Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 15:47:00 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 14:42:19, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. 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. > > >You sure don't know about the real world where real work is at stake. > >I'll say this, he is wise enough not to waste his time risking mission critical >applications on over-clocked, un-warranteed systems. Hardware failure risks are >not something to play around with in the real business world, even at a >university. > >It's one thing if you are a hobbyist, but quite another when you are responsible >to your employer for the quality and reliability of the results. Where I work, >hardware failures mean potentially MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in lost revenue and >penalties. > >Matt I run my main server (dual Celeron 400 @ 552MHz) overclocked, I've also run 'critical' servers overclocked. Back when I was working for an ISP I overclocked the crap out of their 3 main servers, one was a single P3-500, one a dual P3-500 and another was a dual P2-300. The P3-500 ran 616MHz, the dual 500 did 616 as well and the Dual P2-300 which ran no problem at 450. After spending a few hours of testing those systems were completely stable all the way up until they got retired. My point is if you know what you're doing you won't have any problems, whether you're checking email or serving thousands of people.
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.