first, because most OCed systems DONT run cooler then they would at stock, unless their liquid cooled. second, believe it or not, if the processor was not designed to run at the higher frequency, whether its running hotter or not, the higher frequency is harder on the processor then running stock. your basically making it work harder then it was designed to, cool or not. That being said, thats not to say that it will cause the CPU to die within 6 months, ive seen a properly overclocked CPU run for 2+ years, especially if its a good quality CPU on a good motherboard. however, that same CPU on that same motherboard, will last longer. In fact in my experience, overclocked or not, the motherboard usually fails long before the CPU does.
I dare you to compare temps between a stock i7 920/stock cooler and my i7 920 at 3.5 with a Mugen II. I can guarantee it is cooler than a stock 920.
I still have a Barton on a POS ECS board I overclocked to 2.2 that is running fine (dedicated download machine). As long as voltage and temp requirements are not exceeeded what is the harm? I have had overclocked systems for over a decade (including that Celeron 300A at 450) on a BX6-2. Sold the board with a Coppermine 700 long ago to a family member, and it is still running strong.
Never lost a CPU, never lost a motherboard. So what if life is a little hard on an overclocked CPU. It will be long since upgraded/stuck in a landfill by the time any electromigration isuues become apparent.
EDIT: As to ReviverSoft's post............right on. The same chips (bin speed) can be marked with whatever the channel needs. Just cause your cheap CPU is marked at a certain speed, doesn't mean it was binned at that low a speed.
Edited by dpunisher, 23 December 2009 - 05:28 PM.
I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)
3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)