I agree... all the people quoting this one translation from one unconfirmed source and taking it serious is kind of ridiculous. If we get a benchmark leak that looks questionable then everybody screams "fake" and ignores it. But this time we get a negative comment from an unknown source and many people accept it as true.
Personally when I read the SWECLOCKERS translation, I immediately thought that it sounded like a frustrated person at a motherboard maker angry because they can't bench BD before everybody else. (Actually it sounded like a child having a temper tantrum. But that is probably just the translation.)
In other words AMD has decided not to send out release chips until closer to launch because they know there WILL be leaks. But this is not really a big deal if the engineering samples are fully functional in regards to the socket specification.
Sure it is always better to have a chip to test, but MOTHERBOARD makers do not design motherboards based on a particular chip. They do it based on the SOCKET specification. But if they have correctly supported the specification and the board correctly supports the proper power levels then there should not be an issue and their engineering samples should have been sufficient for testing. Otherwise motherboard makers would never officially support any chips that are released after the motherboard is released.
(Although sometimes a lemon board is released like the MA790FX-DS5. But every motherboard maker has a few dogs in their past.)
DISCLAIMER: My statement above is not true if the "crippled" engineering sample had portions of the socket specification that did not work at all so it could not be tested. If it was only crippled to run slow but all socket features were functional then that is all that is needed for compliance/compatibility testing.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks