Overclocking is stealing

[Zap]

Originally posted by: AdamK47
Funny thread is funny.

Department of Redundancy Department

Intel owes me some money for my E5200 running at 1.2GHz in my server.

 

[drizek]

AMD owes me some money for my XP 2800+ running at 0mhz in my closet.

 

[n7]

srs thread is srs :Q

 

[justinm]

Oh snap! I wonder if there will be an RIAA type organization for overclocked CPUs?? $22000 for every megahertz stolen

 

[imported_Shaq]

The more you steal from Intel/AMD the more money goes to the power company. So actually you're money laundering and this thread constitutes a conspiracy. You have all been warned!

Edit: oops and my sig is just a cover. I don't even have a PC. hehe

 

[Shmee]

ah, many lolz.

we better get dancing stalin and become .communists!!!

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Shmee
ah, many lolz.

we better get dancing stalin and become .communists!!!

Nooblink.

 

[Shmee]

ya, apparently we cant post images :C

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Eureka
You have a point. And remember, trying to use an OCed chip as if it was stock is like pretending that a mp3 rip is as good as a CD. In reality if you want full quality you have to pay the full price, or else you're getting lossy, muffled, staticy benchmarks.

huh? no that's not true at all, a an overclocked cpu is exactly the same when running at the speeds of a faster cpu in the same line at stock. If a x3 710 is running @ the same speeds as an x3 -720, then its the same cpu, there's no difference in benchmarks.

 

[Eureka]

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Eureka
You have a point. And remember, trying to use an OCed chip as if it was stock is like pretending that a mp3 rip is as good as a CD. In reality if you want full quality you have to pay the full price, or else you're getting lossy, muffled, staticy benchmarks.

huh? no that's not true at all, a an overclocked cpu is exactly the same when running at the speeds of a faster cpu in the same line at stock. If a x3 710 is running @ the same speeds as an x3 -720, then its the same cpu, there's no difference in benchmarks.

While I'm trying to be in line with the spirit of the thread, I'd actually say it's not the same. Because you have to push your chip to match that of a higher binned chip, that higher binned chip should still be able to go further... and the fuzzy thing actually comes from an *IAA argument about how digital copies are never the equivalent of a CD (somebody apparently never heard of flac, either).

Although what's really funny is that there are plenty of people taking this thread seriously.

 

[djnsmith7]

Funny thread...<Currently enjoying my OC'd machines>.

 

[richierich1212]

If AMD didn't want us to overclock then why release black edition processors??

 

[BladeVenom]

If the RIAA/MPAA made processors, would all be sued and the penalty for overclocking would worse than for homicide.

 

[LoneNinja]

Even if i couldn't overclock my 940BE, I wouldn't have replaced it with a 955 or 965. In no way would it be worth the cost.

 

[zagood]

should have posted this over in PC Gaming.

 

[Kenmitch]

More like getting what you paid for

Not our fault Intel and AMD decide to muster the chips with lo FSB and high multipliers.

Look at the e5200's at stock speed it's almost a waist of silicone....But intel has pretty much
had at least one cheap highly overclockable chip for us to play with

Or maybe it's a form of silicone beta testing....Hmmm

 

[Zoomer]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
If the RIAA/MPAA made processors, would all be sued and the penalty for overclocking would worse than for homicide.

It would be like:

(overclocked mhz/stock mhz) * (length of overclock in minutes) + (INTEGER.MAX) = DAMAGES!

 

[Jimbo]

For while there, I thought I was back in 1997.

As funny as it sounds, there were people and manufactures trying to make that very argument that overclocking was theft and was the moral equivalent to stealing.

 

[Axon]

JUST GOT MY I7 920 TO 9.8 GHZ INTEL HAS CONTACTED THE AUTHORITIES

 

[cmdrdredd]

Blame the motherboard manufacturers they enable it in the bios. Don't shoot us for using it lol.

I often thought about this though, why have the i7 975 for $999 when you could buy a 920 and get it to 4.2Ghz and pay about $300.

I guess there's always some moneybags willing to pay $1k for a CPU to say "I have teh fastestest CPU you can buy!"

 

[Ben90]

Originally posted by: Eureka

Originally posted by: poohbear

Originally posted by: Eureka
You have a point. And remember, trying to use an OCed chip as if it was stock is like pretending that a mp3 rip is as good as a CD. In reality if you want full quality you have to pay the full price, or else you're getting lossy, muffled, staticy benchmarks.

huh? no that's not true at all, a an overclocked cpu is exactly the same when running at the speeds of a faster cpu in the same line at stock. If a x3 710 is running @ the same speeds as an x3 -720, then its the same cpu, there's no difference in benchmarks.

While I'm trying to be in line with the spirit of the thread, I'd actually say it's not the same. Because you have to push your chip to match that of a higher binned chip, that higher binned chip should still be able to go further... and the fuzzy thing actually comes from an *IAA argument about how digital copies are never the equivalent of a CD (somebody apparently never heard of flac, either).

Although what's really funny is that there are plenty of people taking this thread seriously.

Definitely not true with the c0 920's, a huge lot of them were going faster than the 965's were (like ~50%), basically the yields were so good intel didn't really give a crap which processor was binned where... i think they KINDA changed it a little bit with the d0 stepping, i remember reading somewhere that they actually hand picked the 975's out from the 920's, that doesn't stop the other 920's from overclocking like mad beasts though

Either way to add my $.02 to this supah srs thread:

If intel/amd wanted people to stop overclocking their chips they would just set a hard limit to the maxium bclock (or whatever it may be) the chips could run at before not functioning... Its been discussed before, things were different in the past, but now these companies are almost using overclocking as a marketing tool *cough* AMD *cough*

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: Jimbo
For while there, I thought I was back in 1997.

As funny as it sounds, there were people and manufactures trying to make that very argument that overclocking was theft and was the moral equivalent to stealing.

Back then they were ripping off the CPU manufacturer. Since there weren't any multiplier locks, retailers would take a lower clocked CPU and sell them as higher clocked ones. Change a few things stamped onto the CPU and nobody could tell the difference.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: richierich1212
If AMD didn't want us to overclock then why release black edition processors??

they don't hire black people so they make black processors instead

 

[Idontcare]

thread took an unexpected turn there

 

[BushLin]

Indeed, I didn't find that funny, true or relevant in any case.