What? That doesn't make sense. Underclock a CPU then sell it more cheaply? Now that's bull.
Then please explain why my Athlon 650 (classic) has an Athlon 800 core. If I remove the heatplate from it and look at the actual core it is marked K7 800.
CPUs are tested using certain temperatures and clockspeeds during the development phase. They use statistic analysis to get the chip as fast as possible while keeping the error within defined perameters (i.e. pretty damn close to 0%). The CPU companies want the chip as fast as possible to sell as many as possible, so why would they sell it off at a low speed when it was possible to get more clocks for no performance loss? Answer is, they don't.
They do. When you manufacture CPUs you always try to gain the highest yield at as high a clockspeed as possible, anything else would be stupid. When they have been manufactured each and every CPU is tested to verify at wich speed they will perform reliably (The much fabled burn-in).
It costs just as much to produce a 1.8 GHz CPU as it does to produce a 1.5 GHz. However the yields diminsh as the clockspeeds rise, so hence the higher pricing.
Also there is the small fact of product placement. They need to cater for enthusiast, mainstreem and budget CPUs. But sometimes as in the case of my Athlon the yields are so good that they end up with plenty of highspeed CPUs and nearly no lower grade ones. When that happens you would be stupid to lower the prices of the higher speed as that would kill off the budget and mainstream lines.
This is much to they joy of overclockers, as most of the times CPUs will work reliably at a lot higher speed than they were sold at. My Athlon 650 has an 800 core, but I've gotten that thing to run at 950 reliably. (But good grief does that thing generate heat?
)
//Johan
