- Back to homepage

How Intel did the overclock lock on LGA1160

@ 2008/05/13

As we told you some time ago, Intel has put in what can only be called an overclocking lock in the upcoming LGA1160 processors which are currently going under the codenames of Lynnfield and Havendale.

Until now, we didn't know how this had been implemented, but we've learned some more about it and it looks like there is no easy workaround. As these processors have the memory controller and a few more bits integrated into the CPU itself, Intel suddenly has a lot more control than it has had with past designs that utilized a separate chipset which contains the memory controller.

As Intel seems to want to push the much more expensive Bloomfield platform to overclockers, the company implemented a lock that prevents these new processors from being overclocked by adding two PLL clock generators, one inside the CPU itself and one in the PCH.

Comment from geoffrey @ 2008/05/14

I always thought that the PLL was not included inside the CPU because of the changing heat?

Anywho, if they do that it's probable better to get one of the current gen C2D's for cheap instead of going the green way.

Comment from Kougar @ 2008/05/14

I don't think its true, I'd have to agree with NH once again on this.

Purely theoretically speaking, Intel probably could get away with doing this... because Bloomfield is going to be more than just a single $1,000 SKU, there will be cheaper chips. Typical hardware enthusisasts seem to spend ~$300 these days, so at least a fourth to half the Overclocker market would probably go with Bloomfield anyway even if pricier, to keep their overclocking.

However, there are 1160 pins to pin-mod, and I doubt it would be long before motherboard manufacturers figured out which pins to softmod via BIOS tweaks to effectively overclock LGA1160 CPUs.

Comment from FireTech @ 2008/05/14

My conspiracy theory is that it's a rumour being spread to generate healthy sales of Penryn from now until the launch of Nehalem, then they'll reveal it was all a misunderstanding by someone and you can overclock after all.

another viewpoint:

Quote:

We doubted the fact that Intel would actively work against partners as we found little to no support for these claims. The next story has now been posted by the people over at Fudzilla and without trying to offend anyone, it looks a bit silly.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7724.html

Comment from jmke @ 2008/05/14

on the other hand, profit margins are higher

then there's this

Quote:

This Intel move, if true, would single-handedly revive AMD's share of the O/C market. Granted, this won't exactly make AMD profitable, but if I'm Intel, I wouldn't give Green squat.

http://overclockers.com/tips01330/

Comment from FireTech @ 2008/05/14

I agree but surely overclockers only account for a tiny percentage of Intels overall CPU sales figures and not the 'huge' amount stated by Fudzilla in its previous article?
OEMs would take the lions share of production, followed by white box builders and finally enthusiasts. Of those enthusiasts, only a small number will actually purchase purely based on overclocking?

Comment from Rutar @ 2008/05/13

That could make me sell the Intel stocks as soon as they only supply these CPUs. Enthusiasts have become a too big influencer on the potential buyers that a company can afford to piss them off.

Comment from jmke @ 2008/05/13

understandable that they want to stop overclocking; not sure if it will be a decision appreciated by the enthusiasts

All information and graphics contained in Madshrimps are sole property of the Madshrimps crew and may not be reproduced or copied in any manner without written permission from us.