Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bypassing Intel's Overclock Limit Reveals DDR2-667

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the something-to-think-about dept.

BatonRogue writes "Slashdot posted a Tomshardware article talking about Intel's 10% overclock limit on their new chipsets not too long ago. The situation has just become even more interesting. AnandTech just posted a roundup of DDR2 memory that sheds some light as to why Intel may have implemented the lock. It seems that on the Abit board they tested, which supposedly bypasses the overclock limit, the first generation of DDR2-533 memory modules had no problems working at 667MHz. Could it be that Intel is keeping DDR2-667 support for yet another revision of their new chipsets even though the memory support is clearly here today?"

3 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. A long-running conspiracy by salemnic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, I think we've all heard rumours of an intel conspiracy to make us buy the same product again and again for years now...

    However, one must at least consider that they have a valid reason for this. Long-term stability maybe?

    Oooohh... is that machine stability, or cashflow stability....

    -s

  2. It's all about the Benjamins by Dark+Kenshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could it be that Intel is keeping DDR2-667 support for yet another revision of their new chipsets even though the memory support is clearly here today?"

    Wow, a company may be holding back on technology for a future money making opportunity? This has never happened before!

    --
    "I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
  3. Re:Well... by foxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you stop people from buying cheaper chips and overclocking them

    Of course, you and I, the enthusiasts, aren't the people Intel is worried about when they turn off overclocking. (After all, we've already moved to AMD, right?)

    The problem is grey-market processors. If the processors (or RAM) are easily overclockable, then Tiawancorp Computers may buy 3 gigafoo parts, overclock them to 4 gigafoo, and sell them in computers "with 4 gigafoo parts!" to unsuspecting consumers.

    The hazard here isn't just that Intel loses money-- after all, for every three people you know who overclock processors and have rock stable systems, there's always that guy who can't get the darned thing through much past a boot before the thing locks up. Intel systems become known as "unreliable", which is definitely not a position Intel wants to be in.

    Losing money _and_ losing your reputation is a heck of a double-whammy. I can't say I blame them for wanting to stop overclocking.

    I just can't imagine why they'd do it in a mechanism that could be defeated by the motherboard manufacturers....

    -JDF