🚀 go-pugleaf

Dean Kent <dkent@realworldtech.com> wrote in
message news:uSzvFNdj#GA.258@cpmsnbbsa05...

> Some manufacturers have changed their
> stance on overclocking, while others have not.

Yep, so both Robert and 'Dufus' got it wrong with their 'most'

> Abit was the first to embrace overclocking because
> they were (and still are) a relatively small manufacturer.

Or because they could see that there was a market niche not being that well
supplied, particularly with the move to automatic config for the cpu in the bios
and they could see that they might well be able to supply that niche market.

> Offering something to overclockers gave them a niche.

It did indeed.

> FIC has picked up on this and now caters to overclockers too.

Yep. So the 'most' claim is a complete dud. In practice is a small minority.

> Interestingly, both have relatively high RMA rates.

Nothing at all surprising about that. Devices have specs for a reason. You
choose to operate outside the specs, that inevitably produces that outcome.

> ASUS put 83MHz on their P55T2P4, but backed
> away when Intel put pressure on them.

You dont know that was the reason they backed away. The real
reason is that while there are some cpus that use that speed within
specs, on the whole the chipsets werent rated for that speed, so its not
at all surprising that it didnt produce very satisfactory results, particularly
if something isnt done about driving the PCI and integrated peripherals
at the clock speeds they are rated at when that 83MHz is used.

Its a lot simpler to just not support 83MHz, particularly when its only
a small minority of cpus that actually need it, and then you dont get all
the howls of rage from users who dont find the total system is reliable.

> Later, when other manufacturers were making money
> on it, the pressure was apparently relieved and ASUS
> has begun offering higher bus speeds again.

What actually happened is that chipsets provided more viable
support for the higher speeds. And higher than 83MHz too.

> AOpen originally put the higher bus speeds on, but didn't officially support it.

They werent alone on that approach.

> Now they are beginning to embrace overclocking as they say
> the increase in RMAs is not as high as they thought it would be.

Whatever 'embrace' is supposed to mean.

> M Tech unofficially supported overclocking,

No such animal as 'unofficially supported'

> and now Soyo seems to be offering overclockable boards.

Depends entirely on how you define overclockable.
What you actually mean is that they do support speeds
like 83MHz which arent necessarily used for overclocking.

> All of these manufacturers have relatively low RMA rates.

All an entirely separate issue to what was being discussed.

> Gigabyte, Tyan and Supermicro still don't support overclocking and
> only provied the 'officially supported' bus speeds on their boards.

So the original claim that most manufacturers
support overclocking is just plain wrong.

> The other manufacturers I don't have any info about (never dealt with them).

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Robert <Nolde@wantree.com.au> wrote

>>> dont try and argue with rod
>>> it only makes it worse

>> Specially when you've completely mangled what you originally
>> said. Rule of Holes, when you are in one, stop digging.

>> You've both completely mangled the story
>> on manufacturers support for overclocking.

>>> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>>>> Dufus <cinc@loser.hempseed.com> wrote

>>>>> Rod, stop doing that to people.

>>>> Dufus, stop trying to order me about. You'll just get told bluntly what you
>>>> can do with your orders. Something to do with where the sun dont shine.

>>>>> Others make mistakes I admit I did, "generalizations."

>>>> Your problem. With these tech newsgroups, its important that misinformation
>>>> is pointed out when its seen. Otherwise it rapidly turns into gospel if you dont.

>>>>> Most MB documentation don't come with higher
>>>>> clock speed setting like when Socket 7 boards could
>>>>> do 83Mhz, they could go to the website to get it.

>>>> Still wrong on the most. And nothing to do with overclocking,
>>>> some cpus need 83MHz when run within specs.

>>>>> Most manufacturers put it on their website and have a notice
>>>>> of no liability because they don't want users that don't know what
>>>>> they are doing to start rigging and have to call their Tech support.

>>>> Still wrong on the most and overclocking.

>>>>> Seriously wouldn't u be pretty pissed if u sold some1
>>>>> something and they misused it and ask for technical support?

>>>> Taint misuse to use 83MHz with a cpu
>>>> thats designed to use that within specs.

>>>>> I mean it would look bad if u didn't offer then technical
>>>>> support and hang up but they misuse voids the warantee...

>>>> You aint actually established that its necessarily misuse to use 83MHz.

>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Robert <Nolde@wantree.com.au> wrote

>>>>>>>> Most prefer their system wasnt
>>>>>>>> overclocked, too much hassle for them.

>>>>>>> well most boards come with information on overclocking

>>>>>> That's just plain wrong.

>>>>>>> my aopen board tells has an example of a
>>>>>>> good overclocking configuration incl with it

>>>>>> Doesnt qualify as 'most boards'

>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Robert <Nolde@wantree.com.au> wrote

>>>>>>>>> ive noticed only abit motherboards have the voltage selection in
>>>>>>>>> the bios do they have some sort of deal with intel or somthing?

>>>>>>>> Nope, they've just chosen to offer that
>>>>>>>> extra, hoping to attract overclockers.

>>>>>>>>> why dont other manufacturers do this?

>>>>>>>> Most prefer their system wasnt
>>>>>>>> overclocked, too much hassle for them.

>>>>>>>>> as abit is getting a lot of the market share
>>>>>>>>> (of overclockers) because they have this feature.

>>>>>>>> Yes, but they have always been a tiny part of the whole market.