3 ms·
One argument used to be that there's always manufacturing tolerances that you can exploit to your advantage. However, those tolerances were in many cases optimi
by codeflo 3y ago
One argument used to be that there's always manufacturing tolerances that you can exploit to your advantage. However, those tolerances were in many cases optimized out of the process by better binning -- if a particular CPU reliably worked at a higher clock speed, it would simply be sold at a higher speed.
But also, whether a chip is actually stable at settings X or Y has become a lot harder to determine due to complexity: multicore architectures, frequency scaling and power management in general make it hard to predict how a chip will behave under real conditions. It has become unrealistic for a user to test all cores under all possible combinations of workloads. Consequently, and from anecdotal experience at least, many overclocked systems seem a lot less stable than their owners claim.
- DeathArrow 3y ago>But also, whether a chip is actually stable at settings X or Y has become a lot harder to determine due to complexity There are many good software for stress testing CPUs and GPUs. Just run AIda64 or OCCP stress tests for a long time and you are good to go if no problems arise. If there are problems, you redo the settings and run the tests again.
- codeflo 3y agoI think that's naive, or let's say oversimplified. There are too many cases where systems pass these tests and then fail in real-world scenarios, sometimes quickly. There's simply no way that a specific set of software routines can guarantee that a processor behaves in spec.