Relaunch=fail imo

it's more about them having a continuous presence in the market until they can come up with something new than anything else. They already said they dropped the bulldozer line more than 6 months ago and it was the right decision imo, to keep insisting with that architecture would be suicide. And with these in mind, I don't see how they could have released something better than that right now.

Yeah how much $$ is a liquid cooler going to add to the price of the fx 9590? To me it is not worth it. I have only owned 2 AMD CPUS in my life one was an AMD 486 DX4 120 which was a power house 486 for its time excluding them very good 5x86 chips. And an AMD k6 3 450 which turned out to be a fail because of the motherboard I had did not have good support of technologies that games required back then that Intel boards did. I think AMD needs to go back to their roots with what they did with the Athlon 64 and 64 x2 which were awesome chips back in the day. And from my understanding the 64 x2 showed how bad the Pentium D's were.

The Athlon XP's were actually the ones taking the hurt to Intel P4's. I remember my Athlon XP 1866MHz hitting 2600MHz on water. Then the Athlon 64's smashed Intel even more, with Intel having to follow suit. If the Israeli arm of Intel hadn't come up with Banias and the Pentium-M, Intel would be neck deep in sh!t by now. AT normal resolutions (1080p and up) the CPU choice makes almost no difference to gamers. I will concede that the TDP is something else, 220W is huge for a CPU, but its still not far from the 150W Xeon CPU's that are out there, and I don't see people harping on about how they need massive watercooled AIO's to keep them cool ? A single, at least 35mm thick, 120mm radiator would be enough to cool this chip, with Push-pull fans of course. There is also the compiler question. If you use a standard Intel compiler to compile your code, are you optimising for Intel, and in that case, disadvantaging AMD ? A lot of factors come into the usage of a CPU, but its your usage that counts. If you're a gamer, what does it matter that this CPU runs games faster than AMD at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 ? I have no real fandom, I just like to play with things, and build PC's. I would so love for the Alpha's to still be in the game....(well, they are, sort of : Google Shenwei 1600) Also, remembering the Acorn Archimedes my cuzins had, I don't see why most office machines can't run off of a dual/quad core 64bit ARM chip...much less power usage, much more efficient for the work asked of it.

Also, remembering the Acorn Archimedes my cuzins had....

That was a legendary machine but never really took off as the main problem was it did not have much software written for it, and as for games it had a chess game and pacman IIRC. I remember the game magazines at that time mocking it: "as we enjoy Shadow of the Beast (on the Amiga500) Archimedes owners can enjoy pacman"

Yet people will buy this because they see "5Ghz with liquid cooling" as a combination. They won't understand that Intel Ghz are better than AMD Ghz. All due to architectures. You will still have people mislead and buy it. I mean if its good enough for some people fine, but at that price you can get a 3770K/4770K/4790K. Just OC one of those and it'll be way faster than this FX 9590 can be. Even at stock those chips will win. I miss the AMD Athlon 64 X2 days. I'd buy an AMD chip again if they could keep up with Intel. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+64+X2+Dual+Core+6000%2B There is my old 6000+

If they had improved the binning process, then I would say it is worth it. However, as it is now, probably not so much. (Although, I do like the 9590, I already have an 8350 and 8320 so there is really no point.)

After the article the other day I thought for sure AMD was going to pull a "psych! just kidding, we just weren't ready to tell ya about this new amazeballs cpu yet. :banana:" after they removed FX from the roadmap last year and said they were not going to worry about enthusiast cpus anymore. Sigh.... After 2 decades of nothing but AMD cpus I am going to have to buy intel when I build a new machine next year. Now on the topic here.. so failing to sell a steel melting overclocked 8350 as a new processor once just wasn't enough huh?? They are back to fail again. I thought the fx-9590 came with water cooling the first time? Ive ran my 8350 at 4.7 & 5GHz with an H100 on an Asus Sabertooth 990fx in a cooler master HAF 932 with MEGA amounts of air exchange and my VRM's were hitting 70-80c and processor creeping quickly to 55-60c under load. thank god for TUF components. Many mb's say 60 max for the VRMs. One last thing.. if you look at www-amd-com/en-us/products/processors/desktop/fx# you can see the water cooler on the side of the box... an h60 basically. good luck with that.

One last thing.. if you look at www-amd-com/en-us/products/processors/desktop/fx# you can see the water cooler on the side of the box... an h60 basically. good luck with that.

What are you talking about? First off, you cannot at all clearly see the AIO cooler in that shot. Second off, it is at least an H80 or H90 since that is what the AIO cooler was in the FX 8350 boxed set.

What are you talking about? First off, you cannot at all clearly see the AIO cooler in that shot. Second off, it is at least an H80 or H90 since that is what the AIO cooler was in the FX 8350 boxed set.

If it's an H90 there will be no problem at all there. I run one on my i7 3770k at 4.4ghz and I don't see it going past 65C stressed out. It sits idle at 25-28C most of the time.

I think what makes this worse is the fact they're repeating the same mistakes Intel made back when AMD dominated with the XP > A64 series of chips.

I think what makes this worse is the fact they're repeating the same mistakes Intel made back when AMD dominated with the XP > A64 series of chips.

Not really, they just are not turning the ship around as fast as we would like. This release is probably more likely being done to off load excess stock more than anything else. (Just a guess though, I have no proof of it.)

They made a similar move awhile back with the original release of the 9590, it wasn't a particularly good idea then and it isn't now. As much as I'd love to see AMD doing something to turn things around, they're dragging their feet and have been for a long time now.

Ramping up clockspeeds desperately? Say what you want, this is AMD's Netburst.

Ramping up clockspeeds desperately? Say what you want, this is AMD's Netburst.

We're a couple gens past that

5ghz cpu loses to a stock 4770 4790 Then you can oc the intels. Total fail. Like the p4 netburst cpu losing to a much lower clocked amd. Begining to think amd will never catch up in my lifetime.

Maybe AMD should just drop the FX line entirely and call it a day. Focus their resources on the APU and GPU departments instead. The APU is the one thing AMD still has on Intel.

Maybe AMD should just drop the FX line entirely and call it a day. Focus their resources on the APU and GPU departments instead. The APU is the one thing AMD still has on Intel.

I agree if AMD could make a hex core APU then they might have something.

Ramping up clockspeeds desperately? Say what you want, this is AMD's Netburst.

It's hardly desperate. The problem with Bulldozer in general is that some design elements were poorly implemented for unknown reasons. Like the inclusion of shared FPU resources for one thing. If there were 8 FPU modules each linked to an integer core, with the only thing being shared were banks of L3, the chip would have easily given Intel a run for its money performance wise. Even though the power usage would have probably still been just as high. It at least would have been competitive. But I think they were banking too much on being able to achieve high frequency and perform well purely in integer based tasking. Oh well, it's hard to get things exactly right when your company is as poorly manged as AMD has been. Not to mention their cash flow is obviously significantly restricted. Even then, having unlimited cash doesn't seem to be doing Intel many favors. They're still struggling for some reason to put out a competitive chip against ARM for phones and tablets.

They made a similar move awhile back with the original release of the 9590, it wasn't a particularly good idea then and it isn't now. As much as I'd love to see AMD doing something to turn things around, they're dragging their feet and have been for a long time now.

They are hardly dragging their feet. Seems to me folks have a selective memory on where things where just 2 years ago as compared to today. Things are slowly moving around towards the better. A straight up CPU is not as big a deal as it once was.