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?"

56 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Dancing with stability... by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will DDR2 memory let me hit twice as many arrows at the same BPM?

    1. Re:Dancing with stability... by miketang16 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny experience with one of my less computer literate friends.

      Friend 1: "Yea.. so my new motherboard apparently has support for dual-channel DDR."
      Friend 2: "What about support for DDR2?"
      Friend 3: (has been listening intently with a blank look on his face) "They made a sequel to Dance Dance Revolution?! What does that have to do with your motherboard?"
      Friend 1: "...Yea.. they made a sequel...let's go with that..." (continues conversation)

      --
      -------
      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
      -- George Orwell
  2. Wasn't there an AMD related article last week? by XMichael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I seem to recall last week almost the exact same posting, however it was using AMD's name rather than Intel.

    Anyone got any intel on that? (-;

    Mike

    --
    Gamblers Forum
  3. 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

    1. Re:A long-running conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      make us buy the same product again and again for years now

      I concur. Now where can a fellow get his hands on a decent 8-track player these days?

    2. Re:A long-running conspiracy by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "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..."

      You'd think they'd be able to stay on top of AMD if that were the case.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:A long-running conspiracy by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess you've never heard of the 487 math co-processor deception,
      quote, "In a real marketing coup, uninformed computer users did not know that they purchased and installed the much more powerful 486DX microprocessor in their computers."

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:A long-running conspiracy by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was hardly a deception. Intel sold chips with damaged Co-Processors as 486SXs. This allowed them to increase their chip yields, and make money on something that would have otherwise been garbage. That's not to say that some SXs didn't have working coprocessors that had been disabled. In those cases, Intel simply remarked DX chips to meet the demand for the SX line. (How many damaged chips can you manufacture?)

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    5. Re:A long-running conspiracy by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      read the link - they were designed to only operate with the disabled chip in place, in essence, you paid for two chip and were only using one. Yes it was deceptive. The users beleived they had a cpu and a seperate expensive add-on doing the math. In reality they had one chip that HAD to be there disabled and doing nothing so it couldn't be used on another motherboard.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    6. Re:A long-running conspiracy by Short+Circuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's more to the competition than just out-performing your competitor for this cycle.

      You have to have your next product ready for your anounced (or even widely rumored) release date. It's a lot easier to resell the same overperforming device at lower performance levels than to keep producing new overperforming devices at the same rate.

      Basically, you take bigger, slower steps, but you only report a frequently increasing fraction of each completed step in order to keep a comparable product out there competing with your competitors'.

      Also, having a single product for a longer period of time allows you to tune the hell of that product while R&D is working on pumping out the next generation. So by the end of your cycle, you'll have a reputation for a stable product.

      Finally, having a single design with a long lifespan gives you insurance in case there are delays in the R&D while they're trying to produce the next generation. You don't want your competitor to come out with two or three iterations of their product while you've only got a single relatively lackluster device on the market. (This has happened to Intel in the past...look at some of the old benchmarks on Ars Technica.)

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    7. Re:A long-running conspiracy by lonesome+phreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
      But it was obsolete before I opened the box
      You say you've had your desktop for over a week?
      Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique
      Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great
      If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight

      Weird Al, "All About the Pentiums".

      --
      Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
    8. Re:A long-running conspiracy by ePhil_One · · Score: 4, Insightful
      in essence, you paid for two chip and were only using one. Yes it was deceptive. The users beleived they had a cpu and a seperate expensive add-on doing the math.

      Let me see. Users paid the price for two chip solution that would actually be slower than the single chip solution. Users actually got the faster single chip solution. Instead of forcing users to pay full price for a 486DX, they offered a mislabeled 486DX that they sold to users who already had a 486SX at a large discount.

      Yes, lets curse those bastards! Never buy anything from a vendor that gives you more than you paid for!

      Yo know, I heard a rumor that Intel is still up to these tricks! Appearantly, all P4 Northwood CPU's are identical, cut from the same slice of Silicon even, burned from the same mask! and they have the gall to sell "3.2" Ghz parts for hundreds more that "2.4" Ghz parts.

      Cripes people! It costs about 50cents to actually produce the chips, billions to design the damned things, and this causes some weirdness in the marketing of them. AMD does this as well, the test only enough parts to meet the "demand" for the high speed parts, everything else gets tested at the next lowest speed. There are hundreds of "Overclocking" sites that point this out all over the web. Are you going to accuse Intel of ripping you off because that 2.4Ghz chip could have run at 3.2Ghz? You paid for a level of performance, you got that level of performance.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
  4. Well... by kemapa · · Score: 4, 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?

    I'm suprised one must even ask this question, because the answer is absolutely Intel would do something like this. Keep in mind that the benefit of locking overclocking to only 10% is twofold for Intel. Not only do you disguise the now revealed fact that DDR2 is ready for faster speeds, but you stop people from buying cheaper chips and overclocking them. At least, that's what intel intended before the mobo manufactureres bypassed the locking. Think about it in this theoretical situation, why should I buy the $1000 3.4Ghz chip when I can buy the $500 3.2Ghz chip and overclock it 200Mhz?

    1. Re:Well... by strictnein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Keep in mind that the benefit of locking overclocking to only 10% is twofold for Intel. Not only do you disguise the now revealed fact that DDR2 is ready for faster speeds, but you stop people from buying cheaper chips and overclocking them.

      Think about it in this theoretical situation, why should I buy the $1000 3.4Ghz chip when I can buy the $500 3.2Ghz chip and overclock it 200Mhz?

      Which is within Intel's 10% overclocking lock... so... your point is?

      --
      Casual Games/Downloads
    2. Re:Well... by Dracolytch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Simple, because I want a machine that is reliable, that I don't have to dick around wi... Did you say $500?

      ~D

      --
      This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is within Intel's 10% overclocking lock... so... your point is?

      The point still stands true, he just didn't think that someone would really have the spare time to nitpick the theoretical example. Just change his example to say:

      Why buy the $1000 3.4Ghz chip when I can buy the $500 3.0Ghz chip and overclock it 400Mhz? Which is over 10% overclock.

    4. 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

    5. Re:Well... by eggoeater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This reminds me of a story an older IT guy told me years ago. He was in charge of several mini-computers in the 70s. The company who made the computer told him they could upgrade it when he needed more capacity. When he ordered the upgrade, the computer company sent a tech out to do it. The tech opened up a panel on the computer, cut one wire with a pair of clippers and closed the panel. I don't think they even had to reboot it.

      --
      $7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
    6. Re:Well... by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is still true today. Several of our photocopiers are capable of going faster with some kind of switch setting change; there's nothing different about the faster machines themselves, just the "slow down" setting on the less expensive model.

      Haven't tech companies been doing this kind of thing forever? Even when geeks find out about it and take advantage of it, they usually make out on it anyway since so many other people don't care and wouldn't know how to bypass in the first place.

      I think they're starting to do this above-board now with "utility computing" and other on-demand features; they ship you a beefier box than you need, with the idea that you can enable/disable the extra power as needed.

    7. Re:Well... by cft_128 · · Score: 3, Funny
      The point still stands true, he just didn't think that someone would really have the spare time to nitpick the theoretical example.

      Welcome to slashdot where that is all we do.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    8. Re:Well... by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good theory. But most people don't know what a CPU is nor do they care. They buy a computer. They might upgrade a paripheral, maybe a harddrive, but rarely upgrade CPUs they come with the new computer.

      My point being, is that they will not blame Intel for the problems with a grey market overclocked machine that is unstable, they would blame the computer company. Just like when you and I do with a car. If the transmission goes, whe don't track down who manufactured the tranny, we just say that the whole car sucks.

      My guess at why they stop overclockers is because they are a pain in the ass. They screw around the the chips, fry them, and then try to return them. Overclockers _do_ know what a CPU is, and know who makes it, and they will just be causing trouble for Intel. Intel can gain nothing from overclockers. I would guess that the chip designers know a little more about their processors than the computer dork that plays around with jumper settings and bios so they can get 10-20% more performance and questionable reliablity.

      BTW, I am a reformed overclocker, and I could never really notice a 10 or 20% increase in speed without sitting down and measuring the difference. I have access to so many different computers now, that I often have to cat /proc/cpuinfo to tell how fast the machine is.

    9. Re:Well... by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 5, Informative
      It used to matter a lot more back when you could really overclock a processor. My old dual-celeron used to run decently at 550MHz, when it was originally specced at 366. I think ion migration finally started to set in, though, it doesn't take the higher speed properly anymore. Otherwise, it's still running (at 366) to this day.

      I'm one of the original overclockers. I had a 486DX36, back when overclocking required replacing the clock module on the motherboard. I'm also an occasional chip designer.

      The trick to overclocking is to know what your limit is. Until recently, thermal load was not the limiting factor. The real limiting factor was a condition called "metastability", where a digital transition fails to finish before being latched in the next register (usually due to violations of the setup and hold time restrictions of those registers). The smallest case of metastability can flip a bit.

      A larger case can cascade through multiple stages, flipping lots of bits or even pushing the state tables into illegal states. This is where the first real danger lies: a processor that uses one-hot encoding to improve the speed of the controlling state machine can be pushed into illegal states that may cause several circuits to drive the internal busses at once. This leads to large current dissipation, and in some cases it can burn holes in the thin metal layers of the IC.

      A less common hazard appears in cases when the CPU is massively overclocked. The CPU in such a case will never exit the metastable state. This causes each clocked circuit on large areas of the chip to dissipate maximum current during those metastable states. This can also lead to high current dissipation, although it is less dangerous than the abovementioned one. It's also worth mentioning that a chip in this state will not function normally.

      Generally speaking, you have a wide margin between the onset of metastability and the onset of serious damage. Unfortunately, there is now *another* danger of overclocking processors. High thermal load can cause ion migration. In fact, most processors are now designed to only last 5 years (!) before ion migration renders them useless. (This is also why I personally don't overclock anymore).

      It's frightening to notice that mainstream CPU's are less and less overclockable and have higher and higher thermal loads with smaller and smaller featuresizes, though. The manufacturers are simply not leaving as much margin as they once did.

      --

      Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

  5. A company trying to manage its products by jj_johny · · Score: 5, Funny

    To imagine that a company would manage the release of products. Its as if they had a plan. How could they keep new things from us that they have already finished? My goodness what is the world coming to? The next thing you will tell me is that they have products planned that go even faster.

  6. Flashbacks of a failed mechanic by Havokmon · · Score: 5, Funny
    The 8 DDR2 memories that we received were all rated at or near the Jedec standard for PC2-4300 of 4-4-4-12 timings. Jedec standards for PC2-5300 (DDR2 667) call for 5-5-5 timings, but our Corsair DDR2 667 was rated at the faster 4-4-4, at 667, which already shows improving timings for DDR2.

    Then I suddenly remembered the warm-buzzy feeling I got the first/last time I tried to check my timing belt in my '80 Capri.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    1. Re:Flashbacks of a failed mechanic by servognome · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article the numbers actually represent clock cycles not nanoseconds. 1 clock cycle on 450 is 2.2ns, while 1 clock cycle on 667 is 1.5ns. 2-2-2-6 @ 450 is ~30% faster than 4-4-4-12 @ 667.
      The hard drive analogy is a good one since geeks have been debating SCSI vs ATA for decades :)

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  7. Locking Chips by My+name+isn't+Tim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it may just be that Intel doesn't want bad word of mouth. People see Fred's Intel based system runs awfully, little do they know he has it overclocked to the max and form opinion.

  8. Demon Dance by Chagatai · · Score: 5, Funny
    Well, it is DDR2-667, which means that you will be dancing on twice as many arrows with the Neighbor of the Beast. In short, nothing but songs by Aqua.

    --
    --Chag
    1. Re:Demon Dance by Mattintosh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fear the great Barbie Girl of doom!

  9. Grampa said by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't look a gift-horse in the mouth.

  10. 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."
    1. Re:It's all about the Benjamins by servognome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not just Intel, AMD did the same thing back when the first athlons came out.
      They aren't ripping the customer off. The customer decides they will pay X amount of $ for Y performance. The chip dealer agrees to sell you a chip guaranteed for that performance. You got exactly what you paid for, if you happen to get something that is potentially better, consider yourself lucky.
      There are a number of reasons companies do this.
      - If their yields skew a little towards the high end, they may run out of mid-level chips to meet demands, so they sacrifice some of the high-end ones to meet the difference.
      - Quality. Remember those old 5 1/4" floppys, some were double sided, some were single sided. You just put a notch in the single sided floppy and you had instant double sided. 99% of the time it was fine, but the other 1% you could have data errors or bad sectors on that other side.
      - Mass Production. Its cheaper to have one design and disable the unneeded/untested parts. 64-bit is on existing prescott chips just disabled. Does it work 100%? maybe, maybe not. Intel may not have been comfortable with it, so its disabled until they do more testing. The only reason its there is because its potentially cheaper to just flip a switch and turn it on if the design is good.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  11. Re:Mix by maduro55 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Micro$oft will be making the DDR-666 available soon I suspect.

  12. Dont like Manufact. control but Love Stabilty by Linus+Sixpack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I really dont like companies crippling the hardware I buy. Could you imagine a shovel that would stop you from moving sand too quickly ?

    I have to say that if my systems are %10 slower but even %05 more reliable its a good trade off. I'm not saying that they are super unreliable now, given all that goes into making a computer behave and the number of suppliers involved. Its just that some of these machines are so fast that I there is no value to me personally in overclocking.

    I think that businesses generally have enough to worry about with proper operation to not want to overclock their processors. If Intel is working with memory makers to insure stability they should be up front about it -- people would understand the overclocking then.

    Overclocking adds another possible source of problems that most companies don't need.

    1. Re:Dont like Manufact. control but Love Stabilty by mopslik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Could you imagine a shovel that would stop you from moving sand too quickly?

      It's commonly referred to as a "pitchfork".

  13. Umm... by Raven42rac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because you can overclock your memory to that speed does not mean the manufacturer is greedy. It just means it can be done. Safely? Maybe. Possible? Certainly.

    --
    I hate sigs.
  14. What were they thinking ? by itsnotthenetwork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is surprising. Intel surely would realize that whatever controls they put on there would eventually be bypassed. Sounds like a marketing decision rather than an engineering decision.

  15. Re:intel holding back? by jacksonyee · · Score: 2, Insightful
    sure why not? intel could be postponing on brining out their biggest guns for later on when it would be better to shoot them off, they might also want to see what the competition will do and bring out before they bring out their best, but on the same note, who knows what else Intel might be holding back? They might have some other amazing thing that they are waiting to spring on the public at an appropriate time...

    Well, Intel has been showing off a couple of pretty neat technologies at the various trade shows around, and I'm definitely looking forward to desktop chips based upon the Pentium-M architecture.

    You're right though - they've spent a lot of money stress testing this chipset for reliability and performance, and surely must know of its capabilities. If they can get people to buy this chipset now and buy it again in the future, then they will. They did the same thing with the Celerons and the high-yield P-IIs in the past, so why not now? Supply and demand equals more profits, right?

    I'm actually pretty excited about DDR2, as our memory speeds and hard drive transfer speeds are two of the largest bottlenecks in our current systems. High-speed DDR2 (performance won't really increase that much at the moment since DDR2 has higher latency than DDR) paired with hypertransport will be wonderful to watch.

  16. It isn't that complicated... by Theovon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) A major reason to not support the higher speed is that chip production yields are increased.

    2) Why not speed-grade the parts and sell two models? Not cost effective at this time.

    3) Futhermore to release one model how and then another model later maintains a more even revenue stream than two models now and then none later.

    4) Most likely, spreading it out also increases total revenue due to the people who buy one and then upgrade to the next.

  17. Turn the question around by mec · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Turn the question around. Instead of asking "why buy $1000 3.4 GHz chip instead of $500 3.2 GHz chip", ask this: how come Intel doesn't label that second chip "3.4 GHz" and sell it to you for $1000?

    That would be $500 extra revenue for Intel. How come they don't do it?

    Perhaps it's something to do with increased failure rates, warranty returns, and a negative hit on their reputation.

    Intel grades their chips. They mark each chip with the speed that they feel comfortable selling with Intel's name and warranty.

    If you want to overclock your chip, it's your chip; you bought it, you didn't license it with a stupid EULA! But the problem comes when another company (not Intel) buys a $500 chip from Intel, overclocks it, and then marks up the price and sells it in a system as if it were a $1000 chip. Intel gets nothing all the trouble, the cheater company gets the markup, and the end user gets the shaft.

    1. Re:Turn the question around by LqqkOut · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They sell it for $500 for the same reason that Canon is selling toned-down versions of the EOS 10-D

      There's a huge market segment that purchases equipment that's one step below bleeding edge just for the price break. Could it be that there's more money to be made by soft locking a single product than to manufacture multiple products?

      This sorta reminds me of the boon brought by the Celeron 300A

      --

      -- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

    2. Re:Turn the question around by baylanger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Intel grades their chips. They mark each chip with the speed that they feel comfortable selling with Intel's name and warranty.

      True, if we don't overclock our Intel chip -- the CPU will last 10 years. If we overclock our CPU the right way, *still* stable, our CPU might last only 3 years -- if we're lucky perhaps 9 years!

      Since the past 15 years, I've always been upgrading my computer every ~3 years.

      If my CPU blow in 2 years, by then a 3.4GHz CPU might cost me perhaps 200$ but I will probably buy the latest and greatest.

      If it blow in 3 years -- Honey, the computer is dead -- we need a brand new computer -- Honey, by the way, we don't have the money anymore to visit your mother this coming weekend!

    3. Re:Turn the question around by ottffssent · · Score: 3, Informative
      That would be $500 extra revenue for Intel. How come they don't do it?


      Because they're making and selling as many $1000 chips as the market will support. Now, they can either sell the $1000 chips for less money and sell more of them, or they can sell a slower chip for $500 and keep the $1000 top-end CPU.

      As it happens, the math works out in Intel's favor selling a 3.4GHz chip for your eldest son and a 3.2GHz chip for your right arm and a 3.0Ghz chip for a pretty penny. In the begining this is great. Then for a while the 3.4GHz chips get too easy to make and so they sell some of them as 3.2GHz chips and maybe even some as 3.0GHz chips. But until they can make enough 3.6GHz chips to satisfy current demand for 3.4GHz chips, they can't introduce a new speed grade. When the 3.6GHz parts come out, demand increases for the now-cheaper 3.4Ghz parts, and the now-cheaper 3.2GHz parts and the now-low-end 3.0GHz parts. And the cycle repeats.

      Intel and AMD don't sell CPUs to consumers. They don't respond to market pressures except at predetermined times, so when demand for high-end parts is less than supply, they sell the high-end parts for less money, and when demand exceeds supply there's a shortage. These are not spot prices as would be paid by a consumer, these are contract prices as would be paid by someone ordering 20,000 chips a month for the next 3 months: there is no other way to respond to surplus or shortage within the current system. Intel would much rather sell a potentially-high-end P4 as a mid-range P4 and make $100 than force the customer to source mid-range parts from AMD.
      --
      High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
    4. Re:Turn the question around by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 2, Informative
      You also have to remember that Intel is competing not just against AMD, but against themselves. It's entirely plausible that they are making chips that run substantially faster than the ratings and soft-locking them down just so they have time to catch up with their own marketing without having to re-invent their CPU core every 6 months.

      Think about it. If they invent a 5GHz CPU now, and release it now, and it takes them 2 years to develop the 10GHz CPU, then they will spend 18 months (thanks to the roughly 6-month CPU lifecycle) with no "cutting-edge" product. If they release that CPU as a 3.5GHz CPU now, a 4.0GHz CPU in 6 months, a 4.5GHz CPU 6 months after that, and a 5GHz CPU 6 months after that, suddenly they've filled in their entire product line for that time. And since the CPU market is an oligopoly, they only have to make it look like they're fighting the good fight against AMD. The next "competitors" (via, transmeta, and the like) don't have the resources to compete on pure performance.

      I'm not saying that I honestly think they're doing exactly this. I do suspect something on a much smaller scale, though. Remember, this is the company that gave you the 487SX.

      --

      Hardware, software, and blinking lights!

  18. I've come to expect this from Intel... by ameoba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Intel's long tradition of pushing a new technology before it actually surpassed the previous generation (P2, P4, P4-Prescott) DDR2 is, at best, on par with systems already in place.

    If you look at some benchmarks of DDR2 performance, you have to wonder why anyone would even consider buying it right now.

    "Expect DDR2 memory at 533MHz to be comparable to DDR1 at 400MHz, but don't expect to see any "noticeable" memory bandwidth performance gains till DDR2 667 and above with low timings!"

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.
  19. Spikes in the electrical current. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 3, Informative
    My brother, who works on chipset R&D at Intel, says this "artificial" limit is there because of spikes. These are the same spikes that appear in electrical current that are the reason for debouncing all digital inputs to a computer. As it turns out, there are certain spikes that exist at a range above 533 mhz. The chipset will work at the higher speed, but these spikes in the electric current will occasionally cause a bit to go the wrong way, if the clock cycle occurs exactly when a spike is going through the line. For this reason, it is going to take Intel a little longer to clean the signals at the higher clock speed, and therefore they cannot offer 667 at this time.

    Incidentally, my brother also says that Intel would be at a great advantage over its competitors if it could offer the 667 mhz, so it is clearly not hiding an existing feature to milk the market. The spikes are the reason.

    1. Re:Spikes in the electrical current. by EMN13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't exactly know which spikes the parent poster is referring too; but I'm quite sure they're not the spread-spectrum spikes. Those are frequency (not temporal) spikes and can increase EMI. Spread spectrum reduces the sharpness of the frequency spike by modulating the FSB - reducing, not increasing the stability.

      All spikes are equal - but some are more equal than others ;-)

      --Eamon

    2. Re:Spikes in the electrical current. by spectecjr · · Score: 4, Informative

      So how exactly do these magical 'spikes' get through a modern, self-regulated switching power supply?

      The modern, self-regulated switching power supply creates those spikes in normal operation.

      (One of my coworkers once worked on ECGs... they had to synchronize everything so that all data acquisition occurs directly out of phase with the power supply... even the fans in the case had to be timed with the spikes it would generate... and this was a low-noise, custom generated, several hundred thousand dollars worth of R&D supply).

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
  20. In other words... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 2, Insightful

    marketing.
    They don't want to keep pushing the envelope to quick. Otherwise, their future market is gone. Meaning, since technological advances are happening slower (in regards to chips) they have to milk the current tech as long as they can. Don't want to sell everything this year - there won't be anything next year.

  21. Marketing Decision by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a marketing decision.

    Engineer: Our new chipset is capable of running DDR2-533 memory modules at 667MHz. We can jumpstart shipping...
    Marketing: STOP! Right now there is no demand for such a thing. Let's wait till we are ready with a new promotion song from Christina Aguilera.
    Engineer: But no one buys our chips because of the promo and the songs we have. Our customers buy because of the specifications. Right now we have...
    Marketing: Who are you to tell ME what our customers want? Stick to your soldering gun and chips!
    Engineer: But the Intel guys in their funny radioprotection overalls didn't accelerated sales....
    Marketing: No buts! We start marketing this feature for christmas.
    Engineer: But...
    Marketing: SHUT UP, I'm the guy with the MBA! That's why I am here. I know what to do!
    Engineer:...
    Marketing:...

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
  22. Clearly here today? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2, Informative

    How can you jump to that conclusion? There is a whole lot more to a new technology level being "here today" than a few chips being able to run at that level. Yield, reliability, availability of memory at reasonable price points and reliability, reliability of motherboard support, etc. all play a part. The famous Pentium floating point bug had rare effect except on scientific applications, but clearly that version of the Pentium wasn't even "here" when it shipped.

    I currently have an ASUS based AMD64 system at home that I made the mistake of buying in the second month of availability. I can tell you from firsthand experience that it wasn't "here" when it shipped. Almost everything of any meaning has been replaced and the system still freezes solid twice a day. Only a hard reset brings it around. Pretty soon, I'll go another round of replace the processor... does it work... replace the motherboard... does it work... replace the memory... does it work. I'm betting this time I'll finally get there because someone has figured out a problem and fixed it in the latest releases of these 'stable' products.

  23. This is pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Intel reliability standards call for infant mortality less than 500 units per million and a service life of 7-10 years depending on product. The goals of overclockers are very different.

    Ever heard of a schmoo? It a contour graph of what frequencies a part will work at at a given voltage and frequency (and that's only at one set temperature). Ofthen is is very blob like and can have holes of instability or islands of stability. You need to pick product offerings that not only yield well, but are far enough on any contour line from the schmoo that you can test the part at a few values of voltage and frequency with confidence. Tester time is a bottleneck, and Intel test more than anyone else.

    Yes, downbinning occurs for marketing reasons, but generally for economy products. Believe me, Intel and every company fights for yields at the top bin for every flagship product. Even when downbinning occurs, it is done to match actual yield to orders, not out of any desire to hold back.

    So you can beleive the last three paragraphs or you can believe that Intel is being forced to slow the rate of product advangement by the Carlye Group. It's up to you.

  24. I think AMD... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...is going to like this as well. Remember, they've usually had less of a requirement for memory bus. With them going dual-core, while retaining socket compatibility, they only have one connection to feed two processors. At DDR 400 today, they're already looking at 2xDDR333. While I'm sure the equivalent from Intel would like to have 2xDDR667...

    Overall, looks like there's going to be a lot of competition going on in the CPU biz for a while to come. And obviously a bunch of memory brands. In fact, I think there's pretty good competition all around in hardware, and things are starting to look up in the OS world as well. I predict good times for the consumers in the time ahead :)

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  25. Lamer chicken shits avoiding labeling it 666 MHz. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There was 66, 166, 266, 366, 466, 566, but get to 666, OH NO! Now it's 667! and then they reverted back with 866.. Of course, there's goobers that try to justify the change as if there was some technical reason than admit why it was really relabled. Boo to bowing to religious superstitions. Quick, change the BSD mascot!

  26. stable overclocked != stable by glsunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just because something is stable when it's overclocked doesnt mean that it's stable. If it was a server, even a problem that caused a lockup every 6 months or year wouldnt be acceptable. That freak incident could happen next year, or tommarow.

    I'm not against overclocking or an Intel fanboy, I run an overclocked barton at home. But I dont think Intel would hold back, especially with the athlon64 out there and with the negative prescott press, Intel might be a bit more cautious than usual.

  27. Intel Girl by jfisherwa · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm an Intel girl, in a Bill Gates world.
    Bound in barbed wire, thrown in the mire!
    You can bash my skull, I will be your gull!

    [Chorus - Bill] Come on, Intel, visit my hell.

  28. In fact, it's 667 by Jisakiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because I think the exact number is something like 666.66... Which as you ought to know, rounds to 667. But 333.333 rounds to 333. See? :)