Nah they weren't falsified, check out the memory they were using. That benchmark can differ greatly depending on the memory being used. Though I'm still looking forward to other reviews.
Yup. They used 2200MHz low latency ram @ 1866MHz with 8-8-8-24 1T . That explains it all and makes it even worse for BD.
i would say no mate watched task manager as i hit bench an doesn't go beyond 50% on my 2600k with HT enabled
I get 53.7k at stock clocks using DDR3-1333. Assuming the reviewer used the same DDR3-2200 memory for the 2600K as they did for the Bulldozer chip I suppose scaling to 66k isn't at all unreasonable, since there's a 4.6K difference between DDR3-1333 and DDR3-1600. Being that reliant on memory performance makes the test less than useful though.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us 4.8HT but with rams at 2133mhz, dont know why I took a cpuz of cpu speed. speed step:biggun:
Everything is legit in that preview. They are a respectable source and have done their best to test the FX. It is not their fault that Bulldozer turns out to be a disaster. Of course we'll have to wait a few more days to have this confirmed from other respectable sources but everything, and I mean everything points out that BD is bad. The only question that remains is how bad...
Maybe it'll be like Phenom, where a bios revision or whatever can upgrade the speed by 20%. Doubtful, though.
One guy says the reviews are completely legit and the source is good. Another guy says they are fake and the source is not to be trusted. I guess we have no choice but to wait for Guru3d, a source we all know to be good. My current CPU at this max overclock gets a score of only 3.29 in Cinebench, so no matter what the FX-8150 will be a large upgrade for me.
guys read the entire thread. the 2600k is only supposed to do 3.5ghz using turbo with all 4 cores aka ALL multithreaded benchmarks. wait for real reviews.