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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (169831)	8/23/2002 11:45:12 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Ok, another slimy post by Windsock, what else is new? A slime posts slimy posts. First of all, please re-read the part of the article that in your head is some kind of smoking gun: I'd hoped to thoroughly investigate overclocking in this review but due to it arriving relatively late to us and because this particular chip was to be returned to AMD post-review I figured it best not to go doing anything too drastic. 3dvelocity.com Esplanation: They received the chip late (no other site complained about this), and they did not have enough time to do thorough overclocking tests. The chip is a "loaner" meaning it has to be returned to AMD. Not because of a problem, but probably because AMD does not want sample chips floating around (so that they don't end up in systems sold to users like this one: theinquirer.net or this one: theinquirer.net. Since he had to return the chip to AMD, he did not want to do "anything too drastic", meaning raising Voltage way out of spec. One major difference is that the P4 will be rock solid stable when it is introduced instead of on the bare edge of stable to unstable. There was nothing unstable about the chip that anybody reported. Just because this sample chips speced to work at 2.13 GHz could only overclock to 2.3 GHz (without doing "anything too drastic" is no indication of instability). Nothing close to production chips failing at speced clock speeds (Pentium 1.13). When I had you on ignore, I used to miss this manure-like posts that I see now when since I removed all my "ignores". Joe