Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:01:09 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 14:16:12, Aaron Gordon wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 11:42:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>That is _not_ the same idea. The idea that a vendor purposefully underclocks a >>chip >>is ridiculous. The idea that they don't release the next generation at a faster >>clock rate >>until the current supply of slower chips is exhausted is not contradictory at >>all. Two >>totally different business practices, one of which makes economic sense, the >>other makes >>zero sense. > >They make ALL of the chips off the same line. You are _completely_ missing the point. We are talking about overclocking the _high_end_ chips. Not the low-end. The fastest production intel chips are 3.06ghz. I don't give a squat about overclocking the 2.4ghz processors. We are talking about the _top_ end. This is about taking the best and overclocking, not about taking something that was intentionally marked low simply to fill a market niche request... > Why do you think you can run out >and buy an AthlonXP 1700+ (1466MHz) with the Thoroughbred-B core for $56 and >overclock it to 2.1-2.3GHz? Try that with one of the very first 1700+ chips, you >will not get over 1.6GHz. Same thing goes for my old Celeron-2 566MHz. It does >1.1GHz (yes, 566 to 1100) air-cooled. This is a cC0 and basically is a P3-1GHz >core with some L2 cache disabled. Intel and AMD both make the same stuff and >mark it to whatever they feel is needed. If Celeron 566's are selling a lot, >they'll start marking them 566 to meet demand. 2100+'s are selling like >wild-fire, AMD is putting their latest and greatest silicon in those chips. You >can pay $300 or whatever it costs for a 2800+ *OR* you can get a 2100+ with the >*EXACT* same core for $97. > >You may know about programming, Hyatt, but you sure don't know about >overclocking. It isn'what I know about overclocking. It is what _you_ are failing to read in this discussion. Again, to keep it simple, We are talking about taking the fastest chips offered and overclocking _those_. Not about taking a 2.4gh part made on a 2.8ghz production line, and then overclocking _that_ to 2.8. Because you _could_ just buy the 2.8ghz part. We are discussing going _beyond_ the current leading edge... Nothing more, nothing less... >I've been doing this all my life, I even built a liquid cooler >when I was a kid (I think I was 13-14 years old or so). I mean completely built >from scratch, evaporative radiator and all (the evaporation helps keep the water >below-ambient). All my previous overclocks were 100% stable and infact I've >still got some of those systems still today, chugging along running fine. >Here are a few of my past overclocks: I don't care what you have done all your life. My dad shaved with a straight razor. I don't. Its dangerous. I don't care about clocking slower parts. I do care about overclocking the best parts to go beyond what the engineers think is safe. That is _all_ I care about. Buy all the cheapo parts you want and overclock them all you want... But that is not the point here.. > >Celeron 300a @ 644MHz on an Abit BH6, water cooled + 76 watt peltier >Celeron 366 @ 735MHz on an Abit Bx6-2, water cooled + 76 watt peltier >Celeron 566 @ 1202MHz on an Abit Be6-2, water cooled + 172 watt peltier >Athlon Thunderbird 1.0GHz @ 1.7GHz on an Abit KT7a modified, water cooled >AthlonXP 1900+ (1.6GHz) @ 1.86GHz on an Asus A7V266-E and Epox 8k5a2, water >cooled >AthlonXP 1700+ (1.46GHz) @ 2.15GHz on an Epox 8k5a2, water cooled >AthlonXP 2100+ (1.73GHz) @ 2.5GHz on an Epox 8k5a2, water cooled > >This is just scratching the surface, too. All of these systems were stable, some >I have sold, etc. I still have the Tbird 1ghz and celeron 566, had'em for years >running overclocked. Never had a problem.
This page took 0.02 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.