Intel Not Happy About BCLK Overclocking of 12th Gen CPUs, Warns of Damage

[Deleted member 24505]

So as i thought, with my 12700k, i can do a combination of multi and BCLK fo OC. Say lower multi and higher BCLK, which does open some tweaking options. But for non K it is a boon, i can see why Intel are pissed. If they had coupled the BCLK this would not be possible.

It doesn't apply to Alder Lake either, base clock overclocking works perfectly fine. Z690 uses the PCIe clock gen for it's PLL. No issues with SATA drives, NVMe drives connected to the chipset, or USB.

Apparently the bclk has been been decoupled in Alder Lake, it only affects cpu, memory and ring bus. it won't affect system stability. Intel's just p!ssed they can't screw you for a K series processor. I see no point in K series on AL, OC'ing is a waste of energy. I'd take a non-K Raptor Lake cpu for sure and maybe tweak bclk a bit if base clocks are much lower than the K's.

So would there be a limit to the BCLK frequency? i saw Der8auer had it as high as 137 with seemingly no problem with the 12400. How does overclocking on non K ADL handle the BCLK Governor?

 

[Mussels]

Anyone else look at that 5.x GHz screenshots of these four core CPU's and have flashbacks to their 2500k/2600k and 3570k and 3770k setups?


It makes me want to see what a fully tuned sandy or ivy bridge system can do equal to these, because it really doesnt feel like progress - just moving goalposts

Edit: no really, with all the security issues and patches hurting performance and most benches in the past done with antique spinning rust disks

Kinda pissed my dad wont let me run benches on my old system i sold him, the 4770K with 32GB DDR3 2400Mhz would probably compete really well

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I wouldn't be surprised, knowing Intel in the 2010s, if Intel issues an update to stop that kind of OC'ing.

I bet you that Intel will be like, "Mama said lock you out!"

 

[swirl09]

To an extent I don't understand AIOs, why ditch my perfectly fine, extremely silent Noctua cooler for a louder AIO just to get a slight decrease in temperatures? The CPU isn't exactly underperforming and the AIO won't bring huge performance increases. I don't monitor my temperatures all the time while I use my PC. I use it to do my tasks and play games. And air coolers are way more reliable.

I literally moved back from an AIO to the ever reliable Noctua. The main advantage of the AIO, to my surprise, was the reduction in GPU temps! (This will vary depending on case/fan config)

But as I tend to use my previous rig as a side rig til the next one comes along, the thought that there is a real possiblity at that stage the AIO might die didnt sit well with me. I cannot imagine a Noctua failing during the time I have use for it.

Hardware is coming with less OC room these days anyway. Its more about the UV/sweet spot for me. Im happy to run 12900k at 5.1 all (P)core at 1.23v silently.

 

[Tsukiyomi91]

If you know what you're doing, then Intel's little warning will be nothing but an insignificant fear-mongering tool. Pretty sure Intel is forgetting that they're annihilating AMD at the lower end market since there isn't ANY Ryzen 3s or 5 series non X SKUs. (they literally ditched that market in hopes of making more on the high end) more so than the mid-high end of the spectrum... coincidence? Maybe. But I doubt that folks OCing the B-clocks of their i3s and i5s is gonna affect the sales of the K series SKUs when those are already pretty decent in its own right.

 

[noel_fs]

i hope they get piles of rma's, thats what happens when you lock ratio out of absolute greed.

 

[Chomiq]

Anyone else look at that 5.x GHz screenshots of these four core CPU's and have flashbacks to their 2500k/2600k and 3570k and 3770k setups?


It makes me want to see what a fully tuned sandy or ivy bridge system can do equal to these, because it really doesnt feel like progress - just moving goalposts

Hell, I had flashbacks to E5200 days.

 

[Vayra86]

Yeah, the last CPU I bought that was worth overclocking was a 2500K, before Z-series motherboards were mandated for K-series chips adding yet more unnecessary cost to getting your "free" performance (that you had to pay extra for)

That P67 board took a 3.3GHz chip to 5.1GHz all core, though at frankly harmful voltages and untenable temperatures for summer. My daily driver OC was 4.8GHz at 1.4V on a NH-U12 air cooler. You were super-unlucky if your 2500K didn't clock to at least 4.5GHz. Most would do that on stock voltage with the wimpy intel boxed cooler.

Since then, overclocking has been taxed excessively at purchase for the snowflake influencers. Through Haswell, Zen2, Zen3 I've not overclocked. AMD may have been less restrictive about overclocking but you still have to buy a premium model and the 3600X was poor performance/$ compared to the 3600. My 3900X and 5800X have PBO+ disabled. Regular boosting within the TDP is plenty for me and a silent, stable 4.5-4.8GHz boost is better than 4.95GHz of overvolted madness and kiss goodbye to all of your power savings and quiet operation.

Maybe I'm old, or maybe I'm just not dumb enough to throw performance/$ and performance/W out of the window just to get an extra 10% at most. Having the fastest is pointless anyway because tomorrow something faster will get launched with the never-ending march of progress.

We're both old and we apply old logic to our frame of the world. So far I've found that legacy logic to work a LOT better than jumping from one outrage into the next because you turned out to be wrong in the new logic of social media. You know, it keeps ya sane to go slow.

But yeah I feel exactly the same way about overclocking. What is the effin point if you're going to spend more on board and cooling to even get any semblance of an OC out a chip? Isn't the net result a loss there?! I never understood the rationale there. Just buy a faster chip. And back in the day, you could actually BUY the fastest possible chip and then see how far you could take it, because Intel didn't do it for you to begin with. So you'd chase the optimal performance on your own, with no guarantees, and then the expense of 'more cooling' looks quite different, to me at least: you're pushing that boundary.

But in the current world you're not even pushing boundaries, its just a game of 'how much voltage will it take before I see smoke'. Efficiency? What? I mean they already get out of the box clocked way out of the optimal curve, if you'd try for efficiency, you might as well just buy a lower SKU. Its like they literally monetized every piece of the stack for every type of buyer, but still try to sell the old idea of some sort of advantage.

And somehow, its working too. I get it. If you never knew how it really was, what you get today is your reality - there was never something else.
Companies know this. Its why we get all those reboot games too. Redefine reality so you can finally ditch those old nagging bastards telling you how shit everything's become because of commerce and profit drive. This is also why groups of consumers find themselves on opposite ends of a discussion (example: steam vs EGS, paid vs unpaid modding, lenience on MTX and pay to win, lenience on Pre-orders and early access, selling out to cloud versus owned).

 

[gozzima]

Haha, back in the 90's when Celeron 300A and its locked multiplier was allowing +50% overclocks via FSB frequency increase !

 

[SamuelL]

Intel has always bin about money.

Heh heh, I see what you did there

 

[Pilgrim]

Outside this being Intel - BCLK overclocking is not exactly safe and can damage other components if pushed far enough. External clock generators should not change anything in this, it is just a measure to circumvent whatever manufacturer has implemented to prevent BCLK overclocking.

RAM, PCIe, NVMe, SATA, USB and most other things that do run in sync with BCLK do need to be able to deal with increased frequencies somehow. 1-2% change might not cause many disruptions but beyond that it gets increasingly more crapshoot. And no, the problems you get may not be simple or obvious

You must be very new to overclocking because some of us have been doing BCLK/FSB overclocking for decades. I literally, have an X58 system running in my workshop with the bus overclocked 120% and it has been running like that for 7 years now.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

BCLK in ADL is unlinked. so does not effect anything but CPU, mem, ring.

 

[Mussels]

BCLK in ADL is unlinked. so does not effect anything but CPU, mem, ring.

If that were true, every single board could do Bclk OCing


What gives you that idea, vs what's been stated about the external clock gen on specific boards?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

If that were true, every single board could do Bclk OCing


What gives you that idea, vs what's been stated about the external clock gen on specific boards?

Is the BCLK adjustment option removed on lower boards? idk

It could be only high end boards that have a external clock generator, but someone has found a way to do it on non high end boards.

Seen this-

Intel Non-K Alder Lake CPUs Topple Overclocking World Records​

Intel Non-K Alder Lake CPUs Topple Overclocking World Records

I am going to see if my board has the option in the bios, probably not though.

 

[Mussels]

Is the BCLK adjustment option removed on lower boards? idk

It could be only high end boards that have a external clock generator, but someone has found a way to do it on non high end boards.

Seen this-

Intel Non-K Alder Lake CPUs Topple Overclocking World Records​

Intel Non-K Alder Lake CPUs Topple Overclocking World Records

I am going to see if my board has the option in the bios, probably not though.

Bad link but if thats the toms hardware article, you misread

^ these boards have external clock gens

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Bad link but if thats the toms hardware article, you misread
View attachment 233953

^ these boards have external clock gens

I know. Wish i'd have gone with one of these, my friend bought me the ADL stuff and even asked if i wanted a better board. Seems these are the only boards it will work on. But I can't see someone buying one of these boards and a low end chip for it.

 

[Skylinestar]

The only BIOSes that have external clock gen are flagship-tier dedicated overclocking boards, right?

For the Skylake era, it is not the case. Mid-tier boards are good enough. I believe it will be the same for current gen boards.

 

[darksf]

Reading the comments it is hard to miss how many people actually trust Intel marketing team. It is this kind of trust to the manufacturers excuses and warnings that led us to the era where every chip costs a kidney. Willing to pay premium for special unlocked CPU that can bareley overclock and 3 to 4 times more expensive boards defeats the idea of overclocking.Not to mention that this days for home use the CPU is no longer a bottleneck in the system. I still have my 20 year old Athlon Thoroughbred-B 1700+ (1466MHz) that ran for 4 years at 2300MHz and then got replaced by Barton chip just for fun again at 2400MHz. Just to clear out the Thoroughbred-B 1700+ was something like 100$ and the top model Athlon XP 3100+ /2200MHz was something like 500$. This is how I see the purpose of overclocking.

 

[stimpy88]

You Intel folks need to be a bit wary about updating your BIOS sooner or later. Intel likes to take your toys away, as a loving response to your fanboyism.

 

[Why_Me]

You Intel folks need to be a bit wary about updating your BIOS sooner or later. Intel likes to take your toys away, as a loving response to your fanboyism.

You mean we won't be able to oc our locked cpu's that we never expected to oc anyways? I guess it's time to blow $270 on a 5600x.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

If your machine is working fine, there is no need to. Ryzen users have to to make their CPUs actually work.

 

[Chrispy_]

If your machine is working fine, there is no need to. Ryzen users have to to make their CPUs actually work.

Heh, only if you buy an old board for a new CPU.
Intel users don't have that problem because there is no such thing as an "old S1700 motherboard"

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Heh, only if you buy an old board for a new CPU.
Intel users don't have that problem because there is no such thing as an "old S1700 motherboard"

Not yet

 

[Mussels]

If your machine is working fine, there is no need to. Ryzen users have to to make their CPUs actually work.

Anyone who cant get a Zen 2 or Zen 3 system working out of the box, needs to be returned to their manufacturer.

 

[Chrispy_]

Anyone who cant get a Zen 2 or Zen 3 system working out of the box, needs to be returned to their manufacturer.

I get your point, but it's still technically possible to buy a new B450 board that has neither an updated 5000-series BIOS nor the ability to flash a new BIOS without an older CPU, right?

You do need to ignore most guides and advice to pair a cheap, old B450 board with a CPU that could be classed as high-end given that the cheapest 5000-series offering is still about $270 - and yet it does and will continue to happen.