[dnlrn]

CPUs are complicated pieces of technology. During the manufacturing process, some parts have a better quality grade than others. The better quality parts allow some overclocking without producing errors and therefore they get put into the overclockable K-processors. The worse parts get put into non-overclockable processors and run fine using the default voltage.

Some of the non-overclockable cpus might work fine after overclocking, some might not. Intel definitely doesn't want the negative press when some kids decides to overclock their non-K CPU and break it during the process. So I understand the decision.

[userbinator]

Some of the non-overclockable cpus might work fine after overclocking, some might not. Intel definitely doesn't want the negative press when some kids decides to overclock their non-K CPU and break it during the process.

Have you participated much in the overclocking community? The whole point is that every CPU chip is different and can be overclocked by different amounts, some almost not at all. There is no "negative press", since anything past stock speed is a bonus which is what overclockers are trying to get. If CPUs were not working at stock speeds, that would be a reason for "negative press".

[tzs]

> Have you participated much in the overclocking community? The whole point is that every CPU chip is different and can be overclocked by different amounts, some almost not at all.

On the other hand, there is no way that you can actually determine how far a CPU can be overclocked and still maintain full functionality, so it might be best to limit overclocking to systems that will not be used for something of high financial or safety value.

The problem is that fundamentally the hardware is still analog. Digital is an abstraction on top of the underlying analog system. In the digital abstraction, a signal changes instantaneously from 1 to 0 or from 0 to 1. In the underlying analog system, the components carrying the signal have capacitance and resistance. Changing the high voltage that represents 1 to the low voltage that represents 0, or vice versa, involves discharging or charging that capacitance through that resistance, and that takes time.

This sets an upper limit on how quickly that signal at that particular point in the circuit can change digital state.

There are also other ways the analog nature of the underlying circuit leaks into the digital realm. Neighboring components that are in the digital abstraction completely isolated from each other (except through intentional connections) might be coupled by stray capacitances and inductances. This can let signals on one cause noise on the other, or the state of one could change how fast the other can change state.

When a chip is designed the designers can figure out what areas are the most vulnerable to potential analog problems. They can incorporate into their tests checks to make sure that these areas are OK when the chip is operated in spec.

The ideal scenario is that if you clock a chip fast enough to break something, the chip blatantly fails and so you find out right away, and can slow it down a bit.

The frightening scenario is a data dependent glitch, where you end up with something like if the ALU has just completed a division with a negative numerator and an odd denominator and there has just been a branch prediction miss, then the zero flag will be set incorrectly.

[oliwarner]

Sorry, the negative press argument is utter nonsense.

If you run any hardware outside specifications, you expect it to fail. People brick phones and ruin engines but there isn't a backlash against people trying to jailbreak their phone or modify their cars. If anything, the people that matter —the enthusiast market for these devices— are demanding that their devices be more customisable. The press and other consumers don't give two hoots about little Jimmy trying to rice 5GHz out of his $100 CPU and turning it into liquid magma. Stupid kid was stupid.

The opposite is true though. If lil Jim manages to get a $5000 part for $100, other consumers are going to factor that into their purchasing decisions.

What is most concerning is that this is a part that has been out and about for a little while. There are dozens of guides recommending certain CPUs for this that Intel are going to patch up now. The articles and their recommendations will remain out there though. It's false advertising by the back door.

[onli]

And that's just not true.

There would be no negative press for intel. Everyone with the shlightest knowledge about overclocking knows that overclocking can damage your parts. And like stated, parts breaking without voltage increase is highly unlikely. But still: Assume I buy an Intel Non-K processor, base-overclock it and it breaks. How on earth would I be able to produce negative press for Intel by publishing that?

It's simply a profit optimization. K-processors cost more, people who want to overclock had the option to buy non-K, that reduced sale numbers of the K line. Also the i7-6700 is clocked way below the i7-6700K, it was a nice option to get the cheaper version and up it to K level, saving 100€ for some time (prices changed).

Behavior like that is why I buy AMD.

[Someone]

"Everyone with the slightest knowledge about overclocking knows that overclocking can damage your parts."

It is not necessarily about damaging your parts; that would be the least of their worries. Unreliability of the CPU is the real problem. Your CPU might be 20% faster, but if it incorrectly computes some number in your spreadsheet, corrupts the file, or, worse, corrupts your file system without immediate consequences, or, even worse, makes hardware (drone, self-driving car, nuclear facility) behave incorrectly, they will not just have angry customers, but likely also lawsuits started against them (yes, they might win them, but not necessarily easily; people would complain that they should have closed that hole, given that they knew it was misused)

Also, that 'everybody with the slightest knowledge about overclocking knows' is only relevant as long as overclocking remains a niche thing. If it were mainstream, many of its users would not have 'the slightest knowledge about overclocking'. This microcode update helps keep it that way.

[mhurron]

> they will not just have angry customers, but likely also lawsuits started against them

Which is why they've prevented over-clocking the whole time, except they haven't.

Their chips that allow over-clocking and the chips that don't are physically the same chips, there's nothing special about them. Intel is doing this only so that you can't buy a cheaper processor and get a more expensive processors performance.

I bought a 600MHz Celeron once, when the range was around 600MHz-1GHz. It overclocked stably to 900MHz. In essence I got a much faster processor for a much lower price. That is what Intel is fighting against, not some mythical lawsuit over life and limb.

[daniel-cussen]

Overclocking isn't just a joy ride. It gives you more for your money, reducing the demand for the more premium version.

[nbzklr]

I've never heard of a CPU "breaking" during non-LN2 Level OC.

[girvo]

I have, but that was something like 15 years ago now