Intel Talks About CPU overclocking software and is to release new Core X CPUs

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 28, 2019.

  1. Nymbryxion

    Nymbryxion Member

    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    2080TI FE
    So final update. Just got done with test. I think this needs to be performed on a default settings BIOS. Mine was set to a custom core voltage and ration prior. Said I could only get to 4.8ghz all core. But, the voltage was still the same when I was checking in windows and in the BIOS. It was still set to 1.12v

    I really do not like this process and feel, while being easy and a single process, just not very rewarding. Unless you do not like to overclock or dont have the experience in it.

    And it did this as an all core boost. Not by core by core.
     
    fantaskarsef and waltc3 like this.
  2. ZXRaziel

    ZXRaziel Master Guru

    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    124
    GPU:
    Nvidia
    I am glad the they have finally fixed all the known vulnerabilities so we can buy Intel again .... wait a minute ..... sorry my bad I get my coat and see my self out ;-)
     
  3. waltc3

    waltc3 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    401
    GPU:
    AMD 50th Ann 5700XT
    Yes, be interesting to see if Intel is going to unlock everything on the consumer side! Somehow, I doubt it...;)

    I would imagine that 8-channels would beat a 4-channel system, otherwise, why offer it? As to whether you will get a price break on your hypothetical 12/14 core Intel cpu, it will be interesting to see if Intel's prices are so much higher because of yields being poor or because of price-gouging their customers prior to Ryzen setting things on their ear, so to speak. If the prices don't come down significantly on these cpus then it's certainly yield problems--which seems logical.

    Actually, sometimes you will have a choice to disable the security patching--but sometimes a bios and/or a Windows version will come with them pre-applied, and new customers, especially, will have them applied from day 1 by the system OEM. People who deliberately work around the security updates as you suggest will be far less common than you might think. I actually agree with you that some of the security issues are way overblown; however slight a chance it may be, customers will not wish to take that chance, though, if they don't have to. As the AMD cpu designs are much newer, ground up, than the current Intel legacy designs and manufacturing processes, the AMD cpus are far less prone to the kind of vulnerabilities currently infesting the Intel architectures. Most consumers are not going to look at a cpu vulnerability that Intel officially admits to and decide to throw caution to the winds. It remains to be seen how many of these vulnerabilities are actually "trivial" in terms of Intel's cpu performance--as it would seem Intel would have corrected these very old architectural deficiencies years ago if it could have done so easily. Just a guess on my part, but seems logical.

    Yes, pretty much every one of the so-called comparisons Intel has published lately either apply only to Ryzen 1st or 2nd gen, or involve non-shipping, unavailable Intel products, or are conducted with other fairly significant detriments to the AMD builds compared (like giving a Ryzen iGPU a huge shared-memory clock deficit), or some combination thereof....These latest ads from Intel remind me of Apple's Mac comparison ads, especially under Jobs!

    I think it would be a stretch to call this "overclocking software"...it sounds positively ghastly...;) It's like the software takes over the platform (unlocks the cpu if needed?) and runs a bunch of cpu verification tests at one speed, and keeps ratcheting up the GHz until the tests begin to fail, whereupon it then reaches some arbitrary conclusions and sets the cpu clock accordingly. Intel is doing it all--the end user is left out of the equation, it looks like. It will be interesting to see if the overclocked GHz speeds set automatically by this software hold up in all software--like Prime 95 or a cpu-limited game here and there, 3d rendering programs, etc. As a rule, software-set auto-overclocking programs generally leave much to be desired, imo.
     
    patteSatan likes this.
  4. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    277
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    Are you gonna try the overclocking software again, but this time at all the recommended BIOS defaults that Intel say you need? That way we'll be able to see what this overclocking software can do. (read the release notes that come with the overclocking software, it lists the BIOS requirements there.)
     

  5. nizzen

    nizzen Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    383
    GPU:
    3x2080ti/5700x/1060
    Bios was not compatible.

    Using Asus z390 Apex. Bios 0903. And binned 9900k.

    5.3ghz @ 1.35v.

    So I don't care :p
     
  6. Robbo9999

    Robbo9999 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    277
    GPU:
    GTX1070 @2050Mhz
    @Hilbert Hagedoorn , would it be worth doing your own review on this overclocking software to see what it can achieve, there's a lot of interest in this thread and I think enthusiasts would be curious to see what this software can offer & achieve - especially as it sounds like this software has the ability to overclock each individual core differently to different levels, which is totally different to any current overclocking possibilities? (could include comparisons to manual overclocking efforts in terms of max overclock frequency achievable & some short performance testing)
     
  7. neikosr0x

    neikosr0x Member

    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    25
    GPU:
    Corsair 8GB DDR3 1333mhz
    wait, what? I don't think you know how Ryzen XFR&PBO works. Second, according to AMD the 3900 runs some of the games at better frame rates than the 9900k. The 3700x 3800x gives you almost the same performance without PBO being enabled. We have 1 more week to go, for reviews to start popping on the internet. So, we just have to wait and see, but i think you are going to be very very surprised expect Better single core performance on the 3900x than what you get on the 9900k.
     
  8. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    71
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    well just look at the branded PC, dell-hp-asus including apple(imac), their lineup still not ditching intel
     
  9. barbacot

    barbacot Master Guru

    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    460
    GPU:
    Asus 3080 Strix OC
    Thank you.
    Also tom's hardware tested this. For those interested: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-cpu-auto-overclock-performance-maximizer,6179.html
     
  10. DownwithEA

    DownwithEA Member

    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    18
    GPU:
    1060 6GB
    I know there are many more interesting topics to talk about but does this graph bother anyone else? The difference in the bar graph is huge but we're only talking about a difference of 0.3 within 4.6 to 4.9.
     

  11. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,153
    Likes Received:
    3,619
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    Go away you intel shill.
     
  12. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,754
    Likes Received:
    3,332
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Do not worry. You are not mining crypto for intel.
     
    Robbo9999 likes this.
  13. TurboPenguin

    TurboPenguin Member

    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX480 SC
    When Ryzen 2xxx came out I was super excited to support AMD in hopes of some real competition. Now I have a 2700X and I can't wait to pre-order my 3700X. Everyone wins reguardless which fan-boy you are on let's hope NAVI can do the same with GPUs. I would LOVE to see competition there too!
     

Share This Page