Edward Schernau wrote:
> Steve Underwood wrote:
>
> > If there are plenty of fast parts but only strong demand for slower ones,
> > makers are known to stamp high grade parts as slower ones, but don't count on
> > it.
>
> This is the urban legend behind 99% of overclocking logic. It seems
> to be true, I'm running 366s at 550. Ive run plenty of 120 MHz
> P5s at 133, etc.
You are talking about something totally different. A part gets marked as 550MHz,
not because it staggers to life at 550MHz, but because it is in spec. at 550MHz.
Very few overclocked processors are operating in spec. Why else would you need
exotic cooling and other tricks to keep them alive. I was only talking about
properly spec'ed behaviour.
> lets drop this OT firefight, but my suggestion is: overclocked systems
> (like mine) seem to lock with more or less the same frequency and
> repeatability (read: totally varying) so we might as well include
> discussion on overclocked BP6 boards, since we cant say with
> certainty that its the overclocking thats doing it.
I see people on the list say things like "it falls over straight away at 107MHz,
but its rock solid at 106MHz". That's BS. A small change in room temperature could
make that one fall over. You want to include data like this in some statistics? If
they say "its falls over at 107MHz, so I backed off 10%" maybe that data is worth
using.
> INCIDENTALLY, I dropped my FSB to just < 100, and its been solid as
> a rock. How do I remove the green heatsink on the BX so I can goop it?
A large hammer and a good solid chisel works wonders.
Steve
--
=- To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the -=
=- body of "unsubscribe linux-abit". -=
