Nontheless, turning up VOLTAGE without turning up CLOCK is nonsense, since you’re just overheating your video card, as more current is flowing into it, without using it.
It isn’t nonsense: increasing voltage makes a cleaner wave-shape; if the current clock is a little too much to be 100% reliable, an increase in voltage can fix that.
Additionally, voltage and current are two separate things. Voltage increase does increase thermal output but not necessarily overheating it, which depends on the cooler attached to it.
bunch of crap. There is no reason thinking that hardware designers are forcing an insufficient voltage for their hardware. Nontheless, turning on voltage does increase the current flowing as stated by OHM’s LAW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law
And manufacturers never have recalls and the Intel Pentium .99999999 was flawless.
I never said voltage and current aren’t related, only that they are two different things. Does it matter why increasing voltage increases thermal output? No; it just does and must be dealt with—we aren’t in disagreement on this point.
I do disagree that increasing voltage only increases thermal output with no other effect.
Ohm’s law isn’t really relevant here as it’s a very tiny part of the whole: increasing frequency increases power consumption (cf. The Art of Electronics, p. 970) and that’s what’s relevant, not Ohm’s law (your CPU is ~1 billion transistors, not 1 billion resistors) Why do you think your CPU lowers power when it lowers its frequency (Intel’s SpeedStep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedStep )?
The relevant formula here is P=CV^2f: Power consumed equals capacitance times voltage squared times frequency. Note how current is not part of this equation.
The length of time a transistor in a digital circuit delays an electronic signal depends on its size, fabrication technology, layout, temperature, and operating voltage. The highest achievable clock rate of a circuit depends on this delay and the number of logic levels that a signal has to traverse in a single clock period. The latter number is fixed (and dependent on the processor’s architecture). So, for overclocking, we focus on how a transistor’s latency is affected by its supply voltage. A higher supply voltage can shorten the delay, but will also raise the transistor’s power consumption. Cranking up the clock frequency also increases the dynamic power draw per time unit, and thus further raise the circuit’s power consumption, leading to a hotter chip.
cf. Tom’s Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-overclocking-core-i7-3770k,3198.html
That is from an article explaining how Ivy Bridge has less OC headroom than Sandy Bridge. I wonder if the 600s have a similar pattern.
It’s OBVIOUS that the heat depends on the cooling system that is supporting the video adapter, but it’s also clear that increasing voltage will increase current, and increasing current will both increase heat and lower the hardware’s lifetime.
All of that is a red herring and doesn’t negate the above facts.
You’ll also have to show me how running hardware within manufacturer’s specifications lowers it’s lifetime (calling it ‘crap’ doesn’t [dis]prove anything).
So stop posting crap, please.
Personal attacks don’t make your point and undermines your credibility. I put time, thought, and effort into my posts; anything less is a disservice.
i5-2500K 4.2GHz | 8GB Mushkin DDR3-2133 | Gigabyte Z68XP-UD4, GTX580-882/2033
Crucial m4 128GB SSD (64GB SRT cache) | WD 2TB 2002FAEX | Antec Twelve Hundred
When I was your age, I could outrun a centaur…until I took an arrow to the knee
