What if OC'ing was merely disinformation?

[tigersty1e]

This happens all the time.

The 8800GT is just an 8800GTS chips with some shaders cut out.

It takes more effort to disable these shaders on the GT than to just come out with it, but that would hurt the 8800GTS lineup.

My E6320 can do 3.15 with 1 tick below stock volts. It could easily have been packaged as an E6850 @ 3.0 GHz.

 

[Rubycon]

Cyrix PRx86 cpu's probably had the lowest margin known. The PR200+ was often unstable default in a tight (warm) box. I had a PR166+ that ran 24/7 for three years and died (2000). It would run if underclocked without errors. Go figure.

Those chips had one of the worst FPU's too. Only the K5 was worse. Fortunately back in the day this mattered little. (unless you played Quake - you were VERY unhappy!)

 

[Diogenes2]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Diogenes2
Intel was definitely into over/under clocking with the P3 .. Often, when they sold a higher clocked part, they just set the vcore higher ..

I never have liked the term OVER-clocked ... As long as it works, it's not ' OVER '-clocked ...

uhh... 3.5ghz is very far from the word "stock" tho. :X

How about " Optimized " ?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Cyrix PRx86 cpu's probably had the lowest margin known. The PR200+ was often unstable default in a tight (warm) box. I had a PR166+ that ran 24/7 for three years and died (2000). It would run if underclocked without errors. Go figure.

Those chips had one of the worst FPU's too. Only the K5 was worse. Fortunately back in the day this mattered little. (unless you played Quake - you were VERY unhappy!)

Pentium III 1.13 GHz: Production and Shipments Halted

I had one of those Cyrix chips, a P150+ which ran at 120MHz IIRC, and the FPU was crazy weak. Never tried the K5, but it sounds like I missed out on an opportunity to gain an appreciation for Cyrix

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Hey just be glad RIAA wasn't into computers telling Intel what to do. If they were we'd have to deal with stuff like this! :shocked:

Well, I certainly won't be buying any software that does that crap....

You speak as if you would be given a CHOICE...

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
I had one of those Cyrix chips, a P150+ which ran at 120MHz IIRC, and the FPU was crazy weak. Never tried the K5, but it sounds like I missed out on an opportunity to gain an appreciation for Cyrix

The PR150+ ran at 120 (60*2), PR166+ at 133 (66*2) and PR200+ at 150 (75*2) which was running the FSB out of spec. Many argued that the 200+ was nothing more than an o/c 166+ however my board (HX based) had jumpers for 75 and even 83MHz and trying 75 was futile. It posted but that was about it. 83 gave the dark screen of death. (CMOS clear required)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Hey just be glad RIAA wasn't into computers telling Intel what to do. If they were we'd have to deal with stuff like this! :shocked:

Is that a real error message? How bizarre! I think I like Symantec software even less than I do now, which I didn't think was possible.

 

[taltamir]

its a fake error message. it has to be... right?

 

[Rubycon]

Yes it is fake. But in the future it may not be.

 

[the unknown]

Blasphemy