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

A not-so-brief word on all the brouhaha that's been going around the last few days involving letters from Intel employees. If you've been living under a rock, check out Kyle's OCP and read up. While I'm not going to say, "All this stuff about bus-locking is a bunch of crap!" or "AMD and Intel would never work together!" there are some other issues in these letters that make me question how aware these people are of what's really going on, not only inside Intel but out in the real world. The first statement that I have a major problem with is the following by Karl Andrews: 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. Intel may not be stupid, but I have to wonder about someone who ridicules a practice Intel has been blatanty engagning in for several months now. Faster chips can be sold for higher prices--but if there are more of those faster, more expensive chips than there are people who want to pay tons of cash for them, you end up with a glut. Intel has made no secret about its yields exceeding even its own rosy expectations. Intel announced recently that it was pushing up its roadmap because things are just so peachy. In fact, it's common knowledge around the industry that things are going almost too well. Unlike before, when the fastest chips were so expensive because so few of them from the yield were stable at higher speeds, Intel is now cranking out tons of cores that will hit 450 easily. If Intel stuck strictly to the "sell the chip at its maximum speed" rule, there would be a huge shortage of mid-range chips, with accompanying high prices (think supply and demand) for those chips, because so many of the cores rate above mid-range speeds. Meanwhile, there would be tons of 450's on the shelf that wouldn't be selling because all of the people who could have afforded them would have already bought them. Eventually, then, the law of supply and demand would see the price of the 450's dropping because of the overstocking. This scenario would ensure people getting 450's for closer to the cost of the now-unavailable (in our scenario) 300's, which would be crappy for Intel, because it would encourage people to wait longer before upgrading. Intel, not being stupid, realizes it's better to sell 450-capable cores at 300 or 333 than to either let them rot while people are clamoring for mid-range chips, or sell them as 450's at 300 prices. This "underclocking" practice has been going on for a while now. I'm somewhat curious as to what tests are performed to determine maximum reliable speed. It must be a real nut-buster, considering that my SL2QG is rock solid at 400MHz, cranking out the flyby sequence in Unreal for hours on end with a core that isn't even as warm as my hand. Informal surveys on the net confirm that 4 out of every 5 300A's can tag 450 with equal ease, and the one I swapped my QG out for is doing just that. The reason the Celerons have been even more successful overclocking than the mid-range P2's is that Intel saved money by putting slower cache on the mid-range P2's, because P2s don't need the faster cache to run at the mid-range speed. Tests with the L2 disabled confirm that the vast majority of those mid-range P2 cores do just fine at 450. The Celerons are always happy because their caches are made on the same .25 micron process and die as their cores. This brings me to the second letter at the OCP, an extensive discussion of electromigration. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'd never ever heard of the term electromigration before reading this letter. However, that fact doesn't keep me from poking holes in the letter's logic. The author states that people shouldn't overclock because it "speeds up the process EM failure" (I'm assuming there should be an "of" after process). He also says: EM failure is very, very difficult to detect until it actually happens . . . . you have certain probabilities of EM failure. But that's all they are is probabilities. So it is nearly impossible to "test" the chip to find out if it has an increasing amount of potential for EM failure . . . especially since every chip is unique and the characteristics of the chip initially are unknown. Hmm. So what he's saying is that EM is a Very Bad Thing, and that the crappy thing is it's impossible to tell if a particular chip is going to fail or not, you can only make an educated guess based on the failure rates and times of the same or similar chips made using the same or similar processes. Fine. But since all of these chips (the cores of the 300A's and SL2W8's we know and love as well as the "real" P2-400's and 450's) are coming off the same .25 micron process and the same wafers, and since EM failure is "nearly impossible" to test for, how can he say the "real" 450's that Intel sells for gobs of money are any less susceptible to it than the 300A's and SL2W8's? Assume for a moment that I have 2 "real" 450 cores, according to Intel--and let's not forget that many of those 450 cores are finding their way into 300's on up. I slap one into a 450 cartridge, and the other into an SL2W8 cartridge. I then crank them both up to 450 on respective BH6's. According to the statement that overclocking speeds up the process of EM failure, the SL2W8 is going to fail quicker because it's being overclocked. Does anybody actually buy that argument? PCGamer has an article on overclocking (which should be titled "An Objective Study In Overclocking As Told By Intel") in the January 1999 issue. This article discusses electromigration, as well. The article states (quoting without permission): "This [electromigration] is a gradual process, where increased electrical current running through a given circuit causes its eventual deterioration..." It goes on to state that electromigration takes years to do damage, but that the process is accelerated by heat. I don't think PCGamer's definition is really that accurate, since it implies that if your processor doesn't use increased current, electromigration doesn't happen at all. I think what they meant to say was that it occurs regardless and, like heat, additional current accelerates the process. If this is the case, electromigration during overclocking would occur more quickly only if the processor were set above its recommended voltage and/or it weren't cooled properly. I firmly believe that in the old days, when overclocking a chip resulted in it being able to double as a hotplate, you were probably gaining speed at the cost of processor life. It makes perfect sense that a chip running much hotter than its operating temp. isn't going to last as long. I might even buy that if you have to add a .3V voltage hike to that 300A of yours to make it stable at 450, you might be killing it more quickly. But given the information in the EM failure letter and PCGamer's article, I don't buy for a minute that a 300A at 2.0V, which is cool to the touch at 450, is wearing out any faster than a "real" P2-450. You might have a statistically higher chance of failure simply because the 300A has on-die L2 and thus more circuits, but I don't buy that it'll ***out any quicker at 100MHz bus than at 66. Besides, who's to say the P2's off-die L2 cache won't ***out due to electromigration? Given that EM failure is so darn difficult to predict, perhaps one reason the P2-450 is so expensive is that Intel will give you a new one if EM failure kills it. But given the fact that, according to an Intel employee, overclocking leaves no "signature" in the event of EM failure, it would be difficult for them to deny you the same treatment on your 300A.

SNIP Excellent point! You have shown the hypocrisy of Intel quite convincingly if your premises are true. However, I think I read that the "real" P2 450 CPUs are made with a different process than the other 0.25 PIIs. Can someone else comment on this? BTW, I'm running my Celeron 300a at 463.5 mhz rock stable. It even runs at 504 mhz, but then I must increase voltage to 2.1. Now I use 1.9 volt. Regards K.S. Br?nnick, Norway

I think they use the same process for all the .25 micron PII cores. Besides, a 300 that has been clocked down, is a 450.

At last! Someone who knows what they are talking about and (possibly) with a good healthy attitude towards one of the greatest monopolies on earth (until AMD came along). Almost all of what you say rings true....but you stop short of saying what is surely true.....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. Imagine selling a car whose engine was capable of 350hp but putting in a governor to make it produce only 200hp and then complaining that the owner removed the governor, and THEN having the bare-faced temerity to sell an identical car at twice the price by sticking a different label on it, and claiming it was a more powerful car by simply removing the governor again! This is exactly what Intel has done with many of our CPU's. Intel employees may have expertise in their own particular manufacturing process, but from what I've read on this NG, they appear to be as naive as Intel wants the rest of us to be. Cheers,

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?

What i would like to know is the % of remarked cpu's that have "failed" and been returned for warrenty. Bet it's none to very little at all. >At last! Someone who knows what they are talking about and (possibly) with a >good healthy attitude towards one of the greatest monopolies on earth (until >AMD came along). Almost all of what you say rings true....but you stop short >of saying what is surely true.....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

Quoted text (14 lines)

>consumers for years. >Imagine selling a car whose engine was capable of 350hp but putting in a >governor to make it produce only 200hp and then complaining that the owner >removed the governor, and THEN having the bare-faced temerity to sell an >identical car at twice the price by sticking a different label on it, and >claiming it was a more powerful car by simply removing the governor again! >This is exactly what Intel has done with many of our CPU's. Intel employees >may have expertise in their own particular manufacturing process, but from >what I've read on this NG, they appear to be as naive as Intel wants the >rest of us to be. >Cheers,

On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:42:37 +0800, "Pat Megroin" >What i would like to know is the % of remarked cpu's that have "failed" and >been returned for warrenty. >Bet it's none to very little at all. I'd bet you're pretty close to right. Most of the "shady" dealers haven't gone out of business as the guy from Intel claims, they merely replace the CPU with another one under their own "warranty", since they made all that extra profit from selling the consumer a re-marked CPU, they can afford to buy you another one to replace it (even a new "honest" not-remarked one), since by the time of the typical failure, the price for said CPU has dropped significantly. Seriously, I once sent an employee out on a service call to fix a 386DX-33 which was having problems. He returned to tell me that when he popped the cover off the case, it was not a DX-33, but an SX-16 CPU...and the customer never noticed, having no knowledge of computers and the BIOS bootup screens didn't mention clock speed or CPU type. He told the customer that he didn't have the DX-33 he thought he did, but a much cheaper system. The customer called the "scam artist" vendor, who then told him that they'd send someone right out to swap motherboards and CPUs and make it right. (Thinking of course, the customer would be thrilled at this "great customer service" this vendor had.) Thing is, the vendor gets away with a huge rip off this way...the DX-33 system sold for over $3300 when it was "new and the hottest thing" on the market...a year later, when their scam is exposed, it costs the vendor MUCH less money to replace the now almost obsolete CPU with the "correct" part. The vendor can replace the CPU and still make well over $1000 extra profit that way, even after replacing the motherboard and CPU a year later. If the customer never notices, well...it's even more profit. Believe me, I've seen it many times over the years I've been involved in the business. Rip -off vendors preying on an unknowledgeable public are rampant. All they know is that they want a computer. Regards, Doc Wynne Technical Support & Network Services Support Engineering/dickson.net http://www.dickson.net -- Never a late apex, never a dull moment.

On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:59:19 -0000, "Robert Young" >of saying what is surely true.....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. You have this bass-ackwards. Intel have been downgrading chips and selling at LOWER prices to buyers due to market demographics. The prices are not inflated. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it, and it is a ridiculous analogy since it is a totally different process to make different engine sizes - you don't make "one" engine and rate them according to power. Still, the fact remains that Intel do it, and we buy it. Who's the one giving acceptance of such a practice? If Ford could get away with it was economically sensible you can bet they would do it. Every company would like their buyers to be like that, it makes the job of selling new products and concepts so much easier. Still, Intel have to react to the marketplace and our buying patterns can and do dictate what they will "get away with". Anyway, why blame Intel? AMD's prices are pegged onto Intel's and bear just as much relation to production cost, and the same with the memory market before the capacity glut - the margins on DRAM's were truly awesome and yet no cry of "foul" to be heard. Cheers! John

AMD has stated that the prices for there chips are at least 25% lower than a compariable Intel chip. In the past AMD has lost money due to this. Also, if you watch, when AMD releases a new chip, Intel will drasticly cut the price of they're compariable chip. Look at the PII 400, they were very expensive, until AMD released the K6-2 400, then Intel slashed the price of they're 400.

>AMD has stated that the prices for there chips are at least 25% lower than a >compariable Intel chip. They will _sell_ the chip for 25% less as you say, but that will bear no relation to their costs. It's just the only way of taking business from Intel. At the same (or higher) price they would sell nothing except to anti-Intel zealots. Naturally. Intel's costs are lower than AMD's, and so keeping prices higher for longer creates a fatter "profit zone" for them. The only reason to lower the price is either process improvement or competition, and so you see the quarterly cuts (supposedly to do with improved yield or productivity) as well as the drops when AMD threaten to take some business. The surge in demand for sub-$1K systems caught Intel a bit by surprise, but they're bridging the gap now. Whether you agree with the above comes down more to your beliefs vis-a-vis a purely capitalist approach to business rather than any feelings related purely to Intel. Why do they get away with it? Because a) They can, and b) We let them. What is sure is that virtually every other company in the world would not only love to be in their position, but that they would act in exactly the same manner, even collectively (as in the case of the DRAM capacity shortage in '94). Cheers! John

>On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:59:19 -0000, "Robert Young" >>Underclocking by manufacturers, not >>overclocking by users, is the scandal ..... >You have this bass-ackwards. Intel have been downgrading chips and >selling at LOWER prices to buyers But they can only sell at lower prices because they were miles too high in the first place! A promising synonym for "greed" owner<< The process is irrelevant, the marketing is exactly similar. Please spare me the lecture in macro-economics. I'm not blaming them, I am pointing out their hypocrisy where chip clocking is concerned. That doesn't excuse anyone else anything. Same to you! Robert

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:59:41 -0000, "Robert Young" >But they can only sell at lower prices because they were miles too high in >the first place! What is "too high"? More than you want to pay does not consitute too high. As long as the fabs are full and Intel are selling what they can make then their prices are simply what the market will bear. If I can sell 1 million chips at $500 each why should I sell one to you at $200? See above. Such a definition only works from the majority. You can choose to believe that. If you post you have to expect a response. 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. It's not supposed to - it demonstrates that the above is normal business practice, not a reason for an Intel witch hunt. Cheers! John

In a healthy market with real competition, you can sell for what you like of course. Probably would if they could.... Witchhunt? Where? "Normal" business practice is tempered by variety and lack of monopoly. I agree it is not Intel's fault (initially) that they have been almost totally *** in the CPU market. But very powerful organisations nearly always abuse their power (see Microsoft v Justice Dept). I think we disagree because you see the whole thing as just "business" - I find that a bit too one-dimensional. Intel chips are superb products - I just don't approve of their marketing strategy, and nearly every consumer who knows what they do doesn't approve either. On this I peacefully agree to differ with you! Best Wishes, Robert

Quoted text (7 lines)

>On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:59:41 -0000, "Robert Young" >What is "too high"? More than you want to pay does not consitute too >high. As long as the fabs are full and Intel are selling what they can >make then their prices are simply what the market will bear. If I can >sell 1 million chips at $500 each why should I sell one to you at >$200?

While not realistic, I'd like to hope that the price of an object is DIRECTLY and SOLELY related to it's cost to produce. If a product cost $25 to make, it shouldn't sell for $300 (standard flamer qualifier: numbers are fictitious). Intel KNOWs its products will have a specific lifespan (in the marketplace). And they probably have a pretty good idea EXACTLY how long that lifespan is. As such, they know about how long they'll have to recoup their development costs. Therefore they should have some small inkling of what they should charge for their product from the start. We all know their margins are among the HIGHEST in the entire computer industry (both hardware and software). "Gunner" just my .000000001c worth (and barely, at that)

How much do you think it costs to dig a diamond up from the ground? More than a lump of coal? Less? Same? What about the market value of those two products? The price is related to market demand, and that is why you currently see DRAM companies selling products for LESS than they cost to produce. Cheers! John

> 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.

> 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

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