Ryzen 3: The Ultimate Gaming Benchmark Guide

[Vulcanproject]

If the binning for the Intel chips met their tolerances they'd be unlocked. They make more off stable products than by supposedly bilking customers for unlocked K cpus.

How they bin them doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they can be overclocked. Intel lock out access to the clock generator. A chip that is binned as Pentium would still be very capable of overclocking if Intel allowed it

 

[OcelotRex]

How they bin them doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they can be overclocked. Intel lock out access to the clock generator. A chip that is binned as Pentium would still be very capable of overclocking if Intel allowed it

So you work for Intel?

We don't have their internal tolerances for each product in the stack nor do we know their "appetite" for performance. If a product meets those it's binned as a "K" processor and sold at a premium. If all units met that threshold all processors would be unlocked "K" processors.

Intel's business practices is to be conservative and lock all non-"K" processors for their brand image. Selling chips that may not handle much of an OC or any more than stock voltage unlocked would piss off the uninformed, emotional buyers (like those who post here).

Here's a better question - if all Ryzen CPUs can hit 3.8, 3.9, or 4.0 why did AMD even bother clocking them lower? Why would overclocking be an option? It works both ways...

 

[Vulcanproject]

So you work for Intel?

We don't have their internal tolerances for each product in the stack nor do we know their "appetite" for performance. If a product meets those it's binned as a "K" processor and sold at a premium. If all units met that threshold all processors would be unlocked "K" processors.

Intel's business practices is to be conservative and lock all non-"K" processors for their brand image. Selling chips that may not handle much of an OC or any more than stock voltage unlocked would piss off the uninformed, emotional buyers (like those who post here).

Here's a better question - if all Ryzen CPUs can hit 3.8, 3.9, or 4.0 why did AMD even bother clocking them lower? Why would overclocking be an option? It works both ways...

That's some passive aggressive and no I don't work for Intel, but it seems you don't know how overclocking works or have any knowledge whatsoever of Intel CPUs before about 2011.

Intel could allow access to the clock generators if they wanted to, but don't simply because they want to sell their unlocked overclockable chips at a premium. It's really that simple. Intel could allow overclocking instantly for every chip on any new platform they design (Celerons, Pentiums, whatever), but they just don't.

I'll point you to the Skylake parts where some board manufacturers (Asrock, MSI among others) added an external clock generator on a select few boards that actually enabled baseclock overclocking on that generation of non K locked parts. You wanted to overclock a Pentium? No problem. what about an i5? Yep.

Intel put paid to that quickly. That decision is nothing to do with binning and everything to do with Intel wanting to charge a lot more for parts that can overclock. Better binned parts don't mean you shouldn't overclock the poorer chips.

I merely said if you could overclock more Intel models like you used to be able to then that would be fantastic and end most of Ryzen's advantages at the lower mainstream

 

[OcelotRex]

That's some passive aggressive and no I don't work for Intel, but it seems you don't know how overclocking works or have any knowledge whatsoever of Intel CPUs before about 2011.

Intel could allow access to the clock generators if they wanted to, but don't simply because they want to sell their unlocked overclockable chips at a premium. It's really that simple. Intel could allow overclocking instantly for every chip on any new platform they design (Celerons, Pentiums, whatever), but they just don't.

I'll point you to the Skylake parts where some board manufacturers (Asrock, MSI among others) added an external clock generator on a select few boards that actually enabled baseclock overclocking on that generation of non K locked parts. You wanted to overclock a Pentium? No problem. what about an i5? Yep.

Intel put paid to that quickly. That decision is nothing to do with binning and everything to do with Intel wanting to charge a lot more for parts that can overclock. Better binned parts don't mean you shouldn't overclock the poorer chips.

I merely said if you could overclock more Intel models like you used to be able to then that would be fantastic and end most of Ryzen's advantages at the lower mainstream

Wow that's ignorant especially since you don't for Intel. While what you said may be true what would be the gains be on each CPU? Minimal? Sub 10% performance with increased heat and power, the antithesis of Intel's strategy since 2011?. Intel buyers are quite happy buying locked processors that outperform AMD parts since 2011.

Or they could clock every very minimally, unlock all processors, then allow overclocking like AMD has done. It's a neat trick and since this site constantly focuses on gaming performance AMD won't see huge gains. Look at the Steam Survey and you'll see less about 5% of users are running 3.7 Ghz or above.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Wow that's ignorant especially since you don't for Intel. While what you said may be true what would be the gains be on each CPU? Minimal? Sub 10% performance with increased heat and power, the antithesis of Intel's strategy since 2011?. Intel buyers are quite happy buying locked processors that outperform AMD parts since 2011.

Or they could clock every very minimally, unlock all processors, then allow overclocking like AMD has done. It's a neat trick and since this site constantly focuses on gaming performance AMD won't see huge gains. Look at the Steam Survey and you'll see less about 5% of users are running 3.7 Ghz or above.

You think that you would only gain 10 percent overclocking these chips? Hahahaha. No.

Take the Skylake Pentium G4400 3.3Ghz for example, most of those can easily do 4.5Ghz, as a minimum. That's over 35 percent gain in clock speed, and equates to well over 10 percent extra performance in the real world.

I think it is clear you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[OcelotRex]

You think that you would only gain 10 percent overclocking these chips? Hahahaha. No.

Take the Skylake Pentium G4400 3.3Ghz for example, most of those can easily do 4.5Ghz, as a minimum. That's over 35 percent gain in clock speed, and equates to well over 10 percent extra performance in the real world.

I think it is clear you don't know what you are talking about.

Please cite your claim in orange above otherwise the red above describes yourself.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Please cite your claim in orange above otherwise the red above describes yourself.

G4400 @ 4.55GHz http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-pentium-g4400-processor-review-skylake_179724/3

@ 4.6GHz https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...th-overclocking-ddr4-and-locked-skylake-skus/

i3 6100 @ 4.7GHz https://www.techspot.com/review/1108-intel-locked-skylake-cpu-bclk-overclocking/

Massive gains on several skylake chips like the 6400: http://overclocking.guide/overclocking-non-k-intel-skylake-cpus-performance-tests/

Ok thanks bye close the door behind you

 

[OcelotRex]

G4400 @ 4.55GHz http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-pentium-g4400-processor-review-skylake_179724/3

@ 4.6GHz https://linustechtips.com/main/topi...th-overclocking-ddr4-and-locked-skylake-skus/

i3 6100 @ 4.7GHz https://www.techspot.com/review/1108-intel-locked-skylake-cpu-bclk-overclocking/

Massive gains on several skylake chips like the 6400: http://overclocking.guide/overclocking-non-k-intel-skylake-cpus-performance-tests/

Ok thanks bye close the door behind you

EVGA warns you about some limitations when overclocking a Non-K processor. Several critical components will be disabled such as IGP (we’ll be using a discreet card anyways), CPU Turbo, EIST (SpeedStep), C-State (built-in power modes), CPU Temperature sensor and Power Management. To achieve the best overclock possible, you really need to have several of these. The lack of a temperature sensor for example, increases the risk of frying your processor. No power management, means you can’t increase the voltage to the processor.

Nope. Techspot also reported functions being turned off as well to achieve the OC.

Hacks and workarounds to achieve one risky thing doesn't prove these processors would be stable en-mass with full functionality if Intel "weren't so greedy."

You proving it to be possible (without explaining very important caveats) doesn't address my point - this is a business decision to provide stable products to improve brand perception. The handful of people who would consider OC'ing these already buy unlocked processors and Intel still has 80+% of the market.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Nope. Techspot also reported functions being turned off as well to achieve the OC.

Hacks and workarounds to achieve one risky thing doesn't prove these processors would be stable en-mass with full functionality if Intel "weren't so greedy."

You proving it to be possible (without explaining very important caveats) doesn't address my point - this is a business decision to provide stable products to improve brand perception. The handful of people who would consider OC'ing these already buy unlocked processors and Intel still has 80+% of the market.

All it proves is that these processors are totally and entirely fine, stable usable and much faster when overclocked. In fact even with some features disabled it only strengthens the point that these limitations are imposed artificially by Intel.

Completely contrary to your claim that they can't overclock by much and you don't gain much, proving you entirely wrong.

But then literally everyone knows this. It isn't a secret. Except it seems for you, still incredibly arguing against the obvious.

Honestly there is the door. You can see your own way out because I dropped the mic on this topic and closed you down.

 

[OcelotRex]

All it proves is that these processors are totally and entirely fine, stable usable and much faster when overclocked. In fact even with some features disabled it only strengthens the point that these limitations are imposed artificially by Intel.

Completely contrary to your claim that they can't overclock by much and you don't gain much, proving you entirely wrong.

But then literally everyone knows this. It isn't a secret. Except it seems for you, still incredibly arguing against the obvious.

Honestly there is the door. You can see your own way out because I dropped the mic on this topic and closed you down.

Right - you "know" this and Intel doesn't. "Everyone" knows this and yet buys Intel locked processors en mass. Then you use special use cases that don't come close to resembling real world performance, including a forum post laughably, to supposedly bolster your argument. These 2 processors are your entire argument when there's millions of others bolstering mine.

You're special - but in the mean way not the nice way. Good luck constantly always being right in your own mind while the rest of the world "just doesn't get you." If only successful companies would listen to you they could do so much better!