1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Intel closes base clock loophole in latest microcode update

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 10 Feb 2016.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    11,032
    Likes Received:
    1,061
  2. David

    David RIP Tel

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,663
    Likes Received:
    1,848
    What a shocker!

    I bet nobody saw that coming. :lol:

    If AMD were even remotely in the running, Intel would be happy to let this slide.
     
  3. Vault-Tec

    Vault-Tec Green Plastic Watering Can

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2015
    Posts:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    456
    Only AMD are in the running because without overclocking the I3 6100 is quite slow when threading compared to the FX 6300 which overclocks to gain back some of the massive IPC difference and when threading still beats the overclocked I3 6100.

    When overclocked the I3 came close but still doesn't outright beat the FX 6300 and costs more. At stock speed? I think I will go back to recommending the FX 6300 with a £45 MATX board that does overclock some.

    If Intel wanted AMD gone completely? yeah, unlock an I3 job done game over. Without it though? it's either a lame 2 core Haswell that's practically useless in any of the more recent threaded games or straight to a fortune for the unlocked I5.

    I bought one of those Pentium Anniversary things and all it did in gaming was stutter like a dog. Most notably in GTAV, it was completely useless.
     
  4. Corky42

    Corky42 What did walle eat for breakfast?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,633
    Likes Received:
    212
    I know it's possible to mod BIOS firmware and swap out the option ROM's so wouldn't it be possible to replace the new microcode with one from an older BIOS, granted you'd lose out on the fixes from the newer microcode so you'd have to check and see what else the new microcode fixes, that is if you can find any details about what the newer code fixes.
     
  5. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    If it was designed to do it, it isn't overclocking.
     
  6. jinq-sea

    jinq-sea The Double Insulates Super Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,037
    Likes Received:
    353
    Pardon?
     
  7. MrGumby

    MrGumby CPC 464 User

    Joined:
    27 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,420
    Likes Received:
    29
    I guess he is refering to overclocking of old. Such as the pencil mod.
     
  8. jinq-sea

    jinq-sea The Double Insulates Super Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,037
    Likes Received:
    353
    Aha - I think you're right.
     
  9. xrain

    xrain Member

    Joined:
    26 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    403
    Likes Received:
    21
    Well I think he is more referring to that overclocking is increasing the clock of a CPU past its recommended design point. So if you have a cpu that is designed to overclock, you technically aren't overclocking anymore since the cpu is designed to run at a range of clock speeds.
     
  10. jinq-sea

    jinq-sea The Double Insulates Super Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,037
    Likes Received:
    353
    Ergo it's not designed to do it - so it's overclocking (by my understanding, anyway)
     
  11. Mr_Mistoffelees

    Mr_Mistoffelees Nebuchadnezzar's fixit man.

    Joined:
    26 Aug 2014
    Posts:
    1,436
    Likes Received:
    140
    That is rather like tuning a car engine for more power but, not exceeding the engine's design limits and then saying it is not tuned.
     
  12. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,692
    Likes Received:
    98
    Intel does not care for AMD period anymore, If they did they would of backed off a bit and let them fake catch up or breach some anti trust laws to give them some cash.

    ARM prevents Intel having a exploitable monopoly.

    Overclocking has always been about going beyond the limits, Thats the whole point. These K chips just made life easier.
     
  13. Dan848

    Dan848 New Member

    Joined:
    25 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    2
    This has been in the works by Intel for some time, hopefully it helps AMD. Competition is good!
     
  14. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,090
    Likes Received:
    218
    Competition might be good, but this move from Intel is bad for consumers as they'll just end up having to give Intel more money for the equivalent level of performance they could have had from an overclocked i3 or i5.
     
  15. tiger-moth

    tiger-moth New Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2008
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fully with you on this :)
    That's what I liked about this - it was more back to the roots of overclocking.
     
  16. TheMadDutchDude

    TheMadDutchDude The Flying Dutchman

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    405
    Overclocking still works on the latest ASRock OC Formula BIOS with the new microcode. ;)

    I've not tested it, but it says to press X on boot and it enables their Sky OC feature. I guess it reboots and injects a different microcode ... I've not tried it myself.
     
  17. 23RO_UK

    23RO_UK Hasta Mañana

    Joined:
    4 May 2010
    Posts:
    4,053
    Likes Received:
    402
    To be fair though B your not likely to be OC'ing a lesser chip with a board like that :p
     
  18. TheMadDutchDude

    TheMadDutchDude The Flying Dutchman

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    405
    There's an i3 6320 in mine at the moment. I'm going after that elusive 741/742 dual core XTU score. ;)

    So far I've got 740 with some extremely quick RAM training and tuning, but I have the weekend to get those scores up to where I want to be. :D
     
  19. Dan848

    Dan848 New Member

    Joined:
    25 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    2
    The only reason Intel began to permit motherboard manufacturers to allow a person to get more performance from CPUs was AMD. Intel does not actually care about giving their consumers more for their money - except for the presence of AMD.

    Remember the Intel 386 33MHz? It was around for at least 18 months. In those days AMD manufactured Intel CPUs. AMD decided to "one up" Intel and introduced their 386 40MHz. Intel responded by trashing the 386 series and produced the 486 and stopped their alliance with AMD. That move forced AMD to begin searching for a method to keep up with Intel - and so it is to this day.

    Back to the point. I agree that Intel should permit consumers to do whatever they pleased with their CPUs, including getting more performance, unfortunately Intel does not concur, except with their more expensive products.

    Intel wants your money.
     
  20. David

    David RIP Tel

    Joined:
    7 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    12,663
    Likes Received:
    1,848
    AMD produced 486 CPUs, as did Cyrix.

    Intel took the Pentium route, AMD went K5 and Cyrix produced the truly terrible 586.
     

Share This Page