Printable View
Hum i was under the impression that this was a comp poist site. not car. o well i'll add my 2 cents, :-) F*ck intel. and yes some of the amd's have locks. and as for the cars i'll take a 911 carrera turbo, 0-60 in 3.2 sec flat at 7000 feet elevition that is as fast a cbr 900. ok so your slow cars can stay home when i'm on the road.
Hey iAMDking, since we are in fantasy land, I'll take a Callaway Corvette Sledgehammer with its 880hp and top speed of 255mph. Now, when I'm on the road try and get that little weak *** 911 out of my rear view mirror!
While we're at it... I always wanted a MacLaren F1.... Bragging rites.
Nothing better than a gold lined engine compartment!
IAmdking and Laoche Those two cars are Overly prices pieces of equpitment. Besides A truck that could kick the buts of most street cars is better anyday. Besides that the 99 lightning only costs $30k compared to your $$$. This is what most normal people could afford. Also in being in a truck vs one of those flashy lookin rigs you are not as noticable to the cops.
Boy, this thread came back from the dead http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/biggrin.gif
jopey, you're on that one for sure! I've got a 98 concorde. It won't beat out a 911, sure, but it has some nice accelleration(I've beat out all sorts of cars on the road with it http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/biggrin.gif and since it's basically a boat, it's a whole lot less obvious as a frequent speeder as a small, racy, red, sports car...
The thing that ticked me off today was I was kicking down 309 and as I hit 115 I thought I saw the tach drop like a rock. Not positive as I had to break a minute later http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/biggrin.gif Not the safest thing in the world taking it up to 115 on a road with a speedlimit of 50 and in the top 10 most dangerous roads in the us http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/biggrin.gif
In any case, I love them fast cars, but will never get one. If I floor it and cruise at 100 in a concorde, think about what I'd do in something a bit more powerful... Good way to get killed. ouch...
As for the topic - I'm sure the mult. lock is burned into a rom that can't be changed, or similar tactic. And you can't sue them. It's not like the Bausch & Lomb case where they sold the exact same lenses as 1-day, 2-week and 2-month lenses at different costs (that was fun http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/smile.gif but Intel has tests that show that proc 1 will run at 500 but not 600 and proc 2 will run at 600. Whether or not they are the most reliable tests (obviously not since my 550 is at 630) but they are done through standards that would hold up in court. The charges would be dropped before you could blink http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/biggrin.gif
on a side note - beta cpus do not have a lock on the multiplier.
[This message has been edited by Splatt (edited 12-02-99).]
I think everyone agrees that it would be easier to find a "special" chip without a multipier lock than to actualy get aroung the lock itself. Does anyone have any idea how to get hold of one of these lock-less chips? I wonder where these "beta" chips go. I would be interested in purchasing a chip without a multiplier lock.
BTW - I own a '88 GTA Trans-Am. 350HP. vroom! vroom!
------------------
Error: CPU speed is too fast.
Sure you go over to one of those forum's that intel runs and ask for one and tell them that you want to overclock the living **** out of it. See what kind of replys you get back.
The only ones that I have heard of are pre Aug 98 and the ones that the Intel Engineers use for testing.
home.rochester.rr.com/winterchillers/
------------------
WINDOWS HAS NOT DECTECTED A KEYBOARD PLEASE PRESS 'F1' TO CONTINUE OR 'F2' TO ABORT.
You guys were using the fact that engines have governors to prevent the cars from going past certain speeds as an analogy for describing the multiplier locks on Intel CPU's. The governors were made for legal purposes and for the benefit of motorists (so crazy, stupid morons dont decide to drive down public highways at 400mph, run into something, and take themselves plus everyone else within a 1 mile radius out with them). No one knows why Intel decided to keep people from overclocking their products. One can guess that it was for reasons of greed. They figure why let us overclock their CPU's when they can screw us up our asses and force us to buy new ones.
:/
Intel Put locks on thier processors to stop Remarkers from selling thier chips at higher speeds and reaping huge profits and screwing the mass public. Intel doesn't give two ****s about overclockers. Alto I bet they watch each and every site that talks about overclocking and see what their chips are being pushed to.
------------------
WINDOWS HAS NOT DECTECTED A KEYBOARD PLEASE PRESS 'F1' TO CONTINUE OR 'F2' TO ABORT.
Well well well, something I actually know more about than overclocking cpus: Sports cars. http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/wink.gif
Back to the Z28 issue real quick, a few things:
1) 93+(newer body style) Z-28's only have a speed limiter if you do not purchase the car with Z-rated tires(rated past 155mph). Most of them DO NOT have speed limiters and have a stock top speed of around 150mph+.
2) 94+ Z-28's do not have a "chip" that you can replace(86-93's do). They have a programmable EEPROM. All you have to do is buy a Hypertech power programmer and you can reprogram the whole car's computer to your hearts content, bypassing speed limiters, rev limiters, change timing and fuel curves, etc.
3) The LT1 350 motor that is in 93-97 Z-28's is the same exact motor that is in 92-96 Corvettes and the LS1 346 motor in 98-present Z-28's is the same as 97-present Corvettes, but in the Camaros the motor is restricted by the exhaust system, and airbox assembly, lowering the HP.
In the same way that us overclockers take a p3-450 that is really just a p3-600 and overclock it to 600, us Camaro drivers, take our Corvette motors and remove the restrictions, effectively overclocking the motor to the HP level it was built for in the first place.
The difference is, we THANK GM for building us an affordable sports car that we can very easily up the HP to far greater levels. I think we should be thanking Intel for building us budget priced chips with superpower cores that we can overclock very easily, and forget about the multiplier guys, there are motherboards now that can have any bus speed from 83-200 in 1mhz increments! That leaves plenty of options for finding they best speed for your chip.
BTW, I have a 94 Z-28, 6speed, 350, "overclocked" to 330hp http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/wink.gif
(from 275 stock, I have dynoed the car when stock and when modified). 13.42 @ 104.2 in the 1/4 if anyone is interested. Thats approx 4.8 0-60mph. I have some cool burnout pics on my site too. http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/wink.gif
http://members.xoom.com/auxois/
p3-500 @ 620 +TNT2 +128pc100
Crap, I forgot a couple things in my novel, I have personally topped out my car at 160+mph. And also, think about the Corvette vrs Camaro thing, its like p3 vrs Celeron, if GM gave the Z-28 as much HP as the Corvette, it would cut into the Vette sales. Its all about Marketing, but at least Intel and GM both gave us ways of "overclocking", could be worse too(can you say bus locked?) http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/wink.gif
the reason most speed limiters are put on cars, whether they are electronic rev limiters or fuel cutoffs, is because the manufacturer is limiting liability because of the cheap tires that they put on the car. If a manufacturer puts a H rated tire on a car that is capable of 150+ mph, they are asking for a lawsuit when some ******* actually drives faster than the tires are capable. It is cheaper for the car makers to put in electronic limiters then for them to put on tires that are capable of withstanding the heat and centifugal stress of going that fast.
For a personal example, I have a 95 ford T-Bird with a 4.6l V-8, this car is more than capable of 130+ mph, but because Ford wanted to cut costs, the car only came with H rated tires that are designed not to exceed 112 mph. So, for Ford to avoid lawsuits when *******es exceeded the tire's rating, causing a massive blowout at high speed, they put in a chip that cuts off the fuel flow at around 110mph.
Think of it this way...redesign computer chip to limit speed---very cheap
put on tires that are rated to the capability of the car---ZR rated tires ~300 added to the price of the car...
I just put a new set of H rated generals on the car. price? $200
The tires that came off were ZR rated Pirellis. price? $500+
It's funny how we drift off topic but cars are something that have played a fairly big part in my life so far.
I'm a mechnic for a F3000 racing team and the performance figures for a Lola T96\50 are impressive:-
476bhp not a big figure but when you consider it weighs 600Kg with driver. It's roughly 952bhp per ton!
It would still get trounced off the line by a good pro street car as it has no weight transfer to give it start line traction.
I unfortunatly don't get to drive it, I just mend it but just about the most fun car I used (wasn't mine) was a 75 ford Capri,
I'm in the UK so for those of you not familiar with this, it can best be described as the "English Mustang". This car looked stock was a bit scruffy but had a 400hp 351 Cleveland and Mustang suspension. It ran a 12.2 quarter on slicks. I also had a 70 RoadRunner, aussie Charger and a wide arched Jag with a Plymouth big block, and I'm building a pro street Plymouth SuperBird. I've got pictures if anyone's interested but I'm not sure how to post them..........BladeRunner
Auxois, you are the ****. I know we are just going right off the original topic but I think we have done all we can about it. On to a bigger question... I'm going to get a 2000 Camaro. Do you think it would be better to get a Z28 with the SS package or just get a Z28 and do the mods myself? Which would be cheaper and faster?
I need to find a car discussion group...
-
[This message has been edited by auxois (edited 12-03-99).]
