El Gappo New Member Feb 10, 2010 #21 Mitch? said: An underclock won't lend instability, nor hurt him at all. AND YOU CHILL OUT. Click to expand... It can do both of those things. Running below stock clocks will always hurt performance and can cause instability :good:
Mitch? said: An underclock won't lend instability, nor hurt him at all. AND YOU CHILL OUT. Click to expand... It can do both of those things. Running below stock clocks will always hurt performance and can cause instability :good:
ganzey banned Feb 10, 2010 #22 El Gappo said: It can do both of those things. Running below stock clocks will always hurt performance and can cause instability :good: Click to expand... well, the hurting performance is an obvious. but i have underclocked to 500mhz before, and it was stable
El Gappo said: It can do both of those things. Running below stock clocks will always hurt performance and can cause instability :good: Click to expand... well, the hurting performance is an obvious. but i have underclocked to 500mhz before, and it was stable
Mitch? banned Feb 10, 2010 #23 El Gappo said: It can do both of those things. Running below stock clocks will always hurt performance and can cause instability :good: Click to expand... You didn't say a word about performance. You said stability. I'd reckon that it's more stable.
El Gappo said: It can do both of those things. Running below stock clocks will always hurt performance and can cause instability :good: Click to expand... You didn't say a word about performance. You said stability. I'd reckon that it's more stable.