3 ms·
That's good, isn't it? I don't want the factory leaving performance on the table.
by stavros 1y ago
That's good, isn't it? I don't want the factory leaving performance on the table.
- bell-cot 1y agoDepends on your priorities. That "performance on the table" might also be called "engineering safety factor for stability".
- stavros 1y agoGiven that there used to be plenty of room to overclock the cores while still keeping them stable, I think it was more "performance on the table".
- formerly_proven 1y agoYou could also get the idea that vendors sometimes make strange decisions which increase neither performance nor reliability. For example, various brands of motherboards are / were known to basically blow up AMD CPUs when using AMP/XMP, with the root cause being that they jacked an uncore rail way up. Many people claimed they did this to improve stability, but overclockers now that that rail has a sweet spot for stability and they went way beyond it (so much so that the actual silicon failed and burned a hole in itself with some low-ish probability).
- makeitdouble 1y agoTBF using more conservative energy profiles will bring stability and safety. To that effect in Windows the default profile effectively debuffs the CPU and most people will be fine that way.
- therein 1y agoSo now you're saying just accept the fact that they come pushed past their limits, and the limits are misrepresented. Factory configuration runs them faster than they could in a stable fashion. That sounds terrible.
- devnullbrain 1y agoYep. Redundancy and headroom are antonyms of efficiency.
- topspin 1y agoI do. I've been buying Intel for the same reason as the author: I build machines that don't have glitches and mysterious failures and driver issues and all the rest of the garbage one sees PC assemblers inflict on themselves. Make conservative choices and leave ample headroom and you get a solid machine with no problems. I've never overclocked anything and I've never felt I've missed out in any way. I really can't imagine spending even one minute trying to squeeze 5% or whatnot tweaking voltages and dealing with plumbing and roaring fans. I want to use the machine, not hotrod it. I would rather Intel et al. leave a few percent "on the table" and sell things that work, for years on end without failure and without a lot of care and feeding. Lately it looks like a crapshoot trying to identify components that don't kill themselves.
- stavros 1y agoSo underclock your CPU.
- topspin 1y agoBecause I'm not a CPU engineer, and neither are you. Neither of us can claim anything about fucking around with CPU clocks and voltages or anything else about any of this. If you want to screw around in BIOS settings and learn where all the sharp edges are and spend your time like this, enjoy. I've never done this nonsense and I never will.
- stavros 1y agoI know enough to tweak the "voltage" slider down a few numbers, and that's enough to get more stability. Otherwise, I vote with my wallet, and don't buy CPUs that break, which is why companies don't generally make CPUs that break.
- dahauns 1y ago>which is why companies don't generally make CPUs that break. Well, that's the issue, isn't it? Both Intel and AMD (resp. their board partners) had issues in recent times stemming from the increasingly aggressive push to the limit for those last few %.