<I have numerous reports of the 800Mhz Kryotech systems not being the fastest overclocks in the land.>
OK, fair enough. But you'd think Kryotech would know if the Athlon is overclockable to 750 MHz w/out special cooling, given that they're experts on the effects of overclocking on the processor.
<Tench, I'm a little disappointed with you to be honest.>
What am I supposed to believe? That overclocking is proof that AMD is holding back? In general, overclocking is an art, not a science. It's fine to use the results of overclocking as a predictor of Athlon's potential performance at a given process. But let's not take it as an established fact, like "Oh, GamerzRCoolD00z.com just overclocked to 750 MHz and it's 'rock solid!' If some warez site can do it, surely AMD can reach 800 MHz without any problems, right?"
Everything might look stable to a hobbyist, but there's always the potential for errors or damage that won't show up even after a whole week of overclocking. My own Pentium II 266 MHz overclocked fine at 300 MHz for months. But just recently, I experienced a few hard disk corruptions which caused some major inconveniences. Although I can't be sure that the sole cause of the errors was overclocking, it did make me realize that overclocking just isn't worth it.
Besides, none of this changes the fact that AMD current "phantom release" is only at 650 MHz, not 750 or 800. And according to Sharky Extreme, the "phantom release" will only move to 700 MHz in early October. Maybe AMD will change their "phantom release" schedule now that Craig Barrett revealed that Coppermine will be released north of 700 MHz in October. But until I hear official word, and then see it in the stores, I won't be convinced.
Tenchusatsu |
