'Augustus' wrote:
And this was X-posted to the Nvidia and ATI videocard group for what
reason? Because PC's have vieocards in them?
_____

Because the original poster didn't dare post in overclocking newsgroups
where the contents would be evaluated. For example why boost VTT in the
first place? After all, the stated CPU Clock rate is only 453 MHz, just a
53 MHz / 400 MHz = 13% boost above the stock clock for the Intel X48 1600
MHz specified FSB (plenty of Intel chipset motherboards NOT specified for
1600 MHz FSB operation will operate at that speed without VTT boosts.) And
the sample is quantity one for the original post. And the original post is
both unsigned AND in a forum. And the added comments by the original poster
for this thread have even less provenance.

Phil Weldon

"Augustus" wrote in message
news:ih6Rj.2697$XI1.845@edtnps91...

"John Lewis" wrote in message
...
See the following sad story:-

http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=428

Even if you use voltages nowhere as extreme as the Anandtech
reviewers, you may still be contributing to a longer-term
early-failure. These hafnium-gate devices may be a lot less
accommodating of overstress than previous gate technology. It would be
very wise to respect Intel's recommended voltage maximums and let
other 'guinea-pigs' ( or those with lots of spare cash) fill in the
MTBF vs voltage profiles of 45nm processors..

John Lewis

And this was X-posted to the Nvidia and ATI videocard group for what
reason? Because PC's have vieocards in them?