What do you all think? Overclocking....

[LeoRex]

I have a Samsung Galaxy Stellar... which has the same processor as the SIII, the Qualcomm MSM8960 Snapdragon... but its running at 1.2Ghz, rather than 1.5 Ghz....

Now, overclocking a processor is one of the most effective ways of frying it.. but if I was to bump it from 1.2 to 1.5.... So as far as I see it, I wouldn't so much be overclocking it as I would be making so its not underclocked. Am I running a real risk here? Like did Qualcomm run some tests on this and tell Samsung "Yeah, these are fine, but don't run them at full bore.. they'll fry... keep them at 1.2GHz" sort of thing?

 

[outlooker]

Well, believe me EVERY single processor in EVERY single electronic device is underclocked. The companies deliberately underclock their devices to prevent them from frying. Usually their about 20% underclocked. I would say that a 1.2 GHz processor would run fine on 1.4 GHz. Its probably designed to run at that speed but they underclock it to 1.2 GHz as a precautionary measure.
I personally suggest keeping it at 1.2 GHz unless you really need to bump up the speed. Its safer to simply keep the processor at its default speed then screw around with it.
Also, as for the S3 they obviously updated/modified it to make if faster. So technically, the processor in the SII and the SIII isn't *exactly* the same.

 

[meyerweb#CB]

Intel used to (and probably still does -- I don't pay much attention to such things any more) offer the same cpu model in versions for different clock speeds, at different price points. There were no separate designs or fabs for different clock speeds. 1GHz, 1.2GHz, 1.5GHz chips all came off the same line. What made the difference was testing. Each chip was tested. Ones that failed at 1.2GHz (as an example) but tested OK at slower speeds got marked and sold a 1GHz chips. Those that passed at the intermediate speed, but failed at the top speed, got marked to match. Does Qualcomm do the same thing? I don't know, but I strongly suspect so. The alternatives are much less likely: either all chips perform perfectly at the highest speed, or they throw away chips that don't.

So the fact that your phone uses the same CPU model as the S3 doesn't mean it will work correctly at the higher clock speed. It might work fine, it might have occasional errors, it might freeze up or generate frequent errors. No way to know. But it's unlikely Samsung is paying for a chip certified at 1.5GHz just to run it at the slower speed. And it's probably not just the cpu that's affected. Increasing the clock speed will, I think, push multiple hardware items, including memory, the display processor, etc., to run at higher speeds. Can they all keep up?

You could try it and see what happens, but does your phone really feel slow? And do you think a 20% increase in clock speed, with no change in other factors, would be that noticeable? And don't forget, overclocking will also use more battery, which may or may not be important.

 

[LeoRex]

Well...for a cheapo phone, it's pretty quick. But I just like messing around with any and every electronic gizmo I get my hands on.

This all might be moot anyhow... the kernel doesn't support higher speeds and there aren't any custom kernels out there.

Sent from my SCH-I200

 

[trucky]

On AOKP you have a performance control setting. The default for my USC version 384 MHz to 1512 MHz. Leaving it at default I've experienced 0 issues allowing it to run up to the max when needed. Clearly it makes no sense to set something to run full speed when it's sitting idle so some smart performance controls are essential.