Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 29 Jul 2010.
"When was the last time you thought your current PC was CPU limited? Can you really tell the difference between a 3.3GHz CPU and 4GHz? "
If your into Emulation like i am, then you will know just how important EVERY 100mhz increase in clock speed counts....
In MAME, where everything you see on screen is rendered with only the CPU, the difference between 3.3Ghz and 4Ghz can make the difference between a constant 60fps and a choppy, inconsistent 50-55fps........
I can see Intel's point of view on this but don't really understand how such a small part of the market can effect it's overall decisions.
Maybe this is all rumour and speculation but it would be nice for Intel to come out and put it all out on the line now.
Personally, I won't miss it. I don't O/C any more, and while the over clocking contests are interesting to see how they do it, it's not the be-all and end-all of enthusiast computing, in my opinion.
On top of which, there are some rather clued up, intelligent, people out there on the O/C scene (As you well know). If it's at all possible, I'd be surprised if they didn't find a way around Intels limits.
same feel here, i've been running my i7 860 at stock level for a couple months now, apart from cooler running system, i don't notice anything at all.
sure, overclocking is fun to play with at first, but once you get pass that initial "wow it's fast in benchmarks" moment, overclocking is rarely compulsory.
The way i see it, alot of the market is now moving into smaller formats.
Gone were the days when you needed full ATX kit, because you wanted that offboard sound, and networking, and to a bigger degree, graphics.
It seems that those generation of modders/tweakers are now grown up and cant be bothered with modding, overclocking, watercooling etc. And just want a stable system, that does what they want. (I myself only play the occasional game now, on a weekly basis, compared to my 3-4hr of counterstrike an evening (with Tim/Bigz, and the gang back then).
I've been running shuttles for years now, which fully comply with what i want, without being a hulking big ugly box.
Im sure there are a younger mob who will come and take up my aging torch, but, it seems they are mainly all throwing their money at consoles. Because PCs nowadays seem to be more about facebook/twitter, with the young generation, and not PC gaming.
It WOULD be sad for the chipmakers to block off this avenue of tweaking, but as sure as eggs is eggs, either tweakers will find a way, or the motherboard manufacturers will (look at AMD core unlocker for instance, im sure AMD love that).
Now, Bindi, pour me some of that ice tea, and we can rememeber the good old days
Aren't the high end sockets still going to overclock?
I've posted in the other thread how I feel that allowing the overclock is hurting their higher end sales. No one in their right mind would buy anything more expensive than the i7-920/930 now, because they overclock to 4GHz and compete with the more expensive quad cores.
As enthusiasts, we can only hope that a new AMD architecture comes along. Fanboyism or not, IMO one of the biggest reasons Intel is able to do this is because of how significantly the i7 outperforms anything in the AMD line-up.
Having an inexpensive super-overclocker CPU cannibalizes the sales of your own higher end CPUs. However, it also hurts the sales of your competitor's midrange and high-end CPUs.
Let's say for a moment that AMD and Intel each have a $200 CPU and a $500 CPU. If intel's $200 CPU overclocks to be as fast as both $500 CPUs, it will take away sales from both of them. However, it will also take away sales from AMD's $200 CPU, because it offers more bang for the buck. It makes sense for intel to sell this chip, because what they lose in profit from the $500 chips, they more than make back in profit on the $200 chip, because overall having this great bang-for-the-buck CPU is gaining market share for the company.
It looked like overclocking was dead when AMD did away with the multiplier unlocker trick on the Athlon XP. But overclocking has remained, because you can use a super-overclocker chip to take away competitor marketshare. They've even made money by offering unlocked multiplier chips at a price premium.
However, AMD is hurting right now. We know that. Their flagship, the Phenom II X6, is much closer to Intel's midrange Core i5 lineup than to the flagship i7 lineup. There aren't any high end CPUs from AMD that would lose market share to a less expensive Intel super-overclocker. The i7-920 that goes from 2.66GHz to 4GHz on air, that isn't taking away P2X6 sales, because it's 50% more expensive and significantly faster than a similarly clocked P2X6. What it is doing is taking away sales from the i7-950, i7-955, whatever the faster quad core i7s are. Nobody who wants flagship i7 performance is buying a P2X6. They're buying the cheapest i7s and overclocking them.
Once AMD has a $400 flagship that can compete with the upper end of Intel's line-up, an inexpensive i7 that can beat it would help Intel's sales. But AMD just isn't there. When I bought my P2X6, I wasn't even looking at i7, because of the price premium. I was looking at the i5-750. Intel has a monopoly on the high end market, and the first consequence of this will be securing the position of its high end chips by not letting its midrange chips cannibalize the sales. This is Intel resting on its laurels, looking at ways to increase its profit, not ways to increase its market share.
What we all need is for the AMD Fusion to come out of the gate and stir up some competition. Overclocking is a great way to take market share away.
Overclocking is what allowed my computer to last 5 years, and still going strong. I can still play the latest games at max max settings 19020x1200. Without it, I would have needed to change my computer at 3 years. This is a BIG difference.
And with the overclock, assuming no gaming, the computer is still crazy fast for everything else that a average user will user, and it runs Windows 7 64-bit above and beyond.
Overclock is very important as it add so much value to a computer.
If we remove overclock, then there is no need to custom build computer either. Dell and HP makes more affordable computers (on special) than if you custom build.
I saw one a Dell XPS system (some time ago) with 9GB of RAM, Blu-ray player, GTX 260, Core i7 920 for under 999$.
If I want to replicate this, custom build, I'll be well over 1500$. But I want the superior component quality, which frankly exists due to overclocking feature that motherboards manufacture provides.
I know exactly what will happen.
People will ask computer enthusiasts "I need a new computer, what do I get?", and they will answer "Get an AMD, Intel sucks". It seam crazy, BUT it worked for Vista. Most people you ask on the street: "Why Vista sucks?", they all answer "Oh because XYZ told me so.", and if you ask who is XYZ it's going to be "My son, he is a genius in computers", or "[some tech from work place] he knows his stuff".
Computer enthusiasts are a very small group indeed, but I believe we have a strong impact on the market.
Well, it depends.
At the moment, the i7 875K retails for ~£45 more than the 870. If Intel stick to this price model, it's not too bad. If, on the other hand, the price is greater than double that of the locked CPU then I'll be pissed off for one.
This would be true only if the components used in the Dell/HP were as energy efficient and long lasting as those you can assemble in a custom build, which they will never be.
There are already people saying that overclocking as it once was, is dead. No more soldering extra capacitors to motherboards, no more writing your own BIOS, no more endless hours searching for the exact place to read voltages and temperatures.
Just yesterday i installed a friend's new system. We had an 875k running at 4,5GHz, stable for 20 passes of Linpack, within 2 hours of the first boot. It's rediculous.
It sucks, but a smart motherboard company adapts instead of complains. Bending is always better then breaking.
There is so much that motherboards can still do to differentiate themselves. Features, aestetics, form factors, ease of use, EFI BIOS, onboard GPUs, SSDs and RAID controllers, integrated routers, why not? While i like overclocking as a hobby, i think motherboard companies are diving too deep into it and are forgetting their aim on other fronts, that could mean a lot more for the actual day-to-day use of their customers.
Overclocking is great to extend the value of a cpu, but with an unlocked multiplier you can still do that. Making us pay for a chip that can do that is far from unreasonable.
As it is, i believe we as PC enthousiasts will have about 10-15 years left before there is nothing left to talk about. Already there are phones capable of playing enhanched versions of DOOM. How long untill we have pocketwatches that laugh at Crysis?
Stop complaining people, and keep innovating! We are modders, we take what the companies sell us and make it even better. No matter how many restrictions or changes they throw at us, that will never change!
Yea but Dell and HP cut corners using cheap PSU's and motherboards which will be illrelivant with sandy bridge in terms of overclocking but I've had 2 dell mobo's die in OC's nor more than 2 years old at most. The other place they skimp on is their cases while quite solidly built are a nightmare to upgrade due to lack of airflow.
My guess is that we will see the end of Intels extreme edition cpus which are ludicrously priced especially when compared to AMD black versions. Instead we will see the budget LGA 1115 platform and cpu's with no overclocking and an enthusiast LGA 2011 platform and cpu's with unlocked multipliers. The 2011 cpu's will be more higly priced but nothing like the extreme editions but more on the lines of the "K" series cpus they just trialed, they will also make a bit more by having a higher price on the 2011platform/chipsets.
I'm sure they will make more money by doing this rather than trying to sell high priced extreme edition cpu's.
How exactly mobo companies can differentiate their products....who knows....usb3, NF200, hydra chips, ram overclocking
Don't forget the value that overclocking plays in keeping older kit useful. I was running a C2D E6600 @ stock with a 4870 and was struggling to play BC2. Once I overclocked the CPU to 3.2GHz it was fine.
Whilst Intel would like to upsell us every year, some of us cannot afford it and want to use overclocking as an option for extending the use of a CPU.
Question: if they stop overclocking, will they also stop underclocking? I assume that if they are going to lock the multiplier and FSB speed, how are we going to underclock an old CPU for use in a NAS etc?
Generally the multiplier can still be lowered on "locked" multipliers
My CPU has a 14x multiplier. I could go in the BIOS and set it to a 12x or 13x multiplier, but not a 15x multiplier. "Cool n Quiet" will lower it down to 4x when idling, and "Turbo boost" will raise it to 16.5? when I am only using two cores.
That's the thing - Intel doesn't WANT you to extend the life of your CPU. They don't want all of us that have C2Ds still being able to play the newest games on them. They want us buying Core i7s. Overclocking is something for nothing, and it hurts their sales. It has an overall benefit to competition and improving PCs, but Intel is a publically traded company whose goal is to make the most profit.
Well my two cents.
Many friends of mine, and people I know preffer the cpu that's 20 dolars more expensive even when in most cases they dont overclock.
Aaand also, it will be awesome for the McPeople, it will just work. That's all it will do nevertheless
I just want a decent performing CPU that runs at 3.2GHZ or above at a reasonable price. I like the coreI7 CPU's but the 3.2GHZ I7 CPU is too expensive to consider buying. I think at the moment 3.2GHZ is a good CPU speed. Anything over that is a bonus. I have my Q6600 overclocked to 3.3GHZ. I certainly notice the difference when its at stock speed.
I am not too fond of overclocking my CPU because of the heat issues with my CPU and motherboard. I have a Corsair H50 with two fans cooling the CPU. Even if the CPU was at stock speeds I would use a half decent cooler to prolong the CPU's life. I know overclocking my Q660 is reducing its lifespan but I do plan on changing my CPU , Motherboard and RAM next year to a decent Core I7 CPU if one is available at a resonable price and is 3.2GHZ or over.
Is it possible that Intel would be able to restrict the multipiers on unlocked cpu's? So for instance they could release a single cpu to hit different markets...sort of lower end unlocked upto X15, medium performance unlocked upto X20, high performance unlocked upto X25....just random numbers but is that possible
Intel limits OC? Screw Intel then. I'll go with AMD, if I have to.
Whilst the performance benefits of overclocking are something I enjoy (and prolonging the use of older hardware, as someone mentioned), what I will really miss is the challenge.
The thing I enjoy most about overclocking is the 'thrill of the chase', so to speak. Regardless of whether my PC is powerful enough for what I need it to do, I love tinkering with settings, messing with the BIOS, and generally seeing how far I can push things. It's a hobby that is more than just chasing benchmark scores.
If Intel do 'kill' overclocking I may lose a hobby, as I can see that the price premium for overclock-able hardware is going to be large.
Separate names with a comma.