Author: Matt Taylor
Date: 02:08:00 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 21, 2003 at 01:55:57, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On February 21, 2003 at 00:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 18:55:41, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On February 20, 2003 at 11:42:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On February 20, 2003 at 09:53:28, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>> >>>>>Intel has demoed chips that run far above the currently shipping 3.06GHz. Why >>>>>do you suppose they haven't released them? _That_ is "business". If Intel >>>>>releases a 5GHz chip tomorrow, they'd sure knock everyone else out of the >>>>>performance race, but they would lose a TON of money relative to the current >>>>>business model. >>>> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>I've done some reading today, and this is what I've found out. Some of it might >>>not be 100% correct, but I believe it to be close. >>> >>>In the past, when a microprocessor was designed, they found the theoretical >>>circuit limit and removed something like 20%. That was about the limit of what >>>would be sold, to be completely certain about stability. Nowadays, with current >>>50m+ transistor CPUs, the padding has been increased somewhat. Though, when a >>>core is reaching to the end of its useful lifetime, it surely eats into that >>>'padding'. >>> >>>Overclocking a 2GHz Willamette P4 is probably not a bright idea. The core is at >>>the end of its lifetime, and there is very little headroom for it. But there's >>>no reason that overclocking a 2GHz Northwood shouldn't be safe, since Intel has >>>already released 3GHz versions with an identical core. I'm not suggesting you >>>should be able to get 3GHz out of the 2GHz part, but that doesn't mean it can't >>>be overclocked at all. >> >> >>Yes, but nobody cares about overclocking 2ghz parts when 3ghz parts are > >It's actually a bigger segment of the overclocking population who does something >like this. The reason is that you can buy 2GHz chips very cheaply now, and they >overclock very well. So, for $100(?) you get a 2GHz chip that reliably clocks >to 2.5GHz, instead of spending $200(?) on the 2.5GHz chip in the first place. > >>available. The issue is "is it safe to overclock the latest 3ghz parts" > >I don't think that's the issue here at all. If it were, I'd agree with you to a >point. That is what was originally addressed. There was talk of 2.5-3.1 GHz AthlonXP chips and 3.2-4 GHz Pentium 4's. >>and there I say "no". If you notice, the overclocking here is mainly about >>people taking the latest parts and running them beyond their specs... > >I've already said that insane overclocking is not a good idea. But you're >giving a summary dismissal of ALL overclocking as an absolutely unsafe activity, >which it isn't. You still have no guarantee that the chip will run any higher than its rated speed. If the chip didn't work at 2 GHz but did work at 1.67 GHz, AMD will sell it as an AthlonXP 2000 instead of an AthlonXP 2400. -Matt
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.