- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Location
- Coventry Rhode Island
There is no problem running at 133 instead of 166 but remember that you are 600mhz slower than before you started! This will help you save processor life but thy last so long this is a mute issue
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Overvolting does not increase overclocking potential by giving our hardware "more juice" or "more fuel".
When we increase our voltage high value (overvolting), we force the signal/voltage to reach a higher voltage high, but in the same amount of time as before. We stretch out the ‘range of motion’ (the difference between VSS and VCORE), but we leave the transition time alone. The result is that it takes considerably less time for the signal to switch from VSS to a VCORE that is within transistor tolerance – this accommodates our faster switching frequency, and keeps our overclocked signal switching frequency strong (stable) and within transistor tolerance.
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but isn't there something wrong with this explanation?
The above passage is claiming that with a higher VCORE ("When we increase our voltage high value", voltage high has been definied as VCORE), the signal takes less time to switch from VSS to VCORE.
From what I have gathered by reading through, VSS to VCORE has been analogized to be a distance, so if the distance is increased between VSS to VCORE how would a higher VCORE result in a lower time allowed for the runner to reach VCORE from VSS within tolerance since the time allowed for the transition to occur is said to remain the same ("we leave the transition time alone")?
The only way I see this working out is if he meant that increasing VCORE allows the T (period for VSS to VCORE) to be lowered, forcefully increasing the speed of the runner (frequency of processor).
Any clarification appreciated.