You just further proved my point though....
Many who don't bother to read into the details buy whatever cheap parts they can find, throw it together and expect an easy 4.0GHz without doing any real work or tweaking.
If that is your point then I agree with you 100%.
I have done two totally simple overclocks in my life.
One was the dual CPU motherboard years ago that had (2) Celeron 300a's
that overclocked to 450 by moving a jumper or two.
The second is this E8600 I have running 4.1GHz at just over stock voltage, but
I still spent a week or so testing it and finding the sweet spot, which I probably
never even really found, since I am convinced this chip might do more. But, yes
even with such a simple overclock I spent time, testing, reading and posting.
I don't think every CPU is better than every one before it, and there have been
landmark chips, such as the 486-25, the Pentium-M Dothan, and Core 2 Duo.
I don't know if anything Nehalem (Bloomfield or Lynnfield) is in the category of being
a landmark chip?
To me, the oddity is that people think they have a failure with a 920 @ 3.4GHz, and
they think they have a success with a 920 @ 4.0GHz+ which is not a lot of difference
in terms of computing power.
To spend time tinkering with an overclock is, for me, the norm.
But that's exactly my point. people buy these completely expecting to hit a certain clock without the knowledge or hardware to back it up. The only clock you should expect is stock.
That I don't agree with. A standard consumer buying a Dell or HP Nehalem should only expect stock, because that is probably the only BIOS option. A s/w overclock is all that is going to work for these folks.
But someone buying a 920 @ 2.66GHz and a known overclocking motherboard and known proper RAM knows that the chip is going to do 3.0GHz without a hiccup, and that is an overclock, albeit a small one. I have not read of anyone with a recent 920 that would not do 3.4 at reasonable voltage. It is that 600Mhz or .6GHz from 3.4 to 4.0 that determines if you
have a decent overclocking 920, and again, 3.4GHz from a chip rated 2.66GHz is not a bad overclock.
You are correct in that the consumer is only guaranteed 2.66GHz, but it is not going to bluescreen at stock voltage running 2.67GHz either!
Last edited: