Why Overclock, why not just build it to that speed?

[Paveslave]

How come CPU manufacturers don't just make thier chips run as fast as people overclock them? You can say it's for satability or because they last longer, but I'm not buying that. Look how many people on here along have stable, long-lasting computers that are overclocked to the hilt. A lot of people go to the extreme and overclock way past the manufacturers specs and thier CPUs still survive. Why would a major CPU company come out with a 3.06 Ghz processor? Why not make it an even 3.10, or a 3.20, or even 3.50? Heck, people who overclock could do wonders with a stock CPU that is already at 3 ghz. If a 3.06 can run stable at 3.10 or so on then why release this new product as just a 3.06? Don't get me wrong, I am not sayng just a 3.06, like it was insignificant because it's not. A 3.06 CPU would be awesome, I just wonder what and when does the CPU manufacturer say, whoa, this is enough? Who limits it to the 3.06 when we all know it can run stable and have a long life well beyond that?
If you can answer any of that you are a better man than me. I just look around at all the anandtech users and I say wow. All these extremely fast CPUs customized to be even faster and more reliable then the company who made them. Why not just clock the processor to do that in the first place during production?

 

[Keysplayr]

CPU companies do not play the "round off game". It is an accurate number when you multiply the FSB speed with the locked multiplier in the CPU. a 3.06 cpu is 133.x FSB X 23 multiplier is 3059 to 3065.9 megahertz. So they cant release a CPU at 3100 MHz with that odd number FSB. If the CPU used a 100MHz FSB this would be possible EG. 100FSB X 31 multiplier = 3100MHZ.

I hope this explains this well enough or at least I hope this is what you were driving at.

Keys

EDIT: I also think you should do some reading about economics and marketing. It's all about money kiddo. There are very few things
done on this earth that are not driven by money. If you find yourself wondering about something that just confuses you, if you said to yourself "Ah, its because of money", you would be right.

 

[Killrose]

Heat and noise are issues. Most consumers don't want to sit next to a noisey case. And if there is not enough cooling, hot summer day's would take their toll on a lot of equipment.

 

[vicwang]

You have to consider the kinds of conditions that most people subject their PC's to.

Most people around here know how to keep their systems properly maintained and where to put them. In the "real world" most people put their PC's wherever it suits them. They don't know and don't care about cooling. So they'll put them in an enclosed cabinet, with stuff blocking the exhaust fans, next to a radiator, etc.

Most people also never even open (much less clean) their PC's. I've seen some PC's where the dust buildup was so extreme, you could "tear" off the dust and make a sweater out of it. There was virtually no incoming air whatsoever.

Basically, they need to give CPU's a lot of head room to keep the failure rates low, since so many computer owners don't really know jack about PC's or how to keep them maintained.

 

[human2k]

Poor people like me cant afford the fastest processor, so we buy a good cpu (xp1700/2100 tbred B) that will give us our money's worth. I surely wont overclock if you were to buy me a P4 3.06GHZ, its only $650, gimme 2 while your at plzzz.

 

[Paveslave]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
CPU companies do not play the "round off game". It is an accurate number when you multiply the FSB speed with the locked multiplier in the CPU. a 3.06 cpu is 133.x FSB X 23 multiplier is 3059 to 3065.9 megahertz. So they cant release a CPU at 3100 MHz with that odd number FSB. If the CPU used a 100MHz FSB this would be possible EG. 100FSB X 31 multiplier = 3100MHZ.

I hope this explains this well enough or at least I hope this is what you were driving at.

Keys

EDIT: I also think you should do some reading about economics and marketing. It's all about money kiddo. There are very few things
done on this earth that are not driven by money. If you find yourself wondering about something that just confuses you, if you said to yourself "Ah, its because of money", you would be right.

Well thanks for the insight, that answered my question. It's all about the money, wow, glad I asked. I'll try to get down to the corner store and buy a book on economics too, do you have any recommendations?

 

[Assimilator1]

Its not just about money & temp headroom ,another factor is how many CPUs AMD/Intel could produce at the highest clock rate.
For instance many people are getting around 2.3-2.4GHz out of there Tbred B cpus but I doubt whether AMD could get enough cpus at 2.4GHz to make it worth selling ...........atm

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Paveslave

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
CPU companies do not play the "round off game". It is an accurate number when you multiply the FSB speed with the locked multiplier in the CPU. a 3.06 cpu is 133.x FSB X 23 multiplier is 3059 to 3065.9 megahertz. So they cant release a CPU at 3100 MHz with that odd number FSB. If the CPU used a 100MHz FSB this would be possible EG. 100FSB X 31 multiplier = 3100MHZ.

I hope this explains this well enough or at least I hope this is what you were driving at.

Keys

EDIT: I also think you should do some reading about economics and marketing. It's all about money kiddo. There are very few things
done on this earth that are not driven by money. If you find yourself wondering about something that just confuses you, if you said to yourself "Ah, its because of money", you would be right.

You sound like you don't believe me. Well, ok. It's your dime.
Later.

Well thanks for the insight, that answered my question. It's all about the money, wow, glad I asked. I'll try to get down to the corner store and buy a book on economics too, do you have any recommendations?

 

[amcdonald]

They actually do test these chips... If amd tests like most microprocessor places they test out a bunch of the same model chips in a run, and however they perform is how they are rated... the 2100+ and the 2400+ are the same chip with diff reliability... someone correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding.

 

[Hottie]

It is all about $,
80% of the profit come from Corp mkt and they are not going to o'c anything because stable is everything for them(for big OEM like Dell, IBM as well). If you run a Intel P4 1.8ghz @ 2.4ghz, you're ram/cpu/chipset is all running out of spec. And the chance of shorten the life of the system is alot bigger, not to mention about heat. IBM/Dell/HP(Intel as well) cant afford to have people say their system is not stable. And I am sure IBM/Dell/HP will not be too happy if they have to send guy to servse their system a few time within the 3yrs warrent period. So Intel HAVE to play safe.
Got it kid?

 

[THUGSROOK]

even if we bought a 3.06ghz, we'd overclock that too!

 

[Assimilator1]

Originally posted by: Hottie
It is all about $,
80% of the profit come from Corp mkt and they are not going to o'c anything because stable is everything for them(for big OEM like Dell, IBM as well). If you run a Intel P4 1.8ghz @ 2.4ghz, you're ram/cpu/chipset is all running out of spec. And the chance of shorten the life of the system is alot bigger, not to mention about heat. IBM/Dell/HP(Intel as well) cant afford to have people say their system is not stable. And I am sure IBM/Dell/HP will not be too happy if they have to send guy to servse their system a few time within the 3yrs warrent period. So Intel HAVE to play safe.
Got it kid?

Err not forgetting that Intel once forgot this valuble lesson when they 1st released the Coppermine PIII 1.13GHz ,it had the higher cpu vcore,a bigger HSF,was on the edge of the cpus core design limit & it didn't take too long to find out it wasn't 100% stable & they had to recall it!

 

[Paveslave]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
even if we bought a 3.06ghz, we'd overclock that too!

I'm not saying overclocking is a bad thing, if I knew more about it I probably would do it too. I was just saying that if you could overclock a normal CPU almost a ghz over what it was originally, and keep it stable, then why don't the CPU manufacturers make them run faster themselves. You all made some good points, especially about keeping them reliable and stable. I can understand the marketing aspects of it too, it makes sense to hold back so you can sell more and keep people buying them. That part just sucks for the consumer though. I think I got on some peoples nerves in here, had to make sure they let me know it was all about the money. Money to me is nothing, I got so much of it it clouds my judment most of the time. I tend to ask dumb questions and start topics about the economy when I have no clue how to live in it. I wish reality would have smacked me in the face a little sooner as I wouldn't have made such a fool of myself. It's all good though, I got it now. This "kid" here was shown the way by the all knowing. It's a good topic though, I just wanted to see what you all thought.
All in all I'm still amazed at how far people push thier CPUs. Hey, I guess if you got the know how than more power to ya. I'm still learning and I'm sure I'll catch on, listening to the right people helps too.

 

[DoctorBooze]

Right, people here o'c but can't complain if they can't o'c much, any other (corp or private) customers don't o'c but would complain - rightly - if their systems didn't work 100%... so Intel/AMD feed the 99.9% of their market!

 

[DoctorBooze]

They (Intel/AMD) don't hold back, they just mark down their CPUs; if the market wants 1 3GHz CPU, 2 2.8GHz, 3 2.6GHz and 4000 2.4GHz and they've 1000 that pass the 3GHz test, 2000 that pass 2.8GHz test and the rest past 2.6GHz then they'll ship 1 marked as 3GHz, 2 2.8GHz, 3 2.6GHz and 4000 2.4GHz... and probably be able to ship a "3.2GHz" any day now

 

[dxkj]

There is a market for each chip type... Yes, almost every 1700+ could be overclocked to at least 2100+ but then where would the market for the50 dollar chips be? Up a river without a paddle.


Im Joe Shmoe... I have saved up 50 dollars and I want to upgrade my computer.... I am going to buy a processor


1700+ = 50
2100+ = 100

Good thing AMD is selling 1700+ , I think to myself, or else I wouldnt be able to afford it!

Amd would rather take 50 dollars for a chip that could run faster than take no money at all.

AMD produces X number of chips.... it needs Z number of 2600+ V number of 2400+ W number of 2100+ and the rest it just tests for 1700+.... it is very likely that these 1700+ could have passed higher speeds, but no need since they already have enough for their market...

is any of this making sense?

 

[txxxx]

Dont take this wrong, but you might want to read up a good book on Economics

 

[vicwang]

The problem with the tired "It's all about money" line is that it's a worthless statement in and of itself without supporting backup. The same could be said in response to virtually ANY tech-related question, and while it may be "true" it does nothing to provide insight or greater understanding of the subject.

For example, Why do the new Geforce FX's use a 128-bit memory bus instead of 256? "It's all about money!". Why is AMD releasing the Clawhammer so many months after the Sledgehammer? "It's all about money!". Why are so many LCD's defective compared to CRT's? "It's all about money!". Now... can anyone honestly say their understanding of any of these topics has been increased now that they realize "it's all about money"??? I doubt it.

It sounds like some people read Paveslave's question as "Why don't CPU makers overclock the chips for us, and give us free speed at no extra cost"? But he never said that. Even though he didn't spell it out for us, it goes without saying that by jacking up the "rated" mhz speeds, they could also jack up prices accordingly and theoretically make far MORE money in the short run. It's just that such a strategy would be counterproductive in the long run.

I agree 100% with dxkj and DoctorBooze as far as marking CPU's according to market demand, but that doesn't mean CPU companies couldn't do so while ALSO increasing speeds at the high-end. For example, back when 1.2 ghz Athlons were top-of-the-line, pretty much ALL of them could be overclocked by several hundred mhz and remain perfectly stable. AMD COULD have released 1.3 ghz, 1.4 ghz, and maybe even 1.5 ghz Athlons at massively jacked-up prices while keeping the rest of their pricing structure the same, all while Intel was still stuck at 1 ghz. Yet for whatever reason they chose not to do so. To this day I still think it would have been great for some laughs at Intel's expense .

 

[LED]

Well howabout cost effective and smart, efficient, marketing???...when the chips roll of the die the all prolly do about the same speed until the laser cuts the the L bridges or locks in...remember people have different tastes and hardware that will handle different speeds...me personally like it this way cause when I buy a square I'm thinking...Hmmm what can I get out this as opposed to I'm getting a "whatever speed" CPU in...It's the chase, challange and mystery of it all.

 

[? (=Þ)]

it is about $$$, economics and marketing.

They do not want to flood the market w/ 3ghz chips if all of them can make it at that speed. The chip would not hold its price premium it has now if the market was flooded w/ supply (economics there). Sure they can sell them insanely high w/ the high supply but they would not sell the quantity they would if they structured it w/ diff speeds and prices. Not to mention AMD could easily cut into their sales by offering a cheaper solution.

If a chip can reach say 3.5ghz as its max (lets say hypothetically the northwoods can do that), and most run at least 3ghz fine, intel is not going to push the entire output to 3.0ghz right away because they would be crimped for "new releases" later w/o a total redesign. By releasing 2.0-3.0ghz chips in increments, they can structure pricing accordingly and later release "new faster" versions of the p4 and simply shift pricing a lil while continuing to create a need for new processors since thsoe who bought 2.0ghz processors would be more likely to consider an upgrade than one who bought a 3.0ghz later.


and remember not every consumer will overclock their systems, and not all computer builders as well. Some people buy a processor and run it at the rated/locked speed.

 

[Oakenfold]

Originally posted by: Paveslave It's all about the money, wow, glad I asked. I'll try to get down to the corner store and buy a book on economics too, do you have any recommendations?

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith



Also see Moore's law.
:Q

 

[Zap]

if you could overclock a normal CPU almost a ghz over what it was originally, and keep it stable, then why don't the CPU manufacturers make them run faster themselves.

Often a CPU would need voltage raised to be able to run faster. Though CPU manufacturers themselves pull this trick occasionally, they try to stay fairly close to the initial voltage. For instance, what's the range of Northwood CPUs that run 1.5v? Though people have had great luck with the lower speed chips, sometimes voltage still is needed to attain a speed where Intel still has a more expensive chip running at the original voltage, so there is some speed binning going on. Plus, with all the high overclocks going on... all the really massive ones (especially above what Intel/AMD is currently selling) better and MORE EXPENSIVE cooling would be needed. OEMs (Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, etc.) are the biggest part of the market. They know that they can make $50 per $500 system and $100 per $1000 system, but sell only one $1000 system for every fifty $500 systems. Not only do they want the slower, cheaper CPUs, they don't want to spend more than a dollar or two on cooling it. Has anyone ever seen a Thermalright or Swiftech heatsink in a cheap (best seller) consumer system? Nope. Hell, the consumer systems don't even have retail boxed heatsinks since the large OEMs can save a few pennies (times a few hundred thousand systems equals thousands of dollars) by going elsewhere for HSFs. If there were CPUs that were either faster or required more voltage than current CPUs... not gonna be too popular with OEMs.

 

[yhelothar]

simple.. so then they can sell their chips at $600...

otherwise all their chips will be $200, and the poor people can't afford them, and they can't fork out more money out of the rich people...

my economics theory

 

[Metalloid]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
even if we bought a 3.06ghz, we'd overclock that too!

I had a person once ask me if I would oc a 3.06 P4. Take a guess at what I said.

EDIT: And just to add on to this. I don't overclock purely for better performance, I do it because it is fun. It is a hobby.

 

[Zap]

I do it because it is fun. It is a hobby.

Much cheaper and safer than modding cars.