Retail Q9650 Overclocking Thread

[CryptiK]

I'm glad that you finally see the lack of clear definition about the 'functional limits' in Intel's datasheet. But please, if Intel doesn't specify what it really means don't impose your own belief on it and call that what Intel states, like ths quote:

Ok fair enough, I shouldn't have said "that's what intel state". I should have said "that's what it appears to mean in my opinion".

The situation here is you have actively created a rumor and I have been trying to stop it as soon as it is being created. At this point, I'm glad to see that you finally begin to change your tone through my objective inquiries. Earlier you made a claim of your self-invented 'safety range' as stated by Intel (without any proof), now you back down and imply that's your own approximate guideline. That's a progress. Looks like my job is almost done here. After all, nobody is opposed to personal opinion in a public forum as long as the poster doesn't mislead the public by strongly suggesting the unproven opinion is as good as cold hard fact.

So it's your 'job' to quash 'rumors'? Interesting reason to frequent a forum. No, I have not created a rumor. A rumor is not a rumor until misinformation has been passed between multiple individuals/circulates from person to person. I made a statement that you disagree with. If you are going to be descriptive at least be accurate. Hypocrisy and exaggeration will not help you here. While I'm taking my basic EE classes, you might like to take some classes of your own, after which you may be able to communicate more clearly.

Getting technical is quite welcome here. But please don't elude the conversation to other irrelevant subjects any more than you have done, especially since you appeared so guilty of derailing the thread. The functional range in question is not about Vcc and its transient load tolerance, and your illustrated figure along with the quoted footnote under table 2-4 are in fact telling the motherboard designers how to supply and maintain proper Vcc level according to each chip's VID within the specified tolerance in the table/figure. It says nothing about a chip's functional limits so stop distorting Intel's statements. Just because you can copy down a few technical terms here doesn't mean you really understand what you are posting, so I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any further than you already did. And I am saying this in your interest.

"So please don't elude the conversation to other relevant subjects" doesn't quite make sense. If you do mean "elude" then no, I did not escape the conversation to other topics (I actually drew a relevant topic into the conversation), and if you mean "allude", which makes somewhat more sense, what I referenced was relevant and I am well within my rights to do so. If you want to avoid embarrassment yourself, speaking properly and making sense whilst making criticisms would be a start.

The Vcc vs Icc figure note "Adherence to this loadline specification is required to ensure reliable processor operation", to me, appears to echo the earlier statement of "Within functional operation limits, functionality and long-term reliability can be expected". I didn't say that was a fact, I said it was my opinion, which I believe you said earlier was welcome. So what, before it was, and now it's not?

Sigh. You're so helplessly clueless.

Seriously, if you're so interested in silicon technology go take some fundamental EE courses in your local college. It will help give you some credibility next time you speak. Oh wait, I'm not so sure......

Okay, I finally get you to admit that all is but your own opinion. Good.

But then, what happens to your previous claim, that the functional limit is a hard "1.3625v no ifs or buts"? So now you're saying, the functional limit is bounded by each chip's VID, which are typically 1.250v, 1.225v, and 1.200v, etc.? Wow, what a change of your opinion a day makes! Ok just so you're not confused, this is actually not a question for you to "clarify" (i.e. confuse) anymore, as it proves that there's absolutely no need to, but a question for the public to see what kind of poster you are.

Again, I made those statements for which you call me "helplessly clueless" and clearly said they were my opinion, which in your own words, I'm entitled to have. What a difference to your opinion 2 minutes makes.

As I said earlier, I made that statement as a short answer to give a guideline (made with interpretation or not) to a guy asking for an approximate safe upper limit.

I think it's in everyone's best interests if we leave this here. There is nothing more to be gained from further discussion.