Which CPU?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Hi,

This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which CPU to
select for this project.
I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.

Last time I checked (Dec-2003) I heard that AMD has locked their new
families against overclocking. So, I'm afraid that the possibilities for
overclocking new chips will be not so easy.

I was wondering if there would be some overview (roadmap?) of the current
CPUs on the market their native clockspeed, their overclocking capability
and the method by which this can be achieved (BIOS settings or
modification of the chip).

If such an overview exists I haven't found it. I was looking on
overclockers.com but couldn't find any total overview.

Can someone post an appropriate URL?

Thanks,
Some One
21 answers Last reply
More about which
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    wrote:

    >Hi,

    >This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which CPU to
    >select for this project.

    Price - cheap or no limit, 32 or 64 bit

    >I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
    >Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.

    The AMD XP2500 [ Barton ] shares the same multiplier as the AMD XP3200

    Abit NF7-S Revision 2 MOBO will allow you to increase the FSB from 166
    to 200, this will give you an AMD XP3200 for the price of a 2500 and
    no change of multiplier will be required.

    It can be done on cheap as chips memory, so cheap in fact that
    anything less than a gig of memory is parsimonious.

    >Last time I checked (Dec-2003) I heard that AMD has locked their new
    >families against overclocking. So, I'm afraid that the possibilities for
    >overclocking new chips will be not so easy.

    True from week 3903 [ ish ] and they can not be unlocked although the
    AMD XP mobiles are much the same price and are still unlocked, need
    less voltage, run cooler, and are better overclockers.

    >I was wondering if there would be some overview (roadmap?) of the current
    >CPUs on the market their native clockspeed, their overclocking capability
    >and the method by which this can be achieved (BIOS settings or
    >modification of the chip).

    No idea, someone else may know !

    >If such an overview exists I haven't found it. I was looking on
    >overclockers.com but couldn't find any total overview.

    >Can someone post an appropriate URL?

    >Thanks,
    >Some One

    BoroLad
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which CPU to
    >select for this project.
    >I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
    >Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.
    >
    >Last time I checked (Dec-2003) I heard that AMD has locked their new
    >families against overclocking. So, I'm afraid that the possibilities for
    >overclocking new chips will be not so easy.
    >
    >I was wondering if there would be some overview (roadmap?) of the current
    >CPUs on the market their native clockspeed, their overclocking capability
    >and the method by which this can be achieved (BIOS settings or
    >modification of the chip).
    >
    >If such an overview exists I haven't found it. I was looking on
    >overclockers.com but couldn't find any total overview.
    >
    >Can someone post an appropriate URL?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Some One


    I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache overclocked to
    3.6 gig on a ASUS p4P800-E Deluxe motherboard only using the
    multiplication factor and equally downgrading the ram's mhz so it will
    again run at 400 Mhz once multiplied... the voltage remained at 1.5 V
    but could be upped to 1.55 if the system draines to much energy,..
    what is not the case now.
    I did not compose that myself but i've got a pc builder that I trust
    ;-) it runs smooth, extra fan on the proc (Coolmaster Gear) and a fan
    to pull in air in the IDream case (roundabout 50 Euro's = x 1,2 in
    USD) That and 2 gig ram,... and I'm a happy man.. let's say slightly
    exited ;-)
    Anyway,... overclocking seems simple using F8 during boot... it's all
    a software thing with Asus.. the Idream case has a led digital system
    that give the temperature inside... XP stability test never upped the
    temperature of the proc above 45 celcium or themotherboard above 40
    celcius... Asus delivers a prog named PC Probe that helps you to check
    the temperature & fan monitoring etcetera...
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache

    LOL

    some kind of fururistic processor you have with a 512mb cache...

    where can i buy one? :-P
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    www.overclockers.com
    --
    Tally Ho!
    Ed,
    Maryland, USA
    "SomeOne" <askme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:Xns94C862F49AB39maumaufinder@213.51.144.36...
    > Hi,
    >
    > This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which CPU to
    > select for this project.
    > I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
    > Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.
    >
    > Last time I checked (Dec-2003) I heard that AMD has locked their new
    > families against overclocking. So, I'm afraid that the possibilities for
    > overclocking new chips will be not so easy.
    >
    > I was wondering if there would be some overview (roadmap?) of the current
    > CPUs on the market their native clockspeed, their overclocking capability
    > and the method by which this can be achieved (BIOS settings or
    > modification of the chip).
    >
    > If such an overview exists I haven't found it. I was looking on
    > overclockers.com but couldn't find any total overview.
    >
    > Can someone post an appropriate URL?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Some One
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:08:56 +0000 (UTC), "Alan"
    <agoodm@removebtopenworld.com> wrote:

    >> I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache
    >
    >LOL
    >
    >some kind of fururistic processor you have with a 512mb cache...
    >
    >where can i buy one? :-P
    >

    Hèhè.. perhaps wishfull thinking... come ans see the nexr decade..
    pentium X with half a gig cache... untill now, well stick to meg...
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "SomeOne" <askme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:Xns94C862F49AB39maumaufinder@213.51.144.36...
    > Hi,
    >
    > This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which CPU to
    > select for this project.
    > I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
    > Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.
    >
    > Last time I checked (Dec-2003) I heard that AMD has locked their new
    > families against overclocking. So, I'm afraid that the possibilities for
    > overclocking new chips will be not so easy.
    >
    > I was wondering if there would be some overview (roadmap?) of the current
    > CPUs on the market their native clockspeed, their overclocking capability
    > and the method by which this can be achieved (BIOS settings or
    > modification of the chip).
    >
    > If such an overview exists I haven't found it. I was looking on
    > overclockers.com but couldn't find any total overview.
    >
    > Can someone post an appropriate URL?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Some One

    At this point in time, i would go for one of the newer socket AMD64 chips
    with an nForce3 Motherboard. Should be futureproof for WinXP-64A when its
    released later this year.
    Dont get the FX-51 or FX-53, theyre not worth £500

    hamman
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Hamman" <imadumbass@pielover.com> wrote in message
    news:1081714693.578739@news01.eclipse.net.uk...

    " At this point in time, i would go for one of the newer socket AMD64
    chips... "


    AMD sneaked out the Athlon64 2800+ recently. Socket 754 will currently
    allow upgrades to an Athlon 64 3400+, given that the next releases look like
    being on a different socket.

    Athlon 64 2800+ story:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/30/amd_sneaks_out_athlon/

    Brief AMD Roadmap story:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/amd_athlon_64_fx53/
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    nondisputandum.com - indisputably nondisputandum wrote in
    news:nhqi70trbn5fg2cqos9n5n7t49vmlcao3g@4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which
    >>CPU to select for this project.

    > I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache overclocked
    > to 3.6 gig on a ASUS p4P800-E Deluxe motherboard only using the

    I was under the impression that Pentium's can't be overclocked as they are
    locked.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    wrote in news:i98i705rq0v11o5ho5qodn315brtsc0fvg@4ax.com:

    > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Hi,
    >
    >>This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which
    >>CPU to select for this project.
    >
    > Price - cheap or no limit, 32 or 64 bit

    below $200

    >
    >>I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
    >>Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.
    >
    > The AMD XP2500 [ Barton ] shares the same multiplier as the AMD
    > XP3200
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

    > Abit NF7-S Revision 2 MOBO will allow you to increase the FSB from
    > 166 to 200, this will give you an AMD XP3200 for the price of a 2500
    > and no change of multiplier will be required.
    Yes, I like that Mobo very much.

    >
    > True from week 3903 [ ish ] and they can not be unlocked although the
    > AMD XP mobiles are much the same price and are still unlocked, need
    > less voltage, run cooler, and are better overclockers.

    AMD XP mobiles? What's that then?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache overclocked to
    > 3.6 gig on a ASUS p4P800-E Deluxe motherboard only using the
    > multiplication factor

    you have an unlocked engineering sample?
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:29:56 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    wrote:

    > wrote in news:i98i705rq0v11o5ho5qodn315brtsc0fvg@4ax.com:

    >> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    >> wrote:

    >>>Hi,

    >>>This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which
    >>>CPU to select for this project.

    >> Price - cheap or no limit, 32 or 64 bit

    >below $200

    Got to be an AMD then, personally I'd get AMD if I was on no limit.

    >>>I would like to use a CPU (AMD or Intel) with a clockspeed >2.5GHz.
    >>>Also I'd like to be able to significantly overclock the CPU.

    >> The AMD XP2500 [ Barton ] shares the same multiplier as the AMD
    >> XP3200

    >I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

    It means that providing you buy an Abit NF7-S v2.0 and an AMDXP2500
    Barton you will get at least an AMDXP3200 equivalent, you simply raise
    the FSB to 200x2=400. It's not clever a 10 year old could do it!

    The difference here in the UK between a 2500 Barton and a 3200 Barton
    is 250%

    >> Abit NF7-S Revision 2 MOBO will allow you to increase the FSB from
    >> 166 to 200, this will give you an AMD XP3200 for the price of a 2500
    >> and no change of multiplier will be required.

    Make sure it's the MCP-T chipped revision 2 version to get the
    - Soundstorm 5.1 audio
    - dual 400MHz DDR memory controllers
    - full 400FSB support

    I listed these to make sure you see the difference between the NF7-S
    and the NF7-S v2.0 Ultra - totally different boards.

    >Yes, I like that Mobo very much.

    There are other brands, but the Abit is a leader among equals.

    Hope this helps your understanding, BoroLad

    >> True from week 3903 [ ish ] and they can not be unlocked although the
    >> AMD Athlon XP Mobiles are much the same price and are still unlocked,
    >> need less voltage, run cooler, and are better overclockers.

    >AMD XP Athlon Mobiles? What's that then?

    N.B
    Abit NF7-S v2.0 nForce2 - look for (MB-028-AB)
    http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Abit.html
    Abit NF7-S v2.0 - look for (CP-039-AM)
    http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/amd_athlon_xp_barton.html
    AMD Athlon Mobile XP
    http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/AMD_Athlon_XP__Mobile_.html
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Intel CPU's are multipler locked, and are overclocked by raising the
    frontside bus frequency. As much as a 50% overclock is quite common until
    the limit of the series is reached. For example a Pentium 4 1.6A at 2.4
    GHz, a Pentium 2.4C at ~ 3.4 GHz, etc, using pretty well stock cooling.

    --
    Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    For communication,
    replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    replace "dot" with "."


    "SomeOne" <askme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:Xns94C96A098317Cmaumaufinder@213.51.144.36...
    > nondisputandum.com - indisputably nondisputandum wrote in
    > news:nhqi70trbn5fg2cqos9n5n7t49vmlcao3g@4ax.com:
    >
    > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>Hi,
    > >>
    > >>This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which
    > >>CPU to select for this project.
    >
    > > I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache overclocked
    > > to 3.6 gig on a ASUS p4P800-E Deluxe motherboard only using the
    >
    > I was under the impression that Pentium's can't be overclocked as they are
    > locked.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    just out of interest, Phil - do you have any theories as to *why* the choice
    intel offerings are so overclockable? over the years i've had a celeron
    300a, a cel333, a cumine 566 and 600, a P3 700, a tualatin celeron 1.0a, and
    now a P4 2.4 - and all of these, as you pointed out, have been (at least)
    capable of running 50% beyond spec with stock cooling and minimal (in some
    cases no) voltage tweak.... and i have often wondered why they were able to
    perform at such speeds and with such consistent stability. is there some
    benchmarking, d'you think, that we just don't know about?

    i know the whole price point and demand theory, that allegedly decides what
    wafers get earmarked for what badges ... but this has never seemed entirely
    logical to me. hm ...


    "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message
    news:jjvec.6068$k05.3488@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > Intel CPU's are multipler locked, and are overclocked by raising the
    > frontside bus frequency. As much as a 50% overclock is quite common until
    > the limit of the series is reached. For example a Pentium 4 1.6A at 2.4
    > GHz, a Pentium 2.4C at ~ 3.4 GHz, etc, using pretty well stock cooling.
    >
    > --
    > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    > For communication,
    > replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    > replace "dot" with "."
    >
    >
    > "SomeOne" <askme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94C96A098317Cmaumaufinder@213.51.144.36...
    > > nondisputandum.com - indisputably nondisputandum wrote in
    > > news:nhqi70trbn5fg2cqos9n5n7t49vmlcao3g@4ax.com:
    > >
    > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>Hi,
    > > >>
    > > >>This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which
    > > >>CPU to select for this project.
    > >
    > > > I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache overclocked
    > > > to 3.6 gig on a ASUS p4P800-E Deluxe motherboard only using the
    > >
    > > I was under the impression that Pentium's can't be overclocked as they
    are
    > > locked.
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    atwifa wrote:
    > just out of interest, Phil - do you have any theories as to *why* the choice
    > intel offerings are so overclockable? over the years i've had a celeron
    > 300a, a cel333, a cumine 566 and 600, a P3 700, a tualatin celeron 1.0a, and
    > now a P4 2.4 - and all of these, as you pointed out, have been (at least)
    > capable of running 50% beyond spec with stock cooling and minimal (in some
    > cases no) voltage tweak.... and i have often wondered why they were able to
    > perform at such speeds and with such consistent stability. is there some
    > benchmarking, d'you think, that we just don't know about?

    Phil mentioned the yield aspect but there's others: safety margins,
    reliability, and operating environment. Intel is conservative in their
    specifications as part of their reliability and reputation strategy, and we
    use up some of that in a tradeoff for more speed.

    Secondly, the processor must operate over the entire range of operating
    conditions and with all combinations of tolerances of what it's placed into
    (I.E. a motherboard may be 'better' than spec or 'just barely meet it').

    When we overclock we cool it 'better' (when was the last time you heard
    anyone in an overclocking group say that being 'within' the maximum
    temperature spec'd was 'ok'?) and don't generally expect the system to
    operate with an ambient of 120F, for example. So, in that sense, we are
    trading off one specification for another. We spend more time 'tweaking'
    than would be practical from a cost standpoint on a production model, and
    we trade off some risk, that would not be cost effective on a production
    model (nor good for a business reputation [e.g. gee, the web site went
    down, let me re-tweak the FSB a bit again. Wouldn't be too long before they
    decided to buy something "more reliable."]).


    > i know the whole price point and demand theory, that allegedly decides what
    > wafers get earmarked for what badges ... but this has never seemed entirely
    > logical to me. hm ...

    When the process is 'mature' the yield is such that the market needs are
    driving the availability of the lower speed versions. I.E. there is a
    'surplus' of the higher speeds over what the market will bear so it makes
    business sense to simply sell that surplus at a lower rating. (although
    this 'they all are capable of x speed' is overestimated by users because
    they only look at what it can do at 'room temp' in 'their system' and not
    over all operating conditions.)

    But the 'logic' of it at any point in time is dependent on the yield,
    price/cost ratios, demand curves, competition, business strategy,
    expectations, etc., and manufacturer's don't generally pass out that kind
    of information.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    All the CPU dies are made by the same process. As production goes along,
    the yield improves. The process has to be good enough to produce the
    highest speed CPU's to be sold, so eventually all the CPU's are capable of
    the highest speed, save for the locked multiplier. In addition, to
    guarantee proper operation in almost all circumstances, Intel CPU's have a
    lot of performance overhead built in. If your computer system offers lower
    temperatures, better voltage control, higher core voltages, faster memory,
    etc. you have great overclocking, limited only by the performance margin of
    the fastest CPU's of that design being produced (plus some luck!)

    --
    Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    For communication,
    replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    replace "dot" with "."


    "atwifa" <atwifa@'fsmail'.net> wrote in message
    news:mPidnZo8NvAUaOfdSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...
    > just out of interest, Phil - do you have any theories as to *why* the
    choice
    > intel offerings are so overclockable? over the years i've had a celeron
    > 300a, a cel333, a cumine 566 and 600, a P3 700, a tualatin celeron 1.0a,
    and
    > now a P4 2.4 - and all of these, as you pointed out, have been (at least)
    > capable of running 50% beyond spec with stock cooling and minimal (in some
    > cases no) voltage tweak.... and i have often wondered why they were able
    to
    > perform at such speeds and with such consistent stability. is there some
    > benchmarking, d'you think, that we just don't know about?
    >
    > i know the whole price point and demand theory, that allegedly decides
    what
    > wafers get earmarked for what badges ... but this has never seemed
    entirely
    > logical to me. hm ...
    >
    >
    >
    > "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message
    > news:jjvec.6068$k05.3488@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > > Intel CPU's are multipler locked, and are overclocked by raising the
    > > frontside bus frequency. As much as a 50% overclock is quite common
    until
    > > the limit of the series is reached. For example a Pentium 4 1.6A at 2.4
    > > GHz, a Pentium 2.4C at ~ 3.4 GHz, etc, using pretty well stock cooling.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    > > For communication,
    > > replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    > > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    > > replace "dot" with "."
    > >
    > >
    > > "SomeOne" <askme@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns94C96A098317Cmaumaufinder@213.51.144.36...
    > > > nondisputandum.com - indisputably nondisputandum wrote in
    > > > news:nhqi70trbn5fg2cqos9n5n7t49vmlcao3g@4ax.com:
    > > >
    > > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:43:37 +0000 (UTC), SomeOne
    <askme@yahoo.co.uk>
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >>Hi,
    > > > >>
    > > > >>This summer I want to start building a new PC. I am wondering which
    > > > >>CPU to select for this project.
    > > >
    > > > > I''ve a 3.0 gig pentium 4 800 FSB with half a gig cache overclocked
    > > > > to 3.6 gig on a ASUS p4P800-E Deluxe motherboard only using the
    > > >
    > > > I was under the impression that Pentium's can't be overclocked as they
    > are
    > > > locked.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    David, try reading the second half of my post:

    In addition, to guarantee proper operation in almost all circumstances,
    Intel CPU's have a
    lot of performance overhead built in. If your computer system offers lower
    temperatures, better voltage control, higher core voltages, faster memory,
    etc. you have great overclocking, limited only by the performance margin of
    the fastest CPU's of that design being produced (plus some luck!)


    --
    Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    For communication,
    replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    replace "dot" with "."


    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:107ml8o45ugqk05@corp.supernews.com...
    > atwifa wrote:
    > > just out of interest, Phil - do you have any theories as to *why* the
    choice
    > > intel offerings are so overclockable? over the years i've had a celeron
    > > 300a, a cel333, a cumine 566 and 600, a P3 700, a tualatin celeron 1.0a,
    and
    > > now a P4 2.4 - and all of these, as you pointed out, have been (at
    least)
    > > capable of running 50% beyond spec with stock cooling and minimal (in
    some
    > > cases no) voltage tweak.... and i have often wondered why they were able
    to
    > > perform at such speeds and with such consistent stability. is there
    some
    > > benchmarking, d'you think, that we just don't know about?
    >
    > Phil mentioned the yield aspect but there's others: safety margins,
    > reliability, and operating environment. Intel is conservative in their
    > specifications as part of their reliability and reputation strategy, and
    we
    > use up some of that in a tradeoff for more speed.
    >
    > Secondly, the processor must operate over the entire range of operating
    > conditions and with all combinations of tolerances of what it's placed
    into
    > (I.E. a motherboard may be 'better' than spec or 'just barely meet it').
    >
    > When we overclock we cool it 'better' (when was the last time you heard
    > anyone in an overclocking group say that being 'within' the maximum
    > temperature spec'd was 'ok'?) and don't generally expect the system to
    > operate with an ambient of 120F, for example. So, in that sense, we are
    > trading off one specification for another. We spend more time 'tweaking'
    > than would be practical from a cost standpoint on a production model, and
    > we trade off some risk, that would not be cost effective on a production
    > model (nor good for a business reputation [e.g. gee, the web site went
    > down, let me re-tweak the FSB a bit again. Wouldn't be too long before
    they
    > decided to buy something "more reliable."]).
    >
    >
    > > i know the whole price point and demand theory, that allegedly decides
    what
    > > wafers get earmarked for what badges ... but this has never seemed
    entirely
    > > logical to me. hm ...
    >
    > When the process is 'mature' the yield is such that the market needs are
    > driving the availability of the lower speed versions. I.E. there is a
    > 'surplus' of the higher speeds over what the market will bear so it makes
    > business sense to simply sell that surplus at a lower rating. (although
    > this 'they all are capable of x speed' is overestimated by users because
    > they only look at what it can do at 'room temp' in 'their system' and not
    > over all operating conditions.)
    >
    > But the 'logic' of it at any point in time is dependent on the yield,
    > price/cost ratios, demand curves, competition, business strategy,
    > expectations, etc., and manufacturer's don't generally pass out that kind
    > of information.
    >
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Phil Weldon wrote:

    > David, try reading the second half of my post:
    >
    > In addition, to guarantee proper operation in almost all circumstances,
    > Intel CPU's have a
    > lot of performance overhead built in.

    I understand what you're saying but I don't consider ensuring it works
    under all specified conditions to be "overhead." It's necessary to meet the
    specifications.

    One 'might' consider reliability 'margins' to be 'overhead' but that's not
    really the case either as it too is necessary from the aspect of meeting
    the quality assurance confidence factors which, in turn, affect your
    reliability, testing, rework, return rate, and reputation.

    > If your computer system offers lower
    > temperatures, better voltage control, higher core voltages, faster memory,
    > etc. you have great overclocking, limited only by the performance margin of
    > the fastest CPU's of that design being produced (plus some luck!)

    The dead giveaway there is "higher core voltages." In the case of a lower
    speed variant it's obvious that is not 'the same' as the normally spec'd
    version that's guaranteed to operate under all specified conditions at the
    NORMAL core voltage.

    In the case of a 'top end' version that you're taking above the normal
    maximum sold, you're trading off other specs, as I mentioned, for the
    increased speed.

    And even if you get it to a particular speed with the 'normal' core voltage
    the average user doesn't do enough testing to say they haven't traded off,
    for example, the temperature spec. All one has to do is observe the
    increase in problems posted when 'summer' rolls around to notice that one.


    What I'm disputing is the notion that's there's some huge amount of 'extra
    performance' just lying around unused for no good reason. There ARE reasons.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Yes, as I stated, "to guarantee proper operation in almost all circumstances
    have a lot of performance overhead built in." Just as you stated in many
    more words.

    --
    Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
    For communication,
    replace "at" with the 'at sign'
    replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
    replace "dot" with "."

    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:107msp482fqai6a@corp.supernews.com...
    > Phil Weldon wrote:
    >
    > > David, try reading the second half of my post:
    > >
    > > In addition, to guarantee proper operation in almost all circumstances,
    > > Intel CPU's have a
    > > lot of performance overhead built in.
    >
    > I understand what you're saying but I don't consider ensuring it works
    > under all specified conditions to be "overhead." It's necessary to meet
    the
    > specifications.
    >
    > One 'might' consider reliability 'margins' to be 'overhead' but that's not
    > really the case either as it too is necessary from the aspect of meeting
    > the quality assurance confidence factors which, in turn, affect your
    > reliability, testing, rework, return rate, and reputation.
    >
    > > If your computer system offers lower
    > > temperatures, better voltage control, higher core voltages, faster
    memory,
    > > etc. you have great overclocking, limited only by the performance margin
    of
    > > the fastest CPU's of that design being produced (plus some luck!)
    >
    > The dead giveaway there is "higher core voltages." In the case of a lower
    > speed variant it's obvious that is not 'the same' as the normally spec'd
    > version that's guaranteed to operate under all specified conditions at the
    > NORMAL core voltage.
    >
    > In the case of a 'top end' version that you're taking above the normal
    > maximum sold, you're trading off other specs, as I mentioned, for the
    > increased speed.
    >
    > And even if you get it to a particular speed with the 'normal' core
    voltage
    > the average user doesn't do enough testing to say they haven't traded off,
    > for example, the temperature spec. All one has to do is observe the
    > increase in problems posted when 'summer' rolls around to notice that one.
    >
    >
    > What I'm disputing is the notion that's there's some huge amount of 'extra
    > performance' just lying around unused for no good reason. There ARE
    reasons.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Phil Weldon wrote:

    > Yes, as I stated, "to guarantee proper operation in almost all circumstances
    > have a lot of performance overhead built in." Just as you stated in many
    > more words.
    >

    Hehe. OK. As long as you consider my saying "to guarantee proper operation
    in almost all circumstances" isn't "overhead" to be the same as you saying
    that it is then we're in sync ;)
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    cheers anyway for the input, David & Phil. seems we really do get a free
    lunch sometimes ... to an extent ;-)


    "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    news:107n1102ndunlea@corp.supernews.com...
    > Phil Weldon wrote:
    >
    > > Yes, as I stated, "to guarantee proper operation in almost all
    circumstances
    > > have a lot of performance overhead built in." Just as you stated in
    many
    > > more words.
    > >
    >
    > Hehe. OK. As long as you consider my saying "to guarantee proper operation
    > in almost all circumstances" isn't "overhead" to be the same as you saying
    > that it is then we're in sync ;)
    >
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    atwifa wrote:
    > cheers anyway for the input, David & Phil. seems we really do get a free
    > lunch sometimes ... to an extent ;-)

    Hehe. Yeah. Kinda like the sign at the eatery in the movie Support Your
    Local Sheriff: "Free Lunch - 25 cents."


    >
    >
    > "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
    > news:107n1102ndunlea@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Phil Weldon wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Yes, as I stated, "to guarantee proper operation in almost all
    >
    > circumstances
    >
    >>>have a lot of performance overhead built in." Just as you stated in
    >
    > many
    >
    >>>more words.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Hehe. OK. As long as you consider my saying "to guarantee proper operation
    >>in almost all circumstances" isn't "overhead" to be the same as you saying
    >>that it is then we're in sync ;)
    >>
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking CPUs