×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Buck <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know if it's still the case, but I was told in the past that a
given chip had already failed testing at higher-than-marked speed. That
is, the CPU was intended to run at 4 GHz, failed at that speed, passed
at 3 GHz and was marked appropriately.
Yep, that's the theory. However, the 4Ghz Chip is more expensive than
the 3 Ghz one. Now, assuming you need to deliver more 3 Ghz Chips, and
the yield you're getting is also getting better with each production
cycle, the chance that you'll get an easily overclockable CPU is
higher.
Of course, overclocking production/work systems is completely stupid.
But on home systems, it can be an easy and cheap way to get more
performance for transcoding HD por^W^W^Wcalculating units for
Folding@Home.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
