Message-ID: <366F4325.36E27AF0@uswest.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 20:42:29 -0700
From: John Moore <jmoore5@uswest.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Subject: Re: More on the demise of OverClocking.. This time from an Intel employee.
References: <19981209164731.08234.00000206@ng-fc2.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.225.39.129
X-Trace: 9 Dec 1998 21:41:22 +0600, 207.225.39.129
Lines: 66
X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@uswest.net.
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.uswest.net!news1.uswest.net!207.225.39.129
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.autos.simulators:62868

No offense but who cares. Face it, my poor little celeron 300/450 will be out of
date long before any warranty. I'm happily overclocked and fully aware that I gave
up any warranty. Warranties are like rebates, a lot promised and little delivered.
I appreciate the hard work you do and do not begrudge you your opnion. But lets
face it, the last thing that virtually any big business cares about in the long run
is the best interests of their customers, especially in the computer industry.
jmo...

MIlic10244 wrote:

> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 09:41:16 -0800
> From: Karl Andrews <kandrews@ichips.intel.com>
> To: DV-L@dvcentral.org
> Subject: Why not to overclock
> Message-ID: <366D64BC.65F948A@ichips.intel.com>
>
> Let me say up front that I work for Intel, and that this is not an official
> Intel statement, only my opinions.  That out of the way, I help design
> microprocessors, so maybe I can shed a little light on this subject.
>
> Yes, with the currently available crop of chips, you can usually get away with
> moderate overclocking.  What you are trading off is reliability and chip life.
> There are certain semiconductor failure modes that are speed sensitive.  We
> design chips with these in mind for a certain (rather long) lifetime.
> Overclocking reduces this, but many people don't care as they will have traded
> in their machines long ago.  We care, because we honor the warranty on that
> chip, no matter who has it now, so overclocked chips cost us extra money in
> support.
>
> Also, faster chips can be sold for higher prices, right?  When we test
> manufacturing batches, we sort them by maximum reliable speed.  If a 333 MHz
> chip was capable of running reliably at 350 or 400, don't you think we would be
> selling it at that speed, with it's correspondingly higher price?  Whatever you
> may think of Intel, we aren't stupid. The speed-sensitive error causing that
> lower speed rating may or may not be significant to your application, but how
> do you know?  We don't label the chip with the type of error, only the maximum
> reliable speed.
>
> Anyway, the newer chips coming out soon have more effective speed control
> methods built into them, so overclocking will soon become a dead subject. Why
> do we go to such great lengths to prevent hobbyists from experimenting with
> their personal property?   Ah, if that were all it was...
>
> There are people who make their living by grinding off the speed labels on our
> chips, and reselling them at higher prices.  The unsuspecting buyer of a system
> with one of these chips doesn't know this, they were only interested in maximum
> speed at minimum price.  Then when problems pop up, who has to pay for
> replacing that chip?  Not the overclocker, they are offshore somewhere; and not
> the screwdriver shop that assembled the system with grey-market components,
> they too are long gone.  Who is still around to catch the blame?  Intel. That's
> why we care.  It comes out of my paycheck in the form of a slightly smaller
> year-end bonus, so I care, personally.
>
> - Karl
>
> Well, if that don't sound like a nail in a coffin, I don't know what to tell
> you......bummer eh?
> I wish Intel could come up with a way to simply tell if the CPU was ever OC'ed,
> that would take care of the warranty issue.  Makes you wonder if their
> official, "We don't care what you do with the CPU in the privacy of your own
> home", is for real or not...........
>
> Thanks to Emilio Lam for the heads-up!



