🚀 go-pugleaf

mikerios@ix.netcom.com (Michael Rios ) wrote:

>In <rodthompDCoBDA.6Fr@netcom.com> rodthomp@netcom.com (Roderick
>Thompson) writes: 
>>
>>T&thee (smiteq@gil.ipswichcity.qld.gov.au) wrote:
>>: Over running the DMA 
>>: clock WILL result in premature failure... The board will fry itself.

>Most modern boards allow you to set the DMA clock independently
OK... TELL ME PLEASE HOW YOU DO THIS WITHOUT SPECIAL SOFTWARE.
>>: The second problem is the increased heat generated by a CPU running
>25% faster 

>When you put a heat-sink/fan on them, they run *way* cooler than
>factory spec, even if overclocked.
I AGREE BUT THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE ATTEMPTED TO PLAY DOWN ANY COSTS
OTHER THAN FOR THE CRYSTAL... FANS ARE NOT FREE WITH CRYSTALS.
>>: As I understand the Chip selection process, slow CPU chips have
>failed factory 
>>: testing at higher speeds...

>Not even close.  Chips marked with a lower speed in most cases were
>never tested at higher speeds.  
SO TELL US PLEASE WHERE YOU GOT THIS INFORMATION... MINE CAME FROM
INTEL IN 1989 AND FROM AMD IN 1993.

>...fill outstanding orders. If a batch of chips would run at 50, but most
>of the orders are for 20, they'll get marked 20.  Recently Intel ran
>out of 486sx33's.  So they took a bunch of sx25's, and remarked them. 
>The -25 is in the center, the -33 at the bottom.  They sent a letter
>saying that these chips were in every way equal to ones that were
>marked -33 to begin with.  Of course, we knew that; we'd been running
>25's and 33's at 40 MHz for years!  In all that time, we had three
>-25's and one -33 that wouldn't clock up to 40 stably.  And we've never
>had one fail in the field.  (we're talking hundreds, maybe thousands of
>units).
WHO IS WE? 
IN QUEENSLAND THERE WAS A COMPANY CALLED DATAQUIP WHO WERE FORCED OUT
OF BUSINESS IN 1995 BY THE CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT AND MUCH TV
PUBLICITY FOR SUBSTITUTING 25 AND 50 MHz CPU's FOR 33 AND 66 MHz ONES.
HAVE YOU BEEN DOING THIS TOO?
> This is to say all chips have a manufactured 
>>: "speed target".

>Nope.  They make them, & then see how many pass at the speed they need
>to fill existing orders.
CAN YOU SUBSTANCIATE THIS STATMENT?
>>: Those that fail say: a 33 Mhz set of tests may see life as a 
>>: 25 Mhz chip

>this would apply to a very small # of chips.  The vast majority are
>never *tested* at a speed higher than the mark.

>Think of the speed mark as a warranty, not as a technical spec.  If it
>doesn't pass that speed they'll replace it.


> and those 33s with a faulty FPU might perform as a 25Mhz SX.

>Not anymore.  Witness the slaughter of the early Pentiums, which have
>been ground to dust.  Why didn't they just mark them as "SX", and sell
>them at half price?

BECAUSE PENTIUM BOARD MAKERS NEVER DESIGNED IN A "TURBO" SWITCH OR
FACILITIES FOR DISABLING THE FPU... THAT'S WHY AND THIS INFORMATION
CAME FROM INTEL TOO!



Regards from,

Doug Smith...........SMITEQ is a computer service company.