Blogs What happens if Intel does end overclocking?

Remember People use processors for more than gaming and those that overclock usually want the most they can get for as little as possible. Take those people who encode video or run VM's. Every little helps majorly in both situations. Even a heavily CPU bound games responds well to slight overclocks, take GTA4 for example which is an exception rather than the rule of what you mentioned above. Not a lot of things you can throw more cores at to speed up, unless you look at dual socket boards in which case your getting into very expensive components, overclocking is the only option to keep the budget down.

Not even close to true. A quad core running at 1GHz does not equal a 4GHz single core by any stretch of the imagination. You can't add frequencies to get relative performance increases. a 100MHz overclock is still a 100MHz overclock regardless of cores available.

Look at market share to see whos dominating not how well you think their CPU's perform. Yes Ferrari have some of the fastest cars in the world but Ford still dominates more of the market than them. I also refer you to bit-tech's review on both

Bit-Tech review

 

LOL I wholly agree with my friend Very good point indeed! ^^d

 

First off only mention Ice Tea when it's a Long Island Iced Tea.

For me overclocking is like tuning a sports car. Sure a sports car is already fast but can you add a turbo charger and fine tune the engine and make it faster? Hell yeah.

Well overclocking my CPU and GPU is like fine tuning for me and for Intel to even think about restricting this makes me say screw You then I''ll stay with AMD.

I can surely tell a huge difference between my Phenom X2 550 @ 3.0ghz versus 3.9 ghz on Air I may add. it goes from OK to SNAPPY DAM FAST. Not Intel i7 Snappy fast but I saved a few bucks too.

The shear joy I get knowing that I'm getting MAX performance from my chip is confidence in AMD and their manufacturing quality and happiness in my hobby.

Intel is just taking all the fun away for shareholder profits and not realizing that overclocking is also individualism and freedom of expression. you can take two of the same chips and they will perform identically until you overclock them and now mine is different from your.

I'll stick with the company that respects the experience of the consumer versus the corporate bottom line.

P.S. hurry and drop the prices of the Core i7 950

 

Does the car come with a free turbo charger in the trunk for you to install? No. You pay extra to buy the turbocharger. The same way they are still offering Special-K.

 

Welcome back to the mid 90's. Intel are so sure of their dominance over AMD that they see no need to give the consumer a good deal.
Maybe (assuming AMD's Bulldozer is any good) they will be forced to consider users again in future designs, but only if they have genuine competition.

 

in my opinion Overclocking has two schools, the enthusiast overclockers, where numbers count. and the budget conscious overclocker, lookint to gain on a cheaper chip to equate the performance of a premium chip. There is obviously the other guy, the one that can't afford the upgrade and wants to squeeze just a few more MHz for a few mor months till he can upgrade (this is me), the type of guy that's happy with what he's got, till it's not capable of doing what he needs it to do, then OC and presto, it can for a few more months.
If Intel do decide to lock down these chips, then as mentioned vendors suffer, but not that much as it will bring to market, AMD, one not to follow in Intels footsteps, may take the reigns and lead the overclocking horse once again. It may even bring in a new CPU supplier based on non conformity of a locked CPUs. Lets' just hope that Intel do see the light.

 

Regarding my first statement, I'm aware many people don't do gaming, but it seems to be the main focus on people with high-end home CPUs. Otherwise, like I mentioned earlier, its typically for something like video encoding or (like you said) virtualizing; in which case, it is likely they didn't pay for the product they're trying to use. I personally don't game that often so a dual and quad core has been sufficient for me, and I do do virtualization. Also I didn't say I disagreed with overclocking, I'm saying i completely support it but i can see why intel doesn't.

As to what GoodBytes said, if you really want something with good future performance, it'd be smarter to pay for that extra performance when its obsolete and incredibly cheap. Pay for a low-price CPU that can easily cover you for the next 3 years or so (including overclocking) and then replace it with something that today is overkill, like the higher-end i7s.

regarding my 2nd statement, i didn't say it adds up to a total of 4ghz, i'm saying the performance combined PER THREAD is relatively similar. if you have 1 core at 4ghz operating on 1 thread, a quad core of the same architecture operating at 1ghz on the same single thread would theoretically complete the task at around the same time. of course there are factors that can make the single core perform noticeably faster or slower, but my point is that for a single process, the 2 CPUs would not have a significant gain over each other. in multiple processes the quad core will always be faster.

As to my 3rd statement, the early opteron 6000 series i found completely sucked. it was so much worse than it should have been. keep in mind intel has always dominated the market even at times when their cpus were noticeably more expensive and/or slower than at least one of the competitors. when sun's ultrasparc T2 was released, that was so much faster than anything anyone made (i'm not sure about ibm though) but it didn't get anywhere because it was solaris and linux only. its like microsoft - windows sucks, even windows 7 has a lot of work to be put into it, but MS has been so successful because they know how to do business right.

Just keep in mind, intel has been sued billions of dollars multiple times for being anticompetitive or simply paying people to lie. today, amd and intel made an agreement to put this anticompetitiveness (if thats a word) to an end, but the damage has already been done and intel really does have the fastest. they wouldn't have gotten to this point if they didn't rake in all the money from their successful anticompetition campaign.

 

Intel is just mad I refuse to upgrade from my Core2 at 3.8GHz. Guess Bulldozer will be in my next build. Oh well.

 

Overclocking isn't just for Gamers and Enthusiast as overclocking can also make your CPu quicker when multitasking.

Who doesn't browse the internet while, downloading MP3's and Pron while watching pron and chatting via Video Skype on a second screen while a torrent is running and streaming live TV all at the same time with a third screen dedicated to either youtube or facebook and burning copies of cartoons for siblings

 

nice article. I'm running E8400 @ 4.1ghz and I can tell the difference between stock speed. I'm waiting for Bulldozer architecture as it turns out.

 

Weren't similar claims to these made ahead of the i7 launch?

 

To be honest, I don't think I'm really going to miss it. I do 90% of my computing on a laptop, and when it comes to my desktop machines, they spend nearly 24/7 online, so heat is a major issue.

Overclocking used to be a fairly huge thing for me - back in the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP / 64 days, it made massive, massive differences. Yet, curiously, since the advent of the dual core, the need to finish every single task as absolutely fast as possible seems less impressive as you can complete multiple tasks at once, seemingly without a hit.

 

You have to look into what the "turbo charger" is and what the "tuning" is. In the OC world the "turbo charger" is the Cooling (A nice water cooling setup or just some sweet air cooling) And the "tuning" is the OC'ing. But the car manufacturer doesn't say that you cant tune the engine, but they say you do it at your own risk and expense. But, and this is a very big but. ITS FREEEEEE!!!! You don't buy a model that is "tuning" friendly for 5000$ more.. do you? Got it?

 

As if Intel cares about there partners, they never did they want to sell there own things CPU + Main board

its just like the socket the AMD socket on the main board you can not break. the breakable things are the pins on the CPU it self In other Words AMD does not settle up main board makers with there weakness/warranty

As were it comes to Intel CPU the very very weak spot is the socket on the main-board and not the CPU making sure the cost of warranty are dropped at the main board makers that's just not nice

the price difference between a budget i7 920 and a "Normal" CPU i7 960 is insane double the price but not double performance that's why nobody buys one and just overclocks his budget CPU

Wen it comes to power consumption and performance i go for performance any day

 

I would miss it; overclocking is half fun of getting a new chip.

 

what happens if Intel does end overclocking? nothing

Actually a lot of newbies are going to save a lot of money. I have been building my own systems since pentium mmx and I am adamant that:

• Even a successful overclock will limit the life span of your motherboard (not the processor).
• No system with major overclock will last more than a year (give or take a few months)
• Usually along with the motherboard you will damage the memory too.

Please do not believe those reviews about overclockers motherboards. Yes it is very easy to overclock a system. Yes the speed advantage is tangible. BUT…. after a year or so of continuous use (24/7), your system will start misbehaving.

Your bios will come up with the message overclock failure, then you start getting instability problems, then you get the big problems (blue screens etc), then you buy a new motherboard.

Processors today are powerful enough, after years of experimenting with my PC I can say this….. All I want is…. A FUNCTIONING PC

 

Well I'm not sure I agree with the 'no major overclock will last more than a year' view.

I've had plenty of big overclocks running far longer as I'm sure many others have; hell my E8600 is running at 4.3Ghz right now and has been going for the last 2 years.

 

100% false.
It breaks on you, because you don't know what your doing, nor know what you are changing.
I know one common mistake is that people increase the voltage of EVERYTHING, without doing anything else... That is asking for disaster, and provides no speed increase.
Voltage should NEVER EVER be touched only if you know at 1 xillion percent what you know what you are doing, and when you do you increase is by a few mili-volts... And even then.

Again, 100% false.
Do you really think that a lower end CPU is actually made slower? You do realize that the reality of thing is that it's not the highest, but near the highest model which got downclock and sold for cheaper. So overclocking it PROPERLY, would simply mean to put the CPU at it's normal designed speed. As for the highest end one, it's simply an overclock one from the manufacture.

 

I am looking at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)

And it looks like the 2010 release will be a low end CPU, and the high-end ones will be end 2011. Also, it seams that SandyBridge end 2010 release chip will be dual channel memory as well (not that it really maters, but it's a sign it's aimed at med or low-end systems).
Additional info, suggest that the Intel GPU will be included in the processor and will support 4 displays, 2 via standard video ports (DVI, HDMI, Display Port), and 2 other via USB.