Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which CPU?

Tags:
  • Overclocking
  • CPUs
Last response: in Overclocking
Share
April 11, 2004 11:43:37 AM

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

More about : cpu

Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2004 3:57:30 PM

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
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2004 8:12:38 PM

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...
Related resources
April 11, 2004 9:08:56 PM

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
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2004 11:03:53 PM

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
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2004 12:30:36 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2004 1:20:34 AM

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
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2004 2:34:15 AM

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_...

Brief AMD Roadmap story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/amd_athlon_64_f...
April 12, 2004 12:25:23 PM

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.
April 12, 2004 12:29:56 PM

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?
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2004 12:53:44 PM

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?
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2004 3:22:02 PM

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_ba...
AMD Athlon Mobile XP
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/AMD_Athlon_XP__M...
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 12, 2004 3:45:19 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 1:00:49 AM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 1:48:44 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 4:04:34 AM

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.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 7:43:47 AM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 7:43:48 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 9:15:33 AM

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 9:15:34 AM

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 ;) 
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 11:35:45 PM

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 ;) 
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2004 11:35:46 PM

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 ;) 
>>
>
>
>
!