Intel 925X: Exploring the Overclock Lock
by Wesley Fink on June 23, 2004 12:05 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Our Take
There certainly appears to be a built-in overclock lock with the new 925X and 915 Intel chipsets. The design limit appears to be around 10% over the rated speed of the CPU. Asus has found a way around this artificial limit, but it appears that they have not been able to completely bypass the Overclock Lock, since overclocks on the Asus still seem limited to about 24%.Others are also reported to have solutions that bypass the Intel OC lock. We are told Abit, Gigabyte, and MSI all have designs which bypass the OC lock. We do not yet know if these designs are also limited to overclocks in the 20% to 25% range or if these designs have truly broken the OC lock. As we review the new motherboards, we will report more on the effectiveness of the designs for overclocking.
There are certainly readers who will wonder if we have rocks in our heads for complaining about a 24% overclock, or even a 10% overclock. We would only say that it is a matter of perspective. We have easily reached 3.6GHz with a Prescott 2.4 CPU on an Intel 875 chipset, an overclock of 50%. By comparison, 24% seems a very low overclock limit. We also know that the 875P does not limit overclocks as Intel has attempted to do on the new 925X and 915 chipsets. In fact, we have recently heard of new motherboards from overclocking-savvy companies that will combine Socket T (775) with the Intel 875P chipset. The only reason for this marriage would be massive overclocking. Combine fast DDR memory, the new Prescott 775 chips, and an 875 chipset without an artificial Overclock limit, and you will achieve record-breaking overclocks.
There is no doubt that OEMs will not likely care if overclocks are limited to 10% on the new 925X and 915 chipsets, and many of our readers won't care at all. However, the enthusiasts who do care about overclocking and who want to buy Intel will need to be especially careful to find a motherboard that can bypass the limits of the Intel Overclock Lock. For some overclockers out there, this may be the push that persuades them to buy an Athlon 64 for this round.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Fr0zeN2 - Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - link
#2 - An all-out clock lock? It'll be funny to see how many people actually buy Intel after that. Actually, it'll be funny to see how many people still buy Intel after THIS.MAME - Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - link
Intel sucks like that but mobo manufacturers have no choice; Intel is #1 by a long shotoverclockingoodness - Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - link
dvinnen,The motherboard companies have to support Intel. The motherboard makers know that they are useless without Intel. Intel is the top chip maker in the world so they can't just leave Intel even though they hate their starategies so much. It's called business. As much as you hate one of the key players in the industry, you still have to work with them. These motherboard makers might lose close to 50 percent (just guessing) of their profit, which is not good for them.
When AMD did not introduce new processors for 1.5 years (except for new models of Athlon XP), motherboard makers still supported them with new motherboards. Of course, after a while mobo makers don't have much to add as they already have all the new features out so they develop something unique.
That's how the industry lives on. :-)
To answer the above two posts, Intel is definitely a loser this year in the desktop market. Their mobile market is secure, BTW. The prescott core is a failure, the new chipsets and technologies are a failure. And I am already scared about the BTX technology. It would be funny if BTX technology doesn't show high performance margins.
To conclude...Intel has failed in the year 2004.
dvinnen - Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - link
What I don't understand is why the mobo makers take so much crap from Intel. First intel keeps charging more, then R&D for BTX, R&D for this new socket, they are going to have more returns because of this new socket, now the new crap that got to spend R&D to figure out how to get around. I keep thinking one of the big boys over there will grow a pair and stand up to intel and stop making their boards. I would inmagin their margins on intel boards are more than a 5th of what their margins are on a SIS or VIA board.ViRGE - Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - link
A thought: Last time we got "clever" and bypassed an Intel clock-lock mechanism, it was the B21 trick, which resulted in Intel removing the 66/100 multiplier lock, in favor of the constant multiplier lock we deal with today. If we get "clever" again, who's to say Intel won't repeat history, and implement an all-out clock-lock?Zebo - Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - link
Slower, generates more heat, uses more power, enthusiast unfreindly, no memory controller, no 64 bit future....why are people catering to this company again?