A video leaked to HKEPC and posted on YouTube (see from 2mins onwards) confirms the fact that only a 2-3 per cent OC 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.Source (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/07/22/intel-to-limit-sandy-bridge-overclocking/1)
...
Intel still plans to sell K-series CPUs which come with an unlocked CPU multiplier - and with this move, the K-series CPUs start to make a lot more sense, as they will be the only Intel CPUs capable of overclocking. Is this move a slap in the face for enthusiasts that will send them towards an AMD Fusion platform or are CPUs just getting fast enough that overclocking really doesn't matter that much to you any more?
Pentium III's are great for overclocking.
How much money will Intel really save on this?
It won't make much of a difference. Consider the total amount of processors bought from Intel. Then think about the amount bought by overclockers. Maybe 0.1% at the most?
Pentium III's are great for overclocking.
And they have 3 new sockets planned (after 1366 and 1156). Why do Intel customers take this ****?
no they're really not
Isn't AMD releasing a CPU with built-in GPU?
Intel is, it's the Sandy Bridge chip mentioned in the article. I don't know about AMD.
AMD probably will jump on the CPUGPU boat (inevitably I'd say) but until then, their current chipsets take care of IGPs very well. The advantage to owning ATI I guess. Intel should integrate Larrabee into Sandy Bridge CPUs; oh shi-.
didnt intel tank the on-die gpu thing? well atleast for now?
and yeah dunno about AMD\ATI creating on-die gpu's
Show Image(http://www.deviantart.com/download/172476281/Sandy_Bridge_and_Bulldozer_by_Phaedrus2401.jpg)
Source (http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/07/22/intel-to-limit-sandy-bridge-overclocking/1)
I don't care if it's necessary or not, if I want to overclock my CPU to 6GHz under liquid nitrogen cooling, I want to overclock my ****ing CPU.
This is both good news and bad news for AMD. On the plus side, this will drive nearly all enthusiasts to use AMD CPUs. I mean, imagine taking a $50 2.2GHz dual core and unlocking/overclocking it into a 4GHz quad core, and compare that to spending $250 for a special "K" edition processor which basically just gives you a guaranteed 10% overclock, no more no less. I know that I'm waiting for AMD's Bulldozer.
On the other hand, with cheaper motherboard costs Intel will be able to drop its platform prices for mainstream units down closer to AMD, which will give them a larger market share in the mainstream/budget markets. That could seriously impact AMD's bottom line, in a very bad way, as lower costs is one of the big drums AMD beats to convince people to come to them from Intel.
No matter what comes of this, it's going to seriously change the CPU market.
Big effing deal if you can't overclock your CPU. Get a CPU that runs fast enough from the beginning!
No factory CPU is as fast as the overclocked ones these days. They don't sell 4.2GHz i7s or anything.
So allow me to sound like a n00b for a sec here... What's the reason why? Is it a safety issue so that they give the chip a ridiculous safety buffer so that there's zero chance of it giving them a bad name by melting down?
Big effing deal if you can't overclock your CPU. Get a CPU that runs fast enough from the beginning!
Overclocking, in general, isn't a good idea unless the person really knows what they're doing.