Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:42:50 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 18:47:00, Aaron Gordon wrote: >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. If you had done that working for me, you'd be unemployed in an instant. It isn't a matter of "knowing what you are doing". It is a matter of having good luck. And in a business, "luck" is not the way I want to make progress... I run labs that provide services to hundreds of students, dozens of faculty, and off-campus researchers that are using my cluster to provide critical computational requirements. After the AMD fiasco several of us witnessed a few years ago, we learned a lesson the hard way. If you like overclocking, let 'er rip. But if you do it with someone _elses_ machine, on a critical application, your future is limited.
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.