Return of AMD FX: My OC'd AMD FX 8150 / 6990 review - Check in Daily for New Results!

[BeepBeep2]

since when is Tomshardware not a reputable source? Theres no point in arguing over OC numbers, my original statement still stands and is true for ease of overclockability

4.6 Ghz is to FX as 4 Ghz is to 1100t
4.8 Ghz is to FX as 4.2 Ghz to 1100t
4.9 Ghz is to FX as 4.3 Ghz is to 1100t
5.0 Ghz is to 4.4 Ghz 1100t

with +- 0.1 ghz error

Because they post bull. Their overclocking has always sucked because reviewers didn't know how to operate the systems they were testing...
They boast the name "The Authority on Tech" however the website is oriented for those who are new, and can't learn themselves because that's who THEY are.

As far as your opinion, not "statement" standing, I still disagree.

FX is at 4.5 GHz on the AMD "water cooler" which is essentially an H70...very reasonable for the cooling they had.
1100T was at 4.15 GHz, AND on a 990FX board in which it loses a considerable amount of efficiency.




3DMark11, is extremely multi-threaded aware, (just look at 2600K vs 2500K and the real world...)


CPU bound scenarios, difference is much smaller in GPU bound high resolution scenarios, until you add multiple cards in crossfire...so I feel a little bad for FX in the following:






FX is definately not for those with true 120hz screens, if any of those exist. Neither is Phenom II, but you'd have thought AMD could make at least a small increase in single/up to 4-6 thread performance at all over 1 and a half years.

EDIT:
Turbo-


Power consumption-