The Truth About Processor "Degradation" ie. Overclocking :S

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Hardware' started by DiGiTaL MoNkEY, Mar 8, 2008.

  1. DiGiTaL MoNkEY

    DiGiTaL MoNkEY Inverted Monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    26,863
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Found this part of an Intel processor article, quite a interesting read if you have some time..

    [​IMG]

    Here is a snip of the obvious stuff...

    Here is the full article with graphs and more details: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3251&p=6
     
  2. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,805
    Location:
    Canberra
    Some of that makes no sense. They say that CPUs are binned based on the maximum speed at the stock voltage - and then say that it's unsafe to run CPUs faster than the rated speed even if you stay at stock voltage. If the maximum speed at stock voltage is greater than the rated speed then clearly Intel aren't binning/labelling the CPUs based purely on the maximum speed at stock voltage - if they were, you'd expect the CPU to be rated at the maximum speed.

    They've completely missed the biggest issue: demand. If Intel binned and labelled CPUs based only on the maximum clock speed at stock voltage, there'd be about ten times as many E8500s available as E8400s and E8200s. Almost all of the 45nm chips have no trouble running at 3.16GHz on stock voltage, so they'd all end up being binned as E8500s.

    Of course, that's not what actually happens. Intel realises the problem and labels some of the E8500s as E8200s and E8400s, so that they can offer a decent range of CPUs. Demand for the E8200s and E8400s is far higher than demand for the E8500s, so it makes sense to sell some of those faster chips with a lower speed rating.

    If you have an E8500 which is marked as an E8200 and overclock it to E8500 speeds on stock voltage, it will run hotter than an E8200 at stock speed. In fact, it'll run exactly as hot as an E8500 at stock speed. If this was a problem then Intel would have a shorter warranty on the E8500s (since they'd be expected to die sooner).
     
  3. OP
    OP
    DiGiTaL MoNkEY

    DiGiTaL MoNkEY Inverted Monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    26,863
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Interesting points SLATYE, reading through the article atm.
     
  4. chainbolt

    chainbolt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    100,517
    I must agree, that does not make sense at all.


    This is also true. And it is well known that in particular at the beginning of the life cycle, for marketing reasons, many samples are labeled/rated lower than they actually could run. This is because Intel/AMD wants to introduce higher speed grades (or more demanding quad core versions) at a later point of time. That's the reason why we got, for example, so many wonderful overclocking E6600 and E6700 in 2006, but later they did not overclock anymore.
     
  5. irR4tiOn4L

    irR4tiOn4L Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    Location:
    Carlingford, Sydney

    The more i think about it the more interesting your comment becomes. On the face of it, if most 45nm CPUs clock well, youd think Intel would make more money if it made its E8400/E8200s faster, or produced more E8500s instead of taking what is virtually an 'E8500' and badging it E8200 for a lot less money.

    But your argument is a little different; Intel essentially takes a homogenous chip, but sells it at different price points in a hierarchy that is matched to their research of demand levels. Although some chips are sold for much less then they could be, if the hierarchy were disturbed it would destroy part of its sales. Theyve reached the 'optimum combination'

    This has quite a few implications; the economy of scale needed to satisfy the entire market's hierarchy of demand is gigantic, but obviously Intel has it. Competition must also be pretty weak or compliant (also using this 'hierarchy of demand') in order for this to work, which it obviously is.

    But once these conditions are met, were not actually in a situation where pricing conditions under perfect competition apply. In fact, those rules dont apply at all; instead of transferring the cost of manufacturing plus a markup that gets lower as you increase competition, we are instead pricing according to what the market is willing to bear, with manufacturing costs and markup as end results.

    Although this is nothing new, its still startling to realise that companies like Intel are so big and such a monopoly/duopoly that they begin to break down the efficiency of the capitalist market.


    OF course, it could just be that the CPU's really do differ in reliability/lifespan based on yield.
     
  6. metamorphosis

    metamorphosis Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,554
    I had a celeron 2 566mhz that used to run fine at 950mhz. Later it would only run stably at 900mhz (same MB). Later it stopped being able to do that and would only run stably at 800mhz. It's not stable at even that speed now. Degradation- yes.
     
  7. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    52,063
    Location:
    brisbane
    this may not be the processor only it can also point to degradation of the mainboard or psu in the system


    as for processor degradation i'm hardly surprised
     
  8. Lardman

    Lardman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    ACT 2607
    Reading this when I get home. :p
     
  9. metamorphosis

    metamorphosis Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,554
    Nah, both were changed later on, had no impact.
    Cheers,
    Matt
     
  10. TMM

    TMM Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,488
    Carefactor=0. Most overclockers don't want to keep their CPU for 9 years, so it's a moot article. They also draw conclusions on current processors (i.e. pulling it out of their arse) when we don't know how they will react to overclocking.

    Also, how is this the 'truth' ?. I don't see any facts, just hearsay. Using a graph to show made up data is pretty funny, imo.

    FTR: my rig has an Opteron 170 @ 2.9, 1.4v which has not degraded at all (not even 10mhz at the same voltage) over a period of a year.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2008
  11. Onyx

    Onyx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    4,253
    Location:
    NSW
    My history of overclocked CPUs have all more or less had the same thing occurred - and I'm beginning to wonder whether there's some truth to it.

    I had a P3 550E that would run comfortably at 733, it's last stable config was around 680-ish. Same with my P4 2.8C that was did 3.5, over time it developed stability problems that definitely weren't there in the beginning and had to be relegated to ~3.2. My current C2D chip, an E4300 - showed quite accelerated 'degradation' IMHO - as it was a cheap chip I didn't bother with aftermarket cooling and clocked the hell out of it. Folding full time, load temps would routinely reach 70-75degrees. It's only 10mths old, but has developed instability at the same 3Ghz speed it's been running since day 1. Even increased Vcore doesn't seem to help. I've subsequently had to 'clock it down to 2.7 to maintain stability. Which so far it's done so - touch wood.
     
  12. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,805
    Location:
    Canberra
    But there is no way to check that a similar CPU would not do the same. Assuming that you ran it at stock voltage, I would expect that a CPU with the same core but rated at 900MHz would experience exactly the same degradation. The difference is that when it stopped working at stock speed, you'd say that it had 'died', while with the overclocked one you just say that it's 'degraded'.

    Intel have two things making them want to produce the slower chips:

    • They do get some cores which can't run at the higher speed, just not many. They can either scrap these or sell them as lower-end chips. If they sell them as lower-end chips for a lower price than the high-end ones then they must ensure that they have a lot of them available (because demand for the cheap chips is always huge compared to demand for the fast ones). To do this they have to re-label some of the faster chips, because there simply aren't enough slow ones to keep up with demand.
    • Future expansion. Intel wants to avoid spending money if they can. If they went right to the limits of the Core2 architecture immediately (I'd guess that this would put the top-end chips at about 4GHz) then they'd have nowhere to go. They'd have to spend a fortune bringing Nehalem forward so that they can make people upgrade. If they sell the relatively slow chips now (E8400 and similar) then they can release a slightly faster version later (E8600) with no extra work (all they've done it increase the multiplier). Quite a few people with E8400s will then upgrade to the E8600s, and this is essentially free money for Intel. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is the reasoning behind the Q9x00 quad-cores being delayed (a lot of the people who have just bought E8400s will upgrade to the Q9x00s as soon as they're available). Once again, by delaying the faster chips (quad-cores), Intel can ensure that a lot of customers buy two CPUs! Clearly this only works for whatever company is on top at the moment. AMD have to release their very fastest CPUs just to try to keep a bit of the market share.
    • There's no point releasing faster CPUs. At the moment, Intel probably has something like 90% of the enthusiast market, and they're gaining in other areas too. AMD's Phenom is too slow, too hot, and too hard to find. If Intel released a 4GHz CPU for $300 they'd probably end up with 95% of the enthusiast market (there'll always be some people sticking with AMD). That 5% market share gain just isn't worthwhile, when it'll mean that they don't have future upgrade options.


    Yes indeed. They've clearly done a lot of work here in figuring out exactly where the best price points are. AMD still puts a bit of pressure on them in the low-end market (note the new Celeron Dual Core E1200 to compete with the low-end A64 X2s) but in the high-end it's pretty much completely up to Intel.

    I don't think it's true that "some chips are sold for much less than they could be". If Intel deleted the E8200 and E8400, selling just E8500s, they wouldn't actually sell many more E8500s than they do at the moment. For most people, the E8500 is just too expensive. Essentially, the E8500s which are now sold as E8200s are not selling for less than they could be sold - because if they were priced as E8500s, they wouldn't sell at all. By selling them at a lower speed Intel can at least make some money.

    Yes, the competition thing is critical. For consumers, the best situation is when the companies are fairly close. We saw a great example not long ago when AMD released the Athlon64. Previously Intel was easily in the lead - the Athlon XP was really getting pretty ancient. If AMD had not released the A64, the P4s would have survived a lot longer. As soon as the A64 was released Intel was forced to work a lot harder, and soon we got an excellent result: the Core 2 Duo.

    When one company is really struggling (like AMD is now) then the other one can do exactly what was mentioned above - instead of releasing their fastest CPUs, they release them in a way which maximises profit.

    Exactly. I guess you could say that they're always aiming to sell at whatever price the market will bear, but the other manufacturer can decide what the market will bear. For example, the market will currently bear the Geforce 9600GT's ~$200 price tag. However, if AMD dropped the price on the Radeon HD 3870 to $100 then the market would most definitely not pay $200 for the 9600GT any more.
     
  13. one4spl

    one4spl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    427
    Location:
    Jamboree Hts, Brisbane
    Has anyone tested a uniform group of overclocked and non-overclocked CPUs and then tested their over-clockability after a few years?

    What I'm trying to say is do overclocked CPUs really degrade all that much faster than non-overclocked ones? My guess is that we simply notice the OC'd ones because they start to fail at OC'd speeds.
     
  14. Dangerous_Dave

    Dangerous_Dave Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    126
    This is exactly my thoughts as well.
    Been running an e6600 at 3.4ghz for the last 2 years and if it ever dies I'm just going to upgrade anyway.
     
  15. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,805
    Location:
    Canberra
    That's an extremely good point, and I'd be very surprised if you weren't completely correct. Also, in a non-overclocked system a lot of people completely overlook the CPU as a possible cause of instability - they'll blame Windows, blame the PSU, blame the RAM, or blame the mainboard, but the CPU is rarely considered. When they've checked all of those and can't find the problem, they just throw away the system because it "wasn't working". As a result, you never hear about this "degradation" when it occurs in CPUs at stock speed.


    Regarding the whole "it's irrelevant because we don't use the CPUs for that long anyway" argument: I completely agree. Realistically, after five years the system will be obsolete. Even if it's still in use, the mainboard is likely to die before the CPU, and it'll be very hard to find a replacement. Finding a decent Socket A mainboard now is virtually impossible, but it's been less than three years since the Athlon XP finished production.

    Even if the CPU did die in maybe three years, who cares? It's not uncommon to pay ~$250 for a CPU and overclock it until it's faster than any currently available stock CPU. That includes the $1500+ Extreme Editions. Essentially, you're getting $1500 worth of performance for $250, a $1250 saving. When the CPU dies, you can build a whole new system with the money you saved there!

    The only time when the CPU is likely to die 'too soon' is when you're running at pretty high voltage levels. We saw this with the Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome, where CPUs running at >1.7v would often last a matter of weeks.
     
  16. onthepulse

    onthepulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    Box Hill Sth, Melbourne
    Degradation no doubt occurs - to some degree. Second law of thermodynamics: the overall entropy of any system is always increasing.

    But the main point is that it happens slowly, and chips become obsolete quickly. If you always by cheap chips (lower-binned versions), overclock them for performance and then replace them every couple of years, you are not really affected by degradation.

    And if you buy an expensive chip, you are going for a WR or something and want it for the here and now anyways...

    The reason Intel has "stock" settings is so that people who don't OC and know nothing about the CPUs can get a good life span out of them. For the rest of us, we are happy to thrash them until we get the next upgrade.

    I don't see this degradation as being significant. It's just a way of effectively voiding your warranty if you take matters into your own hands...
     
  17. anark1

    anark1 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,667
    Location:
    melbourne
    could some of the overclockable cpus be due insome to the fact the cpu's would need to be geared to everymarket, thus joe blogs will want to run his stock cooler and have some level of noise and some other tom/dick or harry may want to run extreme cooling.

    similar to cars i guess they have to be accessable to any market, overclockers or mainstream users.

    and i wholeheartedly agree on the supply and demand concept.
    with selling cpus as lower speeds to aid the profit is one of the key topics.

    anark1
     
  18. steffan72

    steffan72 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,033
    Location:
    Perth
    The one thing that stands out to me in all of this is the fact that even if they are speed binning them or whatever.......does it even cost them any more to produce an E8500 over an E8400. All we are really doin is paying an extra premium for a chip that has been rated higher than it's counterparts on the same batch run.

    I'm not even sure i havn't totally missed the point of the thread so feel free to ignore my comment.
     
  19. TMM

    TMM Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,488
    I would assume that at any one time, the facilities are good enough to produce enough of the highest speed CPU to supply market demand for them, and everything that doesn't make the cut gets binned as the lower speeds. The cost of making every CPU is the same, it's just the luck of the draw whether its good or not :).
    *Technically* they might make some CPUs out of silicon that is cheaper and of poorer quality, and you'd expect they wouldn't be as good as if they used good silicon, but that doesn't mean you can't get an awesome CPU and a really bad CPU out of the same silicon wafer ;) Back in the AthlonXP/Athlon64 days i remember people trying to find CPUs with a low batch number, as they believed that the low number denoted that it came from the middle of the silicon wafer, which supposedly meant it should overclock better.

    Over the years i've noticed a trend though, the highest and the lowest speed of each processor family has strict binning, and everything else is much of a muchness. Therefore buying the most expensive CPU tends to get you a good OC'er, and buying the cheapest CPU tends to get you a 'bad' OC'er. The rest seems to be random, so you are best off betting the "2nd cheapest" model :thumbup:
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2008
  20. onthepulse

    onthepulse Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    652
    Location:
    Box Hill Sth, Melbourne
    In regards to binning, they definitely only make 1 45nm dual-core for instance. It would be way too expensive to differ the silicon or cores in any way. They bin largely to fit the market as a previous poster said. With the exception of the top-of-the-line model, it's not technically based on a particular max clock speed at stock. They might cream off the top 5% to make up an E8500 for example. But as for E8400 and E8200, they divide them into higher and lower preforming and create the numbers as per demand. I guarantee you if the E8400 are selling out - as we know they are right now - then they simply use some chips that would potentially be E8200s and mark them as E8400, then box them up. Supply and demand.

    When you think about it, whether they produce more dual-cores or quad-cores is not as much about the most appropriate performance for desktop PCs, it's more about what the market wants or is willing to bear at any time. This is a simple business decision and is not really related to technology.

    Same as nVidia holding back on performance in the current 9-series cards. All marketing...
     

Share This Page