bit-tech.net

MSI And ASRock Detail Motherboards Capable Of Baseclock Overclocking

MSI And ASRock Detail Motherboards Capable Of Baseclock Overclocking

Screenshots posted on hwbot.org showed various non K-edition CPUs being overclocking significantly using just the baseclock. For example, a Core i3-6100 saw its clock speed rise from a maximum of 3.7GHz to 4.439GHz using a baseclock of 120MHz.

The overclocking scene looks set to receive a massive boost following ASRock's announcement that it had enabled non-K base clock overclocking on its Z170 motherboards, as both it and MSI detail plans for extending support.

Currently, MSI's compatible models includes the XPOWER GAMING TE, GAMING M9, GAMING M7, GAMING M5 and G45 GAMING, with the baseclock overclocking enabling BIOS versions available from here - at time of writing, only the XPOWER was available but MSI has told us the rest will follow soon.

As for the first to the party, ASRock has announced that so far at least 21 of its current lineup of Z170 boards can tap into the baseclock overclocking, including some of its cheaper boards such as the Extreme 3, Extreme 4 and Z170 Pro4S, the latter retailing for less than £90.

As we reported a few days ago, using the new overclocking method will prevent the CPU's IGP from operating as it needs to be disabled, requiring the use of a discrete graphics card - not much of an issue for gaming systems. MSI also claimed that the CPU won't be able to drop the CPU frequency under light loads - it will only run at the maximum turbo ratio.

MSI And ASRock Detail Motherboards Capable Of Baseclock Overclocking MSI and ASRock Detail Motherboards Capable of Baseclock Overclocking
ASRock's list of motherboards with a compatible BIOS version is extensive.

MSI also stated that it's unclear how long this method will work, describing it as a 'bug' that may well be fixed by Intel in a future update, although as MSI correctly pointed out, this is what it said about the ability of non Z97 and Z87 chipsets to overclock K-series CPUs, and as far as we know this still works.

It's a very interesting development from motherboard manufacturers, especially as for example, a Core i5-6400 currently retails for more than £50 less than a Core i5-6600K, yep sports the same amount of cache. Will you be taking advantage of the new overclocking technique? Let us know in the forum.

10 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
bawjaws 17th December 2015, 15:21 Quote
How does performance compare between multiplier overclocking and baseclock overclocking, or is there no actual difference? If you overclock a 3.7GHz chip to 4.4GHz using both methods, will you see any difference?

Also, am I right in thinking that baseclock overclocking will require faster RAM?
TheMadDutchDude 17th December 2015, 16:10 Quote
There is probably absolutely no difference and you will not require faster RAM. You just select a different RAM divider that suits your needs. :)
TheMadDutchDude 17th December 2015, 16:13 Quote
Quote:
yep sports the same amount of cache.

Oops. ;)
bawjaws 17th December 2015, 16:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDude
There is probably absolutely no difference and you will not require faster RAM. You just select a different RAM divider that suits your needs. :)

Yeah, that's how I do it with my trusty E8500 :D Wasn't sure if that's still the way to go these days given that most overclocking seems to be with multipliers rather than baseclocks these days :D
TheMadDutchDude 17th December 2015, 19:42 Quote
Yes sir, it's still the same principle. :)
SchizoFrog 18th December 2015, 01:20 Quote
I haven't looked hard for other results so I have so far only seen the i3-6100 mentioned which is a dual core chip. The real question is can an i5-6400 and an i7-6700 match their respective 'K' models?

If you already have bought one of the cheaper chips then this is all good news for you but as a new buyer... I am not so sure it is worth the saving (approx £50 and £70) and the risk?

However, again as a new buyer, the main thing that would make me think twice is that Skylake is due a refresh soon which may gain even better performance by default while also bringing this method of overclocking to an end and then there is Canonlake due not long after...

I am looking to build a new system and for the most part, I have always had a clear idea of what I wanted to buy, but right now I believe the waters have never been muddier and so I am happy to wait further. Especially as I may be able to buy some pretty sweet Haswell based products come January in the second hand market for very good prices.
Bindibadgi 18th December 2015, 02:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawjaws
How does performance compare between multiplier overclocking and baseclock overclocking, or is there no actual difference? If you overclock a 3.7GHz chip to 4.4GHz using both methods, will you see any difference?

Also, am I right in thinking that baseclock overclocking will require faster RAM?

If you have an unlocked chip you're not going to see a benefit, but for those without (expensive) K series then your multi options will be limited to mid-high 30s. So you will need base-clock to push over 4G.

Skylake isn't due for refresh until around this time next year, with another 14nm chip. The platform won't change significantly for another ~2 years.

Although I agree, that given a i5-6400 vs EOL 4690K - I'd still take the Haswell unless I absolutely needed M.2 support. I'm dying to see a round-up of Haswell/Sandy/Ivy/Skylake - OC vs non-OC and Haswell $ vs Skylake $. I haven't seen anyone commit to it yet.
TheMadDutchDude 18th December 2015, 05:57 Quote
Why would you take a 4690K over a newer system if they are at the same (or darn close) price point? Seems illogical.
Bindibadgi 19th December 2015, 04:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMadDutchDude
Why would you take a 4690K over a newer system if they are at the same (or darn close) price point? Seems illogical.

Higher, easier OC and practically the same features. You can still use C-States with K series OCing.
SchizoFrog 25th December 2015, 14:12 Quote
I have a question... The non-K i5 is a 65W chip while the K is 95W... If the same OC is achievable are you better off with the non-K chip as 1: it is cheaper and 2: it has a lower power draw?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums