Overclocking chips usually requires running them at higher voltages then
normal,
which will shorten the lifespan of the chip, which could mean that instead
of working for 6-10 years
it might burnout after 4 years.
Or overclocking could shorten the CPUs lifespan to working only for several
months.
I'm sure someone has had an overclocked chip burnout after only a few weeks.
You also could spend hours tweaking to get just a few extra MHz out of a
CPU.
You also spend $60 for a Zalman cooler, which is money you could have just
spent on a faster CPU.
And I'm sure there are a few 805 Ds that will never overclock to 4.0 GHz.
When my D 805 and Asus P5P800SE arrive this week, I'll be happy if it
overclocks to 3.6 GHz and with the stock cooler.

"Chalky" wrote in message
...
Please review the following before responding:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/05/..._41_ghz_cores/

I am thinking about building a new PC from scratch--it would be my first
self built machine. Can anyone explain to me in plain english what the
downside of using the 805 D and overclocking it up near 4.0 GHz would be?
The X2 athalon chips would be within my budget, but the tomshardware 805
setup looks like it out performs them if done right. But, what would I not
be getting with the 805? What is the tradeoff? Based on tomshardware, it
seems that the 805 overclock would require a lot more power, but does that
have implications other than needing a bigger power supply? Is it more
expensive to run in terms of electricity? I'd like to leave it on all the
time.

I'm not really a techie and would appreciate a plain english explanation.
Thanks a bunch!

Chalky, J.D.