# Intel Cracks Down on Motherboard Vendors Offering Overclocking on non-Z Chipset



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2013)

Over the past couple of months, motherboard vendors from across the industry offered BIOS updates for their motherboards based on Intel B85 Express and H87 Express chipsets, which enable CPU overclocking for Intel's unlocked Core processors denoted by "K" brand extension (Core i7-4770K, i5-4670K). This reportedly hasn't gone down well with Intel. Intel's Bxx and Hxx chipsets are significantly cheaper than its Zxx series chipset. Sensing a clear threat to its revenue, from the prospect of motherboard vendors coming up with high-end or overclocking-ready (strong CPU VRM) motherboards based on cheaper chipsets in the near future, Intel cracked down on them. 

Intel is giving final touches to a CPU microcode update that restricts Core "K" Haswell processors from overclocking on chipsets other than Z87 Express. A microcode update can be deployed both through BIOS updates, and surreptitiously through Windows Update. Intel's used the tried and tested "stability" bogey to justify the update. While it's true that motherboards based on B85 and H87 tend to feature weaker CPU VRM, there's nothing to say that ASUS wouldn't have gone on to design its next ROG Maximus on H87 Express, and save on manufacturing costs. While it's purely hypothetical, something like that wouldn't be in Intel's commercial interests. What next? Intel will push this new microcode update on to motherboard vendors, instructing them to issue BIOS updates with it; and future batches of Intel "K" CPUs may not support overclocking. If that isn't enough to contain the problem, Intel may give Microsoft a ring, and ask it to push the update through Windows Update. It tried that once in the past.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 25, 2013)

Who didn't see this coming...?


----------



## Over_Lord (Jul 25, 2013)

Just sad Intel. Boo you


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 25, 2013)

Knew this was going to happen right when shit went public about overclocking on non-Z boards.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2013)

over_lord said:


> just sad intel. boo screw you



ftfy.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 25, 2013)

Yup leave it to Intel to pull this bullshit!

Amd is looking better day by day.


----------



## Stickmansam (Jul 25, 2013)

*Button Down*

Well time to disable non-security Windows Updates and bios updates for everyone on those boards.

I am guessing though that a clean-install+re flashing to older bios could allow OC again? 
Or is the code changed forever for that CPU?

Intel also took away the 4 extra OC bins for cpus with turbo boost for Haswell already and now this


----------



## ViperXTR (Jul 25, 2013)

its bound to happen


----------



## draecko (Jul 25, 2013)

Intel already has the best market position in high-end cpu's. In my opinion this move is completely unnecessary if not tyrannic. I think Intel would actually benefit from having cheap overclocking boards, using them to pull more AMD users in.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 25, 2013)

I really don't see what the big deal is. If you're buying a $249-$349 processor, why buy a $68 POS motherboard to put it in? AMD isn't much better on the AM3 side since the TDP of their CPUs pretty much overwhelms the cheap boards even with just a mild OC, and many of the cheap boards like Biostar's even have BIOS limits that prevent bootup with a >95w CPU or end up throttling like the ASUS M5A97. $100 for a Z87 motherboard should be plenty affordable if the buyer is even remotely considering Intel CPUs.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 25, 2013)

I didn't really understand it to begin with. They shouldn't have been doing it and Intel shouldn't need to block it with an update. All of this stuff should be locked down in the chipset licensing agreement.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I really don't see what the big deal is. If you're buying a $249-$349 processor, why buy a $68 POS motherboard to put it in? AMD isn't much better on the AM3 side since the TDP of their CPUs pretty much overwhelms the cheap boards even with just a mild OC, and many of the cheap boards like Biostar's even have BIOS limits that prevent bootup with a >95w CPU or end up throttling like the ASUS M5A97. $100 for a Z87 motherboard should be plenty affordable if the buyer is even remotely considering Intel CPUs.



Because, $68 (cheap H87 board) + $350 i7-4770K = $418; and $110 (cheapest Z87 board) + $250 i5-4670 = $360 (i5-4670K + H87 is even cheaper, but irrelevant to my argument). Overclocking on H87 (cheaper motherboards) could lure people away from i5-4670K to i7-4770K at half the price difference (between the two CPUs). If only Z87 supported overclocking, that difference would effectively be $100. 

Besides, these cheap B85 and H87 boards manage reasonably good overclocks.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 25, 2013)

I wouldn't doubt that they overclock fine on the B85/H87 boards due to the low TDP of Haswell chips, but many the boards usually have rather stripped down features anyway such as crappy Realtek audio codecs from 2008, 2 memory slots, etc. Perhaps I just care too much about the integrated features vs. simply running a processor, a GPU, two DDR3 modules and that's it.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I wouldn't doubt that they overclock fine on the B85/H87 boards due to the low TDP of Haswell chips, but many the boards usually have rather stripped down features anyway such as crappy Realtek audio codecs from 2008, 2 memory slots, etc. Perhaps I just care too much about the integrated features vs. simply running a processor, a GPU, two DDR3 modules and that's it.



When Z68 was launched, most high end LGA1155 motherboards for overclocking were based on P67. Motherboard vendors made variants of their motherboards running Z68 (because it was pin-compatible with P67 and cost the same, while offering FDI and SRT). What's to say that the same motherboard vendors won't launch H87-based variants of their existing high-end LGA1150 motherboards, and save $10-15 on production costs per board, given that H87 and Z87 are pin-identical? That is what Intel fears.


----------



## haswrong (Jul 25, 2013)

seriously, whos gonna buy a z-board with a k-cpu that prevents itself from ocing  waste of money..


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 25, 2013)

nothing to see here, intel being a douche like usual.


----------



## Strider (Jul 25, 2013)

Underhanded move. Hardware does not come with an ToS or EULA like software, Intel retains no similar rights to the hardware once I buy it, if I choose to OC any CPU I buy, it's my right and my risk. 

Trying to block this by hindering tools at my disposal, in this case the MB's, just to enhance their sales in a market they almost entierly dominate as it is? Sorry, but this is pure greed. 

I may be an AMD power user myself, but as a business, I use just as many Intel chips. This will most definitely impact my future recommendations, away from Intel for cost saving processors where overclocking is concerned. 

Intel rules the CPU market, save for one location, the inexpensive performers and overclockers. This is where AMD does indeed have a strong foothold, and a place where Intel could make more money if they really wanted too. Especially when it comes to "general use" and gaming builds. 

I left Intel a long time ago once I realized that I can get top notch general, gaming, and overclocked performance out of AMD processors at a lower cost, and this still hold true today. This is now how you win customers, this is how you drive them away. 

=/


----------



## Frick (Jul 25, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> Yup leave it to Intel to pull this bullshit!
> 
> Amd is looking better day by day.



Meh it's their product, they can do as they please with it. Vote with your wallet etc.


----------



## NC37 (Jul 25, 2013)

Really Intel...really...you've got the entire industry on your finger, do you really have to go all Apple on people? Well, I guess since Apple is suckling at your teet you kinda do. Whatever .


----------



## NutZInTheHead (Jul 25, 2013)

I managed to overclock my i5 3470 to 4.0GHz with ease on a Z77-M Pro board that is only 99 AUD.
That board is super cheap and allows overclocking with the Z77 chipset.

Overclocking a K or non K chip should really not be done on B85 and H87 board.

In other words if you can afford a K processor then you certainly can pay for a $99 or more motherboard.


----------



## AsRock (Jul 25, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I didn't really understand it to begin with. They shouldn't have been doing it and Intel shouldn't need to block it with an update. All of this stuff should be locked down in the chipset licensing agreement.



Maybe they forgot or trying to be cheap like back in the day when AMD started using the INTEL socket AHAHA..

Ooh they were the days that's for sure.




haswrong said:


> seriously, whos gonna buy a z-board with a k-cpu that prevents itself from ocing  waste of money..



I do believe you read it wrong


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jul 25, 2013)

Bad image move from intel.


----------



## Jack1n (Jul 25, 2013)

Some people told me this wouldent happen,guess some one was wrong again.


----------



## DannibusX (Jul 25, 2013)

CPU DRM

Oh yes.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 25, 2013)

I knew Intel would do this, I told my mate, I bet lintel is spitting chips over this and I was right.

It was inevitable.


----------



## 95Viper (Jul 25, 2013)

Strider said:


> Underhanded move. Hardware does not come with an ToS or EULA like software, Intel retains no similar rights to the hardware once I buy it, if I choose to OC any CPU I buy, it's my right and my risk.



However, they do have them on the code that makes that hardware work...  Unless you write your own or get some that is written by someone else (open source or similar).

However,  it is still a shame they must impose their will in this fashion. 
In my opinion...  they should just learn from the exprience and apply it to future licensing and leave what is as is. 
If they allow this,  maybe,  they will sell more of those $900+ dollar processors.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 25, 2013)

I do not agree with hardware vendors blocking how the hardware is used after purchase, just as I am against software vendors blocking other software from working. (Unless that is specifically what I want ie antivirus).

What about MS start BLOCKING the use of OpenSource executables? 

What about an AMD deal with MS where Windows blocks the use of nV GPU drivers?

What about a deal where intel "kills" a CPU if you don't pay monthly license fees... or "kills" a CPU if you pop it into an unlicensed mainboard <<<- THERE YOU GO!

... see where it is going?

NO.


----------



## idx (Jul 25, 2013)

*Sadly...*

Thats what happens when there are no strong competition in the market... simply the end user get abused by such f***ing jerks at intel.
now I am really really regretting that I just bought 2 cpu's from them...  I miss AMD and the old days...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 25, 2013)

Chipzilla should have piped up sooner , moneygrabbin tyrants


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 25, 2013)

EzioAs said:


> Who didn't see this coming...?


The short sighted, I will capitalize on anything vendors outside of MSI? 

http://hwbot.org/newsflash/2127_msi...psets_z87_the_only_true_overclocking_platform



> According to MSI, they did not make noise about this feature because the feature was enabled on the boards since the release of the 30+ LGA1150 mainboard models! Knowing that the feature would be removed when the release of the next CPU microcode, they did not highlight the capability. Apparently Intel has already issued a new microcode which addresses this issue and, obviously, MSI recommends everyone to always have the latest BIOS flashed to ensure best performance, compatibility and stability.
> 
> There's an interesting twist to the story as MSI states, and I quote, "It is with great pain that we see other motherboard manufacturers announce this a feature for short-term marketing gain, neglecting to mention that users would use this function in the near future. We want to urge the PC community to only chose Z87 based motherboards if they want to enjoy the benefits of overclocking". I guess everyone's guilty of sometimes choosing the short-term marketing path - no need to point fingers.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 25, 2013)

One more reason to buy AMD then...


----------



## SeventhReign (Jul 25, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> Yup leave it to Intel to pull this bullshit!
> 
> Amd is looking better day by day.




You sir, are an idiot.  Intel is doing exactly what they should do.  How would you feel if you were selling a 2 products.  A cheap one and an expensive one.  And someone came along and started giving your cheap product more capabilities, so that no one bought the expensive one.  You'd feel broke.


----------



## Frick (Jul 25, 2013)

SeventhReign said:


> You sir, are an idiot.  Intel is doing exactly what they should do.  How would you feel if you were selling a 2 products.  A cheap one and an expensive one.  And someone came along and started giving your cheap product more capabilities, so that no one bought the expensive one.  You'd feel broke.



I think you are forgetting their overclocking history. This is all purely superficial. Overclocking doesn't matter as much to the avarage joe these days though, so it's not as important as it used to be, IMO. And I still think it is within their rights to release their products as they please, but is it the morally correct thing? Morals doesn't belong in bussiness, not in the world as it is.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 25, 2013)

It's pretty obvious Intel was going to stop this, love them or not, they run a business, to make money. 

Amd would do exactly the same if the shoe was on their foot, so don't demonize Intel for doing it.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 25, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> Bad image move from intel.



Something tells me they will survive it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 25, 2013)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Something tells me they will survive it.


LOL right?

I love the complaints... "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH they are taking away something that shouldnt really be there on a platform that isnt even made for overclocking. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH". OH and, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH a for profit business is trying to ensure they are making as much money as they can WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"

 



People need to get over 'big bad intel' crap already IMO.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 25, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> LOL right?
> 
> I love the complaints... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH they are taking away something that shouldnt really be there on a platform that isnt even made for overclocking... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.



I agree, someone found a loop hole, and Intel is closing it, fair enough.


----------



## Steven B (Jul 25, 2013)

Intel has a lot of power, they can cut off or reduce chipset shipments or increase chipset  prices of chipsets, that would destroy some of these motherboard makers who first bragged about it. 

Motherboard makers can be forced to make a BIOS that isn't able to be downgraded to an older version, of course there are already tools out there in public that allow this back flash with BIOSes which are locked, you just gotta look. 

Of course they can't make you flash, but they ca make them flash boards being sold. 

IMO go Intel, unlocking B and H series kills Z series sales, its stupid and dumb and puts high rik of VRM overheating and low OC potential.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jul 25, 2013)

Its amazing, how business moves tell you, how greedy the people are, that have control over these companies.


----------



## KainXS (Jul 25, 2013)

Intel used to be great when it came to overclocking on many of their chips, Extreme or not, but about 2 years ago they limited it, I remember buying a a P4 and overclocking it with no problem and a Celeron D and overclocking it to near 5Ghz and buying a E2140 and overclocking it more than double the stock clock and it was worth it with the dual and single core cpu's reguardless of what anyone says about waaaaa your screwing intel out of money blablabla, thats how it used to be, but after they went to the K I really don't care much either but boy did I like how it was but the kicker was,  . . . . . . you needed a good board to overclock and get good results(get where I am going)

but for alot of people stock is enough now, especially on desktops if you have a decent cpu.


----------



## Jorge (Jul 25, 2013)

...As if enthusiasts needed another reason to NOT buy InHell products.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 25, 2013)

......aren't we the hackers, overclockers' and basement mad scientists?  just another move in this chess game.... once upon a time overclocking wasn't as simple as hitting the  enter button. Time to step our game up.....


----------



## Frick (Jul 25, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> LOL right?
> 
> I love the complaints... "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH they are taking away something that shouldnt really be there on a platform that isnt even made for overclocking. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH". OH and, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH a for profit business is trying to ensure they are making as much money as they can WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH"
> 
> ...



If we look at history, overclocking on cheaper stuff should definitely be there. It used to be the point in overclocking. This brought us a bit closer to that time, people got happy. It's totally understandable.



ensabrenoir said:


> ......aren't we the hackers, overclockers' and basement mad scientists?  just another move in this chest game.... once upon a time overclocking wasn't as simple as hitting the  enter button. Time to step our game up.....



It isn't if you want to get good at it. At least from what I'm seeing, it's lots more to keep track on nowadays, compared to how it was in the past.

@jorge: I can't tell if you're trolling or are just being that dumb. Seeing your post history it's probably the second thing.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 25, 2013)

Purchasing an AMD FX-9370 and one of the few 990FX motherboards that supports 220w TDP processors still costs more than an i7-4770K and a mid-range Z87 board. Smart people will obviously choose the FX-8350 and overclock the crap out of it, but my point is that "big bad Intel", "IntHell" or whatever lousy name you want to give Intel isn't the only one playing the price game nowadays.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jul 25, 2013)

lol @ "chest game"


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 25, 2013)

Frick said:


> If we look at history, overclocking on cheaper stuff should definitely be there. It used to be the point in overclocking. This brought us a bit closer to that time, people got happy. It's totally understandable.


Certainly. However, it was cheaper CPUs. The problem this time around is people using cheaper motherboards with power sections not being able to handle overclocks well. The 4 power phase boards may end up throttling if you are pushing them too far. No heatsinks on the VRMs on those low end boards as well. 

I say overclock on every CPU, but make sure the motherboard is robust enough to handle it. You don't want a situation like AMD has on their hands where buying an octo core and a cheap motherboard is a bad idea due to some boards throttling the CPU even at stock speeds!



Wrigleyvillain said:


> lol @ "chest game"


LOL, yeah...!


----------



## net2007 (Jul 25, 2013)

*Intel is going to get gay*

another reason why amd is looking more and more appealing to me everyday. This is coming from someone who has always gone the intel and nvidia route.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 25, 2013)

I have fond memories of socket 7, socket 370 and socket 775 which were able to take multiple generations of CPU... meaning you could invest in a decent mainboard and it would survive a CPU generation upgrade. Unfortunately, intel didn't like that and decided there were more chipsets to be sold by limiting chipsets, crippling chipsets, and changing CPU sockets as often as most men change their underpants.

Intel not green. It is entirely unnecessary. Boo. If this was the automotive industry there would be regulations against this sort of practice. Boo.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 25, 2013)

An LGA1150 motherboard based on Intel ICH7 southbridge from last decade isn't technically impossible. Today's PCHs (platform controller hubs) are just glorified southbridges. And since the very first LGA775 platforms, a southbridge is just a PCI-Express x4 device. DMI is just PCIe x4 physical layer with a custom link layer.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 25, 2013)

To say that AMD hasn't rapidly changed sockets before? What about all the "suckers" that bought FM1 or socket 754 "one hit wonder" processors? Last I heard, only select AM3 boards supported Zambezi when it came out, and there are even AM3 boards out that support Zambezi but not Piledriver. Furthermore, AMD now has top-tier CPUs out that support socket AM3+ yet all but maybe five of the most expensive AM3+ motherboards even fully support them without throttling, something your average computer buyer probably won't know about unless they actually look at the CPU support list. 

Saying AMD is the "angel of the x86 industry" seems to be an incorrect statement. AMD changes things almost as badly as Intel does, but nobody seems to want to care.


----------



## sergionography (Jul 25, 2013)

Omg wow that is just so low, and so cheap. They already charge extra for unlocked k versions. I dont think I ever want to buy Intel again


----------



## haswrong (Jul 25, 2013)

AsRock said:


> I do believe you read it wrong



nah, im merely pointing that its not optimal to buy expensive z-board + expensive k-cpu only to find an overclocking limitations very soon.

i have a 100$ z-board (even supports sli, lol) + 200$ ivy bridge overclocekd +4x to 3.5ghz and im satisfied with the price / performace ratio. i cannot find any satisfactory price / performance ratio in k-haswell + z-board. its just an arrogant price hike, nothing more. if you people love inflation, its your thing, but im seeking efficiency, not a reason to boast that i have the most expensive thing there is..


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm sorry, but I find the complaints pretty funny. This doesn't even affect most people, and I knew this was coming, hence me having no interest in anything to do with OEMs doing this in the first place. Why anyone expected anything less, I dunno.


----------



## haswrong (Jul 25, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> I'm sorry, but I find the complaints pretty funny. This doesn't even affect most people, and I knew this was coming, hence me having no interest in anything to do with OEMs doing this in the first place. Why anyone expected anything less, I dunno.



well, if anyone expected generosity from intel, the expectations are gone for good. is all.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 25, 2013)

haswrong said:


> well, if anyone expected generosity from intel, the expectations are gone for good. is all.



They are a business, and you should expect no less. They were very clear about what each platform this gen would offer, and it is only because OEM board makers did something they shouldn't have that people are upset. Why don't you blame the board makers for teasing you with stuff they should not have done? Nah, you'll follow like sheep to board maker's whims? WHUT!?!


Of course locking chipsets and such happens...has for many years. This is mainly done for quality control reasons...most chipsets, no matter who they are from, are just the same, same silicon with shit disabled. AMD or Intel doesn't matter.


It is stuff like this that is ruining the industry, actually. Some marketing people simply don't get it. I gotta bloody well quit doing reviews. Stuff like this, and people's reactions, are just ludicrous.


----------



## D007 (Jul 25, 2013)

The day intel locks me out of overclocking is the day I go AMD. 
That is all..


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 25, 2013)

So, who are the currently 11 people that bought "K" cpu and have it at stock speeds?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 25, 2013)

D007 said:


> The day intel locks me out of overclocking is the day I go AMD.



I am of the opinion that since Intel offers OC warranty, any comments anyone makes about Intel not supporting overclocking are mis-directed. Simply put, Intel DOES support OC, and that's why they have limited OC to certain platforms. Doing so allows them to ensure that you get the quality components, and the quality experience, that OC requires.


AMD doesn't warranty OC. Switching to AMD, who doesn't support OC in any fashion, just doesn't make sense. AMD might give you some options...but then tells you to never use them.  Intel says "go ahead, OC, buy the right parts, and if you don't feel comfortable with OC in that fashion, we'll also sell you an additional warranty to cover problems from OC".


THis is a pure attack at Intel by board makers, knowing that many would respond this way. And board makers have good reason to go on the offensive here, but that's not something I'll personally comment on.


----------



## shovenose (Jul 25, 2013)

EarthDog said:


> So, who are the currently 11 people that bought "K" cpu and have it at stock speeds?



Yes, and I'm one of them. I'm still deciding on a cooler for my i7-4770K.


----------



## shovenose (Jul 25, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> They are a business, and you should expect no less. They were very clear about what each platform this gen would offer, and it is only because OEM board makers did something they shouldn't have that people are upset. Why don't you blame the board makers for teasing you with stuff they should not have done? Nah, you'll follow like sheep to board maker's whims? WHUT!?!
> 
> 
> Of course locking chipsets and such happens...has for many years. This is mainly done for quality control reasons...most chipsets, no matter who they are from, are just the same, same silicon with shit disabled. AMD or Intel doesn't matter.
> ...




Thank you for being one of the first people in this thread to understand why Intel is doing what they're doing - the right thing, in my opinion.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 25, 2013)

shovenose said:


> Thank you for being one of the first people in this thread to understand why Intel is doing what they're doing - the right thing, in my opinion.



I'll say this:

I don't attend Intel Press briefings. IN fact, I have ZERO contact with Intel. I spoke to a reviewer who WAS at the Haswell Press briefing, and he complained about the lack of enthusiast focus in that meeting. I mentioned a few things, things that aren't really in the public domain, and that reviewer, said "Yes, yes, that talked about that. Yes, that too".


I really DO understand what Intel is doing. What is shocking to me that many do not, and some marketing reps are taking advantage of consumer's lack of knowledge about the subject to make them look like the good guy...when in fact, they couldn't be further form that.


When I saw news of this stuff, I seriously considered dropping doing all board reviews, and shipping boards back to the board OEMs. That was a bloody stupid move to do that, and they have simply cut their own necks with that. It's hard for me to support board vendors when they pull crap like this. I simply don't get paid enough to shut up about it, either.


----------



## andresgriego (Jul 25, 2013)

Whatever. I've got two balls: one for intel and one for nvidia. I'll start feeling sympathy for lost profits and dictatorial practices when these crooks stop evading their taxes.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Jul 25, 2013)

So if you don't download the "microcode update" within a new bios update [I assume?], current board users are ok? Or will intel just mandate all future motherboards include this update through revision?


----------



## Hood (Jul 25, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> I really don't see what the big deal is. If you're buying a $249-$349 processor, why buy a $68 POS motherboard to put it in? AMD isn't much better on the AM3 side since the TDP of their CPUs pretty much overwhelms the cheap boards even with just a mild OC, and many of the cheap boards like Biostar's even have BIOS limits that prevent bootup with a >95w CPU or end up throttling like the ASUS M5A97. $100 for a Z87 motherboard should be plenty affordable if the buyer is even remotely considering Intel CPUs.



I agree - even some of the Z87 boards are marginal, so why push your luck?  Intel is within their rights, and maybe even ethically obligated to their customers, to enforce limitations.  They don't want to be like AMD and get a reputation for shoddy hardware and buggy firmware.  If the end user manages to circumvent the limitation using a custom BIOS, that's one thing, but the motherboard partners doing it is a shot across Intel's bow - they had to react, and nobody should be surprised at their reaction.  So all you cheap fockers out there, spend the extra $20-$30 for the real deal and quit trying to be like an AMD customer.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm just really pleased they didnt do this with chipset 865, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to run my AsRock s775 Q6600 with AGP HD3850 and DDR1 for the many years I did.

I understand quality control.  And I'm OK with guidelines, limitations and controls BEFORE the purchase. But I don't like retrospective control beyond and after the sales through kill switches and micro code etc. that changes the product capability AFTER you bought it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 25, 2013)

Again, this is the mobo makers fault (outside of MSI). They are the ones that exploited this known 'feature' and published it. They also knew that BEFORE motherboards were released that Intel was going to lock this down.

The blame does not lay on intel, but, Asrock, ASUS, Giga, etc for advertising something that was already known to them to be limited. See my post earlier in the thread.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 25, 2013)

I have to say I am in total agreement to what cadaveca said. 

The OEM's found a loop hole, and let the cat out of the bag, Intel found out and is blocking it. The OEM's should have either kept it to themselves or not done it in the first place, so stop whining about something that was pretty obviously going to be stopped.

Both Amd and Intel are no angels, so hate one, hate the other.


----------



## a_ump (Jul 25, 2013)

NutZInTheHead said:


> I managed to overclock my i5 3470 to 4.0GHz with ease on a Z77-M Pro board that is only 99 AUD.
> That board is super cheap and allows overclocking with the Z77 chipset.
> 
> Overclocking a K or non K chip should really not be done on B85 and H87 board.
> ...



yes and no. Some people, such as myself, have a budget of say 400-600 bucks. So they get a great processor, with intentions to upgrade the mobo later on down the road. So get a cheap H board and overclock mildy to get a feel for how many volts it takes to achieve a mild oc; and then go to the max later. 

I did something similar with my current build only backwards. i got a rather decent GPU, but cheap cpu but plan on upgrading this winter to a better CPU. There are reasons for such decisions, just depends on the situation.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 25, 2013)

a_ump said:


> yes and no. Some people, such as myself, have a budget of say 400-600 bucks. So they get a great processor, with intentions to upgrade the mobo later on down the road. So get a cheap H board and overclock mildy to get a feel for how many volts it takes to achieve a mild oc; and then go to the max later.
> 
> I did something similar with my current build only backwards. i got a rather decent GPU, but cheap cpu but plan on upgrading this winter to a better CPU. There are reasons for such decisions, just depends on the situation.



I'm running my 560ti with a q8200 and it's fine tbh.

I see were your coming from, with the good cpu, cheap board/better board later, but apart from turb, there should really be no overclocking on a H/B board, aside from the fact the regs probs won't handle it anyway.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 26, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> They are a business, and you should expect no less. They were very clear about what each form this gen would offer, and it is only because OEM board makers did something they shouldn't have that people are upset. Why don't you blame the board makers for teasing you with stuff they should not have done? Nah, you'll follow like sheep to board maker's whims? WHUT!?!
> 
> 
> Of course locking chipsets and such happens...has for many years. This is mainly done for quality control reasons...most chipsets, no matter who they are from, are just the same, same silicon with shit disabled. AMD or Intel doesn't matter.
> ...


Whilst I fully understand your reasonable and correct stance I do dissagree with one point.
That is that board makers should be forced to abide by what is essentially mearly a Supplier stated restriction clearly not a physical one  and something that's easily possible ,,thats the different some crave.

Not at dave,Some are sounding like fecking noobs on here ocin eEverything is what I like to do and ive ocd Every pc ive sat at for more than an hour wtf are you on about you shouldn't be Allowed to oc cheap shit, its still a hundred odd dollars and ive ocd  thirty quidders most of the last 20 years out.

You do realise the only way its changeing is if you stop passing them your money.


----------



## tacosRcool (Jul 26, 2013)

Boo Intel


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 26, 2013)

betya board makers will still have overclocking on non k chips on the lower chipsets


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 26, 2013)

Say, you pay $60 for a game, e.g. Battlefield 3. One month passes, and someone releases speedhacking software for free, and it gives you an unintended advantage in the game. EA/DICE issues a mandatory patch to the game that prevents said exploit some time later. Time for everyone to say "f**k EA/DICE" for removing your right to use an unintended "feature" in the game?

We're on the 4th generation i-series processors and boards, and everyone should know that H/B series is for cheap boards/prebuilts, P series is for mainstream chips without integrated graphics, Z series is the top-end mainstream chipset and X series is the enthusiast chipset. Why should we be angry about a publicized exploit of Intel's microcode being patched when everyone has known what chipset is used for what for the last few years? Why should this exploit make someone who had all the intentions to buy a Z series board all of a suddenly buy a terrible B series board instead? 

I'm going to laugh if all the OEMs except MSI (smart move) have been churning out boxes, manuals and silkscreening boards with "no-Z OC" features only to have the exploit patched and now they are falsely advertising a feature that is no longer available. 

This actually reminds me of the whole Phenom II/Advanced Clock Calibration fiasco that started with the 7xx chipsets. The 8xx chipsets had ACC removed, but then OEMs designed "UCC" chips for their boards that emulated the ACC function. I'm not entirely sure AMD could have stopped people from unlocking their processors via AGESA updates or not, but OEMs prevailed here.

Radeon HD 6950s were also exploited heavily since many of them could be unlocked to HD 6970s with a new BIOS and for over $100 less than a real HD 6970. OEMs then made some of their EEPROMs read-only or removed the backup EEPROM so people were SOL if they had a bad flash. AMD has locked down their GPU BIOSes even further with each card generation (starting with Overdrive limits back in the 4xxx series being signed in the BIOS) and here we are with the 7xxx series and the complete inability to change the clocks in the VGA BIOS period.


----------



## 1c3d0g (Jul 26, 2013)

haswrong said:


> well, if anyone expected generosity from intel, the expectations are gone for good. is all.



Well, from your username alone, we're sure you don't have an ax to grind, do ya?!? Oh, wait... 

Anyways, this gets a big yawn from me. Any serious overclocker worth his salt won't bother with non-Z chipsets anyways, and most who buy non-Z chipsets are going to the average clueless consumer/corporate environment, so no harm is done.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 26, 2013)

EzioAs said:


> Who didn't see this coming...?



Yup.  The instant I saw those boards ... anyone who bought that was in for future trouble.


----------



## trickson (Jul 26, 2013)

LOL! Intel just put the LOCK DOWN, LOCK DOWN on you all! LOL! I would have thought this was going to be done from the GATE! LOL. Too funny! 

So if you want to OC then just get the right chipset is all what is the big deal any way? 99.9% of the every day user is not even affected by this move. Shouldn't Intel be working on other things like say there ARM chips and crap for smart phones and ipads any way? The Desktop is dead. Hell the laptop is almost archaic! Every Desktop I see in a home now is in a dark corner sitting there off collecting dust! We are the last vestige of the desktop era suck it up folks not much time left till they are all gone any way. 
R.I.P.
PC.


----------



## haswrong (Jul 26, 2013)

1c3d0g said:


> Well, from your username alone, we're sure you don't have an ax to grind, do ya?!? Oh, wait...
> 
> Anyways, this gets a big yawn from me. Any serious overclocker worth his salt won't bother with non-Z chipsets anyways, and most who buy non-Z chipsets are going to the average clueless consumer/corporate environment, so no harm is done.



any serious overclocker has to delid the chip first.

my username just represents my impression on the degree of progress intel have made from the previous architecture.

ill tell you wheres no harm done, when you run 4ghz on a cheap board to average the cost, thats where.. is all..


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 26, 2013)

haswrong said:


> any serious overclocker has to delid the chip first.
> 
> my username just represents my impression on the degree of progress intel have made from the previous architecture.
> 
> ill tell you wheres no harm done, when you run 4ghz on a cheap board to average the cost, thats where.. is all..



I agree but your name does set you up as a bater or troll dude.


----------



## riffraffy (Jul 27, 2013)

EzioAs said:


> Who didn't see this coming...?



Ah ..me . But then again who can blame Intel ..you just can't buy anything with a trillion dollars anymore .


----------



## riffraffy (Jul 27, 2013)

SeventhReign said:


> You sir, are an idiot.  Intel is doing exactly what they should do.  How would you feel if you were selling a 2 products.  A cheap one and an expensive one.  And someone came along and started giving your cheap product more capabilities, so that no one bought the expensive one.  You'd feel broke.



Yeah but how would you feel if you brought a Chevrolet Impala and then you bought a after market turbo for more power , and then Chevy says hay dude if you want more power you need to buy the Corvette . If you purchase stuff it's your's to do as u please or so I taught .


----------



## riffraffy (Jul 27, 2013)

And they call the Yankees the Evil Empire . But I think Intel has the right to block this on future chips and tell company's like Asus not to offer this type of OC they are partners after all . But they can't be retroactive .


----------



## smeezekitty (Jul 30, 2013)

The way I look at it is this:

I don't see anything wrong with Intel blocking new boards from overclocking on non-Z chipsets. Most people expected it and it seems pretty reasonable. Infact, they should probably fix this on a silicon level.

BUT I find that putting out a hidden "update" to disable it after someone purchases the board is a immoral and sleazy tactic.
Those that have already purchased the board should be written off.

Although not to the same extreme, it is like buying a product and then having company henchman sneak into your house and disable it because it is "too functional"

Absolutely absurd 

It true mind boggling that some people feel this is the "right thing to do"


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 30, 2013)

smeezekitty said:


> The way I look at it is this:
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with Intel blocking new boards from overclocking on non-Z chipsets. Most people expected it and it seems pretty reasonable. Infact, they should probably fix this on a silicon level.
> 
> ...



Sony PS3 got nerfed pretty good over the years, so I'm not surprised that Intel can do the same. I wonder if it can be thwarted by making your EEPROM read-only, but then you'd miss out on all future UEFI releases anyway.


----------



## smeezekitty (Jul 30, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> Sony PS3 got nerfed pretty good over the years, so I'm not surprised that Intel can do the same. I wonder if it can be thwarted by making your EEPROM read-only, but then you'd miss out on all future UEFI releases anyway.


It is probably possible. Having updatability BIOSes nowadays is both a blessing and a curse.

New BIOS features are always a necessity though. It would be nice if the BIOS could be completely locked. This would be nice for security minded people too to make sure that malicious code does not get injected into the BIOS


----------



## lyndonguitar (Jul 30, 2013)

WOW, time to ditch intel for the next build


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 30, 2013)

lyndonguitar said:


> WOW, time to ditch intel for the next build



Why? Should we ditch AMD for not making the Radeon HD 7950 unlockable to an HD 7970 like the HD 6950 could? Everyone knew you needed a P or Z series chipset to OC unlocked processors, and it has been that way for a few years.


----------

