Should AMD leave their CPU's unlocked?

[Zak33]

Simple vote.....but do comment underneath too.

Lets face it....most of us would NOT have ised AMD a few years back. Intel for most of us.

Then Athlon hit.....then overclocking Athlon hit harder....then they got very powerfull indeed....and we were all buying and building systems on AMD BECAUSE we liked the value and the overclocks.

And then...LOCK. They closed some of the potential with Bartons being locked. Then BANG the newer 64bits were locked too (with FX55 exceptions)

Simple vote. Cheers

[mike_w]

I think they should be unlocked - one of the main reasons for going AMD is that they, in my opinion, provide decent value for money, and a part of that is being able to overclock.

One idea is that they could carry on with the line up as it is, but release some CPUs that are unlocked but otherwise identical to the current Athlon 64s at a small premium (a bit like the Mobile Bartons).

[Rave]

I can see why they started locking XPs, 'fake' processors with modified bridges were becoming a real problem. With A64s, I don't really know why they bother, since they a) have a heatspreader and b) can't be bridge modded anyway. I suppose it could be so that dodgy system integrator can't cheat by OCing chips and then selling them as a higher speed grade. That would make sense, since the lower multipliers are unlocked.

Still, it basically matters not, with the right motherboard you can OC pretty much any A64 to its limits and then tweak the memory so it's close to it's maximum speed. Some boards will run an HTT of 320MHz or more with little effort, which is a greater than 50% OC at the processor's stock multiplier.

Rich :¬)

[skattrd]

Unlocking was always a big plus with AMD and one of the main reasons I bought them.
Anyone who has used AMD for a while has to know the AXIA and JIUHB chips - they must have shifted loads of those .....

I think as long as they keep releasing some that are unlocked (like mobiles) to keep the hardcore enthusiast happy then thats fair enough, but they should definitely not lock ALL chips.

[Zak33]

ironically....I perosnally have killed 2 cpus....which both got replaced. So in theory it has cost me (and earned them) a fair amount of dough.

hands up who elese has fried one?

Exactly. If they are unlocked we buy more anyway

[Agent]

They should make it a requirement to chipset makers, that on bootup the real speed / rating of the chip is shown. If its overclocked, it should say it is.
Intel do a simlar thing, where upon booting, it will show the real ID string of the CPU, then its overclocked speed under it.
Heck, you could even go one step further, and add "OVERCLOCKED" in large, red, flashing letters (ok, maybe not, but you get the idea ), so people who have brought their PC will ask questions if this happens at bootup. Because, quite frankly, overclockers aint going to be bothered in the slightest if the words overclocked are shown at POST. Infact, id want to know why mind WASNT showing it

But over rating CPU's is a serious problem. Ive seen several (2 to be exact, but still...)smaller "street" style stores do it in the past, trying to pass off slower chips as faster ones. Thats just local to me. When you consider the amount of computer outlets in this country alone, the numbers add up. Factor Europe and the USA into it, and i can understand why AMD are worried.

With somthing like i mentioned above (overclocked showing, along with its real speed), id say yup, unlock them. But AMD CPU's became stupidly easy to overclock. Go into BIOS, change multi, save, and you have a chip that can be resold in a system for £50 more, along with the no clue PC user being ripped off in the process.
If that situation arose again, then id be hesitant to say yes. I hate seeing people be ripped off.

[skattrd]

ironically....I perosnally have killed 2 cpus....which both got replaced. So in theory it has cost me (and earned them) a fair amount of dough.

hands up who elese has fried one?

I've only killed one AMD CPU, but it was a rather expensive xp2200 (one of the aweful T'bred A's when they were just released) ..... and yes I did go out and buy another one

[Steve]

...but in a range of chips all fabbed at the same time, all to a good standard, the ones marked at the lower end will probably overclock as well as the high end marked ones. We'll all buy the cheapest and o/c to the same max level as those top ones can achieve, and AMD lose money.

I still want unlocked CPU's, but do you see where I'm coming from?

[Zak33]

I do....but imagine a manufacturer who just let us do what we wanted. Encouraged it even.

We'd all be on their side. Maybe its better like it is. Just dont think so in my head

[myth]

It should be locked! If you want a faster CPU then pay for it! Buying a cheap one and OCing it is hurting the chip makers...

[Steve]

But is it?

[Agent]

...but in a range of chips all fabbed at the same time, all to a good standard, the ones marked at the lower end will probably overclock as well as the high end marked ones. We'll all buy the cheapest and o/c to the same max level as those top ones can achieve, and AMD lose money.

I still want unlocked CPU's, but do you see where I'm coming from?

Although they may "loose money" on that chip, they will make it back in the long run.
If you kill a chip, and a buy a new one, im sure AMD will have made there money back with ease. Furthermore, how many systems would you build for other people, that would include a AMD chip. Do you tell people to look for a AMD chip, when they buy a PC ? - ill put money on it that you do

Also, keep in mind, everytime you run a chip over its rated speed, you run the risk of making it unstable and / or shortening its life - overclocking is more of a hobby than a money saving scheme, the fact is, it doesnt matter if you *do* buy a faster rating chip, the people we are talking about here would overclock that one too !

[mike_w]

Another point I just though of is that we, the Hexus community, are mainly computer enthusiasts, meaning that we are likely to overclock our stuff. But the vast majority of processors that are shifted go to businesses and average home users, who will never touch overclocking. By unlocking their CPUs, they only affect a small part of the market, which will probably buy more AMD CPUs because of the fact that they're unlocked anyway.

WIth regards to the problem of average people being conned by overclocked CPUs, Agent's solution is simple, but I think it could make a difference if they do something like that.

[Swafe]

i voted yes

from our persepctive ? yes ! AMD give a good value processor, yet still with unlocked multipliers, you can get even more value out of them, therefore, making them better for the same price

no tho, from AMDs point of view, take the FX53 and the XP4000 - there both esentially the same CPU, apart from one is unlocked, so whats more desirable ? the FX - its the overclockers CPU, the daddy, the enthusiasts processor, it can do more than most, and more, because its unlocked

sure the XP4000 is stupidly fast, but the FX53 IS better, theres no doubt about that, if you got offered a CPU for free youd take the FX53, not the 4000XP unless you were a silly billy

so why do AMD lock CPUs? well the FX's are their premium and need something to give them the edge over other processors in the range, the FX demonstrates this, and clearly, as its unlocked, it doesnt cost AMD more, but due to the rest of the range being locked, and it being unlocked, they can charge more

[Agent]

so why do AMD lock CPUs? well the FX's are their premium and need something to give them the edge over other processors in the range, the FX demonstrates this, and clearly, as its unlocked, it doesnt cost AMD more, but due to the rest of the range being locked, and it being unlocked, they can charge more

Exactly, but in the process, they are p'eeing their most loyal fanbase off.
Can you imagine what would happen if Intel decided to unlock their CPU's for a few months ?
How many AMD users would jump ship ? - i wouldnt think twice. Give me the chance for a bargain and im there.
Its the same old story, brand loyality means nothing to a company anymore. The quicker consumers start the realise this the better.
Its no different with the ATi / nVidia debates. Some people would stay with one company regardless of if the other was to release a better card at half the price.
Im just hoping Intel see's a hole in the market here and decides to come in with an "overclockers" chip too. They would certainly make a lot of friends, while p'eeing AMD off if they undercut them too.
And in the end, non of us would loose out. Competition is good

[daniel_owen_uk]

I can see why they lock them, my processor runs @ 2.6ghz instead of 1.8 thats a 2500 running at... I can't even work it out say 3500.

At the time I bought it the 3500 was considerably more expensive than the 2500, (by maybe £75). Thats £75 not in amd's pocket (minus of course the markup by etailer).

In saying that there is a legit reason for unlocking as with the mobile, it allows you to vary the ram used. That reason of course dissapears with the a64