Originally posted by: Zebo
Xbit is full of it.. there is no way to accuratly isolate CPU power like they pretend to show. Secondly it got to a 2.9Ghz overclock with 1.2 volts but they could'nt get any higher with more volts? yeah right... Third learn to speak english. That site has the worst grammar in the world.
And toms everyone tells me is bias after they showed 939 whopping up on AM2 and I dared to cite it..so...
I usually find Xbit's reviews aren't too bad. They are Russian and don't have perfect English but in the vast majority of cases they're English is sufficient that it should be easily and quickly understood by anyone with a decent command of English. If a reader is unable to understand, I would suggest it probably speaks more of the reader's English level then Xbit's. Really, I don't get why some people make such a big issue of someone else's English in things like review sites.
I can't speak of this review in particular since I only just took a quick glance and do agree that any attempt to try and measure a CPU's power consumption alone is circumspect. However as for the 1.2V issue I'm a bit confused as to what you're talking about. From the review I looked at, they had 2 processors. With both processors as they raised the vcore up to 1.5V they got better overclocking albeit with diminishing returns. Past there, they were unable to get better results. (With the 939 Venice's anyway people often find they reach they limit at around 1.5-1.6 so it seems even less surprising)
As mentioned, I did just briefly look through it so perhaps I missed something. However I'm wondering whether you didn't actually even bother to read the review (or perhaps have such poor English ability that you couldn't understand it) and instead just looked at the pictures. Xbit clearly specified in the review that they needed 1.5V to get 2.84ghz on the 4600+. The picture does appear to show 2.84ghz at 1.2V I assume this is a bug in CPU-Z. Or alternatively, perhaps their processor and/or mobo is causing problems with the vcore reporting. Whatever the case, it seems better to me to actually read the review and understand and believe what Xbit say they are doing rather then to just look at the picture and rely on that.
In any case, your assumption that an increased vcore is bound to give better results seems bizzare. Increasing the vcore often or perhaps even usually helps but based on the experiences of many along with the word of people who appear understand what they're talking about it's never guaranteed to help. It's not uncommon that there is a limit to stable overclocking in which increasing the vcore does not help much if at all. This isn't really that surprising.
For the EE processors, we might expect that it's more likely to help, especially up to the 1.35V normal AM2 vcore. But again, there is no reason to assume it will definitely help. We can presume AMD only tests the processor to whatever they're requirements are. These are the ability to operate stably at the low vcore they specify and also meeting the required TDP. However just as with other processors, it would seem easily possible that the nature of the core simply limits its ability after a certain point and these issues are not solved by raising the vcore.
Facebook
Twitter