New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Usario

I don't think the bin would be any different because the blocks in question are only "partially disabled"... though I could be wrong there, but this does seem purely for market segmentation and to ensure that NVIDIA would still have enough buyers at the $500 price point... nothing wrong with that, until you advertise falsely...Now you're just saying that a proper 4GB 970 would cost too much to produce, which even if perhaps true has absolutely nothing to do with the fact...
Doesn't matter, FTC statutes cover deceptive practices in commerce in general, not just paid-for advertisements in the traditional sense. Though I'm no lawyer so I'm not going to say the case is 'open and shut'
The review guide had a spec sheet and the spec sheet was full of blatant lies as far as ROP count and L2 amount go, not to mention the memory complications. Not only was this false advertising directed towards the reviewers, the reviewers naturally passed on this false information provided by NVIDIA to all the consumers reading their reviews. And NVIDIA didn't ever acknowledge these lies until long after they were discovered by the enthusiast community, and they STILL...
Ah, but they did in the Reviewer's Guide, NVIDIA shill. (dunno if this link works: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTQxMTA2MzcyNDBjUEVEMXNuZnBfNV8xMF9sLmdpZg== )Then I would like to see your source, friend
Used to have meaning when Intel had an actual massive shill program
I've just been laughing at NVIDIA this whole time. This is fairly blatant false advertisement... they advertised 64 ROPs and 224GB/s memory bandwidth, though they could get away with it on the latter statement by claiming that 224GB/s to them means 196GB/s on the 3.5GB block + 28GB/s on the 512MB block (absolute nonsense in practicality, but who knows)... Wonder if the feds are going to get involved.Yes, everybody who disagrees with you and likes the company you hate is a...
It seems you're right, AMD has quoted no figure for the PD chips. Though they did for Bulldozer, and they ranged from 61C for 125W parts to 71C for 95W parts. I'm not adamant about 62C exactly, but getting into the upper 60s and above is definitely going to accelerate degradation.We can't be sure he needs more VRM cooling until he gets back to us with regards to the VRM temperature.
Never seen such a ting myself but I'll take your wordAMD's maximum recommended temperature of 62C is with the core temperature measurements... regardless of whether it's actually 62C when it reports 62C, that's what AMD has taken into account when calculating that figure. I've heard actual AMD employees say not to look at the socket temperature, just make sure the core temperature is below 62.What is it lowering the multi to? If it's going down to like 7x you're probably...
All that data is useful, yes, except the socket temperature. As far as OP is concerned I think socket temperature should be ignored completely unless there's throttling. It's unreliable and unimportant. Core temps are what matters. And, when getting into higher voltages, VRM.As far as throttling at 62C on the socket, I'm not sure about the R2.0, but on my original M5A97 EVO I tortured an X4 955 at over 75C core and had no issues (besides degradation of the chip of course)
In your experience, I mean.If you want to, there's no reason not to. Monitor your temperatures and make sure you're not going much over 62C. Voltage only actually destroys chips at levels that you can't reach with air or regular water.If you find yourself reaching unacceptable temperatures and still can't get it stable at 4.4GHz, bump the multiplier down a notch and increase the bclk to 205MHz and see if it works then. With such a miniscule bclk increase you won't have to...
New Posts  All Forums: