Slashdot Mirror
Bypassing Intel's Overclock Limit Reveals DDR2-667
BatonRogue writes "Slashdot posted a Tomshardware article talking about Intel's 10% overclock limit on their new chipsets not too long ago. The situation has just become even more interesting. AnandTech just posted a roundup of DDR2 memory that sheds some light as to why Intel may have implemented the lock. It seems that on the Abit board they tested, which supposedly bypasses the overclock limit, the first generation of DDR2-533 memory modules had no problems working at 667MHz. Could it be that Intel is keeping DDR2-667 support for yet another revision of their new chipsets even though the memory support is clearly here today?"
I seem to recall last week almost the exact same posting, however it was using AMD's name rather than Intel.
Anyone got any intel on that? (-;
Mike
Gamblers Forum
Intel reliability standards call for infant mortality less than 500 units per million and a service life of 7-10 years depending on product. The goals of overclockers are very different.
Ever heard of a schmoo? It a contour graph of what frequencies a part will work at at a given voltage and frequency (and that's only at one set temperature). Ofthen is is very blob like and can have holes of instability or islands of stability. You need to pick product offerings that not only yield well, but are far enough on any contour line from the schmoo that you can test the part at a few values of voltage and frequency with confidence. Tester time is a bottleneck, and Intel test more than anyone else.
Yes, downbinning occurs for marketing reasons, but generally for economy products. Believe me, Intel and every company fights for yields at the top bin for every flagship product. Even when downbinning occurs, it is done to match actual yield to orders, not out of any desire to hold back.
So you can beleive the last three paragraphs or you can believe that Intel is being forced to slow the rate of product advangement by the Carlye Group. It's up to you.