🚀 go-pugleaf

Some more thoughts...

Attributions all malformed but it's the flow of ideas that counts:


In article <815684051snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
           David@longley.demon.co.uk "David Longley" writes:

> 
> However, my question (fear) remains - what is to stop someone selling
> a 90MHz chip as a 120? The QEMM ID seems useless if it just reads the
> bus and clock speed. Why not have an internal ID??
> 
> -- 
> David Longley
> 
At the present moment, not much.  The actual rating is stamped on
the top of the chip, but many have heatsinks glued onto the top.
But Intel have not been ignoring the problem.  Come the newer
generation of VRM rated chips it will be impossible to over-clock
as the motherboard will ask the CPU what speed it wants to run at
and configure itself accordingly.  This is good news for some, but
not for those who wish to over-clock their CPU's.

--
Rajesh Varia     raj@c4rv.demon.co.uk


Now back to Wookie ( After consultation with Dan@Armari ):

I think it will still be easy enough to get around by 'hot wiring' the clock
generator IC to a fixed frequency, regardless of what the CPU asks for. I've
heard that Intel may attempt to provide a feed back in the next generation
Triton II chipset, but I don't think they will go that far. What would they
use for a frequency reference ?

At the end of the day, where there is the will, there will usually be a way !

Apart from that, Intel Motherboards might cooperate with CPU to set a clock
speed but there wouldn't be much inscentive for 3rd party developers to go
that way !

-- 
John Beardmore