Peeyush Singh wrote:
>
> I've heard just the opposite. The PII can overclock better then
> AMDs...One reason why the PII is in the Slot 1 technology and the AMD is
> still in the Socket. Also, I don't give my support out to overclocking. I
> admit right now that I don't know much about overclocknig, but what I do
> know is not in favor of it. One comment I've heard (straight from Intel),
> is that there is a crystal on your motherboard and there is one in your cpu.
> When the dot-frequencies don't match, the system (specifically the Cpu
> Cycles and the Timer Tick's with the Cpu compared to the motherboard Timer)
> becomes unstable.
>
The reason that Intel chips are more overclockable than their AMD
counterparts is really quite simple: better quality.
Intel has more money to spend on R & D, and has better manufacturing
facilities than AMD. This doesn't mean that AMD produces a bad chip,
just that Intel has the capacity to produce a higher quality chip.
The only real difference between the 333mhz and the 400mhz PII's is that
quality control on the 400mhz. The chips are cut on the same line at
the same time. If anything it's more lableling than anything.
The proof is in the Celeron which has to be one of the most
overclockable chips EVER produced.
James
