Anyone who has kept tabs on the extreme overclocking community recently would have noticed that the overclocker Dhenzjhen recently took a Core i3-6320 up to 127 MHz on increasing the base clock on his modified SuperMicro C7H170-M motherboard. We have heard that this feature may be coming to other motherboards through a simple BIOS update in the near future.

For the last few generations Intel has locked down its processors in terms of the CPU multiplier such that only a handful of parts allow a full range of overclocking. CPU frequency is determined by its base frequency (or base clock, typically 100 MHz) and multiplier (20x, 32x, 40x and all in-between depending on the part). The base clock has always been ‘open’, however in Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell it has been linked to other parts of the system, such as the storage or the PCIe, meaning that any overclocking beyond 103-105 MHz led to other issues such as signal degradation or data loss. The Skylake platform changes this – as we noted back in our initial Skylake launch details, the chipset and PCIe now have their own clock domains, meaning that the base frequency only affects the CPU (core, uncore, cache), integrated graphics and DRAM.

Despite this, our best efforts to overclock non-K processors in-house (we have an i5-6500 for review at some point) are limited to a few MHz – the 103/104 MHz boundary has been tough to penetrate if possible at all. This makes what Dhenzjhen posted very interesting, as he was able to get a 27% performance boost (albeit under liquid nitrogen for an overclocking competition). Even with a 10-15% jump for day-to-day use, this allows the array of Pentium and Core i3 processors that are multiplier unlocked to get another 200-300 MHz boost in performance. We can postulate as to the reasons why Intel doesn’t release a Core i3 unlocked model, but if non-K overclocking can be enabled then this at least pushes some of the way there. Supermicro are in the process of shipping me the board in question and an i3 for testing. For clarification, Dhenzjhen is associated with Supermicro - many top overclockers are associated with a technology company in some way to help push the technology forward.


Dhenzjhen's setup, although liquid nitrogen isn't needed for 10-20%

After speaking with Supermicro, ASRock knocked on my Skype chat to tell me they can do the same thing, and I received a string of messages and emails saying that they can do it on their motherboards, such as the Z170 Extreme7+ which we reviewed a couple of weeks ago, with nothing more than a simple BIOS update.

   

ASRock forwarded me images saying that on their Z170 OC Formula, they can successfully adjust the base clock of the Pentium G4400 by 20+%, the Core i3-6300T by 20% and the i5-6600 by over 30%. I was told that they will be rolling out a BIOS update to a large number of their motherboards after internal validation has been carried out and this should give a slow trickle of BIOS updates over the next week or so.

I should point out specifically that ASRock states that their results (20-30% OC) were all done on air cooling.

I am not being told (yet) as to what is required on the manufacturer side to do this, and I have a small amount of conflicting information also depending on whether this adjustment requires a physical change on top of the firmware adjustment. I suspect something in the chain that shares the clock domain with the CPU is being given an extenal reference clock, which is not part of Intel specifications but some motherboard manufacturers are doing automatically which requires some firmware adjustment. When all the motherboard manufacturers are doing this, then the exact reasons why should make its way out into the open, along with lists of compatible motherboards. Though it is worth noting that any BCLK overclock on this scale will result in the integrated graphics being disabled automatically by Intel's VGA driver if it is installed - before installation, the integrated graphics can still function I am being told.

Overall, this opens up the gates for interesting $800-like builds based on Pentium or Core i3 processors, and if we get a number of these in we will give our experiences and benchmark results in both stock and overclocked modes. I suspect that for the Pentium side of the equation we will see similar to the overclockable Pentium G3258 that Intel released last year, but the Core i3 angle proves to be interesting.

Additional: Since Dhenzjhen’s initial score, elmor has achieved a 152.8 MHz overclock (again, under extreme conditions for competition) on a Core i3-6300, giving a total frequency of 5.8 GHz using an ASUS Maximux VIII Gene. Given elmor’s ties to ASUS, I suspect that ASUS will also roll out adjustments over time for BCLK non-K overclocking.

Given Supermicro, ASRock and ASUS are doing this (presumably GIGABYTE, MSI and EVGA will follow), I wonder what Intel’s reaction will be to it. Despite most Intel processors being multiplier locked and the different clock domains and Intel’s push towards being ‘for gaming’ and ‘for overclockers’, the locked CPUs quizzically fall on the wrong side of that strategy, but for CPU manufacturers it does encourage users to buy the premium parts. If users can now buy the slightly cheaper Core i3 or Core i5 parts with hopes of a 10-15% overclock, there are many potential scenarios as to how this plays out both for consumers and Intel’s bottom line. There's also the fact that non-K processors have several features that the overclocking processors do not, such as Trusted Execution / TXT. We have reached out for an official response to the BCLK non-K overclocking methods that the motherboard manufacturers are using. But I have no doubt that system integrators will offer pre-overclocked systems as well. There is also the angle of enterprise to consider, if this opens up the Xeon side. While Xeon and overclocking might not be a good thing for most use cases, in the financial industry and areas where DRAM performance matters, it could be interesting. 

Source: HWBot, ASRock

POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Saturday, December 12, 2015 - link

    And the guy reporting it is a respected member of that relatively large community, so I think it sounds rather trustworthy. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Friday, December 11, 2015 - link

    I would love to see the 6100 and 6320 reviewed if this comes to fruition.

    The 6100 was going for $110 during Black Friday. That would be a monster gaming chip if you get get it closer to 4ghz.
    Reply
  • wolfemane - Friday, December 11, 2015 - link

    Picked up the 6320 for $149.99 during a 4 hour sale on newegg cyber Monday. Worth every penny. I'm more impressed with this chip than I was with my 3770k. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Saturday, December 12, 2015 - link

    Yeah, it's seeming like the clocks really got jacked up on the Skylake duals for this gen. Your 6320 is effectively a 4ghz cpu all the time. Reply
  • JulioFranco - Saturday, December 12, 2015 - link

    Already tested here using BCLK overclocking:
    http://www.techspot.com/review/1108-intel-locked-s...
    Reply
  • NoSoMo - Thursday, December 17, 2015 - link

    I had to build a new 'general' machine and went with the 6100 for 'bang for the buck'. I don't really game, but do a lot of tasks that have zero benefits from additional cores. That makes single core frequency king. Had I known when I put together this machine that there would eventually be an OC route, I probably would have opted for for the next model up if not the best i3 I could get. As it stands the performance between the i3s on a performance-to-dollar ratio (or any of the skylakes for that matter) the 6100 is king. The 6100 tops the 64 and 500 in single core performance. Let's face it, most users out there who don't game all day, or encode media all day, get the absolute most out of a single core for a given task (dual cores with HT certainly helps as well). If they had a 6390k that could do 4.5 on air without breaking a sweat, I would have grabbed it. Reply
  • xrror - Friday, December 11, 2015 - link

    You have to give the mobo makers credit on how they "introduced" this feature. I'm pretty sure all the the players knew this was possible, but they were all sitting on it waiting for all of the "bugfix" microcodes from Intel were released.

    The brilliant part is having SuperMicro be the company for the debut. Intel putting sanctions on SuperMicro would be... unwise, since SuperMicro is a big player in the server market.

    Pretty shrewd.

    Also yea, Intel will lock this down with microcode updates. And all new processors off the line will have a "fix" for this by default.

    Unlocked i3 is a nightmare for their market segmentation strategy.

    If Intel can't clamp this down (for some reason) I'd expect another CMPXCHG16b like-situation with the "fix" being ... updated firmware/microcode required. ;p
    Reply
  • bill.rookard - Friday, December 11, 2015 - link

    Well, the bad part of that would be anyone who would want to overclock would then be turning off potential updates (such as security updates) which would be a bad thing for Microsoft and Intel. Reply
  • jasonelmore - Friday, December 11, 2015 - link

    i dont think it will hurt their bottom line much.. maybe a few hundred people do this instead of buying a K CPU...

    it's not gonna be so widespread and i doubt system builders will do it.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Saturday, December 12, 2015 - link

    People are buying the K instead of the non-K because the K can't easily be overlcocked. If this was changed, people would buy the other chip. For the i7 6700 the difference in retail price between those CPUs is far larger than it used to be, due to the scarcity of both models (with the K being even more elusive). I checked availability a few days ago: the cheapest 6700 was 80€ cheaper than the 6700K in Germany. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now