C cwharms In Runtime Messages 257 May 12, 2008 #11 Not if the Lynnfield and Havendale bench better than an overclocked AMD.
freestyler105 Golden Master Messages 7,883 May 12, 2008 #13 cwharms said: Meh, I would take that article with a grain of salt. Click to expand... Agreed. Let's see some reliable sources first.
cwharms said: Meh, I would take that article with a grain of salt. Click to expand... Agreed. Let's see some reliable sources first.
Cabbs Golden Master Messages 7,912 May 12, 2008 #14 Fudzilla lol. Just because there is an on-die clock generator, it doesn't mean you can't overclock it.
Fudzilla lol. Just because there is an on-die clock generator, it doesn't mean you can't overclock it.
A True Folder Fully Optimized Messages 2,789 May 12, 2008 #15 worshipme said: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7255&Itemid=1 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6965&Itemid=1 Locked, completely locked. I don't want to have to pay $1000 on a CPU just to be able to overclock it. I don't think this is a wise decision and I think it'll piss a lot of people off. Click to expand... I see you found the articles then cwharms said: Meh, I would take that article with a grain of salt. Click to expand... True, Fud isn't exactly a reliable news source as I pointed out when I mentioned it yesterday cabbspapp said: Fudzilla lol. Just because there is an on-die clock generator, it doesn't mean you can't overclock it. Click to expand... That's true but if Fud are to be believed it is a conscious decision by Intel to lock them which is in no way connected to the technology.
worshipme said: http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7255&Itemid=1 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6965&Itemid=1 Locked, completely locked. I don't want to have to pay $1000 on a CPU just to be able to overclock it. I don't think this is a wise decision and I think it'll piss a lot of people off. Click to expand... I see you found the articles then cwharms said: Meh, I would take that article with a grain of salt. Click to expand... True, Fud isn't exactly a reliable news source as I pointed out when I mentioned it yesterday cabbspapp said: Fudzilla lol. Just because there is an on-die clock generator, it doesn't mean you can't overclock it. Click to expand... That's true but if Fud are to be believed it is a conscious decision by Intel to lock them which is in no way connected to the technology.
esa193 Fully Optimized Messages 4,210 May 12, 2008 #16 i really don't believe that..... if intel really didnt want people to over clock they wouldn't have made the x38 witch is a great over clocking m/b
i really don't believe that..... if intel really didnt want people to over clock they wouldn't have made the x38 witch is a great over clocking m/b
OP OP worshipme Golden Master Messages 5,603 May 13, 2008 #17 This is Nehalem, it has nothing to do with the X38.
esa193 Fully Optimized Messages 4,210 May 13, 2008 #18 yes but if intel was against overclocking why create a motherboard thats good at it
Bobert93 Fully Optimized Messages 2,449 May 13, 2008 #19 esa193 said: yes but if intel was against overclocking why create a motherboard thats good at it Click to expand... intel lock the multiplier on there monterboards , guess thats not working so they are taking it to the next step . lock the CPU , thats so crap
esa193 said: yes but if intel was against overclocking why create a motherboard thats good at it Click to expand... intel lock the multiplier on there monterboards , guess thats not working so they are taking it to the next step . lock the CPU , thats so crap
R Remeniz Fully Optimized Messages 3,390 Location England May 13, 2008 #20 What exactly are Intel trying to achieve by doing this? Yet again i'm perplexed