Monday, December 14th 2015

Rejoice! Base Clock Overclocking to Make a Comeback with "Skylake"

Since Intel fully integrated the core logic (northbridge) with its processors, overclocking them by tinkering with the base-clock (BClk, the primary clock domain from which the CPU's clock speed is set using multipliers), became unstable, as it was used as a cadence for other key components on the chip, such as iGPU and PCIe root-complex. Apparently, with its 6th generation Core "Skylake" processors, Intel has de-linked base-clock from other clock domains, re-enabling overclocking using BClk, which is particularly helpful on non-K (upwards multiplier locked) SKUs.

Some of the first motherboards that enable BClk overclocking on Skylake CPUs come from Supermicro, the server/workstation motherboard maker that's dipping its toes into DIY enthusiast platforms these days. "Dhenzjhen," an overclocker from the Philippines struck gold by achieving a 5.00 GHz overclock on a Core i3-6320 dual-core chip, using a Supermicro C7H170-M motherboard (which is driven by an Intel H170 chipset). Shortly after news of this feat broke, ASRock fired an email to the press, stating that its Z170 Extreme7+ motherboard is able to support 4.50 GHz clocks on a Core i5-6600 quad-core chip, using an experimental BIOS. ASRock is validating this BIOS internally, and hopes to release it "very soon."
Source: The TechReport
Add your own comment

89 Comments on Rejoice! Base Clock Overclocking to Make a Comeback with "Skylake"

#76
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
EarthDoglinks plz... :)

I haven't seen much real world results from cache in any (intel)platform. Only in a couple of hwbot benchmarks does it matter too...

For bclk only, you won't see any increases really on z170 since it isn't associated with any other bus.
No, I wasn't referring to any specific reviews. I was just saying that full reviews would tell us objectively just how much memory overclocking will get us. I'm sure that TPU is gonna do it. Kinda a given. ;)
Posted on Reply
#77
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Oh, this makes me happy. I'd love a nicely clocked i3. Though I wish Intel would just release a K series i3 instead of using these janky hacked BIOSes...
Posted on Reply
#78
EarthDog
qubitNo, I wasn't referring to any specific reviews. I was just saying that full reviews would tell us objectively just how much memory overclocking will get us. I'm sure that TPU is gonna do it. Kinda a given. ;)
there are reviews out which tested this already. Memory is very rarely a bottleneck.. dual or quad channel.

...and I thought you were talking cache anyway?
Posted on Reply
#79
R-T-B
JegergrimI believe without the Bios, the BLCK had a "coded" wall of 102.8Mhz
It didn't. I had it clocked up to 125Mhz no prob at one point. It just hurt everything else because without a special bios (which this news suggests) all other clocks are generated from multiplying the BCLK.
Posted on Reply
#80
Steven B
qubitNo, I wasn't referring to any specific reviews. I was just saying that full reviews would tell us objectively just how much memory overclocking will get us. I'm sure that TPU is gonna do it. Kinda a given. ;)
Cache increases help a lot with memory latency performance, i already did the proper testing.
Posted on Reply
#81
Steven B
Also, the external clock generator shouldn't have much to do with this.

#1 I have a BIOS to unlock non K SKu OC on asrock's mini ITX board which doesnt' have a dedicated clock generator.
#2 You dont' need a dedicated external clock generator to OC BLCK, you only need it if you want to OC BLCK really well (intel says above 250 needs a dedicated external, otherwise the PCH provides both the BLCK and the DMI/PCi-E seperatly).
Posted on Reply
#82
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
EarthDogthere are reviews out which tested this already. Memory is very rarely a bottleneck.. dual or quad channel.

...and I thought you were talking cache anyway?
Steven BCache increases help a lot with memory latency performance, i already did the proper testing.
Steven BAlso, the external clock generator shouldn't have much to do with this.

#1 I have a BIOS to unlock non K SKu OC on asrock's mini ITX board which doesnt' have a dedicated clock generator.
#2 You dont' need a dedicated external clock generator to OC BLCK, you only need it if you want to OC BLCK really well (intel says above 250 needs a dedicated external, otherwise the PCH provides both the BLCK and the DMI/PCi-E seperatly).
Guys, I wasn't talking about cache memory or anything fancy. I'm just saying that increasing the bclk speed will also increase the main memory clock which would tend to remove bottlenecks when the CPU core is overclocked, that's all. If it's already not a bottleneck then that's great.

AnandTech is going to review this overclocking functionality with a raised bclk when the new mobo arrives, so it will be interesting to see what performance gains they get, both with the core and the memory speed.

www.anandtech.com/show/9848/bclk-overclocking-intels-non-k-skylake-processors-coming-soon
Posted on Reply
#83
Steven B
qubitGuys, I wasn't talking about cache memory or anything fancy. I'm just saying that increasing the bclk speed will also increase the main memory clock which would tend to remove bottlenecks when the CPU core is overclocked, that's all. If it's already not a bottleneck then that's great.

AnandTech is going to review this overclocking functionality with a raised bclk when the new mobo arrives, so it will be interesting to see what performance gains they get, both with the core and the memory speed.

www.anandtech.com/show/9848/bclk-overclocking-intels-non-k-skylake-processors-coming-soon
He just reviewed the OC Formula right? The BIOS for that board is already public. If I had a non-K SKu CPu i would test it, but I don't have one hahahaha, I have more k SKUs than i need, but not one non-K SKU. I am honestly waiting to see what Intel does, they can force manufacturers to reverse course, or they could embrace it, or they could keep quiet. At this point all the manufacturers have an excuse to produce this type of hack, but let's see if they force non reversible BIOS upgrades across the board.
Posted on Reply
#84
trog100
market forces control it all.. a chip for every price level.. this situation is artificially contrived.. its not real.. intel need to be able control chip performance and clock speeds..

sales volumes are always more at at the cheaper price levels.. this volume is met by artificially restricting chip performance to match demand.. its all pretty simple..

folks aint gonna buy the more expensive part if the cheaper part with few clicks of a mouse performs just as well.. intel lose nothing with multiplyer unlocked K parts because they are the most expensive parts anyway.. they will lose if folks can make the less expensive parts go faster.. it buggers up the entire pricing structure..

intel try and give the impression they are in favour of "overclocking" and providing its only done with the most expensive parts they are happy bunnies.. they wont be happy with this latest news.. he he

its worth adding that there is no true competition between the two players.. intel set the levels and amd struggle to keep up.. the same applies to graphics cards.. the better player rigs the market..

trog
Posted on Reply
#85
EarthDog
If only you knew how few people this really impacted....
qubitGuys, I wasn't talking about cache memory or anything fancy. I'm just saying that increasing the bclk speed will also increase the main memory clock which would tend to remove bottlenecks when the CPU core is overclocked, that's all. If it's already not a bottleneck then that's great.

AnandTech is going to review this overclocking functionality with a raised bclk when the new mobo arrives, so it will be interesting to see what performance gains they get, both with the core and the memory speed.

www.anandtech.com/show/9848/bclk-overclocking-intels-non-k-skylake-processors-coming-soon
You quoted someone talking about cache (and memory), fyi...

It really isn't going to make a difference compared with a memory multiplier.

Why do you believe it will make a difference?
Posted on Reply
#86
Schmuckley
FrickSomeone wants a decent quite new LGA1150 setup? :D

EDIT: And for the love of mercy, someone try this on Celerons and Pentiums.
Due to current budget..It will be done :D
Gonna have to have dat OCF though. :banghead:
PS: Intel should really only make about 5 chips;They are hurting themselves with production costs for all the silly segmentation.
Posted on Reply
#87
EarthDog
SchmuckleyThey are hurting themselves with production costs for all the silly segmentation.
Actually, they are not. It helps to understand how they make the different bins.
Posted on Reply
#88
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
EarthDogActually, they are not. It helps to understand how they make the different bins.
Just to add to this @Schmuckley, they are thus able to make use of the entire wafer. Sections are tested. Their quality and response determines what they will be.
Posted on Reply
#89
Unregistered


My greatest base overclock

I say welcome back to it, some of my best times fiddling were back when you could oc this way. glad to see it returning
Posted on Edit | Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 26th, 2024 07:50 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts