I can't say one way or the other, but I can say I've never had a chip reach the end of its life before I needed an upgrade anyway overclocked or not. I think if the lifespan is affected it would still be long enough that it would be obsolete by the time it dies anyway.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Not really, high temps are usually the killer. Don't forget that these same chips are made and then rated at 2.4 GHz, 2.6 GHz with differing prices ranges since they passed some factory tests and rated at that level.
Even though prices may differ on basically the same chip, a chip is really different when the specs differ in cash capabilities, dyies, etc...
![]()
Even though prices may differ on basically the same chip, a chip is really different when the specs differ in cash capabilities, dyies, etc...
Quote:
Personally, I think if you were running any cpu at full bore for that long they would fail long before, but it's impossible to find out since the PSU would probably fail before the cpus running under load for so long.
I wonder if any of these CPUs would run at 100% for even two years straight without failing...
Whats the longest period of time that anyone on here, left their computer fold for without turning it off? (granted thats not quite %100 percent usage)
Originally Posted by TEntel There is really no way to tell, comparing only two CPUs. The only way to have a valid experiment would be to have like 100 CPUs, half overclocked, running for 5 or 6 years straight, and calculating the mean time of failure. |
Personally, I think if you were running any cpu at full bore for that long they would fail long before, but it's impossible to find out since the PSU would probably fail before the cpus running under load for so long.
I wonder if any of these CPUs would run at 100% for even two years straight without failing...
Whats the longest period of time that anyone on here, left their computer fold for without turning it off? (granted thats not quite %100 percent usage)
2
That would have to be answered with ONLY TIME WOULD TELL!!!
![]()
![]()
2
Quote:
Thanks Duckie. I made the same argument to the person I was arguing this with.
![]()
Originally Posted by DuckieHo The higher clocked one due electron migration. It has to deal with more electrical pulses which will eventually wear out the connections. |
Quote:
Ducky is absolutely correct on that.
However, the rate of electron migration will not increase too much as to noticeably shorten the lifespan of the chip, providing you are running stock or near stock voltages. With a mild overclock on the same volts, you could expect 5.75 years vs 6 years with the given chip. Of course, somebody else brought up the wonderful point that comparing only two chips isn't really a viable means of measure, due to minute imperfections in the manufacturing process.
Originally Posted by DuckieHo The higher clocked one due electron migration. It has to deal with more electrical pulses which will eventually wear out the connections. |
However, the rate of electron migration will not increase too much as to noticeably shorten the lifespan of the chip, providing you are running stock or near stock voltages. With a mild overclock on the same volts, you could expect 5.75 years vs 6 years with the given chip. Of course, somebody else brought up the wonderful point that comparing only two chips isn't really a viable means of measure, due to minute imperfections in the manufacturing process.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
