Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 01:05:18 07/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2003 at 20:18:25, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 02, 2003 at 19:37:46, Aaron Gordon wrote: >>You can test how close they are to the limit. Please read: >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?304354 > >You make it sound like you can state things with 100% certainty :) >What you are doing is not exact science, it's more of an ad hoc, "oh seems to be >working fine" experiment, IMO. The math is correct, and the testing I've done shows that. It works. Many "stock" Intel cpus are closer to the edge of absolute stability than my pretested chips are. Intel gets as close as 5% from the 'maximum stable speed'.. mine are more along the lines of 10-15% away. >This may be sufficient in many cases, I can't say it ever worked for me 100% >though. > >>>You don't know how close they are to the limit. >>>When you clock them that high they burn watts like crazy, and if the average >>>user doesn't have enough cooling... >> >>I test these processors with average cooling, and then slow the ran RPMs down to >>further heat up the processor to make sure everything is fine. I then clock the >>chip down AND increase the voltage a bit. Read about it above, I explain most >>everything and include formulas so you can do the calculations yourself. > >Upping vcore can also lead to instability, burns more watt for instance. I already provided a formula to calculate the gain in MHz, and decrease in MHz from upping the voltage. Also I have a formula to calculate how much the temperature will rise when adding more watts to a cooler. The gains from upping the voltage is MUCH more than the slight decrease you'll get from the heat increase. Did you not read that one particular post I made, I figured I made what I just said perfectly clear... >>I use to do a little bit of work with AMD, during this time I talked to a few >>people (also AMD employees) that knew about what was going on in the fabs. Also >>a lot of it is common sense. Try taking one of the original 1700+ chips, some >>of the very first ones released. Now, compare one of those to the 1700+ >>handpicked chips I have. You'll get about 1GHz more out of one of my chips. :) >>This is due to AMD making the *best* cores 24/7. > >It is probably true that by design they are identical, ie. I wouldn't be >surprized if all XP's are really born MP's. But the difference is (or used to >be) that the XP's are not tested and guaranteed to work as MP's. >So you can by XP's and get lucky that they work also as MP's, or you used to >before they did the wirering. Or maybe some chip which was designated to become >an MP failed the test and ended as an XP chip instead. They all work, even old AMD Thunderbird and AMD Duron chips run SMP. Also, the bus speed doesn't matter either. You can run an old Tbird/Duron at 200/400MHz fsb. Oh, and before you say, "I had a Duron 600 that wouldn't run 115fsb, but I put in a tbird and it runs 150fsb, what gives??". This is a BOARD issue, I'm not sure how exactly, but an epox guy explained it to me.. went over my head & I forgot :). I have *TWO* durons from people that said this, that they couldn't get it much above 110fsb. Both run 200fsb(400DDR) without problems and infact I have a Duron 600 @ 1GHz in my main server now. Need proof? Here you go. http://www.newageoc.com/pics/superduron.jpg (Duron 600MHz) http://www.newageoc.com/pics/tb1400-400fsb.jpg (Tbird 1GHz) Just to clear some things up. I'm not trying to be an ass about this, nor am I forcing anyone to overclock. I'm just trying to clear up some misconceptions about overclocking and the way companies produce their processors. If for some reason anyone doesn't understand the formulas, or anything else just email me. I'll try to help you that way. If for some reason you don't believe me, then just don't overclock. I like knowing however that I can take the time to research this properly, spend less on my computer than some people do for a pair of shoes and get performance greater than Intels $5000 Xeon servers. If you'd rather have the latter, no problem. Don't buy my chips... but don't knock overclocking when you don't know anything about it. This reminds me of all of the Vincent/Hyatt hand-waving extravaganzas that went on in the past about programming. Hyatt has the experience, proved Vincent wrong, etc. The unfortunate thing is it probably went over Vincents head and it's easier for him to just continue the asinine babble rather than to sit down & bother with the facts. Feels like the same thing is going on here.
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.