
      • Ah, but it's also not unheard of for Intel to *underclock* a chip for sale.

        Let's say that Intel is currently selling a lot of P4-3.5Ghz CPU. In a month or two they develop a P4-4.0Ghz CPU. There's still a demand for the 3.5 at a lower price, but it's a pain to have production for both chips. So what do they do? Sell the 4.0 as a 3.5, and stick underclock protection on it.

        Yes, indeed, because after a point it is actually cheaper for them to release the higher-speed CPU in greater volume. However, seeing

    • Or maybe when AMD continue to gain market share, Intel will stop treating overclockers (many of whom are buying the top-of-the-range CPUs, and pushing them further than Intel do) like thieves ...

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • so there's a 'lock'.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:49PM (#9496329) Homepage Journal
    ..and 'only' some manufacturers ALREADY know how to get around it.

    newsflash, some manufactures have not ever supported overclocking of any sort..

    so there's a lock, but there isn't? that's the point of this? it's not like you could blindly choose what motherboard to get before if you were going to overclock it since some of them didn't really support it at..

  • AMD fanboys everywhere (Score:3, Funny)

    by gooberguy ( 453295 ) <gooberguy@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:49PM (#9496333)
    Rejoice!

  • News Flash (Score:5, Funny)

    by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:50PM (#9496337) Journal
    Company restricts product in an artificial way, and other people find ways around it.

    In other news, people breathe.

  • Over Clocking is over Rated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain BooBoo ( 614996 ) <dellcomputers@hotm a i l .com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:50PM (#9496344)
    I have been over clocking since the 486 SX and I can say its all just a fun game. You will NEVER have the stability and it just does not make sense to do any more. If you can't aford to buy a chip fast enough to do whatever job you need it to do then you need to rethink what you're doing. Granted it was "fun" and "neat" to put one over on the chip makers but in the end its all just meh.

    • Re:Over Clocking is over Rated (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swv3752 ( 187722 ) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [2573vws]> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:55PM (#9496410) Homepage Journal
      Especially now when the real world performance gain is just not there. When overclocking a 300mhz chip to 500mhz gave significant performance boost. Now that we have Ghz+ chips and squeezing another 100mhz gives a few percentage point points more performance. So now it will take 1 second less time to encode an mp3 or mpeg? I know have to take superhuman steps to cool the processor. I'll stick with stock speeds and have a quieter PC to boot thanks.
    • Thats just flat out wrong. My friend purchased one of the athlon XP-2500 mobiles for ~$90 a couple months ago (stock at 1.83 ghz), and managed to overclock it to 2.6ghz with the same stability as the processor is stock, and nearly 800mhz is nothing to scoff at - it managed to be the small advantage he needed to run UT2K4 in 1600x1200 smoothly, and improved multitasking slightly. If its just for home use, then overclocking is a fun crapshoot - sometimes its a bust, but often you can gain a significant improvement out of your processor. Of course nobody would overclock any system that requires total stability and 24/7 uptime, but for your typical home PC a little experimenting couldn't hurt as long as you know what you are doing.
      • Yes, I also have the 2500+ and it's amazing that it can go that high - if you get the mobile version, and you got a good one. I don't have the mobile, so I haven't tried to mess with it, but even at 1.83, it runs very cool for me - and having a quiet pc is more important than fast for me these days.
    • I don't agree with that at all. I have an AMD Athlon XP 2500+ running at well over what's considered 3200+, and no voltage core increase. A few good fans, and my temperature is about 107F right now.

      Oh, and my uptime IN WINDOWS is about a month.

      Less stable my ass. You're just not doing it right.
    • You will NEVER have the stability and it just does not make sense to do any more.

      Actually, it's very easy to buy an inexpensive chip that can be overclocked easily. Just get a Celeron. I bought a 1.2Ghz Celeron processor, and I've overclocked it to 1.55Ghz (129Mhz FSB) with no problems at all. I didn't need extra cooling or other special hardware, and the machine is very stable, even though the PC133 RAM is running at 167Mhz (my bios is stupid and adds more than 33Mhz to the RAM speed). I've never had a

  • WHOA. Wait just a fortnight here. (Score:5, Funny)

    by piecewise ( 169377 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:51PM (#9496350) Journal
    Sorry, Intel, but you're keeping us from overclocking chips when you yourself have created some of the most inefficient (in terms of optimal performance and energy/heat useage) microprocessor of anyone this decade?

    They've been hanging out with Microsoft too long.

    That's like a car manufacturer saying, "We've installed a mechanism which will keep you from opening the hood if your intention is to upgrade the engine, because we want you leasing and buying new expensive cars very soon."

    Uhhh, f*ck off.

  • I tried and tried... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:52PM (#9496360) Homepage
    but can find no practical reason for this that makes sense to me. The people who overclock know that they can burn up their chip, and the people who do not overclock don't have to worry about it. I guess maybe a small percentage of people might go poking around in CMOS setup and change the clock speed, but is that number large enough to alienate gamers and hackers who want control over their own boxes? I think not.

    *grabs ankles* Thanks again, Intel. Gimme on-board DRM and I will be a happy camper.
    • It's probably to prevent re-marking gray-market CPUs as faster chips, which burn out, get returned, and cause problems for the reseller and for Intel. Not every move by a corporate is evil, ya know. It would be more difficult than it's worth to make an OC-friendly chip that is un-remark-able. This is a sizeable problem for AMD, but the laser-trim bridges are a decent solution, to which they probably have a patent so Intel has to come up with something else now.

    • Re:I tried and tried... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      but can find no practical reason for this that makes sense to me. The people who overclock know that they can burn up their chip, and the people who do not overclock don't have to worry about it. I guess maybe a small percentage of people might go poking around in CMOS setup and change the clock speed, but is that number large enough to alienate gamers and hackers who want control over their own boxes? I think not.

      It's not to limit individual customers who bought the chips fair and square. It's to crack

      • Re:I tried and tried... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:35PM (#9496977) Homepage
        It's to crack down on "grey market" resellers

        I realize that, but is this the best way to go about it? IMHO, this only irritates users, who then run crying to AMD. There should be a better way, like revoking whatever reseller license Intel gives to these people (if they even give such a license, I don't know), or displaying something on the display at post "cpu overclocked!!!" or something. That way the bad-guy resellers won't last for very long, as they are now exposed for ripping people off.

        It still makes absolutely no sense to me that Intel would punish end-users for the actions of a shady reseller.
    • The people who overclock know that they can burn up their chip

      Maybe Intel is just tired of accomodating people who burn their chip up trying to overclock it, then think to themselves, "Hey, I can just blame this on a faulty heatsink." God forbid they actually admit that they blew a hundred bucks on a chip and proceded to burn it to a crisp for a piddly 5% performance boost.

      If you burn up your chip and then lie to Intel in order to get a replacement, you're a loser, you're ripping Intel off, and you're

  • How Long? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BlindSpy ( 772849 )
    How long before every semi-hacker knows how to unlock their intel chip to over clock it. When has locking anything kept anyone out?

  • as if... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by colinleroy ( 592025 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:54PM (#9496389) Homepage
    ...as if it was still useful at speeds above 3GHz.

    • Re:as if... (Score:3, Funny)

      by halivar ( 535827 )
      ...as if it was still useful at speeds above 3GHz.

      Amen, brother. And let's not forget the whole RAM debacle. Some of those silly nay-sayers are still carping on about needing more than 640K of memory.

      People just need to learn to run ONE application at a time, like any other normal, rational human being! Sheesh, the GUI business has ruined you kids.

  • The new processor (Score:5, Informative)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:55PM (#9496397) Journal
    I was not very impressed with the ratings of the new processor. While it has a little bit of improvement - you really need to get a completely revamped system (mother board, memory at the minimum - but you want a video card to be able to utilize the new speed). I believe even SATA hard drives had some problems.
    Not to mention that the fastest P4 runs at 35 degrees centigrade, while this processor runs at 70 degrees. That is a major problem, imho, for a marginal increase.
    Overall, this is not impressive technology. They rushed the material out. I referenced my information from Toms Hardware.

  • I'm surprised it took this long... (Score:3, Informative)

    by big_groo ( 237634 ) <groovis AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:55PM (#9496398) Homepage
    Remember when they locked the multiplier on their CPUs? The only reason they did this was to sell 'faster' chips. Celeron 300A anyone?
    • Celeron 300A anyone?

      Heh! My website still runs on a dual Celeron 300A box. A few months ago I finally had to clock it back down to 300, because the fans are starting to gunk up and can't cool it properly at 450 anymore.

      I expect those things to keep chugging along for another five years, at least...

    • This isn't talking about multiplier lock - with very few exceptions, almost ALL of the pentium 4 line were multiplier locked - Intel never stopped doing that once they started. The only new processors which are completely unlocked are the Athlon 64 FXs, although the regular 64s have all their lower multipliers unlocked (so you can still reach higher FSB even after the raw mhz limit has been reached)>
  • well now i don't even have to think about "intel or amd ?". If Intel want to prevent me overclocking a chip i paid for i will prevent giving them money.

    It's not like anyone blaims Intel when someone kills an Intel processor by over-clocking it. I don't see any reason behind the prevention of over-clocking other than to try and make people have to upgrade more often or maybe because they want to lose marketshare.

  • Argh... english! (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Quixote ( 154172 )
    From the article:
    If the CPU clock exceeds the threshold ... , the required PLL (Phase Lock Loop) will reset and won't refuse to lock that frequency.

    What is it? Will it lock the frequency? Will it not refuse to lock the frequency? Will it? Won't it???

    • I don't see nothing wrong with that statement.
      • it's a double negative.

        If something "won't refuse" to do something, then it will do it. The sentence should either be "the required PLL (Phase Lock Loop) will reset and refuse to lock that frequency." or it should be "the required PLL (Phase Lock Loop) will reset and won't lock that frequency." but the way they wrote it means "the required PLL (Phase Lock Loop) will reset and will lock that frequency."

    • Try this:

      ... the required PLL will reset and won't not refuse to reverse-unlock that frequency

      Clearer?

    • Re:Argh... english! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:10PM (#9496636) Homepage Journal
      In that case we'd just have to randomly fluctuate the field harmonics while flooding the deck with theta radiation and subjecting the processor to a stream of chroniton particles in reverse polarity. That's so simple an ensign could do it!

      [/Star Trek Solution]

    • From the article, the intention is for the PLL to reset, but not complain about the changed frequency. For someone writing an overclocking utility, they would want to know whether the change had been accepted or not. By creating this uncertainty, they make it harder to write such an application.

      Of course, Intel haven't made it impossible. There is bound to be some workaround to get the current configuration settings back out.

  • LOCKOUT? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I DONT SEE WY WINTEL CARES IF I OVERCLOACK MY COMPUTAR! ITS MY WARRANTY I AM FEEDING TO TEH THERMAL DIETY!

    ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ff ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

  • It's official; Netcraft confirms; Intel is dying (Score:3, Insightful)

    by W2k ( 540424 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:56PM (#9496423) Journal
    Multiplier locks on new chipsets - in effect, new CPU's? AMD's Athlon FX is completely unlocked. How is Intel going to compete by continuing to offer an inferior product?

  • this makes sense... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:57PM (#9496429)
    because people overclock their systems and then try to claim warranty repair. sometimes, the overclocking is done by a middleman who re-labels chips. when the chip melts, the ball falls somewhere between intel and the innocent but bilked customer. this helps cut down on that.
    • > sometimes, the overclocking is done by a middleman who re-labels chips

      I've heard Intel make this claim for years, but never heard of any actual cases of it taking place...
      does this actually happen? Neither google nor snopes can settle whether this is real or myth.
    • sometimes, the overclocking is done by a middleman who re-labels chips

      That was foiled years ago by multiplier locking. Frequency locking (which is the issue now) does not affect relabeling (because it doesn't happen anyway).

  • First Dual-Core Hotplates, then locking? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordKazan ( 558383 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @12:58PM (#9496460) Homepage Journal
    First It comes out that Intel's making Dual Core Prescotts what would do better as hotplates than processors, and now they're announcing that they're preventing you from overclocking?

    Will someone PLEASE remind me of Why I would ever pay $499 for a Pentium 4 3.4Ghz Prescot, or $990 for an 800Mhz 2MB Extreme? I can hop over to AMD and get a better processor for less, and to boot I can overclock it if I want!

    Intel = Morons
  • Intel included an overclocking-prevention mechanism into their new chipsets... only Asus and Gigabyte know how to override it.

    There you go! As long as Intel doesn't make an "unoverridable" chipset we'll have crazy geekz trying to figure out how to get around it and making a webpage [tomshardware.com] about it.

  • What about underclocking? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:01PM (#9496494)
    Follow along here. I have a "2600" Athlon, which is really a 2.083 GHz chip, which supposedly takes a 166 MHz FSB. I have lowered the multiplier on the chip, but raised the FSB to 200, since I havd DDR400 memory. No stability issues whatsoever, and various benchmarks report about a 1/5 improvement in memory bandwidth, etc.
    I have no real desire to rev the chip higher than spec, in fact, its so damn hot now, I'm thinking about dropping the overall GHz. But its useful to be able to twiddle the multipliers to suit your needs. Thank you AMD, fsck you Intel.
    • You have to exceed a certain threshold,underclocking will be fine.

      I still don't like having Intel telling me what's best for me no matter how I choose to clock my CPU.

    • Re:What about underclocking? (Score:5, Informative)

      by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @06:37PM (#9500641) Journal
      in fact, its so damn hot now, I'm thinking about dropping the overall GHz.

      Your heat problems are almost certainly related to the S2K bus disconnect problem. Either run fvcool (if your chipset is supported) or buy a newer AMD-certified motherboard that says it comes with S2K bus disconnect enabled.

      You will see a massive decrease in heat, and a more than 50% drop in electricity consumed by your CPU. Read my most recent journal entry for more information. In addition, you should probably invest a few dollars in thermal paste, a decent heatsink and 80mm fan. My 2GHz AMD processor doesn't even reach 130 F degrees, despite 90 F degree ambient tempuratures, a demand for silent fans, and a motherboard that isn't supported with FVCOOL.

  • Only terrorists overclock (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:02PM (#9496522)
    I think the link between overclockers and Al-Queda is quite clear. There has been multiple contacts detailed and documented between the two but unfortunately for security reasons I cannot disclose them. So you'll just have to trust me on this one... if you overclock, we will invade you Mr. Terrorist Osama.

  • I don't think this is a move against hobbyists ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Belisarivs ( 526071 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:03PM (#9496532)
    But rather against merchants that overclock and then sell machines as the next-highest processor. I remember back when Intel first started doing this the company said it wasn't targeting the actions of the end user but rather shady mercahnts.

  • underclocking? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MenTaLguY ( 5483 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:03PM (#9496541) Homepage
    Dumb question, but does this also affect _under_clocking?
    • Not really that dumb of a question. Just that the market for underclocking is so small, it's just not a very important question. Especially when you can go out and buy a C3 or a Pentium-M or other low power chip. But in any event, yes, I'm quite sure this affects underclocking as well. However, since Asus and Gigabyte appearantly have workarounds, who cares?

  • So? (Score:3, Informative)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 ) <arch_angel16 AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:04PM (#9496558) Homepage
    With such a fragile socket and obscene thermal properties, who here is going to overclock a prescott P4 to begin with? 115W rated thermal dissipation on the 560 (3.6GHz) model. 115W!
  • I run SMP machines at home exclusively. First it was Celerons and then P4s that cannot be run in pairs. If you want Intel x86 SMP these days you'll buy a Xeon processor.

    I really don't get this - seems to me that some of the hardcore overclockers would let the magic smoke out of the processor by tweaking Vcc to get that extra 10Hz of clock speed - and Intel would sell more processors by unlocking them.

    Go figure. I guess I've just built my last Intel machine.

  • Why do people overclock their PCs? The money you have to spend for extra cooling could also be spent for a faster CPU. And the manufactuerer does not specify a chip for a certain clock-speed without a reason.

    Sometimes I take the other way und underclock my Athlon TB1333. With less speed you can also decrease the core voltage and save some energy. If you combine this with a tool like (L)Vcool, you get a really cool & quiet computer, even with the boil an egg on it Athlon.

    But thats just my opinion.

  • It's all about Phase 3 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by midifarm ( 666278 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:12PM (#9496672) Homepage
    Those that think AMD won't soon follow suit are sadly mistaken. Why make $30 for a $120 processor that can be overclocked when you can make $90 on a $250 chip? You'll find that both Intel and AMD will start limiting what a consumer can "legally" do to their chips. Limits will be placed upon use and warranty. Don't be surprised if legislation will be made on the premise that you are licensing the fair and proper use of Intel and AMD products, not actually purchasing them.

    With the advent of high end gaming, people are willing to spend more on a system. But these parts will rise in price accordingly. Building your own will no longer be a viable method of computer purchasing. Dell, HP and others will make sure of that.

    With the help of the big two prices will go up, because of the need to make profits. You can't make a whole lot when you're charging $500 per box, but at $3K there's room.

    Peace

  • I can't believe they would do something like this. As far as I've seen AMD has been stealing market share faster and faster every day and by doing this they're only encouranging every gamer who still has intel to purchase an AMD system. Everyone knows that the gaming industry is driving computer hardware and software to new levels; For intel to be cutting it's ties with the gaming industry is like shooting yourself in the foot.

    This has nothing to do with warrenty issues, and everything to do with Intel

  • But marginally is it better? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:15PM (#9496715) Homepage Journal
    When you have a 400Mhz CPU and you goose it to 600Mhz you have a 50% improvement. To get a 50% improvement out of 3Ghz CPU you have to juice it to 4.5Ghz. And let's face it anything less than a 25% improvement, or in this example a 750Mhz improvment - the actual perceived improvement is practically ZERO. So it seems to be fairly useless in the big scheme of things.

    Why not build a machine instead that can boot in 2 seconds or has a 100% disk I/O performance improvement?

    Oh wait I forgot - having 0.0054% better FPS playing some 1337 shooter game is da Shit. All hail me and my enormous ferrite testicles.

  • How does it work? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maxwell demon ( 590494 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:24PM (#9496819) Journal
    Yes, I've RTFA, but to me the image looks as if it were comparing with the PCIEX clock, but the text explicitly states that PCIEX isn't doing the trick. Maybe it's just because I don't know what BSEL[2:0] means, but I don't understand the mechanism.

    Especially: Since the only reference for a clock can be another clock, shouldn't it always be possible to simply increase all clocks available to the processor (assuming the rest of the hardware doesn't make problems)?

  • It makes very good sense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PJamFan241 ( 455022 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:31PM (#9496930)
    Preventing overclocking makes very good sense for Intel.

    This move is NOT designed to prevent end-users from overclocking; that is an unfortunate side effect.

    The real reason is because often, shady resellers will be Intel chips, overclock and sell them as faster than they really are. When the chips fail (which, if overclocking is widespread, they inevitbly will in some cases), it looks to the end user like Intel makes crappy chips; obviously this is bad for business.

    Now accusations of intentionally marking chips down from what their capable of may or may not be true. In some cases that's justified; better safe than sorry for Intel: they'd rather have chips that aren't performing as fast as they possibly could then chips failing because they weren't capable of the level they were marked at.

    Then again sometimes this is a sketchy practice.

  • The article in a nutshell (Score:5, Informative)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 ) <arch_angel16 AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:32PM (#9496940) Homepage
    Within the 915/925 chipset is a function that halts the function of the cpu should the cpu-chipset bus speed deviate outside of the acceptable tolerance (5%) of the rated bus speed. This affects both overclocking and underclocking the bus. The "fix" mainboard makers are considering is not much more than a small hack that allows for another 10-15% deviation from the nominal bus speed.

    Analysis: this is nothing new. Intel retail mainboards have *never* allowed overclocking, and their processors have been multiplier-locked since 1998.bottom line: the lock is there for stability concerns. If you want to overclock a socket-T processor, use a mainboard with a different chipset.I'm sure Ali, SiS, VIA, and Ati would love your business.

  • Numerical Superstitions (Score:3, Funny)

    by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybad@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @01:34PM (#9496958)

    It's amusing that Intel is afraid of using the number 666 (evidenced by the Pentium 3 667, and now the DDR667 memory). Not that I blame them, the fundies would probably call for a boycott of their products if they labeled them correctly in this circumstance.

  • Forget overclocking, I want to underclock (Score:5, Informative)

    by MalikChen ( 736716 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:00PM (#9497285)
    I really don't care if they stop me from overclocking because I don't do it. I don't do intensive CPU tasks, so I have no need for it.

    But, what I do is UNDERclock my CPU so that it runs cooler, thus needing fewer/quieter fans. I don't need all 2.4ghz, so I send the FSB and voltage down a bit. And then, instead of hitting 45 celsius when idle and fans blazing, I get around 40 degrees, and can't hear the fan at all. If I need to do something intensive, I just reboot, change to default and flip the switch that turns the fan on "high" mode.

    If they are locking the FSB, voltages, multipliers, and everything else, this doesn't just prohibit overclocking, it stops tweaking at all. Which, in some form or another, is a fundamental need for most of the /. community.
    • But, what I do is UNDERclock my CPU so that it runs cooler, thus needing fewer/quieter fans. I don't need all 2.4ghz, so I send the FSB and voltage down a bit. And then, instead of hitting 45 celsius when idle and fans blazing, I get around 40 degrees, and can't hear the fan at all. If I need to do something intensive, I just reboot, change to default and flip the switch that turns the fan on "high" mode.

      Or, you could just get an Athlon 64 CPU and use Cool and Quiet. My 3000+ idles around 36C and runs at

  • Nigel Tufnel's amplifier (Score:3, Funny)

    by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @02:17PM (#9497502) Journal

    When someone mentions CPU overclocking it brings to mind Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap taking about his why his guitar amplifier volume knob goes from 0 to 11. "If it is set to 10, there is nowhere left to go, is there? 11 is for that extra push, over the cliff..."

  • If this is true... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @03:08PM (#9498125) Homepage
    And I doubt if it's true, AMD stock holders are smiling!

  • Its their chip (Score:3, Informative)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday June 22, 2004 @08:24PM (#9501638) Homepage Journal
    They can put in what ever they want..

    Might piss off a small part of their customers, but in the long run, the average consumer will just buy the faster model outright.

    Us in the 'minority' don't count. Never have, never will. Its just how the world works.

Slashdot Top Deals

Happiness is twin floppies.

Close