4 ms·
Except that a non-overclockable CPU isn't a lower quality one. In fact, they may be sold cheaper to the OEM because they are less likely to be overclockable.
by jonny_eh 3y ago
Except that a non-overclockable CPU isn't a lower quality one. In fact, they may be sold cheaper to the OEM because they are less likely to be overclockable.
- Scoundreller 3y ago> non-overclockable CPU isn't a lower quality one Generally, it did mean this. If we are to believe that Intel largely made the same CPU, and "binned" their processors into different speeds based on what they were stable at. And locked their multipliers to speeds that they'll be reliable at (lower quality = lower multiplier). But one could still set the bus speed to whatever they liked, and the retail boxed chips handled this better. There would also be a market demand factor to it. If they got a large order for 266MHz chips, they'd lock them at the multipler for that, even if they could handle 300 or 333 MHz. (Part of the rumour for some Celeron chips was that they were the same die but a fraction of the cache, so "Pentium" chips produced with a cache defect could have that section locked out and labelled a Celeron) Nowadays, CPUs can often throttle themselves, so this binning wasn't as necessary to mitigate batch to batch variation.
- whaleofatw2022 3y ago> Part of the rumour for some Celeron chips Not a rumor. Starting with Coppermine, Celerons were Binned P3s. Same die size and all. Interestingly, AMD did not typically do the same for the Duron (with one or two exceptions). My understanding at the time was their dies had extra cache to handle defects without full binning.