The Exiled Airman
- Jul 2, 2007
- 27,963 (6.18/day)
- Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
|Processor||AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz|
|Motherboard||Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios|
|Cooling||Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED|
|Memory||16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)|
|Video Card(s)||AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X|
|Storage||Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB|
|Display(s)||NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)|
|Case||AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition|
|Audio Device(s)||Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR|
|Power Supply||Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)|
|Mouse||Roccat Kone XTD|
|Keyboard||Roccat Ryos MK Pro|
|Software||Windows 7 Pro 64|
Those who didn't have a problem before will have a potential gain just like for those who were having troubles, give credit where it's due.Wonder what all those “This is fine” AMD fanboiz gonna say now.
Current produces heat, too much heat damages insulators and breaks down conductors over timeIt's not "made up". Clearly you've not encountered the word. I'm certain there are many more you've not encountered. That term was created in 2004 when engineers using an electron microscope discovered damage done to IC pathways caused by over-voltage conditions.
No, that is a different term describing a different condition.
Where are your syst specs at?May I propose an auto-ban that will give people a 24 hour break or something for accusing other posters of being fans of any company? Intel. Nvidia. AMD. I don't care. I am so tired of seeing these accusations hurled in basically every discussion here and in comments in most other tech forums. I'm really tired of all the ad homs in general. Can't we have discussions without personal attacks? Is that so much to ask? I was just at another tech forum and a mod jumped in and locked a topic, after insulting the person who posted it, piling on after the previous poster had insulted that person with a lazy objection to the length of the post. There is too much toxicity online and too much knee-jerk laziness when responding to others' efforts. I don't want to see personal attacks from anyone when I read/participate in tech discussions. I don't care how many posts they have and how many years they've been there. Ad homs should be off-limits. They're fallacies, not contributions.
Furthermore, please stop cheerleading for any company. I've seen arguments here that amount to worshipful demands, like how unreasonable it is to require companies' specs to be accurate — especially because failing to do that could enable a competitor to get some easy PR.
We're supposed to like competition. Well, when there is competition there is PR battling. Get used to it. If the PR is erroneous then call it out. If it's picking nits that's okay if those nits are true. If a product doesn't meet its claimed specs then that's noteworthy, even if the real-world impact is low. If the real-world impact is low then, logically, one can argue that the company could have made a lower claim to match the actual results.
We can handle the truth.
Give credit where it is due.
I run 1.476 by bios and it creeps to 1.524 on mine under blender, no problemsI recall The Stilt saying the chips can be killed with too-high a voltage, regardless of thermals and current. He said, for instance, that he reckoned that the FX's safe voltage limit is around 1.475. That's 32nm SOI.
His comments, which I don't have in front of me (and therefore must rely on memory from something I read years back) suggested to me that a chip could be degraded or fried very quickly, even without being subjected to a heavy load like Prime — without temperature nor load being needed. However, I have also read things that suggest that higher voltages won't kill chips if they're kept cold enough (i.e. nitrogen), so I'm a little confused.
He also said other things that seem to fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, like the widespread belief that a chip that needs less voltage is a better-quality one. I see that idea everywhere, from forum posts to professional reviews. He said it's basically the opposite. Higher leakage means less voltage required but he said, except under nitrogen, that's worse than higher voltage required and lower leakage. He said, for example, that the 9000 series FX chips were so poor-quality that they would have ended up in the crusher if AMD hadn't decided to create the 220 watt spec for AM3+. So, although the 9590 could hit, let's say 5 GHz, with less voltage than an 8370E, it would use more power and would die sooner at a given high voltage. Not only do the higher-leakage parts waste more power they are more sensitive to electromigration.
So, when we're looking at what safe voltages are it seems that it depends a lot on the leakage of the part. Maybe 1.5V is actually safe if the leakage is low enough? It seems really high to me but I don't know the technical details of the TSMC 7nm process AMD is using. I thought that safe voltage maximums are supposed to shrink as nodes shrink, although things like FinFET probably affect that quite a bit.
I remember Fermi (GF100) being described (in an Anandtech review I think) as an example of Nvidia's strategic intelligence. The notion was that Fermi intentionally had extra high-leakage transistors to increase performance. Given The Stilt's comments, or my understanding of them which may be flawed, I'm not sure how high-leakage transistors are a boon. Was it something about them being able to switch on and off more quickly? Does that apply to CPUs?
Also, some have been concerned that AMD may end up with a higher RMA rate because of this change. If it's the case that the RMA rate will increase one solution the company can do for future production is to realign the binning. This aligns with the improvement to the node that typically happens as it matures as well.