Overclocking a CPU is has never been my worry, intel cores since the late 90's
through today (with the exception of that turd Prescott) overclock with little
effort - the problem has always been the supporting cast. Overclocked memory is
in my experience much more sensitive and unstable at overvolted/overclocked
frequencies than the CPU. Also dont forget other busses run out of spec unless
you have a very overclocking friendly bios that will allow you to overclock the
FSB/CPU but keep your slots running at spec. The best way to overcome all of
that is to use a CPU with an unlocked multiplier, but that is only found in
extreme edition cores that cost so much money it defeats the purpose of
overclocking in the first place - which is getting lots of extra mhz from a
CHEAP cpu.> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected]> Subject:
RE: [H] RE:Dual core or Quad core?> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:47:12 -0600> >
They are. It's all in binning. At the beginning of a new design or new>
process, generally, the trouble is getting enough parts that qualify for the>
top speed bins. Chips that fail the top grade are generally re-rested at all>
bins the manufacturer has, going into the appropriate bin that it qualifies>
for.> > As a process matures, however, the opposite is generally true. A large>
number of chips off the line qualify for the top bin, but the manufacturer>
only need so many of those. Therefore, the lower bins are filled with parts>
that in fact qualify for higher bins. Overclockability generally gets better>
as the production run lengthens--though variability in the source materials>
and the process itself does sometimes favor specific production weeks.> > >
Greg> > > > -----Original Message-----> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:hardware-> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden> > Sent:
Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:46 PM> > To: The Hardware List> > Subject: Re:
[H] RE:Dual core or Quad core?> > > > On 11/8/07, Winterlight <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > no.... it is the same process. Using a highly
engineered device> > > beyond it's specifications with the potential of
negative> > consequences.> > > > > > Like I said in my post a couple messages
ago, assuming that the CPU is> > designed to run at the speed it is sold is
wrong. Odds are that the> > $200 part and the $300 part which differ only in
clock speed are in> > fact identical.> > > > --> > Brian Weeden> >
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
