reason for different P4 OCing results

MajinVegeta

Member
May 31, 2002
84
0
0
some of the newer P4As and Bs are not the first 146 mm^2 chip they are being moved to the newer 131 mm^2 design beauce there was so unused Silicon left from the shrink and cache increase in different areas.

So this increases the theraml load per each sq mm, lowering the OC ablitlity of the chip, this is why there is now more varying OC being reported it matters on the size of the die you have the extra surface area allows for better heat disapation leading to better OC's.

 

MajinVegeta

Member
May 31, 2002
84
0
0
http://www.sandpile.org/impl/p4.htm

also there was a news post on ZDnet a while ago about its smaller core.

I was talking to people about why the Tbreds were not OCing like expected and i was talking thermal loads per mm^2 and the light went off that intl shrunk the P4 some because of its exelent OCing and some dead space from the die shrink.
 

THUGSROOK

Elite Member
Feb 3, 2001
11,847
0
0
2 reasons...

1) motherboard choice
2) the person doing the overclocking

these chips dont get that hot!
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
The REAL reason. Luck of the draw. Not every CPU is the same. Intel bins the chips. You may get a really good one, you may not. I've seen some 1.6's that will go to 2.4+ GHz with no Vcore increase. Some need over 1.7 to get there. Some wont get there at all. If its a good chip, its a good chip. If its not, its not.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
More detail (ripped from another forum)

OK!!! Final assemby do not matter to the overclockablity. Does the Packdate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ANSWER :

I suppose that speed binning, and the marking down of "higher rated" processors has much to do with overclocking success. However, if a specific batch of marked down processors were packed on a specific date, then this would certainly make sense.


Here's some processor speed binning information that was posted to the [ H ] forums, from an Intel employee....


"Actually, every single processor is tested for the maximum reliable clockspeed, not just a few in a batch. The tests are started at the maximum clockspeed at which that processor is currently being sold. If it does not pass, it is retested at the next lower clockspeed at which it can be sold, etc. If it fails at the lowest clockspeed at which it can be sold, it is tossed in the garbage."

"Once the maximum reliable clockspeed has been determined, the sales department comes into play. Sales indicates they need W number of 2.2GHz processors, X number of 2GHz processors, Y of the 1.8GHz, and Z of the 1.6GHz. If they do not have enough processors to come up with Z 1.6GHz processors, they take one of those that passed at a higher clockspeed, and mark it down to 1.6GHz."

"What all of this means is the following:"

"If you buy the highest clocked processor currently available, there is no telling high much higher it can go. It was only tested at that one clockspeed and it passed. It may be capable of running reliably at twice that clockspeed. These tend to make some of the best overclocks, but "you pays your money, you takes your chances."

"If you buy a 1.6GHz processor, you may in fact be buying a processor that passed all tests at 2.2GHz and was simply marked down to 1.6GHz because it needed more of them at this clockspeed. There is no way to tell without pushing up the clockspeed and trying it out. There is always the chance that your processor only passed at 1.6GHz, so you might be out of luck. It depends on the processor. However, as time passes yields improve. There may not be any processors at all that failed all the way down the line until they hit 1.6GHz. In this case, every single 1.6GHz processor sold would be capable of higher clockspeeds. Again, "you pays your money, you takes your chances."

"Now you might be wondering why the sales department would want a processor to be sold at 1.6GHz instead of 2.2GHz. Well, say they have plenty of 2.2GHz processors on the market. Everyone who has requested such processors has received their shipments and are very happy. Producing more of them will not produce more sales. However, there is a market still untapped at a lower price point. Producing these 1.6GHz processors could lead to more sales. A sold 1.6GHz processor has produced more income than an unsold 2.2GHz processor."
 

MajinVegeta

Member
May 31, 2002
84
0
0
Exactly the 146mm chips where so good that 2.4 Ghz chips were overly common why waste money making a larger chip than needed for idea yeilds. Thus make it smaller and make the same money per chips and yeilds of higher chips drop a little but profits are higher becuase you can get a few extra chip per wafer, and more chances at higher rated chips than needed.