if it was possible to add a couple of hundred mhz to CPUs by putting special voltages through them and changing the molecular structure, don't you think that the silicon companies would have figured it out by now rather than it being a myth, seeing as they always pursue extra performance?
Regardless as to whether or not they're aware of it, it's probably not a technique that's viable for mass production. Let's not forget here that the vast majority of computers are sold to end up in the hands of everyday people who really only want stability and a reasonable speed.
maybe they have, and they've been using it to make their better cpu's...
eg, u buy a athlon 3200, and pay the extra £20. little do you know, uve actually gone and bought a 3000 which has been clocked up and burned in
except you can look at the chip itself or use something like cpu-z will tell you what you're running
well duhh!!!
i mean, the 3200 could have exactly the same stuff inside as the 3000, but the changed the multiplyier to 10, and burned it in. changed the model info data, and there u go!!
"is CPU burn in nonsense?" - Yes. Though it gives people who like to fiddle something to do, cf running in new motors. And yes, I was someone who would religiously burn in a new cpu back in the day.
What we share with everyone is glum, and dark...
if that was part of the manufacturing process, then someone in the past 10 years would have reported it as actually existing in fact, rather like the Loch Ness monster. Perhaps the Loch Ness monster exists . A lot of people go to lock ness to find the monster too.Originally Posted by hsncool
I really doubt very much that chip manufacturers waste time and money 'burning chips in' for a few hundred mhz and a small price increase. It's much cheaper to just make loads of them and speed bin them rather than wasting god knows how many hours and how much power doing the 'burn in'
And it's only ever been anecdotal that it works, a few voices on the internet claiming it worked for them, far from scientific.
"You've gotta laugh when you fall off a sofa!"
Well I have used it in the past many years ago and it did work for me. Of course the feature sizes and materials used in modern CPUs are all different now so the technique may no longer work. The fact that I couldn't even tell you which CPU I saw the effect on shows how long ago it was
Ive never burnt a CPU in. I honestly dont beileve it serves any purpose except waste my time.
I just put a new CPU in and if it boots into windows, then I immediately start overclocking. Probably within a minute of first turning it on. I did it with my current cpu.
What does "burn in" is the heatsink, or rather the arctic silver or what have you. As this means somewhat better cooling it may well lead to a small increase in OC ability.
It's a myth in overclocking circles that running a CPU with a maximum load for a day or two will 'stretch' the silicon die and let you overclock it if further without the dreaded electro-migration problem destabilising the core. A pretty stupid one considering CPUs are solid state.
Yup. Pads on retail processors and the Artic Cooler series certainly take a while to burn in.
Most processors, especially the low end ones, are more than capable of reaching higher clock speeds than their default speed and thats exactly why OCing is possible.
Therefore an A64 3000+ is the same as a 3200+ but the 3000+ is sold at the slower speed so they can charge less and so cater for the budget end of the market, where most of the market is.
Not sure if that made sense lol
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Yah it did indeed.
Basically intel & amd have one manufacturing line. They will then speed bin processors to find those capable of certain speeds under the most harsh conditions customers may use a pc in. But chances are that there will be more cpu's capable of top clock speeds than there is demand for and these find there way down into the lower models with multiplier locks in place to prevent their sale as higher end models.
So that 3000+ may be a cpu that failed testing at the top available clock speed under the max usable temp amd claim it will work at, using a good cooling setup will probably still allow it to clock higher than stock though.
It may also be a cpu that passed testing for much higher speed, but market demand for cheaper models is far greater than for high end chips, so it was taken and locked down to the lower multiplier. Even with stock cooling this chip will overclock to the levels of high end units.
As for burning in, who knows, maybe there is something in this voodoo nonsense maybe not. As another poster mentioned the thermal compound can over time improve it's performance as the pressure of the heatsink and temperature of the cpu force it into a more efficient distribution. I know with ceramanique it needed a working in phase before it reached it's peak performance.
"You've gotta laugh when you fall off a sofa!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote