Learn about the technologies behind the Internet with The TCP/IP Guide!|
NOTE: Using robot software to mass-download the site degrades the server and is prohibited. See here for more.
Find The PC Guide helpful? Please consider a donation to The PC Guide Tip Jar. Visa/MC/Paypal accepted.
|View over 750 of my fine art photos any time for free at DesktopScenes.com!|
Performance vs. Economics
People always say that the reason for overclocking is performance, but this isn't always strictly true as far as I am concerned. Many times, overclocking is not done for reasons of performance, but rather for reasons of economics. What is the distinction? In my mind, it has to do with the reason for the overclocking. In a nutshell, if the overclocking is being done to get performance that is not possible based on "official" technology, then the overclocking is truly for performance. But if the overclocking is being done in order to get the performance level of a cheaper processor up to the level of a more expensive, faster one, then it is really being done to save money, not improve performance.
Why bother with the distinction? Simply to point out that in many cases people are spending more money on overclocking than they are saving; they would be better off if they chose wiser ways to improve performance and save money. If you want a system that runs at 83 MHz because of the overall system speed boost this gives over one that runs at 66 MHz, I can understand at least what the motivation is. But when I see people spending hours trying to get Pentium 200s to run at 233 MHz, I have to ask myself: what exactly is the point here?
When someone tells you to buy a cheaper chip and overclock it to save money, ask yourself: "what am I really saving?" There are hidden costs that many novice overclockers aren't aware of until they begin (not even including the potential cost of buying a new chip if you accidentally destroy yours). Consider the following: