If at least the power consumption is real, then we have that this particular FX doesn't face any stress in some benchs. Some pages behind there was a post mentioning how FX power consumption was extremely low despite running CB11.5.
Since this violates the NDA then the "reviewer" should have no problem measuring how many watts this FX eats in all benchs vs the SB chip.
Doesn't make sense.
Also, why include the useless superpi? Doesn't even worth any decent reviewer's time.
Last edited by Nintendork; 10-08-2011 at 09:06 PM.
Athlon II X4 620 2.6Ghz @1.1125v | Foxconn A7DA-S (790GX) | 2x2GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 1066
| Gigabyte HD4770 | Seagate 7200.12 3x1TB | Samsung F4 HD204UI 2x2TB | LG H10N | OCZ StealthXStream 500w| Coolermaster Hyper 212+ | Compaq MV740 17"
Stock HSF: 18°C idle / 37°C load (15°C ambient)
Hyper 212+: 16°C idle / 29°C load (15°C ambient)
Why AMD Radeon rumors/leaks "are not always accurate"
Reality check
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks