# ***G3258 Owners*** - Windows 10 will not install/boot when overclocked



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 29, 2015)

Just a heads up for anyone who currently owns a Pentium G3258 based system. If overclocked, your system will not install or boot into the release build of Windows 10.

You can boot/install with only 1 core activated overclocked or with both at default speed (3.2Ghz) but due to a microcode update recently this bug is restricting the full potential of this chip when using Windows 10.

I was literally tearing my hair out for the past week on this when thought I would try installing the latest/final build. I had previously tried Windows 10 when they first released the preview builds and it ran well if a little buggy as they developed it, so was really confused as to why it would just boot loop on a new install. I reset my machine to default bios settings and it worked so I thought maybe my OC was unstable (shouldn't be as it's been flawless on 8.1) or that my low end board just had compatability issues with Windows 10, then I stumbled across these threads yesterday -

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...e/2b8ba9bd-24e4-4b4a-8d39-abc738a3dec5?auth=1

https://communities.intel.com/thread/77391

https://social.technet.microsoft.co...tel-g3258-processor?forum=WinPreview2014Setup

and there are more but you get the gist.

Hopefully they will release an update soon as these chips were released to be overclocked and running at stock, although still relatively capable, is still quite crippling on certain games/applications.

Hope that helps anybody who may have been scratching their head like I was


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 29, 2015)

Really, explains why I couldn't upgrade from my previous build (10130) to RTM. Unfortunately did a downgrade & now that build will not upgrade to anything newer, I say FU M$ & Intel 
Was looking for some explanation for almost a month now, seems like 'tis Wintel's fault after all


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 29, 2015)

I'm sure they will sort it, although they have been aware of the issue for a little while now. Would be nice to get back up to my regular overclock.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 29, 2015)

This is why I wait
The problem isn't clear from what I read. Some are even saying its happening in 7 and 8 after update  KB3064209 which I know is not the case. Mine are working fine


----------



## theonedub (Jul 29, 2015)

Jetster said:


> This is why I wait
> The problem isn't clear from what I read. Some are even saying its happening in 7 and 8 after update  KB3064209 which I know is not the case. Mine are working fine



My exp was different, KB3064209 completely borked my Win7 Pro Install and had me stumped for a good minute as to what was causing the PC to fail to boot after Windows Update. Everything working 100% on my G3258 after disabling that update.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 29, 2015)

Jetster said:


> This is why I wait
> The problem isn't clear from what I read. Some are even saying its happening in 7 and 8 after update  KB3064209 which I know is not the case. Mine are working fine



Yes , same here. Worked perfectly in 7 and 8.1 but had issues with 10. I'm just running 10 at stock for the moment, it's playing what I need it to but no one buys a g3258 to run at stock lol 

The problem with 10 is that the update is integrated and can not be removed.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 29, 2015)

Ill double check some stuff tomorrow


----------



## R0H1T (Jul 29, 2015)

Jetster said:


> This is why I wait
> The problem isn't clear from what I read. Some are even saying its happening in 7 and 8 after update  KB3064209 which I know is not the case. Mine are working fine


Can you say the same about users who preorder games or buy 970 just to find out it has ~3.5GB VRAM, many on this forum do both regularly 

Also the second point is not true either, see this ~
Recent Windows Update KB3064209 causes Windows 7 to not boot - Windows 7 Help Forums

My point being as an enthusiast you try out bleeding edge stuff & sometimes get fcuked up in the process, however this issue has not been resolved for a while now & I wonder why that is


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 29, 2015)

My understanding is that W10 needs Processors with a certain instruction set, which the G3258 does not have. (it only has SSE4.1/4.2)
This is not to say W10 will not run, but that it might not run to it's full potential.


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Jul 29, 2015)

I just update from windows 8.1 to window 10. It looks fine to me, I have yet to fully test it out. I did my update with my G3258 overclock and without turning it back to default. Windows 10 feels fast and look very different. The only downside so far I found it takes me awhile to log in from the welcome screen. I am using a biostar z97we motherboard for my G3258 though


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 29, 2015)

Interesting and thanks for sharing that...perhaps board manufacturers just need to issue updated bios? 

Is your bios fully updated?


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Jul 29, 2015)

...PACMAN... said:


> Interesting and thanks for sharing that...perhaps board manufacturers just need to issue updated bios?
> 
> Is your bios fully updated?



I have not updated my bios yet, it is still the year 2014 bios. I have not run into major issues for my upgrade thus far. My windows 8.1 install is a uefi install so my windows 10 upgrade is a uefi boot rather than legacy bios, not sure if that would affect anything.


I am not certain what could be the issue it could be from which operating system you are updating from such as windows 7 or 8.1.  Perhaps a clean install of windows 10 can eliminate that if that were the problem.
If a clean install does not work the problem could be an intel microcode update that have crippled the overclocking. Is your board a Z-series board? I heard concern before about people having that intel may take away the functionality overclock on non-over clocking boards which are not intended to be overclock with an update before. I am not sure if that is the case here.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 29, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> My understanding is that W10 needs Processors with a certain instruction set, which the G3258 does not have. (it only has SSE4.1/4.2)
> This is not to say W10 will not run, but that it might not run to it's full potential.



That's a separate issue.  I've run Windows 10 RTM on as early as a Core 2 duo with full overclocking support.

This is a microcode update issue from what I can tell.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 29, 2015)

Yeh it's just a microcode issue.... gonna play the waiting the game as it has been reported. 3.2Ghz dual still runs semi ok on 10 so I'm not too stressed just a bit annoyed that they haven't resolved it before release.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 30, 2015)

Okay so I checked Update KB3064209 is not an Important security update which explains why I have had no issue. Its optional and I do not install these.

So I have no issue with W7 running the G3258 at 4.4Ghz


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jul 30, 2015)

Windows 10 just borked my bios some how. I know that sounds stupid but I have been perfectly stable for a long time since windows 7/8/8.1 but when I installed windows 10 it rebooted and started the install then BSOD. Ever since then my bios refuses to OC my ram back to what it was. Anything other than stock clocks I get the failed notice when I boot. NEVER had this issue before until tonight installing windows 10


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 30, 2015)

Jetster said:


> Okay so I checked Update KB3064209 is not an Important security update which explains why I have had no issue. Its optional and I do not install these.
> 
> So I have no issue with W7 running the G3258 at 4.4Ghz



Even when I install that update, Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 both boot overclocked for myself, just Windows 10 that doesn't. PITA....but nothing a new build won't sort


----------



## Jetster (Jul 30, 2015)

Yea I didn't even try


----------



## UNNO DJ (Jul 30, 2015)

Hello everybody,


I'm just a gamer not really a computer engineer, but I think that I've found a fix for this annoying situation, seems that the problem remains only during boot and not inside W10 itself, so to be able to use windows 10  with an overclocked G3258 u just need to select


*1 x core “msconfig” Boot Advanced Options*

Windows will normally boot probably a little bit more slow but then inside the OS, we will have both cores activated and overclocked.


I hope it helps


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 30, 2015)

I just tried it, didn't work unfortunately.


----------



## OneMoar (Jul 30, 2015)

wait for a bios update .... typical early adopter problems


----------



## UNNO DJ (Jul 30, 2015)

...PACMAN... said:


> I just tried it, didn't work unfortunately.




Unfortunately you're right, Device Manager and MSI Command Center played a trick on me because both cores actually appear there and they don't when we deactivate them in the bios. After check on Task manager - Performance we clearly see that just one is active. Which bring us again for the same position we were before, definitely being a Microcode issue that we don’t have any control or access.



Well I tried


----------



## Pill Monster (Jul 30, 2015)

Lol funny. 

The *KB3064209* update is actually an Intel microcode update.    And there is prerequisite needed before u can install it.  https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2919355


----------



## xorbe (Jul 30, 2015)

Are you sure this isn't on purpose to stop G3258 overclocking?


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 30, 2015)

xorbe said:


> Are you sure this isn't on purpose to stop G3258 overclocking?



Yes, Microsoft logic....Let's celebrate 20 years of Pentium by releasing a highly overclockable chip and then basically nerf it. Nice one.


----------



## Pill Monster (Jul 30, 2015)

xorbe said:


> Are you sure this isn't on purpose to stop G3258 overclocking?





...PACMAN... said:


> Yes, Microsoft logic....Let's celebrate 20 years of Pentium by releasing a highly overclockable chip and then basically nerf it. Nice one.



Of course, because overclocking is dangerous and to blame for several issues with Intel CPU's that could computer crashes or functions incorrectly.


> *About this update
> This update fixes several issues with Intel CPUs that could cause computer crashes or functions incorrectly.* Also, this update improves the reliability of computers that uses certain Intel CPUs .



Microsoft are just looking out for your best interests, like they always do


----------



## xorbe (Jul 30, 2015)

...PACMAN... said:


> Yes, Microsoft logic....Let's celebrate 20 years of Pentium by releasing a highly overclockable chip and then basically nerf it. Nice one.



No, Intel.  MS has no ability to create CPU microcode.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Jul 30, 2015)

xorbe said:


> No, Intel.  MS has no ability to create CPU microcode.



yes oops


----------



## plonk420 (Jul 31, 2015)

mine won't even install at stock clocks (10160, 10240, and whatever the official MS tool downloads). 10130 works nearly perfectly fine.


----------



## theonedub (Jul 31, 2015)

Any news or update on a fix for this?


----------



## OneMoar (Jul 31, 2015)

theonedub said:


> Any news or update on a fix for this?


its a microcode issue so one of two fixes are possible (from what I can tell it Only effects H87, H81, Q87, Q85, B85,H97)
1. microsoft issues a patch to work around the problem(which means lnstall media would need to be re-packaged with the fix) not likely because its the board vendors fault and Not Intels.
2. board vendors need to issue a update

the issue occurs on all boards -except Z87/Z97
its likely a a issue with board vendors using H@X0R'd bios's to get around the overclocking lockout on non Z boards


----------



## Nordic (Aug 1, 2015)

Having issues myself. Updating my bios to the latest, which has microcode revisions. Will post if I have better luck afterwords.


----------



## fat_slug (Aug 1, 2015)

Possible fix: delete mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in C:\Windows\System32

Supposedly this will prevent Windows 10 from borking the CPU with the new microcode.


----------



## xorbe (Aug 1, 2015)

fat_slug said:


> Possible fix: delete mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in C:\Windows\System32
> 
> Supposedly this will prevent Windows 10 from borking the CPU with the new microcode.



Pro-tip, rename if daring, no need to delete ...


----------



## theonedub (Aug 1, 2015)

Looks like some MB manufacturers are releasing new BIOS updates (Asrock in particular is already rolling a couple out and more in the coming days). I'll just sit tight for the BIOS update for my Asrock board before upgrading my G3258 machine.


----------



## R0H1T (Aug 1, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> its a microcode issue so one of two fixes are possible (from what I can tell it Only effects H87, H81, Q87, Q85, B85,H97)
> 1. microsoft issues a patch to work around the problem(which means lnstall media would need to be re-packaged with the fix) not likely because its the board vendors fault and Not Intels.
> 2. board vendors need to issue a update
> 
> ...


Probably, have one H97m pro4 myself, now Asrock removed OC support completely with the latest V2.0 BIOS 

No, Intel allowed it, though tacitly, for well over a year now (google H97 overclock) & seems they're the ones pushing for it to be blocked (yet) again! This reminds me not to trust that company ever again & this will be my last Intel build ever 

To make matters worse, I updated to RTM & then after a few (optional?) updates I'm back to boot loop with no way to recover the installation. System restore or even reset/refresh doesn't work either since the system won't boot from any media having win10


----------



## BiggusDoggus (Aug 2, 2015)

Just to confirm here - the Windows 10 upgrade isn't working even if the G3258 is at stock speeds. Yes, it appears that if one core is disabled it will work, but again only if even that one core is not overclocked. And who the hell wants that!?

There's 4 days of my life trying to get the upgrade to work I'm never getting back.


----------



## Nordic (Aug 2, 2015)

james888 said:


> Having issues myself. Updating my bios to the latest, which has microcode revisions. Will post if I have better luck afterwords.


No luck.


fat_slug said:


> Possible fix: delete mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll in C:\Windows\System32
> 
> Supposedly this will prevent Windows 10 from borking the CPU with the new microcode.


Will try this. I know it goes against proper troubleshooting, but I am going to disable one core while I do this. I just want windows 10 installed. I can fix it later. It takes almost 24 hours to get windows 10 to upgrade on this pc, while it took 3 hours on my slower laptop.

edit: This worked. I deleted that file and ran with one core while installing. After install I tried running it with both cores installed, and it failed to boot. I eagerly await a bios that will allow me to enable both cores. For now I am happy that I have the install out of the way. The computer is not being used much right now, so a single core is not a concern.


----------



## ismaxGG (Aug 3, 2015)

james888 said:


> No luck.
> 
> Will try this. I know it goes against proper troubleshooting, but I am going to disable one core while I do this. I just want windows 10 installed. I can fix it later. It takes almost 24 hours to get windows 10 to upgrade on this pc, while it took 3 hours on my slower laptop.
> 
> edit: This worked. I deleted that file and ran with one core while installing. After install I tried running it with both cores installed, and it failed to boot. I eagerly await a bios that will allow me to enable both cores. For now I am happy that I have the install out of the way. The computer is not being used much right now, so a single core is not a concern.



It has served you, How I can resolve this problemmm??????? Please, answer me as soon as possible!!!!!


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 3, 2015)

ismaxGG said:


> It has served you, How I can resolve this problemmm??????? Please, answer me as soon as possible!!!!!


you can't your motherboard vendor must release a updated bios


----------



## theonedub (Aug 3, 2015)

So the updated BIOS from AsRock allows Win10 to be installed, but disables the ability for the non-Z motherboards to overclock the CPU (known as the NonZ OC Function on their boards). I wouldn't exactly call that a fix. 

The entire situation makes little sense to me. For Intel to be disabling the ability for non-Z MBs to overclock after being aware of it AND allowing it for such a long period of time would be an incredibly odd and poor decision. I don't want to touch these new BIOSes until Intel makes some sort of statement or correction so I don't have to deal with a possible BIOS downgrade, etc.


----------



## OneMoar (Aug 3, 2015)

intel didn't allow anything the board vendors pretty much said fuck it and did it anyway...
and now intel put a stop to it 
pretty simple is you ask me
sure its a dickmove but thems the brakes


----------



## Nordic (Aug 4, 2015)

ismaxGG said:


> It has served you, How I can resolve this problemmm??????? Please, answer me as soon as possible!!!!!


If you read my post you would of saw what I did to get windows 10 to install. You would also see that I can only use 1 core because of it.



OneMoar said:


> you can't your motherboard vendor must release a updated bios


I mentioned earlier I was updating my bios, but I found out that the bios were from May 2015. They do not have the necessary microcode revisions yet still I was able to install windows 10.


----------



## hatchet5891 (Aug 7, 2015)

I have an ASRock H97M Anniversary motherboard and updated to the latest bios and was able to finally upgrade to windows 10 with a G3258. I think motherboard makers are going to fix this microcode issue before Intel or Microsoft so I would watch for new bios updates. I know ASRock's update came out a few days after Windows 10 release. I didn't have to do any silly single core things or anything either, but the microcode issue should have been fixed before Windows 10 launch in my opinion.


----------



## theonedub (Aug 7, 2015)

The Asrock BIOS updates disable overlooking though, which is a shame. Still hoping for a compromise between MB manufacturers and Intel.


----------



## hatchet5891 (Aug 7, 2015)

theonedub said:


> The Asrock BIOS updates disable overlooking though, which is a shame. Still hoping for a compromise between MB manufacturers and Intel.


That is a shame. I don't over clock so luckily it doesn't matter to me. Hopefully somebody officially fixes it for the people who like to OC. Lucky you brought that up.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 7, 2015)

But those boards aren't meant for overclocking? I mean it totally sucks for those affected but in reality these platforms never were supposed to support overclocking so manufacturers giving you the ability to begin with only instilled the false belife that it was supposed to be there. IMO


----------



## theonedub (Aug 7, 2015)

It was just a little underhanded to not address the issue directly and instead have people find out when trying to update Windows. It's not as if Intel was unaware that manufacturers were offering boards with these features.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 7, 2015)

theonedub said:


> It was just a little underhanded to not address the issue directly and instead have people find out when trying to update Windows. It's not as if Intel was unaware that manufacturers were offering boards with these features.



meh devils advocate in a way i guess you could say they solved the problem? What is more interesting to me is how they are doing it? Im curious as to why modifying or deleting the authentic intel dll allows the use of the chip overclocked on some systems. but only in single core mode? That doesnt make much sense. I can only imagine its a break in the chain if you will. There has to be more too it. They have to be pulling motherboard information and making the distinction. If thats the case all taking the dll out of the equation does is confuse the OS as to what intel CPU is used on the mobo. The actual problem isnt fixed. That also probably explains why only one core works since it cant use the advanced sync or call functions to the CPU itself. meaning that HT encryption entire cores etc are probably unavailable. though im sure WMI pulls the information fine.


----------



## archie (Aug 13, 2015)

I just finished upgrading to W10 on an overclocked g3258. Went fine in one pass without messing with the BIOS. I suppose the fact that I have a z97 mobo helped. 

My understanding in that this processor was explicitly designed to be overclockable with the z97 chipset and no other. Mobo manufacturers didn't agree and released tweaked bios'es to unlock the pentium on other chipsets. Maybe Intel decided to get back at them by releasing this stupid microcode for Windows and ... put their foot in their mouth. As a result, any G3258, OC'ed or not would have issues with Windows, unless the chipset was Z97 or the mc-update DLL file was removed. Both Intel and Microsoft are to blame for this. Harshly I reckon.

Before upgrading (which required a registry edit in W8.1 for completion), I renamed the microcode DLL file in ../system32, just in case. I was ready for the next boot to fail and have to tweak the BIOS until I could rename again in W10. Did not happen : the update took about 30 minutes clocked at 4.3.

One could feel some anger towards those geeks working for giant corporations/administrations, crossing the line farther every day. First time I felt really angry about this was 10 years ago about the Sony rootkit. It's getting worse every year and this is a nice illustration of how there doesn't seem to be a way back. Just like I have been boycotting Sony for 10 years, I might consider going AMD, until another competitor finally emerges (like it will aver happen...).

I bought this nice (and expensive) z97 mobo with the idea of purchasing the most expensive broadwell processor later on the road and be OK for a few nice years. Not sure I'll go along with my plan after all.

Angry


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 14, 2015)

I think this just happened on Windows 7 as well, my MSI B85-G43 Gaming and 4GHz G3258 I picked up for $100 total last year "bricked" itself after installing updates this week (gets to Starting Windows for a few seconds and reboots), and changing the multipliers to Auto immediately fixed it. I doubt I will see any BIOS updates for my board, but it was a fun combo while it lasted...


----------



## archie (Aug 14, 2015)

I don't see why it shouldn't last a bit more: remove the offending dll file. I didn't try it in w10 but w8.1 seems OK with it. No reason why w7 should be any different.
Have more fun if you can


----------



## plonk420 (Aug 15, 2015)

this will suck if i can't OC on my B85. i bought the G3258 specifically for OCing and luckily my board initially supported it. er, still does, except for the fact i can't install Win10 regardless of OC or not. and i'm not about to buy a Z97 due to current income situation.


----------



## SK-1 (Aug 15, 2015)

And I was recently schooled (here) on the FACT that "The days of software being screwed over by an OC are all over" Right on!


----------



## Pill Monster (Aug 16, 2015)

Solaris17 said:


> meh devils advocate in a way i guess you could say they solved the problem? What is more interesting to me is how they are doing it? Im curious as to why modifying or deleting the authentic intel dll allows the use of the chip overclocked on some systems. but only in single core mode? That doesnt make much sense. I can only imagine its a break in the chain if you will. There has to be more too it. They have to be pulling motherboard information and making the distinction. If thats the case all taking the dll out of the equation does is confuse the OS as to what intel CPU is used on the mobo. The actual problem isnt fixed. That also probably explains why only one core works since it cant use the advanced sync or call functions to the CPU itself. meaning that HT encryption entire cores etc are probably unavailable. though im sure WMI pulls the information fine.


I'm still trying to work out how a CPU microcode update was done using a .dll via Windows. The only microcodes I know of are in the CPU MSR's and updated by a BIOS flash.  

Sounds like maybe someone is telling porkies?      I suspect it has to do with Windows Power Management ACPI, not microcode.


----------



## archie (Aug 16, 2015)

Microcode is a bad choice of file name from MS. What actually happened has probably more to do with their invasion of the motherboard BIOS with UEFI, so gaining even more access to more unique and reliable information about their customers and control over the harware.
They use this information for some nasty purpose, obviously now. Little by little they come to make this nightmare we had about "palladium" come true. I remember clearly how grim the future sound when Xp was but news articles and Intel CPU unique ID project seemed far fetched.
Last month the two of them  collude together to prevent cheap overclocking (like "cheap" wasn't the point to begin with). Last week MS released a revised EULA for so called "Windows Services" that you have to sit down to fathom. Tomorrow...  seems grimmer than ever.
We are being lazy and the evil geek has no shame; let's just avoid complaining like we're not responsible for it and start doing what's right : free software....


----------



## Nordic (Aug 29, 2015)

james888 said:


> No luck.
> 
> Will try this. I know it goes against proper troubleshooting, but I am going to disable one core while I do this. I just want windows 10 installed. I can fix it later. It takes almost 24 hours to get windows 10 to upgrade on this pc, while it took 3 hours on my slower laptop.
> 
> edit: This worked. I deleted that file and ran with one core while installing. After install I tried running it with both cores installed, and it failed to boot. I eagerly await a bios that will allow me to enable both cores. For now I am happy that I have the install out of the way. The computer is not being used much right now, so a single core is not a concern.



So I checked if there was an update for my bios. There was from 8/6 with cpu microcode updates.

So instead of only being able to have windows 10 running with a single core, I now have both cores unlocked. Overclocking options are gone from the bios. I can adjust voltage, but I can not increase core clock.


----------



## Cicatrix (Sep 3, 2015)

I have installed/updated to Windows 10 and I am running a G3258 with Gigabyte Z97X-SLI motherboard @4.4Ghz, both cores, no problem.
W10 is uptaded and is showing two cores!


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Sep 3, 2015)

Found this windows forum for those that still have a problem for their G3258. The user by the name ThinkingMonkey have a solution



> Hi McD,
> 
> I've found a 'solution' (until Intel and Microsoft get off their a** and fix it) and it's amazingly simple, no registry editing, changing Windows settings to try to disable the core for a second then re-enable it, or anything.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nordic (Sep 3, 2015)

MIRTAZAPINE said:


> Found this windows forum for those that still have a problem for their G3258. The user by the name ThinkingMonkey have a solution


That has been listed. I tried it and it did not work for me at least.


----------



## jacoviii (Oct 20, 2015)

has this gotten anywhere  I really wanted to build a pc with this chip to do some gaming


----------



## Nordic (Oct 20, 2015)

jacoviii said:


> has this gotten anywhere  I really wanted to build a pc with this chip to do some gaming


Most motherboards have updated their bios so you can use both cores. If you want to overclock use z97 because overclocking does not work on anything else anymore.


----------



## jacoviii (Oct 21, 2015)

I'm looking at this board 
Gigabyte GA-Z97X-SLI
or
*GIGABYTE GA-G1.Sniper Z97*


----------



## Misaki (Oct 21, 2015)

Pentium G3258 is a total crap, I had it for a 3 months and sold it. Now I'm going to buy an FX6300.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2015)

Misaki said:


> Pentium G3258 is a total crap, I had it for a 3 months and sold it. Now I'm going to buy an FX6300.


Funnily I felt different, had mine for 6 months, ran it at 4.5gig and it flew at everything, never had any issues.  There are a lot of them that hardly overclock at all though, the one I had before would not do more than 4gig but I got rid of that one quick.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 21, 2015)

Makes you wonder how many different Intel CPU's  Intel are going to cripple for overclocking by secret micro code updates via secret undocumented  win 10 updates
tin hat time

Ps don't say it wont happen it has already started with this pentium CPU


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Makes you wonder how many different Intel CPU's  Intel are going to cripple for overclocking by secret micro code updates via secret undocumented  win 10 updates
> tin hat time
> 
> Ps don't say it wont happen it has already started with this pentium CPU


Well, if it stops a "K" series Cpu being a K series CPU then ask Microsoft for a refund of the difference between the K and non K version


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Oct 21, 2015)

I am still using my G3258, it is the only cpu I have unless anybody here is willing to sell me a 4790k at a low price. A duo core is to lacking for heavy usage nowadays. The minimum should be a quad core.

My G3258 is still a survivor at high voltage funnily enough.

Intel have been clamping down hard on "free" or cheap overclock for years already starting with sandy bridge where we cannot clock the fsb like the old days. Their doing a good job at it to segment the markets. I miss the cheap overclock days. Nowadays  overclock is no longer cheap.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 21, 2015)

MIRTAZAPINE said:


> starting with sandy bridge


they started way earlier than "dear Sandy" as far as i know or remember  the P111 was the first that had locked multipliers
My first serious overclock was with a P2 300 ( 300Mhz to 550Mhz )  and that was achieved by setting Jumpers/dip switches on the motherboard. (unlocked multiplier )


----------



## MIRTAZAPINE (Oct 21, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> they started way earlier than "dear Sandy" as far as i know or remember  the P111 was the first that had locked multipliers
> My first serious overclock was with a P2 300 ( 300Mhz to 550Mhz )  and that was achieved by setting Jumpers/dip switches on the motherboard. (unlocked multiplier )



Got to love your ingenuity. That is so much harder to do! I am not that far back. I guess overclocking was not an intended feature.


----------



## dorsetknob (Oct 21, 2015)

Overclocking was not an intended feature until Intel realized that the market they created ( the overclocking community and subsequent industry ) Could be EXPLOITED !!!!
and So Intel Released   the Extreme CPU  with UNLOCKED MULTIPLIER
ONLY $999.99    (Regular CPU $200 ) P4EE socket 478
Ps the prices are only a piss take example but you get the Exploited idea


----------



## Nordic (Oct 23, 2015)

Misaki said:


> Pentium G3258 is a total crap, I had it for a 3 months and sold it. Now I'm going to buy an FX6300.


That is an offily strong statement. It really depends on your task you are using it for. Is it bad in all scenarios? No. Is it not as good as other cpu's in other? yes.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 23, 2015)

Instead of changing boards why not just buy an i5?. I would rather have any 1150 than a FX6300


----------



## Ferrum Master (Oct 23, 2015)

The CPU is indeed crap. But well it is not Microsoft at fault. Intel provides those binary blobs and microsoft just bakes them in. 

Just as the late squeak that bios update brakes windows activation. M$ burn at stake... The fact that obviously the updated bios lacks needed id strings remains silent, just a borked build by oem. 

Sell this cpu and mobo is the best suggestion... Especially if you seek more power and OC is vital for you.


----------

