Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer who wrote (72012)	9/16/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1572749

Elmer, Agreed. Overclocked anything. Good article.

To: Elmer who wrote (72012)	9/16/1999 1:38:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572749

Elmer FUD, <the most likely reason an overclocker will kill a processor... The longer you run the chip at higher than design voltages, the more..> ... BS you get :) There is no one "overclocker" who ever killed any processor for the above (or any other listed) reason. <This problem is exacerbated by the move to smaller technologies as, although device voltages are reducing as sizes come down, they aren't reducing in proportion to the the device shrinkage, leading to higher field strengths compared with older 0.35 and up devices.> Are they talking about "0.18u_CuLaterMine_to_600MHz_at room_temperature_only" problem at Intel? Or their advances into 0.15-0.13um? <..this is caused by frequently varying thermal conditions.> Looks like the Intel power-saving technology is questioned here. When you frequently turn chips on and off using clock stop, you surely vary thermal conditions a lot... YOU HAVE NO OWN BRAINS, ELMER (PH=F)ud. :)