AMD Teases new FX-processor with Liquid Cooling

#4852683

DLD

2014-06-22 23:43

Fuzzy? No wonder the photo is "fuzzy" - AMD is the King of fuzzyness...:banana:

#4852701

DSparil

2014-06-22 23:53

I really hope this isn't another Piledriver release. If it is, AMD is really beating that into the ground and it will leave a lot of consumers with a bad taste in their mouth. Perhaps a tweaked Piledriver with an AIO would be appetizing, but I have a pretty strong feeling this will not be featuring Steamroller cores. One can only hope though....

#4852726

BLEH!

2014-06-23 00:24

A tweaked, liquid-cooled Kaveri would kickass. 4.4 maybe. 7870K or something.

#4852797

kendoka15

2014-06-23 01:21

I like how they're doing the same thing as the 290/290x, basically overclocking an inferior product to try and catch up If their prices weren't so cheap I'd wonder why anyone buys AMD

#4852871

scoter man1

2014-06-23 02:50

inb4 6Ghz 300tdp

in b4 still not as good as a i7 2600k 🤓

#4852872

Lane

2014-06-23 02:51

I like how they're doing the same thing as the 290/290x, basically overclocking an inferior product to try and catch up If their prices weren't so cheap I'd wonder why anyone buys AMD

The 290x are old hardware overclocked ? first news .. We have a champ here..

#4852955

umeng2002

2014-06-23 05:26

Surprise move to 22nm? Oh wait, water cooled...

#4852991

shymi

2014-06-23 06:37

I like how they're doing the same thing as the 290/290x, basically overclocking an inferior product to try and catch up If their prices weren't so cheap I'd wonder why anyone buys AMD

What in the 290/290x was so inferior, except the stock cooler? The cards performed great with non stock cooling solutions and compete well with the green corner. P.S. Edited - need more coffee, sorry

#4853017

Ryu5uzaku

2014-06-23 07:29

Of course it will. The 4790K is 34-50% faster in everything than the 2700K. 15-30% faster than 3770K. Ranges based on application/game. There are benches out there to go into specifics.

maybe when both processors are stock it is a bit faster but 4790K is not clock for clock more then at most 3% faster then 3770k and zilch in games. What intel has done is more or less increase the clocks not that much the efficiency clock for clock and of course their igp performance. Imo fact that amd does not have the money to compete is bad but what can we do, maybe help with out wallets but we ain't gonna as long as the products ain't as good as intels. While amd competes ok in everything but games with intel apart from eating too much power. APU's then again are way better then intel offerings.

#4853062

kendoka15

2014-06-23 08:37

What in the 290/290x was so inferior, except the stock cooler? The cards performed great with non stock cooling solutions and compete well with the green corner. P.S. Edited - need more coffee, sorry

A card that can BARELY get any overclock and runs cool with custom coolers yes but can't get any higher seems a bit inferior Though I did say it costs way less than the equivalent from Nvidia (And for the overclock thing, I was under the impression the X just had higher clocks but it appears I'm wrong, my bad)

#4853064

TheDeeGee

2014-06-23 08:43

When i see Liquid + Electronics, i say: "No, don't mix well" Maybe they could tease with a D15 instead... Same performance, quieter, no pump, no leakage.

#4853076

GhostXL

2014-06-23 08:57

Barely. devil canyon looks good, SB can easily get 4.8GHZ and up, my CPU can get 5.0GHZ... the real bottleneck if any video card will work way faster at PCI Express 3.0, then that the death of SB in that term.

It's not just about the Ghz comparing i7 Gen2 to Gen4 refresh. It's architecture and efficiency. Look at CPU specific benches around the net you will see on average 34% increase over your cpu. You say your CPU can do 5ghz yes, but up against Devils Canyon at 4.8 it will not match it still.

#4853090

Lane

2014-06-23 09:22

A card that can BARELY get any overclock and runs cool with custom coolers yes but can't get any higher seems a bit inferior Though I did say it costs way less than the equivalent from Nvidia (And for the overclock thing, I was under the impression the X just had higher clocks but it appears I'm wrong, my bad)

Just for understand, like for Nvidia, AMD release a sku: ( the 290x ), then decline it in lower sku ( the 290 ), the 290 is a cut down version of the 290x . Like the 7970 -7950 before or the 680, 670, 660TI for Nvidia. ( All based on GK104 but then declined in lower performance / cost price by disabling some SMX ( cuda cores ) .. This make just 10years Nvidia and AMD decline their series like that. ( with the exception of the 780 > 780TI, where Nvidia have first decline the GK110 with 1 SMX disabled ( the 780 ) and then release the 780TI 6month later ( with full SMX enabled so 15 in total ( GK110b ) ..

#4853091

moab600

2014-06-23 09:24

It's not just about the Ghz comparing i7 Gen2 to Gen4 refresh. It's architecture and efficiency. Look at CPU specific benches around the net you will see on average 34% increase over your cpu. You say your CPU can do 5ghz yes, but up against Devils Canyon at 4.8 it will not match it still.

Yes i have to look again, i know that haswell isn't an upgrade over 2700K, if devil canyon is than hooha! though still there is no reason to replace Sandy Bridge unless u have too.

#4853096

Ryu5uzaku

2014-06-23 09:31

It's not just about the Ghz comparing i7 Gen2 to Gen4 refresh. It's architecture and efficiency. Look at CPU specific benches around the net you will see on average 34% increase over your cpu. You say your CPU can do 5ghz yes, but up against Devils Canyon at 4.8 it will not match it still.

It might not match it but comes really darn close that sandy. Ivy and the earlier haswells are pretty much 0-5% of each other compared to this new one depending on benchies when clocks are similar. 4790K 4ghz and turbo 4.4 4790 3.6ghz and turbo 4ghz 4770k 3.6ghz and turbo 4ghz 3770k 3.5ghz and turbo 3.9ghz and 3770k goes to 4.8 easier then 4770k or even 4790k 😀 now pushing the older k's to 4.4 turbo they will be there at same performance level in some things even faster. But 4790k wins in efficiency and igp. even for moab if he could get 4790k to similar clocks as his sandy he would not see that big gains. cause the 2700k is still damn good proc.

#4853100

kd7

2014-06-23 09:38

I like how they're doing the same thing as the 290/290x, basically overclocking an inferior product to try and catch up If their prices weren't so cheap I'd wonder why anyone buys AMD

Go back in your hole troll.

#4853108

moab600

2014-06-23 09:42

It might not match it but comes really darn close that sandy. Ivy and the earlier haswells are pretty much 0-5% of each other compared to this new one depending on benchies when clocks are similar. 4790K 4ghz and turbo 4.4 4790 3.6ghz and turbo 4ghz 4770k 3.6ghz and turbo 4ghz 3770k 3.5ghz and turbo 3.9ghz and 3770k goes to 4.8 easier then 4770k or even 4790k 😀 now pushing the older k's to 4.4 turbo they will be there at same performance level in some things even faster. But 4790k wins in efficiency and igp. even for moab if he could get 4790k to similar clocks as his sandy he would not see that big gains. cause the 2700k is still damn good proc.

Yep, in games the gain will be so minimal and that the main focus, as the 2700K is so stronk and good for all the other tasks i do, i stay with sandy!

#4853110

chispy

2014-06-23 09:44

A card that can BARELY get any overclock and runs cool with custom coolers yes but can't get any higher seems a bit inferior

Let me quickly get some facts straight for you , 290X is a monster video card for overclocking , you are 100% wrong about your statement , please read around the net and inform yourself before going around saying so without proof. My 290x video card on a Swiftech komodo-R9-LE water block can run any game or benchmark at 1370/1600Mhz all day ( Yes almost 400Mhz overclock ) completely stable, and you stated without any proff that the AMD 290X can BARELY overclock , well good news for you , here is a complete video of my video card running at 1370/1600 100% load GPU-Z video test wish is based on furmark 😉 as solid irrefutable proof that 290X are overclocking monsters. ENJOY IT ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N9TBe2P08Q

#4853165

shymi

2014-06-23 11:03

A tweaked, liquid-cooled Kaveri would kickass. 4.4 maybe. 7870K or something.

I doubt, that it is an APU - if it was, somewhere on the box would be a huge fancy "A"("A FX" 😀), but maybe I'm wrong... or I hope I'm wrong...

#4853249

AzzKickr

2014-06-23 12:43

@GhostXL: get your facts right. We all know, as Hilbert also stated in his Devil's Canyon review, that there is in fact very little performance difference between i7 2700,3700,4700,4900, ... The numbers you're giving come from your own imagination. Intel is only very marginally increasing performance for the sole purpose that AMD gave up on CPU's and are aiming for APU's. PS: an AMD-FX at 6Ghz will shred a 4.4 Intel. No clock-per-clock performance ratio can beat a gap of 1.6GHz