How are intels non K cpus core locked? Is it a physical thing

Install Gentoo.

Theres a jew that snorkels around in the electrons amd every time you try to input +0.5ghz he shouts.o
OY VEY SHUT IT DOWN

>>59443789
I think it's hard-coded into the CPU itself. You can manipulate microcodes and other settings to get a Xeon to run at full turbo speed all the time (think 2699 with 10 of it's cores at 3.6Ghz), and you can also push the BCLK by 5% if you're lucky, but that's it.

The Xeons SKUs that are physically similar to the desktop variants overclock just fine, and possibly even better because of solder/binning; ror instance the 5960X vs the E5 1660 v3, and the even better binned 1680 v3 variant.

>>59443831
breddy gud

>>59443898
Are for example the i5-4670 and i5-4670K exactly physically the same except for the microcode that locks the non-k.

>>59443983
The non k variants are worse bins, that is why the native clock is lower, but its also microcode locked. Its nothing wrong with chip, it would be possible to overclock the multiplier with worse efficiency but due to market restrictions intel forbid, so no things like AMD 1700 OC to 4.0 happens.

>>59444006
Alright thanks!

Some time ago there were some asrock boards which were able to overclock non k intel cpus, but intel then did a microcode update to prevent overclocking with those boards. Basically intel wants you to pay for the premium of overclocking.

>>59444058

All manufacturers released Z170 boards that allowed you to OC non-k CPU.
And you can still do it if you downgrade the BIOS on these.

No overclock or AVX(pentium) for goyim with no shekel.

>>59444058
If they included the overclocking warranty in the unlocked CPUs it would make way more sense for them to do this

>>59443789
Skylake wasn't because they forgot to Jew

t. 4.6GHz i3 6100

>>59444058
Sort-of.

This is how the computing market works though. ICs are so expensive to tool up for its generally better to make one physical product and then selectively nerf it to create a market structure. It doesn't just apply to CPUs but obviously it applies most visibly to them because they are peak of complexity.

But in fact it predates microchips, look up "IBM Mid-life kicker", they used to sell mainframes at different performance levels and if you wanted to upgrade an IBM technician took it apart until the upgrade switch was located, flipped it and put the box back together.

The mid-life kicker was present in silicon on the first sets of 8088 chips also I believe (you could overclock them after issuing a command to the processor).

Always been the case, not a new thing for overclocking.

File: ayy.png (42KB, 402x524px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 402x524px

>>59444760
Or use MSI boards since they don't give a fuck and never disabled the feature

>>59443789
The Intel Management Engine prevents it. That's why you can't even tweak the BCLK beyond a 103MHz or so. It's not that the chip isn't capable, it's that the IME detects it and prevents booting.

>>59446070
They didn't forget, but they left a vulnerability. Overclocking Skymeme requires disabling the IME via an exploit. It was patched via a microcode update and then at a hardware level in Kaby Lake chips.

https://hackaday.com/2016/11/28/neutralizing-intels-management-engine/

>>59446075
yes goyim its always been the case and intel did nothing wrong goyim

>>59447335
Literally 100% wrong.
Stop posting.

>>59444058
it wasn't even the clock multiplier it was the bclk you could adjust.

>>59444058
>intel then did a microcode update to prevent overclocking with those boards.
It's honestly shocking this FUD bullshit is still believed even here. It literally never happened. Intel kindly asked the manufacturers to pull the bios updates that enabled the feature. Most obliged and some like MSI just ignored them. There was no microcode update.

>>59448057
Then why can't Kaby overclock BCLK?

>>59444006
It's nothing to do with binning, that would cost Intel 5c more than it wants to spend. They just make some k and some non-k because profit.

>>59448271
Because they fixed it on the hardware level.

microcode.

they're all the same dies because it's cheaper to manufacture bajillion of exactly the same die and just tweak the firmware for different markets and adjust the price than to make smaller batches of 10 completely different chips.

it's jewishness in pure form.
but everyone does it.

https://youtu.be/LnhXfVYWYXE

>>59446075
>reddit justifies jewish acts

>>59448289
Yes it has something to do with binning. CPUs get tested to run at y frequency for x voltage. If it doesn't at the proposed level, they'll reach it down until matching the lowest threshold. That's how binning works.

>>59447960
No, I'm literally 100% right, you fucking retard. Kill yourself.

>>59444058
no they just said they would patch it and never did you can still OC skylake non-K chips with the right mobo

Recent Intel processor configuration is in the one-time programmable eFuses burned in the factory, read by the first-stage ROM integrated in the ME microcontroller on hard reset before any main core bringup (not the second-stage one in the SPI).

That includes stuff like the processor serial number and all the clocking data and chicken bits which can disable cores or features depending on the SKU that die is binned in.

You don't get to mess with that easily. They cannot easily be changed after-the-fact without techniques that are impractical outside a world-class IC validation/reversing lab (given the pitch of Intel's recent processes) - and even then probably won't result in CPUs that are usable in any practical sense i.e. have a package and you could put a heatsink on and actually use, or would work for longer than a week or so.

Sorry for the bad news. Intel got sick of counterfeiters many years ago, so they make it deliberately hard to try to deter people remarking dies.

>>59448289
All k parts have higher stock frequency. While you could technically overclock a worse bin, it would turn unstable at higher clock, and Intel has a fixed voltage/frequency ratio for the bins.

See last generation some boards allowed non k parts to overclock pushing the bclk it was possible but the performance was usually worse in watts and the final oc frequency worse than k parts.
Also like said Intel just allow k parts on top of the each bin line, effectively drawing a market line.

Intel sucks nowadays

File: 31C2ARn07GL.jpg (12KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 500x500px

Back in my day all we needed to unlock our processor was a number 2 pencil.

File: FreeSpeedPro_Front_Small.jpg (20KB, 350x262px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 350x262px

>>59449820
I remember those days.

Who remembers the Slot A Athlon golden fingers devices?

>>59446566
> Or use MSI boards
All of the z170 lineup, or only some of them? Which one are you using (if the shot is yours)?

File: IMG_1040.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Explain this to me Intel fans.

Why does the i5 6600 use less power than the i5 6600k at the same clock?

Did Intel use crap silicon for the k version?

>>59446009
no it wouldn't, cause then it would cost them more money.
don't you understand their only desire is to take as much money from you as possible? if it means cucking their customers they're more than happy to do so any way possible.