🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:51:26 +0000, Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> spouted:
>Which means meeting demand. They will label a chip as a lower spec than
>it *could* be run at if that's what they are short of. 

But that's the risk you take, isn't it? No one is suggesting that
overclock is risk free - you simply move the trade-off point slightly
further along the line from 'Total reliability' towards 'Ultimate
speed'. You don't know whether you've got a chip that's faster than its
label and is now running at its proper rated speed, or one that is going
to turn into a small but expensive firework.

I would regard, say, a home system as a much more suitable candidate
for overclocking than a commercial server. Especially since, in the
commercial server case, it's someone else's money you're spending ;>

JM "Or you could just pop the whole box in the fridge and cut a small
grommeted hole in the door for the power and ethernet cables" Y