• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Leaked review of Sandy Bridge....

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Wega!

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2001
Location
Denmark!
Dont know if you guys have seen it, but someone leaked it:

http://www.hardwareonline.dk/nyheder.aspx?nid=10600

I know most of you dont get the text, but the graphs speak for them selfs.

Apparently Intel is also locking the clock generator, as it is build into the chip, leaving no way of overclokcing the chip, as the multiplier is locked as well. No BCLK clocking.
So with sandy we HAVE to buy the "OC" version of the chip, that is marked with a "k" at the end, to be able to overclock at all. :sly:
 
Not sure about the graphs, but I'm sure the overclockability (or not) of the chips has been discussed before here.

And I'm one for believing that totally locking the chip will not happen. Intel should know what this would mean if they did. Sure they sell most of their chips to the OEM market, but I'm sure they wouldn't like to loose the enthusiast side of the market.
 
And I'm one for believing that totally locking the chip will not happen. Intel should know what this would mean if they did. Sure they sell most of their chips to the OEM market, but I'm sure they wouldn't like to loose the enthusiast side of the market.

According to the review they have locked the non-K models completely. And if the price difference between a locked model and a unlocked one, isnt higher than 25$, I'm afraid that they could get away with it...
 
According to the review they have locked the non-K models completely. And if the price difference between a locked model and a unlocked one, isnt higher than 25$, I'm afraid that they could get away with it...

I really don't see the point tho???

Why not just leave the "normal" model with a unlocked CLK GEN but lock the multi. And sell the K model with a unlocked multi for, as you say.....No more than $25? I'm sure people wanting to overclock (atleast to high levels) would pay the extra few $$ for the unlocked multi? I see no need to totally cut the "normal" model off from being overclocked alltogether :(
 
Clock for clock overclocking aside, why is Sandy Bridges supposedly better than the present 32nm i7 chips? Or even 45nm i7 chips for that matter. :shrug:
 
I really don't see the point tho???

It's because the bclk is becoming the basis of so many different things (I'll have to research for specifics), some of which can't take much more bclk. Therefore the bclk will be locked or very limited. Even if you were allowed to OC via the bclk, it would have a low limit from parts that aren't the CPU speed, RAM speed, QPI/DMI, or Uncore. So, the "K" chips will allow overclocking through the multiplier for not much additional cost. This was most likely done to prevent excessive RMAs.
 
It's because the bclk is becoming the basis of so many different things (I'll have to research for specifics), some of which can't take much more bclk. Therefore the bclk will be locked or very limited. Even if you were allowed to OC via the bclk, it would have a low limit from parts that aren't the CPU speed, RAM speed, QPI/DMI, or Uncore. So, the "K" chips will allow overclocking through the multiplier for not much additional cost. This was most likely done to prevent excessive RMAs.

Locking the BCLK gives one less avenue for voiding the warranty, but we still have overvolting and overheating? I would gather that excessive voltage through these 32nm chips would have more of a detrimental effect than a high baseclock. Why did Intel decide to go with such a low number?
 
Locking the BCLK gives one less avenue for voiding the warranty, but we still have overvolting and overheating? I would gather that excessive voltage through these 32nm chips would have more of a detrimental effect than a high baseclock. Why did Intel decide to go with such a low number?

I doubt it's the chip that they are worried about, it's most likely one of the other bclk-based components which can't handle high bclk without biting the dust. So, the CPU voltage and heat really don't have anything to do with it.

Looks like Intel will be good for OEM boxes only now. :(

Just get a "K" chip, they shouldn't be much more than a locked chip. I think Intel's pricing difference between unlocked and unlocked chips will be a lot lower this go around, much like the low price difference between AMD's non-BE and BE chips. Because, if the price difference isn't lower, then you're right, OEM for Intel.
 
As far as I know all Sandy Bridge chips will have IGP... so you'll be out of luck on that one. Maybe they'll release some down the road without IGP :shrug:
 
Cant they get disabled like the i3 series? If so, no harm, right? Orrrrr why dont you want that?
 
I'm assuming they get disabled when a discrete GPU is used. Are we sure the i5's IGP gets disabled and doesn't just run idle? I never heard anything concrete about it, just assumptions and "it makes sense" type of things. How would that be proven anyways?
 
Its a setting in the bios for my Evga FTW (P55). Now if that powers it down literally or makes it sit idle, not sure.
 
Back