Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: Eureka
Originally posted by: ChaosDivine
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.
Wat?
OK, well your name lends me the idea that you play Warhammer 40K. Well think about it this way, you can always make your own WH40k figurines out of silly putty, but there is no way in hell that your army based off of $2 jars of silly putty will ever look anything as good as those nice $500 sets.
Flawed analogy. My Q9550 overclocked to 3.4Ghz is every bit as "high quality" and "long lasting" and "good" as a $1000 QX9770. There is nothing special about the QX9770 besides the unlocked multiplier. The silicon is the same quality, the processor is the same quality, everything is the same.
Do you really believe that, or is this continuing in the satirical spirit for which the thread exists? (honest question, I can't tell)
Perchance you believe what you posted, I have to ask if you are aware of the device physics involved that give rise to the existence of an IC's characteristic shmoo plot?
There are some testable consequences of what you posit in order for it to be true. For one thing in order for what you say to be true then all chips at a given clockspeed would have an identical VID and identical TDP.
Is this true? If it isn't, then why is it the case that chips end up binned with different VID's despite being binned out for the same clockspeed?
(
Socratic method)
This is my (basic) understanding of how processor clock speed and voltages are decided:
If Intel has 1000 chips produced and they need only 50 QX9770s(random numbers picked for this explanation) at whatever given voltage, they will test 50 chips for those specifications. If those 50 chips pass, then they won't test any more chips for QX9770 specifications. They will then test for the next model down to get enough chips for that processor model. That means that some chips might have been able to run at the QX9770 specifications but were never tested for it.
Let's assume the QX9770 runs at something like like 1.2 volts at 3.2Ghz. If Intel tests 120 Q9550s for 2.83Ghz at 1.2 volts and all they needed is 120 Q9550s, that's all they'll do. They don't test the the chips beyond the limits of what they are trying to get them to run at at the time. A Q9550 that passes testing for running at 2.83Ghz at 1.2 volts will be guaranteed to run at that clock speed but not guaranteed even a tiny bit higher. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't in fact the same silicon that can reach 3.2Ghz or maybe even higher on the same 1.2 volts. The consumer gets to figure that out if they so desire. This is all I'm saying. A Q9550 or a Q9650 could in fact be the same grade silicon as the QX9770. Of course something like a Q9550S is tested to even higher standards than the Q9550, but even that doesn't mean it's necessarily better, just that the guaranteed minimum is better.
To summarize, a 3.2Ghz 1.2 volt processor is not necessarily better than a 2.83Ghz 1.2 volt processor that was never tested for a higher clock speed. That 2.83Ghz processor just might clock as high at 1.2 volts as the 3.2Ghz one can. A 2.83Ghz 1.2 volt processor is better than a processor that couldn't reach 2.83Ghz without 1.25 volts though, I understand that.
I do understand that there are differing qualities in processors, and I suppose I shouldn't have made it sound like they are all the same. The poster I was quoting was implying that all $1000 processors are higher quality than all lower priced processors silicon wise. I was countering by saying(or attempting to) that it's in fact much more likely for a lower priced processor to be as good as the $1000 processor than not.(At least for the Core 2 line)