Some users just assume that if I could screw up by testing out the latest BIOS, that I somehow wouldn't know enough to flash it back to one I knew worked.
It depends if he can roll back BIOS far enough for a new microcode.
Intel could very well spoil AMD's party @ late 2016/early 2017 by fully supporting BCLK OC on non-K Kabylake-S. Here's hoping that's what they're planning.
I dont see it happening. They want to guard the price premium for the K models too desperately. Now if they would bring out an "anniversary edition analogue" overclockable i3, that might make sense.
But I cant see them allowing overclocking i5 and i7. If they did what would be the point of the K models?
That is nonsense. The only thing you spoil doing that is your credibility as a company.Intel could very well spoil AMD's party @ late 2016/early 2017 by fully supporting BCLK OC on non-K Kabylake-S. Here's hoping that's what they're planning.
That is nonsense. The only thing you spoil doing that is your credibility as a company.
Shipping something without said feature, having that feature enables unwillingly by mobo oems, shutting it down because it hurts your segmentation, having it back to hurt your competition. Yeah, great secuence going in there.
Intel said:“The latest update provided to partners includes, among other things, code that aligns with the position that we do not recommend overclocking processors that have not been designed to do so. Additionally, Intel does not warranty the operation of the processor beyond its specifications.”
What you should wish is to intel backtrack now and stop shafting their customers today, people already made purchase decisions based on a feature they see now removed. That is complete BS.
Maybe it wasn't planned to debut with Skylake but later on.
Honestly it was always a 'hack', not a feature, despite what marketing from MB manufacturers said.
What you should wish is to intel backtrack now and stop shafting their customers today, people already made purchase decisions based on a feature they see now removed. That is complete BS.
That is nonsense. The only thing you spoil doing that is your credibility as a company.
Shipping something without said feature, having that feature enables unwillingly by mobo oems, shutting it down because it hurts your segmentation, having it back to hurt your competition. Yeah, great secuence going in there.
What you should wish is to intel backtrack now and stop shafting their customers today, people already made purchase decisions based on a feature they see now removed. That is complete BS.
Same node, same number of EUs (24) and slightly lower clocks yet HD 520 still trounces HD 5500 in some games. Too bad Haswell is not included.
Those are oldish games though. Rise of the Tomb Raider for instance, the 940M is twice as fast than the HD 530 and the game is unplayable on the 530 even at the bare min. And I think that's DDR3, the 950M is 60 fps as the bare min settings.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Rise-of-the-Tomb-Raider-Notebook-Benchmarks.158810.0.html
I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt, HD 4600 >30% faster than HD 5500 and barely any improvement from HD 520 (vs Haswell)?
Seriously?When you can't even read temps properly and OEMs were trying to enable OCable non-Z MBs that might not deal well with >95W power draw I think there's more to it than just 'product segmentation'.
Honestly it was always a 'hack', not a feature, despite what marketing from MB manufacturers said.
Indeed, an Intel representative just twitted happily about it, and indirectly hinted the feature is here to stay.Intel never promised the feature; mobo makers did.
Seriously?
Are you not aware K chips overclock bclk just fine without any of the hack problems? 6600k @ 370MHz bclk where temps, AVX2 instructions work just fine.
Are you not aware the non-k chips are locked from going above ~103MHz but when the lock is hacked they run stable at high bclks and that it is the hack method which causes the problems with power management and not the increased bclk.
I don't understand why you think Intel would want bclk unlocked on all SKU's especially in light of what has recently happened..
I don't understand why you think Intel would want bclk unlocked on all SKU's especially in light of what has recently happened..
ShintaiDK said:The lock isn't hacked. The mobo makers uses a another clock generator for non K. That is also why you end up with a galore of issues with non K compared to K.
This one is very fishy here. Why does the HD520/530 is faster than Iris 5200 and Geforce 940M?
This is nonsense ShintaiDK, the reason for "the galore of issues" is due to power management not being initialized. You can produce the same symptoms with Haswell by not initializing power management. MCHBAR +0x5DA8, look it up.The lock isn't hacked. The mobo makers uses a another clock generator for non K. That is also why you end up with a galore of issues with non K compared to K.
This is nonsense ShintaiDK, the reason for "the galore of issues" is due to power management not being initialized. You can produce the same symptoms with Haswell by not initializing power management. MCHBAR +0x5DA8, look it up.
So again, move forward to November 2015, when we wrote about Supermicro working around this 3% limitation using an external clock generator and modified firmware. It essentially opened the floodgates not only could you overclock by adjusting the base frequency on a non Z-series chipset, but also on processors that were previously locked or only moved 3%.
How can you be sure that's not one of the reasons why they decoupled BCLK base clock from other clock domains?
Maybe it wasn't planned to debut with Skylake but later on.
When you can't even read temps properly and OEMs were trying to enable OCable non-Z MBs that might not deal well with >95W power draw I think there's more to it than just 'product segmentation'.
Honestly it was always a 'hack', not a feature, despite what marketing from MB manufacturers said.
And sorry to burst the bubble of those thinking Intel won't react if the competition shows up with a competitive product for a similar price. Either new 'K' CPUs, improved BCLK overclock capability, higher core count for mainstream or more affordable HEDT, they have plenty of ways to respond.
Dont expect Intel to let you OC non K processors with Kabylake.Enhanced Full Range BCLK Overclocking 2
2. Unlocked features are present with select chipsets and processor combinations.