Originally Posted by Usario
There is something wrong with that chip and/or that review... I just looked at the first page and so far I've seen a 4.7-5.0GHz chip score 10% worse than my 8320 at 4.8GHz in AIDA64 CPU Zlib and and score worse in Cinebench than my 8320 does at 4.6. Their 9590 also seems to only be scoring around 13% better than their 8350 most of the time... hell, sometimes, their 9590 can't even win by 10% in pure CPU bound benchmarks... this would, at the very least, suggest that their 9590 is never going above 4.7GHz and their 8350 is constantly boosting to 4.1-4.2GHz.
The results attained through AIDA can vary wildly from one version to another. I use a version from about 8 months ago in order to standardize the results across multiple platforms / review dates.
I can also confirm that our FX-9590 barely ever went above the 4.7GHz mark in multi threaded workloads. I believe KitGuru reported the same thing. This isn't an issue but rather a "feature" that limits power consumption.
Originally Posted by Alatar
HWC also has the first OCing results.
But they don't really tell anything as far as the chip's potential goes. Pretty bad cooling (why did they even try it on air?) and they seemed to have some issues with either the PSU or the mobo causing shut downs.
Why can't we have reviewers that are good at OCing things anymore?
I had it on air simply because my H80 wasn't up to the task of actually cooling it. The Noctua heatsink actually reduced temperatures by ~7°C at full load so I used that. My H100 sprung a leak about two weeks ago and I have yet to find time to RMA it.
I'd like to think I'm perfectly good at AMD overclocking but it all boils down to time. A follow-up article with TEC results will be posted in the next few weeks.
Originally Posted by Derp
Yay another review! Too bad it's a horrible one.
Can you explain what is so "horrible" about the review? I'd love to improve for future articles but I think this one covered all of the bases.
Originally Posted by Kuivamaa
They got a score of 7.87 @ stock 4.7 and email@example.com? No way this processor scales that good, their base score is obviously compromised, which questions the stability of their setup.
Nothing is compromised. There are a number of things you have to take into account.
#1) The standard scores were done with Turbo enabled. This means the chip gravitates between 4.5GHz and 4.7GHz or slightly upwards when all cores are loaded. There may even be additional fluctuations downwards that the logging software didn't pick up.
#2) The overclocked scores were achieved with ALL CORES running at a constant 5.016GHz and every power saving option disabled.
Trust me, it scales that well. I re-validated it something like 5 times.
Originally Posted by Derp
Try disabling your ad blocker, that fixed it for me. It might be their way to force you to load their ads. I won't be visiting the site again if it's intentional.
I would like to address this as well. About a week ago we had an issue with some malicious code inserted into one of our banners. To cut a long story short, we're still chasing down the gremlins and it seems like the ad blocker issue is one of them which the programmers didn't log. This IS NOT intentional and we're working on fixing it right now.Edited by SKYMTL - 7/17/13 at 8:15am