Author: David Dory
Date: 16:27:43 01/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2002 at 12:41:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>
>If I get what you mean, you phrased it very badly. All the XP chips
>have the same design. What differentiates them is what clockspeed they
>appear to run stable at. This is tested in the factory and makes the
>difference between the chips. However, this is true for any chip, not
>just the Athlon. There are less chips that pass the stability tests
>at high clockspeeds, so they are more expensive etc...
Naturally. You want a corvette engine, you pay more. Oh and don't worry, GCP, I
can phrase things badly with the best of 'em! ;-))
>
>The way you put it it sounds as if all Athlon XP's are (factory guaranteed)
>to run stable at 1.6Ghz. That is not true.
That's why I didn't say that. I said the numerical sequence on the chip DOES
denote the ability of the chip to run "overclocked" and within higher design
parameters.
>
>There is a big difference between 'overclocking' which has a pejorative
>connotation and running within higher design parameters. The second
>is guaranteed to be stable, whereas the first certainly is not.
I quote from the MSI M/B book re:
High Performance/BIOS Setup Defaults
" The High Performance Defaults are the default values set by the mainboard
manufacturer for the best system performance, but probably will cause a
stability issue." Page 3-29
That is *not* guaranteed stability, to me.
>>That's why I put "overclocked" in quotes, and used the phrase "higher design
>>parameters". I'm sure "higher performance parameters" is more correct. It
>>appears the term "overclocked" is both specific to the CPU clock speed and is
>>used as a general descriptor to denote higher performance.
>
>Yes. You should not exchange the two because they do mean very different
>things.
When the experts interchange the two it can't be helped.
>The way you put it sounded as if this is intentionally hidden from
>the user, which is certainly not true.
>
You misunderstood. I made no mention of intent. But the numbers *are* hidden
from the sight of the average user. YMMV
>This is like saying you can't tell what harddisk you have because it's
>mounted inside the case and you can't see it from the outside.
>
>Silly isn't it?
Nope. You run almost zero risk of damaging the harddisk by opening the
computer's case and reading the info printed on the disk. This is not true of
the CPU, once it has been bonded to the heatsink. When you try to remove the
heat sink from the CPU, it is very easy to damage the chip. (They require
thermal paste to bond to the CPU.) If you go over to the overclocking newsgroups
you'll see the tales of woe.
things like :
"I carefully removed the heatsink, but now after installing a better one,
nothing works."
When you can wreck a chip that costs that much, that easily, it's not too
"silly".
Dave
"Whaddya mean I shouldn't use scanf for input?"
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.