Read more.Quote:
Removal of BCLK OC feature follows reports of Intel pressure upon motherboard vendors.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Removal of BCLK OC feature follows reports of Intel pressure upon motherboard vendors.
Comes down to two choices then: either run your Skylake processor with known bugs and be able to OC or have known bugs removed via microcode update and kiss OCing bye bye. Who'd have thought...
Actually, everyone. I'm only surprised it's ASRock that has bitten the bullet first. Perhaps because they aren't (yet) so big to be able to run afoul of Intel.
Naughty intel. I understand the need to make money selling more advanced overclockable chips but blocking it by pushing motherboard vendors to disable features that have already been sold is not on. Hopefully someone can hack it back in so you can get the latest microcode. What's the betting BCLK overclocking will be hardware blocked for the next gen CPUs?
From what I've heard BCLK overclocking is possbile because the FVIR (fully integrated voltage regulator) has been tossed out of the processor again. Apparently, the Haifa team doesn't care for it much. The next (major) processor iteration will be made by the Hillsboro team again, which introduced (and apparently plans to reintroduce) the FVIR.
This is why we need a competitive AMD to stop intel pulling this kind of stuff.
Not naughty Intel at all, they are simply asking motherboard vendors not to enable unsupported configurations, the CPUs in question are sold by Intel as non-overclockable and they have the K range of CPUs with which they support overclocking.
It's naughty of the motherboard vendors to have enabled BCLK overclocking and advertised it without checking it would be alright with Intel - and predictably it isn't.
I wonder if anyone will care enough to demand a refund for their now non-overclockable motherboard/CPU combo? Intel's actions have made it a blatant case of false advertising
Would be interesting to know if the bclk removal is in the microcode or not.....if it isn't then I guess people can just keep their older bios and use UBU to keep the microcode and various firmwares updated.
Did anyone seriously believe the "Master" would let them get away with it? Meanwhile, the other player in the market has no such issues and that fact is not promoted often enough by the controlled media, including Hexus.
Yes, with AMD there has never been an attempt to inhibit the consumer with such trivial issues.
Well if we look back previous generations of processors have allowed bclk overclocking (nehalem architecture) which, while unsupported by Intel officially, many did. I fail to see how this is any different and not just blatant profiteering from Intel to force people to buy the K series of processors. If I'd purchased one of these boards then I would definitely want a refund. You can't market a product stating it can do something which people may base a purchasing decision on, then later remove it whilst fixing unrelated bugs.
Well, I suppose at the very least the "complex workload" bug will have been fixed. The one recently discovered by the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search collective.
Going on the article that was fixed in the last BIOS, my Google-fu must be letting me down because i can't find any release note for any microcode updates.
I was just assuming "that" microcode update would be pushed out with the removal of BCLK overclocking. Stick'n'carrot'n'all that. I'm not sure Intel ever details what's in a microcode update. I'd wager most people wouldn't even know if and when the microcode of their processor was updated.