AMD Unleashes 5 GHz Processor
Click here to post a comment for AMD Unleashes 5 GHz Processor on our message forum
PinchedNerve
One of my boys has an 8350 currently so I would be interested in this for him as long as the price isn't outrageous (when available).
Edit: And the performance is adequately increased over the 8350.
Cryio
Yeah, so the naming scheme completely broke their lineup. Way to go AMD.
bucknuts21
If the FX-9590 is around $200, and they don't already have high voltage on them I'll consider one considering I need at least 1.5v for 5Ghz an I don't like those temps.
BLEH!
Still have the 220W TDP?
schmidtbag
Kind of but not really. Nobody is going to make a 9 core CPU, and overclocking an 8 core CPU to 5GHz is almost like adding a 9th core.
Does make me wonder what the turbo speeds and power usage will be like. In other words, are these just simply pre-overclocked 8350s or is there an architectural difference?
Oh and while the article never said AMD was the first to break the 5GHz barrier at stock speed, I just wanted to clarify that they're not. IBM did this with Power6.
IcE
So this thing is real after all, lmao.
sykozis
5ghz is the turbo clock... and unless I'm mistaken Power6 isn't x86 which would make AMD the first to 5ghz on x86. AMD is the first to 5ghz with a consumer processor anyway...
schmidtbag
Oh yeah, I didn't read those last 2 lines of the article, my bad.
But anyways, you're right - Power6 is PPC based, but it is also considerably older, which make's it's feat a bit more impressive, even though it is (somewhat anyway) a RISC architecture.
FearFactory
TDP....? do i need a power plant..? :roll:
BLEH!
You getting one of these in to test boss?
Halfmead
Hope to see a review of this beast here soon 🙂
will it come with an integrated gpu as haswell ? i hope not, prefer cpu to be...cpu.
waiting for review to see if this is the one to move me from intel to AMD
schmidtbag
No, I'm not sure how that's physically possible for AMD, or even a wise choice if it were. Aside from this being AM3+, which has no APU support, I don't think there's room on the die to fit 8 cores and a GPU. Aside from the fact that AMD uses a larger fab size than Intel, they also have 8 physical cores, whereas Intel has 4 cores with 2 logical threads each.
Also, check out overclock results of 8300 series processors now. If that's not enough to convince you, the FX-9000 series probably won't either. I'd recommend waiting for Steamroller, since that's what the new gen consoles are based on (and therefore micro-optimizations for them ought to affect you to some degree) and SR ought to have a lot of much-needed improvements, particularly with single-threaded tasks. I myself would go for SR if I could get a guarantee it'd work on my board, but since there's maybe a 40% chance it will, I went for the FX-6300.
Neo Cyrus
Can it OC? If it can get even a pathetic 20% OC to 6GHz and has a $200 price point like its predecessors then it might be worth buying for heavily multithreaded scenarios. Might...
After Haswell I've been dying to see AMD come up with anything to compete.
Oh and:
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/071/0/a/It__s_over_9000_by_oneleg4cky.jpg
schmidtbag
According to the article, it has OCing headroom, but I too would be surprised if you could get a 20% increase, though, 20% isn't pathetic when we're talking frequencies this high, and 8 cores. I'm assuming this is going to be a lot like the FX-6350, where it's basically just a pre-overclocked version of it's predecessors.
Also, I wouldn't say you have much of a right to expect AMD to come up with a competitive product when you spend (presumably) over $1k on their competitor's Xeons... To me, people whining about AMD's performance while buying Intel is, in hindsight, hypocritical. When you consider AMD's net income is several billion dollars behind intel's PROFITS, it's just unrealistic to think they're going to suddenly do better than Intel in everything you care about.
---TK---
that might be as high as you can go 5ghz, there might not be any oc overhead left
Neo Cyrus
Generally there are two different lines of Xeons for every generation, one which costs a ridiculous amount, and one which costs just a bit more than their regular i7 counterparts. This is basically an i7 930 I got since Intel was selling bad batches of i7s at the time, it was the most assured way to avoid their bad batches. The 950 I had couldn't OC for squat, this thing can do over 4.3 on air.
You have quite a skewed perspective of what whining is. AMD have been failing to compete since 2006. Taking the OC into consideration along with what I do with a CPU, this was actually the best performance for the price when I bought it. AMD offering better bang for the buck is a myth, it only occurs in the rarest of scenarios.
Hoping AMD comes up with clock for clock performance above their old Phenom 2 line is not that crazy.
CPC_RedDawn
If these perform well and have some performance enhancements over my i7 960 D0 @ 4.2GHz I might actually consider getting one of these and making the jump to AMD. After all money is very tight at the moment and these chips are priced very nicely indeed. If there is OC headroom which the article suggests their is, as why would they unlock the multiplier if there wasn't any room for improvements. Also 220W TDP is not that bad for an 8-Core 5GHz out the box CPU. When you consider my current CPU has a TDP of 130W @ 3.2GHz for four cores! I have it at 4.2GHz and obviously that TDP would have gone up due to me overclocking it. So if these can get to even 5.5GHz with resonable temps on a H100 cooler in push>pull I will be sold. Those two extra cores will come in handy when video editing as well 🙂
schmidtbag
In a financial point of view, they've failed to compete since the beginning of x86. In a performance perspective, they really only started falling behind to an uncomfortable level when the Core 2 Quad came out. When i7 was first released, that's when people decided to ditch loyalty to AMD. When Sandy Bridge came out, that's when AMD started to need to let go a massive % of their work force due to unsuccessful sales.
Also, AMD created this new architecture knowing that it would be worse than Phenom clock per clock. Even if they had Intel's income, I don't think they'd have any immediate plans to fix that. They chose the shorter-pipeline-faster-freq route because it was the most cost and time effective approach to a much needed architecture overhaul. So, regardless of money, it's still unrealistic for them to design something that is faster clock per clock. At this rate, they just need to focus on higher frequencies with less power consumption.
moab600
Would be intersting to see vs 5.0ghz ivy or most likely 4.6-4.8 ivy and Sandy. though i think that what said about FX 8350 could be said about the new 9XXX. however intel need kick in the ass after the fail haswell(just in terms of heat and oc headroom, they LIED)
IcE
Intel didn't lie about anything, all that happened was that unsubstantiated rumors were proven untrue.
