Slashdot Mirror
Bypassing Intel's Overclock Limit Reveals DDR2-667
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?"
Will DDR2 memory let me hit twice as many arrows at the same BPM?
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
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
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.
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)
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.
--Chag
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."
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
Could you imagine a shovel that would stop you from moving sand too quickly?
It's commonly referred to as a "pitchfork".
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/
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.
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!