So. There has been talk, but no one has actually shown anything of overclocked non-K series i5 Skylake CPUs. Am i missing something? Because i'm planning on just geting an i5 6400 right now and overclocking. I'm also hearing a lot of polarized answers in regards to this OCing method. With people saying everything from 'it's too risky' to 'it can compromise your other hardware'. From what i've gathered, this is how we used to OC back in the Nehalem days. Why's it an issue now? I'd love to see OCing results from a non-K i5. I reckon the thing should be able to hit 4.0GHz EASILY, no?
Yep, unless Intel have locked it arbitrarily, you should with Z170 motherboard, i have been saying this for a while, and i don't think the "K" parts will Overclock a lot better, as its not like a extreme edition where the part is cherry picked for Overclocking.
Intel Core i7-6700 non K may even be a higher quality part, at its excellent 65W TDP at 4,0Ghz.
just like r9 nano is a higher quality part, vs the fury x.
edit: hmmm, someone should make a video, about this, @wendell ?
1 Like
I've been wondering this since initial skylake reviews mentioned that the PCIe bus frequency had been decoupled from the BCLK. Sadly, no one seems to be investigating it.
Just did a quick google, and this post over at Tom's Hardware forum pops up.
I recently purchased an i5 6600 and even tough I can set the blck clock to whatever I want it doesn't seem to work ... by the time Windows boots my CPU is still working at it's factory settings ... no matter what I change in the BIOS the CPU won't OC. So it's possible that you simply cannot OC non K models.
I've since send it back and replaced it with a 6600K since I do want to OC.
So perhaps BCLK overclocking is restricted to the K chips only.
1 Like
If this is the case i call bullshit on intel, locking the base clock speed arbitrarily, that is really shitty
having done base clock overclocking in the past, it's meh at best anyway. i guess 10% is 10% but it's such a hassle
I'm guessing that by 'the past' you mean nothing older than sandy bridge?
Because FSB/BCLK overclocking was what we had, and we liked it.
Still rocking a x58 setup myself. 200mhz bclk is not uncommon, which is a massive oc.
1 Like
with Z170 we are not talking 10%, up to 350% base clock speed.
1 Like
yes im also rocking x58, 200X20 on a 970
Well. We all know the Ks are unlocked. Screw em. I'm just interested in the whole Baseclock OCing. People won't shut up about it. And naturally, it gets me curious. If i can OC an i5 6400, then i'll get one. But right now. Intel are unbelievably, painfully retarded. Why only allow OCing on K-series CPUs. Of the entire CPU line, there are only two which overclock? Who the FUCK sat there in the board room and actually made that decision? . Now, more than ever, we should be overclocking readily all across the entire product line. Given the fact that we're at 14nm. I swear, this frustration makes me almost want to hold off on my build for another entire year and just get a damn Zen. Because i know they'll give me exactly as much CPU as i'm paying for, and won't pull this kind of bullshit. This is insanity. As if the PC market were not garbage as-is. This happens. Phenomenal. I don't know why people are talking about this BCLK crap when they have nothing to show for it. Still waiting...
And good for you guys for still being on X58. I would be too if i had built a system at that time. I'm just laughing at how i KNEW something was amiss when i posted my very first thread on this forum. I'm beyond fucking perplexed right now.
2 Likes
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2295576/overclock-4590-3ghz.html
So, um... Apparently a guy overclocked his non-K Haswell i5. Da phuq?
EDIT: Oh. Nevermind. Just me coming to a conclusion before reading more than the initial post. Yeah. Someone done goofed.
Considering the BCLK is something that impacts more than just the processor, I don't think Intel would lock it down. I'd go for it
Yeah, but supposedly trustworthy sites have posted articles on this, claiming they ARE overclockable. And yet there's nothing to show of this. Odd.
take my words with a grain of salt but here it is.
modern chips BLK overclocking isn't a good idea since more often than not it will lead to instability. Now even where you can up the blk, you will only see gains in the 100-200mhz range, I've seen this done on ivy and haswel Xeons.
So I wouldn't buy a chip hoping to blk overclock it, I would either get a xeon or go for the k parts.
Skylake uses a different interface for BCLK. It doesn't control as much, and raising the BCLK is unlikely to affect other components. If you watched the video above, I believe Limus was able to use a BCLK of 200 with a multiplier of 23 making the frequency 4.6ghz, and stability was never mentioned as pertaining to any issues whatsoever
2 Likes
It was also my understanding that the BCLK is controlled independently of the PCI-E bus frequency, letting you fine tune your system in a more granular sense and maintaining system stability. Some BIOS options might not allow that, but I have no way to verify myself as I don't presently OWN Skylake, just going off of what I have read and/or heard... so take my post with a grain of salt, I suppose x-D.
... although didn't the Tek Syndicate vid today have Wendell explaining this?