[Ti] 400>500

[Dave Friesen]

Holy crap! I didn't know that overclocking my Ti required statistical analysis. Good thing I can't do math or I may have never attempted it. ;-)

But like I said previously, I practiced and practiced on a scrap board until I felt that I could remove surface mount resistors with a minimum of heat and time applied. All it takes is a second or two and the solder is relaxed enough that the resistor can be popped off.

Because I worked from instructions from knowledgeable people, practiced first and was careful in the actual operation I felt that my odds were very good, numbers be damned... ;-)

Regardless a 500Mhz machine is only going to be practical for a while longer, sooner or later it too will be replaced. Alas, upgrading is a known variable. 

On Monday, January 06, 2003, at 03:15PM, Paul Russell <prussell at arc-software.com> wrote:

>You're right up to a point. It's not cost effective to test 
>individual chips. though, so typically a small sample from each batch 
>is tested. If the testing of the sample indicates that the entire 
>batch may not be good at 500 MHz then the whole batch might get sold 
>as 400 Mhz chips. However this is quite a conservative method and it 
>may well be that say 90% of the chips are perfectly good at 500 Mhz 
>or greater. Of course in the worst case scenario then perhaps only a 
>small percentage might be good at 500 MHz, but then due to the nature 
>of statistical distributions this would probably also indicate more 
>serious problems, i.e. that the production process was in a pretty 
>bad state. Like everything in life, it's a gamble - you need to do a 
>quick bit of analysis before you do the over-clocking, e.g.
>
>                                 BLOW UP YOUR MAC              MAC WORKS FINE
>
>     DO THE OVERCLOCKING             -1000                          +10
>
>     DON'T DO IT !!!             (shouldn't happen !)                 0
>
>
>You also need a value of p, the probability of blowing up your Mac if 
>you do the overclocking. Let's say that for a skilled electronics 
>technician p = 0.001, while for an accident prone hobbyist it might 
>be p = 0.5. In the case of the former it's probably worth taking the 
>risk, in the case fo the latter: probably not. (But you knew that 
>already ;-)).
>
>Paul