OCing ECC is fine if you're a retard who doesn't actually understand the benefits of ECC. It won't blow your computer up or anything.
Higher clock speeds than rated can lead to errors and make you more susceptible to rowhammer attacks. ECC provides defence against both of these, so overclocking ECC memory is just counterproductive.
Holy shit, user on suicide watch, 100% dead and finished, how will he ever recover?
>Are inaccuracies caused by single bit flips completely unacceptable?
>Is downtime from crashes due to bit flips completely unacceptable?
Both are no on my gayman desktop so no, extra cost not justified.
This is perfectly justifiable. The ECC question is all about risk tolerance. You WILL get flipped bits, probably most of them will be harmless. If you're okay with this then running nornal memory overclocked to an absurd degree might be worth the tradeoffs.
I don't think higher clock speeds negate the protection provided by ECC.
You might find yourself running into more two-bit errors when overclocking, which will still cause problems, but it won't cause any more issues than it would on a non-ECC system. Same thing for rowhammer. It is no more risky than using non-ECC, so your argument is against overclocking in general, and the ECC part is irrelevant.
No. You pick safety or speed. If all you care about is speed then buy fast non-ecc memory and overclock it if you need to for the best results. If you care about safety then use ECC memory and run it as spec'd. Overclocking ECC memory is retarded because you paid more to get the same reliability as just buying fast memory.
>ECC magically stops working at higher clocks
The only RAM I've ever had go bad was ECC RAM. Go figure.
The functionality you paid for becomes degraded until the point that single bit corrections are common and 2-3 bit errors actually happen. At this point the ECC benefit is gone.
You're not going to get to the speed of actually fast normal memory before this happens.