Not for Piledriver in general. Just for Vishera (83xx line). Piledriver in Trinity, whether mobile or desktop, is specced properly. Off the top of my head, the 5800K, for example, has a max operating temp of 74C, while voltage ranges were specified as 0.825-1.475V. All nice and tidy as expected.Thats bizzare isn't it. First AMD doesn't report temps properly. And on top of that they don't publish max operating temps for many of their models (or is it just for the piledriver?). Its almost like its some big secret.
I don't want to rag on AMD (it's not like Intel needs help from me to further beat down AMD or anything ), so what I'm about to say is purely my educated guess on the matter based on all facts available to me (which is simply what AMD elected to publish). But seeing how the Phenom II line was properly specced (and by "properly specced" I mean the relevant electrical and thermal specs were published), and the mobile APU's and the desktop APU's were/are also properly specced, and the only line that actually didn't get to be specced properly was the big core line (Bulldozer 81xx and Vishera 83xx), I think they had to 'relax' their specs for the big core SKU's in order to be able to actually "bin" a significant enough quantity of SKU's for their target top-bin products. In other words, had they opted to follow a strict spec as they did in the Phenom II lines and as they continue to do in the APU lines from Llano to Trinity to Richland, they probably saw they'd never be able to produce as much of their target top-end SKU (the 8-cores) because most would be running out of spec and would have to be binned lower. IDC's testimony that even AMD support and support people from mobo makers (not sure if he means ASUS or MSI, or both) couldn't produce a spec or official thermal and electrical guideline from AMD lends a little bit of credence to this. To avoid producing clearly out of spec SKU's, they trashed the spec so there's nothing to breach. (Of course, internally, there still has to be a spec, it just wasn't published for public consumption and didn't make it to their client-facing support teams.)
I'll say this now so I don't have to take too much flak from those who would take offense at me suggesting that the 83xx line doesn't have a published spec because most of them would otherwise be clearly out of spec: this is merely the conclusion I formed in my mind as the answer to the question posed by member bononos. I do not mean this to be gospel, and if you have any other alternative theories, they are just as valid as mine, since the validity of these theories are effectively zero unless some of us manage to actually get hold of internal operational documents from AMD. For example, you could propose an alternative hypothesis that states AMD merely forgot to update the website portion where the 8xxx lines reside, because they only have 1 intern left for website duty, and he had to prioritize the more mainstream APU products. That's fine, I'm not going to waste my time and yours by arguing the validity of such an alternative hypothesis. Only AMD people can really answer this question, so your guess is as good as mine as to why only the non-APU big core line since Bulldozer was left not properly specced.