News Will you be overclocking a P45 mobo? READ THIS!

[Bindibadgi]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/05...-intel-s-p45/1

We've got some important information you should read if you're thinking about buying a P45 motherboard and overclocking it.

[steveo_mcg]

Ouch. Intel seem to be relishing not having an real competition at the moment.

[Bindibadgi]

Originally Posted by steveo_mcg

Ouch. Intel seem to be relishing not having an real competition at the moment.

It's not that, it's just we've reached the limit of the front side bus.

[bowman]

'However word is on the net that Intel will lock overclocking out of every Nehalem CPU apart from the most expensive Bloomfield options, basically screwing over all us value-enthusiasts.'

Oh, please. Bloomfield is not all 'Extreme Edition', and of course it will be expensive at launch, everything is expensive at launch. Come 09, prices will be perfectly sane. Please don't buy into everything Fudzilla says.

[steveo_mcg]

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

It's not that, it's just we've reached the limit of the front side bus.

Would it be better if they swapped to a hypertransport (?) ala amd?

[impar]

Greetings!


Good old times of:

Chief-Engineer: Prime95 failed, sir!
Captain: Increase vcore!

Originally Posted by steveo_mcg

Would it be better if they swapped to a hypertransport (?) ala amd?

They will.
Google: Nehalem CSI

[chrisb2e9]

so just dont go for the most extreme overclock possible. get what you can, be happy with it, or buy a faster cpu.

[Flibblebot]

Nehalem CSI? Sounds like a Biblical version of CSI Miami...

Apart from the obvious geek factor, is there any real need to overclock processors these days? If you've already got four cores running at 2GHz, can you really notice the difference that a small amount of overclocking makes to everyday computing?

And besides, if Intel does lock overclocking in future processors, I've still got my graphite pencil handy

[mclean007]

Surely the additional options are just that - optional. It may help to get an even bigger overclock, but if you can get 3GHz out of a given Q6600 on, say, a P35 board, surely you could expect the same out of a P45 board using only the 'normal' BIOS adjustments?? Then the real hardcore OCers can be like pigs in clover with all the new options for hours of frustrating blind tweaking 'fun'.

[Denis_iii]

i think i need to get my hands on P35 board ASAP

[The Infamous Mr D]

Hmmm, if the rumours about Nehalem being unoverclockable (is that even a word?) are true, that will certainly upset many system builders and overclockers (myself included) when Nehalem makes its appearance.

Part of the mass appeal of Intel's Core 2 lineup is such that for enthusiasts and overclockers, the Core 2 offers low-price parts that can be overclocked to within the performance of high-end parts that cost many times more; all the while outstripping the performance equivalent to AMD budget offerings considerably. If Intel lock out overclocking on their Nehalem range bar the Extreme Editions (or whatever nomenclature they take up), we could see a very slow takeup of their new processor in the enthusiast marketwhile cheaper and more overclockable Core 2 parts are available.

[Bindibadgi]

Originally Posted by bowman

'However word is on the net that Intel will lock overclocking out of every Nehalem CPU apart from the most expensive Bloomfield options, basically screwing over all us value-enthusiasts.'

Oh, please. Bloomfield is not all 'Extreme Edition', and of course it will be expensive at launch, everything is expensive at launch. Come 09, prices will be perfectly sane. Please don't buy into everything Fudzilla says.

I've been saying this BEFORE Fudzilla - since I first saw the 2 SKU approach. I've been talking to others who have shared my feelings recently too.

[steveo_mcg]

Just reread the article, noticed you'd already mentioned the AMD solution, however a straight lock out of overclocking does smack of a company with out competition.

[WhiskeyAlpha]

From what I've been reading it's not necessarily a case of Intel "locking out" overclocking, more that it's simply to do with the way the nehalem architecture works and the fact that the mem controller is to be switched to "on die".

It would make very little sense for Intel to deliberatly stick two fingers up to it's enthusiast market (which lets face it only amounts to around 1-2% of their total revenue). The only thing they would really stand to gain by doing this on purpose is a bad reputation amongst enthusiasts and the "hardcore" overclocking community.

Simililarly, it would make little economic sense for them to re-engineer nehalem's architecture to "allow" for overclocking, as it's such a niche market to them.

The way I see it is simple:

Either nehalem will be a big enough leap over the current generation that overclocking becomes of little concern or, failing that, there's always the green team

Either way I think, as enthusiasts, we shouldn't get our knickers in a twist just yet.

[notatoad]

Originally Posted by Flibblebot

Apart from the obvious geek factor, is there any real need to overclock processors these days? If you've already got four cores running at 2GHz, can you really notice the difference that a small amount of overclocking makes to everyday computing?

it's not a small amount. e4300's go from 1.8 stock to 3.0 overclocked. q6600 go from 2.4 stock to 3.6 overclocked. that is 166% and 150% of stock speed, and makes a huge difference.

[Arkanrais]

hopefully, the overclocking lockout on nehalem will be like the copy protection rumor for ps3 where you could only use the game discs you bought on one machine and wouldn't be able to use them on another (ie. complete bulls*** that isn't going to happen as long as people have a voice).
still, is it necessary to know these new things or can you still use old overclocking techniques? either way, I hope bios coders make an option to overclock with these new techs and have an old school overclocking option along side.

[ocztony]

Guys


Let me explain more in depth what i stated at the MSI launch event.

FSB has limits, with quad cores the second set of cores usually does have issues scaling on high fsb, you can dial this back by adjusting GTL ref voltages in relation to the VTT voltage applied to the CPU. It is important you do this as it can open the tolerance window wider for the cores to scale...so CPU's that stopped at 380fsb may be able to scale over 400 etc.Also remember the NB also sits on the FSB and as such some adjustment of the GTL voltage may also be needed to keep the working frequency window open also...so you have CPU cores to worry about and the NB its self.

Memory speeds also suffer from clock misalignment at high frequencies, DQS skew can help re align these differences and allow data transfer to work properly at these higher memory and FSB speeds...remember there are 2 domains that the MCH controls/works with...the memory domain and the FSB. data has to move from one to the other.

This effects all Intel chipset boards, NOT just P45, everything from 975 onwards really is effected by all these tweaks as all are capable of running quad core cpu's and as such FSB issues are more apparent to them.

Let me give you an example of some issues i was seeing recently:

Customers were complaining they could not run the new 1150Flex II at 1150MHZ on the Asus Rampage Formula, upon testing I too saw issues getting the ram to clock any higher than 1030MHZ just like the customers. I then proceeded to play with the MCH Skew option in bios, advancing both channel A and B to 300ps, this allowed the ram to clock all the way to 1180MHZ and also as a byproduct the CPU fsb also was clocking higher.

So without the skew the ram was worthy of an RMA, BUT some fine adjustment had it working faster than rated speeds.

As you see to get the best from an Intel platform you have to tune the board correctly, fail to do so and you will think you have components that are either "just not good overclockers" or "working below rated specs"
As FSB rises it is really important you know how it works and apply the tweaks that help it rise so you get the best from all your components.

[Firehed]

Originally Posted by Richard

However word is on the net that Intel will lock overclocking out of every Nehalem CPU apart from the most expensive Bloomfield options, basically screwing over all us value-enthusiasts.

Intel could hardly care less about the enthusiasts trying to get a bit of extra performance out of their chip. The VAST majority of their equipment goes to OEMs like Apple and Dell, neither of whom do any overclocking. They don't care about a few hobbyists not paying top dollar when the big guys are doing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in business with them.

As the engineer (read: someone who is paid a lot to know this stuff inside and out) has stated, there's just so much complication that it's hardly worth the time.

[wuyanxu]

soon, your room will have a full £1000 oscilloscope, 2 signal generators, 2 power supplies (the expensive one, not the ones in everyone's computer), 20 breadboards and 4 multimeters just to overclock.

the speed these chips are running is already blindly fast, 500Mhz is no where near slow! even the average PIC or AVR are running fast enough at 8Mhz, computers are just getting way too complicated now. if only they can start from scratch, without all the backwards compatibility rubbish, then we can have simpler chips, and simpler chips means easier to hit higher speed, it's also cheaper to tweak/produce.

[HourBeforeDawn]

ya Intel hasnt been one to encourage overclocking in fact back in the day they use to go after people that OCed lol they have relaxed about the whole thing but locking people out from OCing so you have to buy a faster CPU is well just business and Intel isnt about the people its about the money so ya I can see it happening