Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
yeab but why cant it handle over clocking thats what im asking
Ultimately, what it boils down to is that there's too much 'noise' on the 'wires' connecting one or more components within the chip. Beyond some speed, the signals just don't get stably from one component/register to the next before the clock ticks and everything latches. When that happens, you start getting random data errors, and generally nothing works reliably.
Things that influence 'noise':
Temperature (higher is worse, as resistance goes up, and there is more thermal noise in the lines.)
Voltage (higher voltage pushes the electrons along faster, but also greatly increases heat output, leading to higher temperatures and/or requiring better cooling.)
Random Manufacturing Defects (ie, "the chip is a bad overclocker". Microscopic defects in the 'wires' or gates may cause a chip to become unstable at a lower speed. Buying a higher-rated chip is more likely to get you one free of defects, but there's no way around this with a particular chip.)
Process (you can't *change* this, but things like silicon-on-insulator, or changing gate lengths, or using low-k dielectrics, or even just design tweaks in newer batches of chips, can make it possible to run faster and/or cooler. This is why 90nm Winchester core Athlon64s are better than Clawhammers for overclocking.)
So, to get a maximum overclock, you should:
1) Buy a kind of chip known to overclock well (ie, one that has a favorable 'process' factor, and probably not the very lowest speed grades of that processor).
2) Decrease the operating temperature as much as possible.
3) Increase the operating voltage (without letting the temperature get too high). Increasing voltage too much, of course, can permanently damage a chip by causing electron tunnelling or other undesirable effects.
For absolute *maximum* overclocks, realistically you probably want to buy the fastest-rated processor you can get your hands on, since it is less likely to have any major defects than a slower-rated one. For bang-for-the-buck overclocks, obviously, this is not cost-effective.
Facebook
Twitter