In the spirit of the term (i.e., outside its technical definition), definitely yes.
Technically "OC" stands for "Overclocking" or running the component at a faster clock than its rating. So, technically in that narrow definition of OC, no.
However, extending the definition a fraction to include reducing latency, i.e. accesssing memory 1 or more ticks before its rated time (i.e., faster than the rated clocking), then yes. So there is an argument for technically it is "OC".
CPU's are different. Raising their speed makes them hotter. Raising their speed sometimes entails increasing voltage along with buss speed. Take my Mushkin ram for example. If I raise the FSB I have to increase the CAS at some point. As I raise the FSB I put more stress on it, even though it is running at CAS 2.5. If I lower the FSB, I can run it at CAS 2 with lower voltages. It runs cooler at CAS 2 at PC3200 speeds than at CAS 2.5 at PC4000 speeds. So, if you can run CAS 2 without an increase in voltage or FSB, what's the problem? :smile:
Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.4 - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!
As far as causing extra stress and potentially reducing the lifespan of the component, I agree with the rest, it won't have any effect on lifespan. The only reason not to do that would be if the ram can't handle the faster timings, and you would find that out next time you booted up (or, more likely didn't boot up lol).
PS: IMO, it's still "oc'ing" but it's a very safe oc.
Yeah I agree, my old Samsung won't do any faster timing than 2.5/3/3/6 in DDR333, even I bump up vdimm..
but my current crucial can do 2.5/2/2/5 without raising vdimm, but with 2.6V, it can do 2/2/2/5 fine.. thought the performance increased is really small..but it's still a +