[i]First, consider the economic side. For all of the special efforts and costs needed to cool down, test, and monitor an overclocked CPU, you could just buy a couple more for the same speedup effect.[/i]
No you cannot buy another CPU for the same speedup effect. A system of two slower CPUs is not equal to a system of one fast.
[i]The design question leads to the second point. Building a modern CPU is not a hobby for amateurs. It is an incredibly complicated device involving the efforts of large teams of very clever people using very fancy design tools. No one person could even know all the details of a modern CPU. Far too many details. They may know some of the higher level features, or know a lot of detail about a tiny section, but no one really understands all of it. However, they are doing the best they can to insure that it will work reliably, and that includes MANY design considerations that are related to the clock speed.
[/i]
So in what way is that related to this test? Sure, I don't know anything about the architecture of my AMD XP 2500+ but that doesn't stop me from running it perfectly stable at the same speed as 3200+. A chip that cost $400 when I bought my 2500+ for $100. I bought a $400 dollar product for $100. There is no other way of seeing it. It's not stupid or insane.
[i]So back to my main conclusion: Overclocking is a fantasy of the DIY tinkerer "beating" the experts. Actually, it's nice when it happens, but overclocking is NOT one of those cases. The overclockers fantacize about some form of "delivering more bang for the buck", but they are competing directly against professionals with the same goal. The pros win, especially in Intel's case where their development costs per CPU are almost negligible.[/i]
I'll make this very easy for you:
Buy 2.4 ghz CPU. Run it at 3.0 ghz with stock cooling.
Buy 3.0 ghz CPU for more money.
Which one delivers most "bang for the buck". Certainly not the overpriced 3.0 ghz CPU. As you yourself said: The production cost per CPU is very low... and yet they sell the fastest chips at such a high price compared to the middle segment.
Since when is Intel's goal to deliver the "most bang for the buck". Last time I checked intel's goal was to earn money.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes the post looks like crap. I'm not used to having to use html tags instead of [ ].
[i]First, consider the economic side. For all of the special efforts and costs needed to cool down, test, and monitor an overclocked CPU, you could just buy a couple more for the same speedup effect.[/i] No you cannot buy another CPU for the same speedup effect. A system of two slower CPUs is not equal to a system of one fast. [i]The design question leads to the second point. Building a modern CPU is not a hobby for amateurs. It is an incredibly complicated device involving the efforts of large teams of very clever people using very fancy design tools. No one person could even know all the details of a modern CPU. Far too many details. They may know some of the higher level features, or know a lot of detail about a tiny section, but no one really understands all of it. However, they are doing the best they can to insure that it will work reliably, and that includes MANY design considerations that are related to the clock speed. [/i] So in what way is that related to this test? Sure, I don't know anything about the architecture of my AMD XP 2500+ but that doesn't stop me from running it perfectly stable at the same speed as 3200+. A chip that cost $400 when I bought my 2500+ for $100. I bought a $400 dollar product for $100. There is no other way of seeing it. It's not stupid or insane. [i]So back to my main conclusion: Overclocking is a fantasy of the DIY tinkerer "beating" the experts. Actually, it's nice when it happens, but overclocking is NOT one of those cases. The overclockers fantacize about some form of "delivering more bang for the buck", but they are competing directly against professionals with the same goal. The pros win, especially in Intel's case where their development costs per CPU are almost negligible.[/i] I'll make this very easy for you: Buy 2.4 ghz CPU. Run it at 3.0 ghz with stock cooling. Buy 3.0 ghz CPU for more money. Which one delivers most "bang for the buck". Certainly not the overpriced 3.0 ghz CPU. As you yourself said: The production cost per CPU is very low... and yet they sell the fastest chips at such a high price compared to the middle segment. Since when is Intel's goal to deliver the "most bang for the buck". Last time I checked intel's goal was to earn money.