Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 23:40:26 04/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2003 at 23:25:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 10, 2003 at 20:45:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On April 10, 2003 at 11:34:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>I'm not knocking your box at all, as I said previously you have driven it to the >>>lowest latency I have ever seen. But for every success story, there are a >>>thousand >>>horror stories. I've seen too many of 'em here. "It works fine on all the >>>normal >>>test programs but I am getting a program crash on my real application. When I >>>turn the clock back down, it works fine." >>> >>>That's not the way to spend time debugging... >> >>What in the world is your point? > >That overclocking leads to bugs that are very difficult to find. Because >they don't show up on _other_ machines. > >Was that too hard to understand? Yes. There are a lot of bugs that are very difficult to find that are caused by many different things. Cosmic rays, electromigration, power surges/spikes, whatever. The designs of the chips in question have known bugs and there's no reason to think they don't have unknown bugs. If you want a computer where the hardware always works right, then you want a computer that has more redundancy than a PC. If you want a computer that has no perceptible problems, then you can use a PC, and yes, even an overclocked PC. -Tom
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.