Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!robertb
From: robertb@cs.washington.edu (Robert Bedichek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 16mhz 386sx running at 20mhz
Message-ID: <12743@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 9 Aug 90 15:25:56 GMT
References: <1990Aug7.230306.16069@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Aug9.144532.677@athena.mit.edu>
Reply-To: robertb@june.cs.washington.edu (Robert Bedichek)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 22

In article <1990Aug9.144532.677@athena.mit.edu> mlbarrow@athena.mit.edu (Michael L Barrow) writes:
>In article <1990Aug7.230306.16069@agate.berkeley.edu> 
>magid@sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Magid) writes:
>
>If the CPU is rated for 16MHz, then do _not_ let the machine run at 20MHz! 
>Take it back & yell at them for doing something that silly. You will wear 
>down your CPU if you run it faster than its rated.
>

Can you cite any reference to support this claim?  If not, can you give
any explanation for why a CPU chip, or any other chip, should "wear
out" if run at a higher-than-rated clock?

My understanding of chip speeds, from listening to silicon designers
and managers at Intel talk (I used to work there), is that there is no
physical difference between chips that are rated at different speeds
other than what is stamped on their case.  The faster parts have just
passed the chip tests at a higher speed.

I could be incorrect, of course, let me know.

	Rob Bedichek