| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sammyc
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Posts: 1668
Location: Scottish Borders
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
So if the CPU's worked just aswell overclocked... the real cheaters were Intel?
_________________
4000+ chips.
4004-P4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
lots of effort to remark a 120 ->133 !
Back when I bought my first 486SX-33, it came with a heatsink bonded on very tight. I thought at the time " I hope this is a sx33! " ... I took the heatsink off (with great difficulty!!!) and it was a sx33. So back to these fake pentiums, maybe they didnt think of using that strong thermal bonding material ( like epoxy ) with a heatsink.
I disagree sammy.. we covered this in another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jd
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 1562
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
mmmmmmmmm .........man I would'nt get it past "them"(Intel)......
You just never know JAC what a CO is bound to do for some quick $$$.
Glin  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marcin
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 8519
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sammyc wrote: | | So if the CPU's worked just aswell overclocked... the real cheaters were Intel? |
 ... no comment ... of course not 
_________________
Visit ABC CPU - Virtual CPU Museum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anarchist
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marcin Majewski wrote: | | sammyc wrote: | | So if the CPU's worked just aswell overclocked... the real cheaters were Intel? |
... no comment ... of course not |
well, if the 120 could be overclocked to be similar to a 133, then the 133 could be overclocked to be even more capable. Couldn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAC
Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 3469
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anarchist wrote: | | well, if the 120 could be overclocked to be similar to a 133, then the 133 could be overclocked to be even more capable. Couldn't it? |
no, this doesnt always apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nikko
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Posts: 223
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sammyc wrote: | | So if the CPU's worked just aswell overclocked... the real cheaters were Intel? |
I would say somewhat, at least part of it. All the processor speed were marked by Intel after testing while they all come from the same silicon wafer. On one wafer, some dies can be runned at high frequency than others. It depends on Intel's testing critiria and marketing strategy. I would not call it cheating, tho, because:
1. You know how Intel CPU is made, before you bought it. No one forced you to or lied about it.
2. The stability is tested by Intel standard and backed by Intel.
The real cheater is who:
1. altered the appearance with questionable intention
2. overclocked it without proper testing stardard and tried to hide the fact that it's been overlocked by a third party.
3. did not provide any warranty of any kind after above had been done
4. made a profit by doing above
_________________
My Intel CPU Museum: http://www.mynikko.com/CPU/
My Intel CPU Trade List in English: http://www.mynikko.com/CPU/TradeListE.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![[ Hidden ]](https://cdn.cpu-world.com/forum/templates/CPUWorld/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}