> > That's fine if you want to ignore overclocked systems. However, keep in
> > mind that these boards were designed to accommodate this feature.
>
>and yor CPU's don't, actually. here you go. in fact your hardware is being
>operated outside the operating limits.
There is an enourmous difference between "operating limits" and suggested
operating level. I would agree with you if the safety factor was 0.
However, I am certain that you are aware that systems are designed with a
(typically) large safety factor. Pentium chips certainly have a large
safety factor built in.
For example, a Celeron 300A was designed to operate at 300MHz. According to
your previous statement, 300MHz was its operating limit. However, *many*
people, including myself, have run it at, or over, 450MHz without a single
problem. If the CPU was not designed to handle this kind of speed, then
Intel should really go down to the floor of their manufacturing plants,
because they are building chips that are definitely outstripping the
"...operating limits..." as stated by the design engineers. Then again,
maybe it is not the designers who are making these decisions...
>it may work for years but then, it
>may very well fail.
And how does this differ from any device ever created?
> > At the extreme end of the spectrum, instability will occur. However, at
> > moderate levels, there will be NO PERCEPTIBLE difference in performance.
>
>if this was the case, why overclocking the first place..
I retract my original statement-
At the extreme end of the spectrum, instability will occur. However, at
moderate levels, there will be NO PERCEPTIBLE difference in overall system
stability. period.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--
=- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -=
=- body of "unsubscribe linux-abit". -=
