Overclock.net banner

[WCCF]Intel Might be Forcing Ban on Non-K OC Feature on Skylake Motherboards – Updated BIOS Rolling Out Soon

19K views 339 replies 131 participants last post by  Cyber Locc 
#1 ·
Source:


Quote:
ASRock has released the latest BIOS for their Skylake motherboards which removes the SkyOC feature. This confirms that Intel has asked vendors to disable overclocking support on their motherboards. Do note that removal of SkyOC feature not only limits users from overclocking their non-K chips, but also disables from non-Z series motherboards.


Will there be a backlash for this decision?
 
See less See more
2
#4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiashimmer View Post

That's bad, why are they doing this? They should leave it on Z series motherboards, so one can buy and i3 and Z series motherboards and oc.
I understand the disappointment, but to ask why? Non K CPU were bought locked and really one should expect that it stay that way. They never supported this feature officially.
 
#6 ·
I thought this was just a rumour... they are really doing it, wow.

As of late a lot of well known companies seem to be doing their best to upset customers and going against common sense.

This is the kind of super bad PR no company wants and one of the biggest mistakes they could have made. You don't let the cat out of the bag initially if you plan to try to put it back in again, it doesn't work like that.

If they didn't intend for this to be a possibility they should have just kept the platform specs as in previous CPU generations that prevented it.
 
#7 ·
Screw intel and their damn monopoly. They don't even let you change RAM frequency unless you buy their super dooper cool K CPU's with a Z-motherboard.
rolleyes.gif
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitriy View Post

Am I the only one who doesn't see an issue here? You have bought a CPU that is not advertised as overclockable, how exactly do you get upset when you can't overclock it?
Do you know how this site started? How people got enthusiastic about getting more for their purchase? Back in the Athlon and Pentium 4 days in 2004. And then with the Core 2 architecture. None of them were advertised as overclockable, except for the top end models.

This isn't about rights, it's about expectations. It's bad PR.

As I said in the previous post, if they didn't want people to overclock them they should have kept the platform specs that prevented it from happening like in previous generations. This trying to put the cat back in the bag just makes them look bad.
 
#11 ·
Just buy the "K" part, SUCCESS...
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitriy View Post

Am I the only one who doesn't see an issue here? You have bought a CPU that is not advertised as overclockable, how exactly do you get upset when you can't overclock it?
Sure, no reason to be upset when a feature present on the motherboard you bought gets removed by a greedy corporation.
thumb.gif
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlhil2 View Post

Just buy the "K" part, SUCCESS...
That is what intel precisely wants ocer's to think.

Intel putting the squeeze oc'ers becuase they can and charge obnoxious premiums on their top tier chips. I'm glad dx12 is being rolled out, so the cpu factor becomes slowly irrelevant and intel with it for gamers. You can only push us so far.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4inkill3r View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitriy View Post

Am I the only one who doesn't see an issue here? You have bought a CPU that is not advertised as overclockable, how exactly do you get upset when you can't overclock it?
Sure, no reason to be upset when a feature present on the motherboard you bought gets removed by a greedy corporation.
thumb.gif
Exactly, many motherboard makers - ASRock, MSI, EVGA, BIOSTAR and ASUS had already implemented this and it was all over the news.

The question here is not so much whether you can overclock non K CPUs or not, that is a more general discussion that goes all the way back to SB and you can agree with it or not, be happy or not, but this situation seemed for all intents and purposes like a reversal of attitude and motherboard makers were advertising this feature and people buying motherboards with that in mind.

At the end of the day if you want to get technical about it, normal warranties never covered overclocking anyway, not even in K models and you're not given any assurance that you can get even one extra Mhz out of a K model beyond factory specs, so that is a moot point for all CPUs, including K models.

The change signalled a different attitude and now they come and take it away. It doesn't make them look good, it seems pretty obvious to me, especially considering history.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Do you know how this site started? How people got enthusiastic about getting more for their purchase? Back in the Athlon and Pentium 4 days in 2004. And then with the Core 2 architecture. None of them were advertised as overclockable, except for the top end models.

This isn't about rights, it's about expectations. It's bad PR.

As I said in the previous post, if they didn't want people to overclock them they should have kept the platform specs that prevented it from happening like in previous generations. This trying to put the cat back in the bag just makes them look bad.
This industry is messed up, you can't compare over a decade ago and expect that to be relevant. Even in recent years these things have been limited to limited tweaking of BCLK when it's been possible. Besides the fact functionality is limited when doing so anyway, the unlocked BIOS revisions are in circulation. Making a mountain out of a mole hill once more in German train schedule fashion lol.
wheee.gif


Blame Assrock, they were marketing it actively.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Do you know how this site started? How people got enthusiastic about getting more for their purchase? Back in the Athlon and Pentium 4 days in 2004. And then with the Core 2 architecture. None of them were advertised as overclockable, except for the top end models.

This isn't about rights, it's about expectations. It's bad PR.

As I said in the previous post, if they didn't want people to overclock them they should have kept the platform specs that prevented it from happening like in previous generations. This trying to put the cat back in the bag just makes them look bad.
I absolutely agree. I'm sure Intel wasn't thrilled when people were magically turning their old x486 processors into faster machines either. That doesn't mean you throw your weight around trying to stop manufacturers from innovating. It means if you really don't want it to happen you innovate on your end in an attempt to stop it.

Makes me wonder what sort of repercussions Intel could even have against ASRock - I would think they'd all essentially be illegal.

Didn't Supermicro support a similar OC feature?
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodanvan View Post

That doesn't mean you throw your weight around trying to stop manufacturers from innovating. It means if you really don't want it to happen you innovate on your end in an attempt to stop it.
They spends as little money as possible in order to see the largest return as possible. Preventing market cannibalization and reducing returns is at least as big a part of that as innovation (especially in the absence of appreciable competition). Intel is a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodanvan View Post

Makes me wonder what sort of repercussions Intel could even have against ASRock - I would think they'd all essentially be illegal.
Almost certainly some sort of licencing/sales agreement that Intel could decline to renew, if it wished.

Of course, legality is also irrelevant unless the consequences for illegal behavior cost more than compliance.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by technodanvan View Post

Makes me wonder what sort of repercussions Intel could even have against ASRock - I would think they'd all essentially be illegal.

Didn't Supermicro support a similar OC feature?
ASUS, MSI, ASRock, and Supermicro all had non-K overclockable products.
 
#22 ·
Just a common sense advice: Download and keep BIOS versions with Non-K OC Feature! Then, someone may figure out how to integrate the same feature at least in future BIOS for at least the same manufacturer.

Is Acer the only one with such an update?

EDIT: DO NOT FEAR! I am certain that UEFI BIOS Updater (UBU) will be able to provide you with an older CPU Microcode for just about any BIOS out there!!! Learn more about UBU here - http://www.win-raid.com/t154f16-Tool-Guide-News-quot-UEFI-BIOS-Updater-quot-UBU.html .
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by keikei View Post

That is what intel precisely wants ocer's to think.

Intel putting the squeeze oc'ers becuase they can and charge obnoxious premiums on their top tier chips. I'm glad dx12 is being rolled out, so the cpu factor becomes slowly irrelevant and intel with it for gamers. You can only push us so far.
Yeah, what I said didn't make sense anyways, there are no unlocked i3 chips....
redface.gif
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by nSone View Post

with people thinking an maxed out i3 + the cheapest mobo they can find is a great idea such a move by intel can be quite useful
for the rest, which know how it's done, really can't see an issue here... would intel force a bios update somehow?
No, but they can push microcode update through windows update.
 
#26 ·
Not going to bother to defend intel on this. But... From a business prospective it makes sense. For starters, the "greedy" company is losing money on its cpu division for the last 7 years. It has been bleeding out of the PC market in the last 3 years. If they where only dependent on their cpu market to drive the company, they would have the same problems that AMD has.

Not a little blood, a lot of blood. Like 20% of value blood. If you are bleeding out, you try to stop the bleeding. To stop the bleeding you need to cut cost. And to cut cost you have to start rebinning chips. Chips that you would bin for the unofficial overclocking crowd needs to include chips that can not be overclocked but perform at spec levels. Instead of binning them at the i3 level, you bin them at the i5 level.

Sorry, you need to start to make as much money as possible from what you have. You need to cut down the bleeding to levels you can live with. Or you will become AMD. Intel is a solid company, but it has to watch their bottom line as the market shifts. If they do not, they will go the same way as AMD. They are not too big to fail. Cellphone can do 99% of what normal people want from a PC. Which means over priced, over powered CPU's are not the norm anymore. Overclocking, though popular with 10% of the pc users, is not popular with the 90% of normal users. Giving normal users a CPU that can overclock at a lost to the company is just dumb.

So you reserve your overclockable CPU for those that will buy them, and you rebin the lower cpu's to save money. OR you continue to bleed out money until you say screw it and scrap the whole project down to what will sell to the 90%.

Yes, this is the beginning of the end for overclocking pc's. Because to be honest, it really does not give you anything extra that modern software can use. We are currently limited by what the software can do, not by what the hardware can.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top