How Intel did the overclock lock on LGA1160

jmke · 13th May 2008, 17:38

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.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...55&Ite mid=35

jmke · 13th May 2008, 17:39

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

13th May 2008, 17:57

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.

14th May 2008, 11:18

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?

jmke · 14th May 2008, 11:36

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/

14th May 2008, 11:44

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

14th May 2008, 14:50

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.

geoffrey · 14th May 2008, 16:24

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.

13th May 2008, 17:38	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	How Intel did the overclock lock on LGA1160 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. http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...55&Ite mid=35 __________________

13th May 2008, 17:39	#2
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	understandable that they want to stop overclocking; not sure if it will be a decision appreciated by the enthusiasts __________________

14th May 2008, 16:24	#8
geoffrey [M] Reviewer Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,127	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. __________________ Last edited by geoffrey : 14th May 2008 at 20:47.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Unlock Overclock Guide and Intel Core i7 Suitcase Contest	jmke	WebNews	0	30th June 2010 13:15
Intel Core 2 Duo Overclock: E4300 vs E6300	jmke	WebNews	0	25th June 2007 09:39
Intel 975XBX, A Pencil & a Better Overclock	jmke	WebNews	0	11th July 2006 18:06
Intel Duo Core clocked at 3.4Ghz beats P4 overclock to 7.2Ghz!	jmke	WebNews	20	24th April 2006 18:51
INtel Pentium 4 overclock beestje en moederbord	piotke	Mad Bargains	0	21st June 2005 16:27
Intel Advances Intel Centrino Mobile Technology with New Wireless Capabilities	Sidney	WebNews	0	27th August 2004 06:52
Breaking Intel's Overclock Lock: The REAL Story	jmke	WebNews	0	19th July 2004 09:35
Intel 925X: Exploring the Overclock Lock	jmke	WebNews	0	24th June 2004 09:25
new Intel overclock gem?	mbot	Hardware Overclocking and Case Modding	1	30th April 2004 10:31
Intel Debuts New Processors for Cell Phones, PDAs	jmke	WebNews	0	13th April 2004 08:04

13th May 2008, 17:57	#3
Rutar Posts: n/a	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.

14th May 2008, 11:18	#4
FireTech Posts: n/a	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?

14th May 2008, 14:50	#7
Kougar Posts: n/a	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.