Intel intends to limit Sandy Bridge chipset overclocking

According to an Intel presentation about their upcoming LGA1155 "Sandy Bridge" CPUs, the company plans to intentionally limit the chip's overclocking capability; it appears that Intel only intends to permit a 2 – 3 percent overclock with the Base Clock adjustments.

BitTech states that “A video leaked to HKEPC and posted on YouTube (see from 2mins onwards) confirms the fact that only a 2-3 percent overclock via Base Clock adjustments will be possible. This is because Intel has tied the speed of every bus (USB, SATA, PCI, PCI-E, CPU cores, Uncore, memory etc) to a single internal clock generator issuing the basic 100MHz Base Clock.”

SandyBridge 2Sandy Bridge

SandyBridge 4 SandyBridge 3

Image Credit: BitTech

The aforementioned clock generator is integrated with the P67 motherboard. It will transmit the clock signal to the CPU via the DMI (Desktop Management Interface) bus. The result being that there is no requirement to have an external clock generator. There are some tradeoffs for the lack of an external clock generator as well. In prior generations of chipsets, the external clock generator allowed separate overclocking of individual hardware. For example, the Memory clock, CPU clock, and SATA speeds have been individually adjustable on prior chipsets.

One Taiwanese company mentioned that an overclock of just 5 MHz on a Sandy Bridge system caused the USB and SATA ports to fail. Apparently, this new design was meant to cut production costs and make the board design simpler. Despite the downfalls of this approach, Intel’s Turbo Boost technology will still work. Turbo Boost is an intelligent self-overclocking feature of modern Intel CPUs. It will also still permit multiplier overhead for hardcore computer enthusiasts.

A further benefit of this chipset is that the memory strap limits are removed on current Sandy Bridge sample boards. However, it is not yet know if this capability will remain when Sandy Bridge motherboards are released. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Neowin Member Reviews: HTC Legend

Next Story

Researchers discover WPA2 vulnerability

72 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Oh I see now, its the Intel fanboys who are thinking any excuse up now trying to defend this decision. What a joke. Go ahead in live in your fantasy world.

TC17 said,
Oh I see now, its the Intel fanboys who are thinking any excuse up now trying to defend this decision. What a joke. Go ahead in live in your fantasy world.

What are you, 12?

TC17 said,
Oh I see now, its the Intel fanboys who are thinking any excuse up now trying to defend this decision. What a joke. Go ahead in live in your fantasy world.

Hmm...3 of 4 of my computers are running AMD chips, yet I can certainly see the sense of this decision. If you can't, then you really should learn more about processors. Having a unified clock will have MANY advantages, and will make it cheaper to produce.

Overclocking will in some tasks actually give a minor speed decrease and the machine will have a hard time syncing things between 2 or more clock cycles. This is actually why I personally have stopped overclocking. It just usually isn't worth it for me.

This will be good news for AMD, as long as they don't do the same thing.

The one persons comment about overclocking not making any difference, what a ridiculous comment.

Personally I would prefer lower power consumption - specifically a cooler PC, rather than the wind tunnel PC have turned into. What Intel giveth Microsoft take away!

I don't need to edit and render hours of holiday videos, and if I wanted a games machine, I would buy a games console dedicated to the task. I once was a fan of AMD, especially after all the Intel's monopolistic practices, but AMD don't seem to have risen to the challenge, and what is worse, their processors seem to always run extremely hot. I'm sticking with Intel Atom laptops, and removing all the unnecessary Microsoft eye candy. Non-sensing about overclocking is for kids with too much time on their hands, living in Mom's basement, Intel must surely know this.

Well lets hope AMD will be there to support the overclocking community and keep intel on toes... its about time for it to happen.. thats a main reason i have always preferred AMD more to Intel they seem too think about the consumer first or rather more so then Intel. IMO

Big loss. Not.

Overclocking is just for epeen--Intel and AMD have both shown that the MHZ war is over. Unless you can overclock another core out of it you're not going to be gaining anything at all anymore.

Long gone are the days of getting a 2.4C that was just a binned 3.06 and could hit it on air without trouble. You know why those days are gone now? Because you that extra 600mhz makes no difference at all.

Want better performance, pay better money, that's how i see intel thinking about this move... it's a shame, but oh well....

I don't see this as a huge issue really. CPU's are so fast and cheap right now, that overclocking really shouldn't be needed and really isn't.

looks like intel cpus are heading towards a more SoC based design.

a global clock simplifies hardware; (i.e. don't need additional circuitry to handle CDC) and allows everything to work together at an increased overall performance. I'm sure the genius intel researches found out that by cutting clock resynchronization overhead provided data that supports this new design and socket.

and it doesn't really matter if we can't OC via the base rate. The base clock rate usually feeds into a DCM in which im sure we can adjust the parameters to overclock just the CPU. Of course other components will have their own DCM fed by the base rate too; its definitely possible to OC those as well.

Since many external components are moving inside the intel cpu; I'm not sure if we can OC via the motherboard bios, unless intel permits an accessible programmable bus.

I for one will wait for the complete transition to a SOC design (or to the point where intel says enough is enough), buying a computer setup in this transitioning phase really kills CPU upgrades. And for those saying they're going to switch to AMD... keep in mind just because you can OC a certain model to 4ghz doesn't mean it performs (overall) better than a 2.8Ghz model with a superior design.

ekw said,
looks like intel cpus are heading towards a more SoC based design.

a global clock simplifies hardware; (i.e. don't need additional circuitry to handle CDC) and allows everything to work together at an increased overall performance. I'm sure the genius intel researches found out that by cutting clock resynchronization overhead provided data that supports this new design and socket.

and it doesn't really matter if we can't OC via the base rate. The base clock rate usually feeds into a DCM in which im sure we can adjust the parameters to overclock just the CPU. Of course other components will have their own DCM fed by the base rate too; its definitely possible to OC those as well.

Since many external components are moving inside the intel cpu; I'm not sure if we can OC via the motherboard bios, unless intel permits an accessible programmable bus.

I for one will wait for the complete transition to a SOC design (or to the point where intel says enough is enough), buying a computer setup in this transitioning phase really kills CPU upgrades. And for those saying they're going to switch to AMD... keep in mind just because you can OC a certain model to 4ghz doesn't mean it performs (overall) better than a 2.8Ghz model with a superior design.


Thank you! I was reading through the replies and I was like "are these people absolutely clueless?" until i read your post. Thank you for giving me some faith in people around here

LGA 1155 is a replacement for LGA 1156, which is for budget systems.
Any serious overclocker would go for LGA 1366 which is going to be replaced with LGA 2011. I'm sure LGA 2011 will allow overclocking.

Everlong241 said,
LGA 1155 is a replacement for LGA 1156, which is for budget systems.
Any serious overclocker would go for LGA 1366 which is going to be replaced with LGA 2011. I'm sure LGA 2011 will allow overclocking.

actually it's more like:
1366 for Servers, Workstations and Enthusiasts
1156 for Mainstream

Who cares overclockers? Believe me I do overclock . But its apparent in the future your not going to get much from overclocking.

Since we're on the subject I have a i7 920 (2.66Ghz) with the stock intel HSF, anyone OC one of these with the stock HSF? If so how high have you managed to get it without insane temps? I figure all or most of intels i7's use the same HSF design, so I should be able to get 3 or 3.2Ghz using this.

I'm too lazy to swap it out for some custom 3rd party HSF.

GP007 said,
Since we're on the subject I have a i7 920 (2.66Ghz) with the stock intel HSF, anyone OC one of these with the stock HSF? If so how high have you managed to get it without insane temps? I figure all or most of intels i7's use the same HSF design, so I should be able to get 3 or 3.2Ghz using this.

While stock HSFs (especially the Intel push-pin design, used by LGA1366/1156/775) are at best bemoaned and at worst reviled, you can actually get some decent overcrank action going, even with push-pin stock HSFs on LGA775. (At one point I had a seventy-five percent overclock (2.85 GHz actual compared to 1.6 GHz stock) on the E1200 I run today; I wound up back at stock for reasons outside the CPU and motherboard, which I still have, and use, today.)

One other thing about Sandy Bridge - this chipset is the planned successor for the LGA1156 onboard-graphics chipsets known as G5x; the chipsets in this range are, by and large, not supposed to be even remotely overclock-friendly.
I'm too lazy to swap it out for some custom 3rd party HSF.

GP007 said,
Since we're on the subject I have a i7 920 (2.66Ghz) with the stock intel HSF, anyone OC one of these with the stock HSF? If so how high have you managed to get it without insane temps? I figure all or most of intels i7's use the same HSF design, so I should be able to get 3 or 3.2Ghz using this.

I'm too lazy to swap it out for some custom 3rd party HSF.

If you are willing to seriously overclock it, you would be better with a 3rd party cooler. I can recommend Cooler Master V8 (the best HFS I have owned) or if you have the money, go with the V10.

Epic0range said,
I'm getting 4GHz on air with my current AMD Quad, I wont be upgrading for a while.

Not only you, I OC'ed my Q6600 by more than 30%! C2D users clock over 50%, AMD Phenome 2 are also used to crazy overclocking.

The overclocking market is so tiny in comparison to the overall market that I really doubt Intel cares. So they lose .01% of their market. That's a ****ing rounding error.

roadwarrior said,
The overclocking market is so tiny in comparison to the overall market that I really doubt Intel cares. So they lose .01% of their market. That's a ****ing rounding error.

Wrong, Enthusiasts are the people that buy the fastest, latest and greatest hardware from Intel, the "average" so called 99.99% of users still use single and dual core cpus based on Core 2 or buy ready built computers that still use older technology.

Richard Hammond said,

Wrong, Enthusiasts are the people that buy the fastest, latest and greatest hardware from Intel, the "average" so called 99.99% of users still use single and dual core cpus based on Core 2 or buy ready built computers that still use older technology.

When was the last time you looked on Dell.com?

i7s and i5s have been the standard in the pre-built computer market for a long time. The average consumer market is by far their highest profit margin and even if they lost every single overclockers I doubt it would put a dint in their operating revenue.

Richard Hammond said,

Wrong, Enthusiasts are the people that buy the fastest, latest and greatest hardware from Intel, the "average" so called 99.99% of users still use single and dual core cpus based on Core 2 or buy ready built computers that still use older technology.

You just reiterated what I said, so how was what I said wrong? Average users couldn't care less about overclocking, only "enthusiasts" care about it. So by limiting overclocking, Intel might lose that enthusiast market, but the rest of the market would remain untouched.

Why another socket? 1366 and 1156 are enough, but a new one? Come on.
This only makes the average user get confused about what to buy.

ajua said,
Why another socket? 1366 and 1156 are enough, but a new one? Come on.
This only makes the average user get confused about what to buy.

WEll the new 2011 (high end SB that replaces the 1366 sockets adds more cache ofc and also more QPI links, 4x iirc, so the memory controller is bigger while the overall arch is smaller, 32nm vs 45nm. On the midrange 1156 to 1155 change though, I dunno what the deal is there. But those chips don't use QPI anyways.

ajua said,
Why another socket? 1366 and 1156 are enough, but a new one? Come on.
This only makes the average user get confused about what to buy.

Average users don't build computers LOL

This article is not true. Francois from Intel confirmed that SB will allow overclocking...

Overclocking will be different on SB, but it will still be a lot of fun too, and it will be as good/high as usual, and Anybody who claim the opposite just have an agenda..
..
Let 's close this thread ... all was said ... Intel does not have a crazy plan to stop overclocking, otherwise, i would have hanged the dudes in my attic (Metaphore)
- http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...ead.php?t=256063&page=4
dude's French. read the thread for more...

Meph said,
I've never understood this "overclocking" thing. In layman's terms, what does it mean/do?

It simply means, increasing the default clock speed. If the default speed of a processor is 2GHz, but someone is running the same thing at 2.5Ghz, it has been overclocked.

Meph said,
I've never understood this "overclocking" thing. In layman's terms, what does it mean/do?
Simply put, it allows many of us to buy cheaper components (with similar features) that when overclocked, can run faster than the more expensive counterparts.

Using your motherboard's capabilities, you can modify (by adjusting clocks and voltage) settings to run the CPU, RAM and Video Cards faster.

Meph said,
I've never understood this "overclocking" thing. In layman's terms, what does it mean/do?
CPU pump bits and bytes in cycles per second. To Make the CPU pump faster, you increase the MULTIPLIER which is like a gate to control the cycles of frequency (input/output), and the tiny increase in electricity it needs to push through the gate. This in effect increase the output frequency at a faster cycle per second. Now that would sound just but in some mobo, you are wrecking the FSB as well and the board will not function correctly. This is why they call this "over-clock" as in "over-speed".

that's funny... The guy said he doesn't understand what is overcloacking, meaning he don't have big knowledge or when he read about it, was too complexe.

Then, you got a first answer, pretty straight forward and esay to understand (and it answered the question).

After that, someone though it might need to explain it again, but from another point of view (budget side) with a little more tech speach (clock, voltage, cpu, ram...).

Then after that, someone though it wasn't enough and clear, he decided to post another explaination, but this time with high detail on the working of components, the physics it implied and all... a bit overkill for the main question.


It's like asking what is a gaz pump in a car and starting to explain how to motor work to explain the flow char of the gaz in the gaz pump, instead of saying "it pump to gaz from the tank to the motor"...

Nodiaque said,
that's funny... The guy said he doesn't understand what is overcloacking, meaning he don't have big knowledge or when he read about it, was too complexe.

Then, you got a first answer, pretty straight forward and esay to understand (and it answered the question).

After that, someone though it might need to explain it again, but from another point of view (budget side) with a little more tech speach (clock, voltage, cpu, ram...).

Then after that, someone though it wasn't enough and clear, he decided to post another explaination, but this time with high detail on the working of components, the physics it implied and all... a bit overkill for the main question.


It's like asking what is a gaz pump in a car and starting to explain how to motor work to explain the flow char of the gaz in the gaz pump, instead of saying "it pump to gaz from the tank to the motor"...

Nodiaque, do you know what "layman's term" means? He wants to know what "over-clock" means and what it does. The guys posted above me was not too discreet and wasn't really explaining to well. Kinda went over the other side of the definition of "over-clock". So I have to explain it in regular English. Did you answer the question or do you just want to flame?

Nodiaque said,
that's funny... The guy said he doesn't understand what is overcloacking, meaning he don't have big knowledge or when he read about it, was too complexe.

Then, you got a first answer, pretty straight forward and esay to understand (and it answered the question).

After that, someone though it might need to explain it again, but from another point of view (budget side) with a little more tech speach (clock, voltage, cpu, ram...).

Then after that, someone though it wasn't enough and clear, he decided to post another explaination, but this time with high detail on the working of components, the physics it implied and all... a bit overkill for the main question.


It's like asking what is a gaz pump in a car and starting to explain how to motor work to explain the flow char of the gaz in the gaz pump, instead of saying "it pump to gaz from the tank to the motor"...

That's funny, some moron decided not to answer the question and instead mock everyone who did. He said "layman's terms". Failure.

i just get sick of the socket redisign every facking 3 months, i liked the old days where u could get a damn good upgrade run on the one socket

DKAngel said,
i just get sick of the socket redisign every facking 3 months, i liked the old days where u could get a damn good upgrade run on the one socket

Soooo true! Why did they release LGA1156 in the first place, if the knew they were going to replace it with LGA1155 soon. Oh wait!
LGA775 was nice - if you got a good board - mine was made compatible with Core2Duo via BIOS-update and later with another one it was made compatible with Core2Quad too...

MFH said,

Soooo true! Why did they release LGA1156 in the first place, if the knew they were going to replace it with LGA1155 soon. Oh wait!
LGA775 was nice - if you got a good board - mine was made compatible with Core2Duo via BIOS-update and later with another one it was made compatible with Core2Quad too...

actually, 775 was a joke, there were like 3 or 4 different versions of their power specification and each CPU cycle required a newer version which you could not fix via BIOS update as it required physical modifications to the board (new capacitors and coils).

First of all Turbo Technology is utter crap cause overclocks only one 1 or 2 cores and it is effing joke. That's a first thing every person should disabled and go with real overclocking. I run 6 Core Intel CPU at 4.00Ghz all 6 cores!
If Intel plans to unlock their CPUs then i don't have problems with this. Turbo disabled, higher multiplier and it's all good. I am sure that top of the line CPUs will be unlocked, but for what price?

AMD Bulldozer here i come...

techguy77 said,
First of all Turbo Technology is utter crap cause overclocks only one 1 or 2 cores and it is effing joke. That's a first thing every person should disabled and go with real overclocking. I run 6 Core Intel CPU at 4.00Ghz all 6 cores!
If Intel plans to unlock their CPUs then i don't have problems with this. Turbo disabled, higher multiplier and it's all good. I am sure that top of the line CPUs will be unlocked, but for what price?

AMD Bulldozer here i come...

Well oh no. I'm sure all of your SIX cores are feeling the stress.

Thank god Intel is changing the CPU-socket again
LGA1156 is already available since September 2009, time for a new motherboard!! Think I'll stay at LGA775 a little longer and replace my Core2Duo with a Quad...

MFH said,
Thank god Intel is changing the CPU-socket again
LGA1156 is already available since September 2009, time for a new motherboard!! Think I'll stay at LGA775 a little longer and replace my Core2Duo with a Quad...

Yea! It's great that they change socket every year so that you have to buy a new mobo to upgrade your proc, awesome!

So which bright spark thought this future strategy up, they should be shot by Intel. I take it Intel are not putting their future financial growth on this idea? All this will do is play into the hands of AMD, who will exploit this and produce CPU's that the enthusiast will want to purchase.
As an enthusiast I will have to seriously consider my future upgrades, if Intel go ahead with this stupid future strategy.

bomberh said,
So which bright spark thought this future strategy up, they should be shot by Intel. I take it Intel are not putting their future financial growth on this idea? All this will do is play into the hands of AMD, who will exploit this and produce CPU's that the enthusiast will want to purchase.
As an enthusiast I will have to seriously consider my future upgrades, if Intel go ahead with this stupid future strategy.

+1

News just in, Intel makes more money from people who don't overclock than those who do. Oh wait.
I thought overclockers were meant to buy the Intel CPUs with unlocked multipliers anyway.

bomberh said,
So which bright spark thought this future strategy up, they should be shot by Intel. I take it Intel are not putting their future financial growth on this idea? All this will do is play into the hands of AMD, who will exploit this and produce CPU's that the enthusiast will want to purchase.
As an enthusiast I will have to seriously consider my future upgrades, if Intel go ahead with this stupid future strategy.

Closed minded much? look at the bigger picture.

99% of people don't even know what overclocking is let alone do it.

Standard clock speeds are more than enough.
Thanks

newsflash: AMD always produced CPUs for the enthusiast crowd. They got behind a couple cycles due to their harsh economical situation, but Bulldozer should fix things up. They are already playing the big game in the GPU side, just give them time to get back on the CPU game.

As someone who bought a 2.6GHz Core i7 and overclocked it to 4GHz I have to same I am incredibly annoyed by this move. This is only being done because AMD is not at all competitive, which is a real shame.

theyarecomingforyou said,
As someone who bought a 2.6GHz Core i7 and overclocked it to 4GHz I have to same I am incredibly annoyed by this move. This is only being done because AMD is not at all competitive, which is a real shame.

what has amd got to do with intel's decision to limit overclocking?

theyarecomingforyou said,
As someone who bought a 2.6GHz Core i7 and overclocked it to 4GHz I have to same I am incredibly annoyed by this move. This is only being done because AMD is not at all competitive, which is a real shame.

I agree. Turbo Overclocking is a ****ing joke.

Soldiers33 said,

what has amd got to do with intel's decision to limit overclocking?


Because AMD arent challenging Intel to be faster and have better features, Intel can get lazy and start to limit chipsets on the cost principal so it makes them more money.

theyarecomingforyou said,
As someone who bought a 2.6GHz Core i7 and overclocked it to 4GHz I have to same I am incredibly annoyed by this move. This is only being done because AMD is not at all competitive, which is a real shame.

But these aren't even the top end/high end chips we're talking about here. the socket 1155's are like the current i5 are and use DMI iirc. There will be highend socket 2011 i7s for sure, which still use QPI, even more of it than the current x58 chipset does. Those shouldn't be limited in this way.

techguy77 said,

I agree. Turbo Overclocking is a ****ing joke.

That's funny. The turbo overclocking on my dell laptop makes a world of difference! lol.

thatguyandrew1992 said,

Have fun being slow!

What slow? My AMD Phenom II X4 955 great and I have not had overclock a damn thing to get it there.

Billus said,
Goodbye Intel, hello AMD.

You wish. Every single laptop/desktop I've used with an AMD processor is complete sh**. My little netbook with its tinny little Intel N280 almost seems faster and more reliable to me.

jelli said,
Can't see many hardware enthusiasts enjoying this change.

When you have a 8 core CPU running at up around 3.8Ghz by default, what more do you actually want? Sure some OC enthusiasts might not like it, but then again, I'm sure Intel will have a server chipset or something that doesn't follow this setup.

Don't forget the higher end socket 2011 versions.

GP007 said,

When you have a 8 core CPU running at up around 3.8Ghz by default, what more do you actually want? Sure some OC enthusiasts might not like it, but then again, I'm sure Intel will have a server chipset or something that doesn't follow this setup.

Don't forget the higher end socket 2011 versions.

Oh I admit, increasing power and the reduction in cost of CPUs has been brilliant, and for most users it is more than adequate. However some people do like to try and push the barrier or achieve the most out of hardware.

Also remember when everyone thought an Athlon 64 was enough? There will always be more you want whether it be increased clock speed, lower power consumption, greater core count, increased instruction sets, etc.

jelli said,

Oh I admit, increasing power and the reduction in cost of CPUs has been brilliant, and for most users it is more than adequate. However some people do like to try and push the barrier or achieve the most out of hardware.

Also remember when everyone thought an Athlon 64 was enough? There will always be more you want whether it be increased clock speed, lower power consumption, greater core count, increased instruction sets, etc.

Ya, and for those people who wanna overclock like mad intel has the top end socket 2011 models (which will probably be the higher end i7s that still use QPI and not DMI like these 1155 models do).