rec.autos.simulators

by **Thomas Enterprise** » Thu, 17 Dec 1998 04:00:00

> The real myth of overclocking is that you only hear the success storys. The
> truth of the matter is most CPU's will NOT run reliably when overclocked to
> extreme speeds. My guess is many of the people boasting about running a 300a
> at 504mhz ran it for a few minutes, and then post it as a success. Would you
> trust doing something besides playing a game on a overclocked CPU?

Hate to shoot holes in your theory but I for one have been running a
Pentium 166MMX at 208 for almost a year and doing a heck of a lot more
than just running games. It has always and still does perform smoothly
and as stable as I could ever want.

I have just bought a Celeron 300A and fully expect to be able to run it
every bit as well and as long at 450.

by **Jim Sokolof** » Fri, 18 Dec 1998 04:00:00

> Underclocking by manufacturers, not overclocking by users, is the
> scandal of the late twentieth century hi-tech industry. How dare
> Intel lecture ANYBODY about overclocking when they have been
> blatently selling Underclocked chips at inflated prices to
> unsuspecting consumers for years.

It's no scandal at all. They offer you product X with certain specs
and price x, or product Y with certain other specs and price y. You
elect which product to buy to meet your needs...or elect to buy
neither.

Cessna is doing EXACTLY that with the new 172 and 172XP. Everyone
knows it, and no one is complaining; you want more horsepower in your
airplane? Buy the 172XP...

Shouldn't it make sense that the higher performance CPUs cost more?
After all, they provide more performance to the user, and if that
performance is of value to the consumer, then those chips are of
higher value...right?

---Jim

by **John Walla** » Sat, 19 Dec 1998 04:00:00

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:22:52 -0000, "Robert Young"

>>I don't see any other stance they can take. They obviously can't
>>publically accept overclocking, but you haven't seen them move to
>>stamp it out totally.<

>Probably would if they could....

You could be right, and I really don't have a strong opinion on that.
I suspect that if the Celeron was not so overclock friendly it
probably wouldn't sell so well compared to the cheaper AMD equivalent.
OTOH you could argue that overclocking is a relatively small issue and
so has little effect on the sales - in that case maybe it's too small
for Intel to be concerned with. I'm sure a lot of Intel people have
had a lot of discussions on the above subject.

I certainly don't think a monopoly is a good thing, nor do I see what
Intel is doing as "right" - I just don't happen to think it's fair to
pan Intel for it since I'm pretty sure every other company would do
the same thing. It is certainly Intel's "fault" that they are in the
position they are, since they made the investment and the right calls
at the right time. I also reckon they have done some pretty shady
things in their time - then again, so has AMD. It's just that
generally the big guy is the one to take the flak, rightly or wrongly.

Cheers!
John

rec.autos.simulators

Overclocking Myths.......and Intel Employees

Overclocking Myths.......and Intel Employees

Overclocking Myths.......and Intel Employees

Overclocking Myths.......and Intel Employees