Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:14:58 02/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2000 at 22:00:13, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On February 13, 2000 at 20:49:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>GO to tom's hardware page. All the overclockers generally run up Vcc. It is >>a well-known trick. Otherwise you are just 'lucky' that the manufacturer was > >Your average overclocker uses just enough cooling to keep the processor from >exploding. So they are doing nothing to change the switching times of the gates. >Kryotech is. The fact is, you don't know enough about AMD's process to make >informed comments on this subject. You don't know the Athlon's timing >tolerances. You don't know the fab process tolerances. You don't know what grade >chips AMD is giving to Kryotech. You don't know how temperature might affect the >fab process. The only thing you seem to know for sure is that some overclockers >increase Vcc, so whenever you see the word "overclock," you just assume that's >what's happening. Bogus assumption. It is only 'bogus' if it is 'wrong'. I'm 99% sure Vcc is involved. That's good enough to speculate here since that is what everyone else is doing. It _might_ be wrong. For the alphas we had in Paris, they were _definitely_ ramping up the Vcc level. That directly from DEC. I would assume they are doing the same for AMD. Seems like a perfectly safe assumption, based on (a) what they did with the alphas (600 to 733) and what everyone else is doing with overclocking. Not so bogus, IMHO. Probably _right on_. > >I'm not saying that I know any of this stuff either. But I do know enough to >avoid jumping to conclusions about 1GHz stability and Vcc. > >-Tom I'm certainly not convinced of 'stability' of overclocking. They delivered 3 alphas to paris. One wouldn't run. Ed had problems. Lonnie had problems. _still_ seems _bad_ to me.
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.