AMD becomes the first to reach 5GHz with FX-9590 processor

[Steve]

I wonder how their Turbo Core 3 will improve anything. When will see any benchmarks on this Steve?
What is also pretty funny, is the fact that this "enthusiast" CPU doesnt support RAM beyond 1866MHz. Good job AMD...

Just got word from AMD, they are not sampling the FX-9000 series at this point which is surprising. At a guess I would say the reason is the performance isn't that great given the tradeoffs.

Yea, honestly a lot of people are hell bent on comparing the FX 8's to the i7 processor line and don't see the purpose of the chip. Its a very good hybrid performance chip honestly because of the way the 8 cores giving you multi-threaded performance for high multi-tasking purposes and tasks while the performance in general is on par for Gaming purposes too. Really the differences is simple, if you only play games on the machine at the moment, the I5 is a great chip. But if you like to do lots of things, gaming, rendering, and heavily threaded tasks, then the FX 8350 chip might be a better option especially seeing that games are starting to even hit the 6 core range of usage. In terms of sheer performance, no one denies the I7 is a better chip, but its still 100 + dollars more and comparing it generation to generation, its not that big a difference in overall performance as people make it out to be, but it is still the TOP overall.

Like ive said in the past, each company has a different answer to the same question, which ever way your prefer, is up to you.

The FX-8000 series are not 8-core processors, they are really 4-core processors with a HyperThreading like technology. So its 8-threads rather on 4-cores.

Chips like the FX-8350 are only cheap because they have to be, they struggle to compete with the Core i5’s and that is why they are priced alongside them.

Even in programs that use more than 4-threads the Core i5’s are often faster as each core is so much more efficient. Gaming is where the FX-8000 series often looks best due to most games being GPU limited.

I mean look at our encoding results…

https://www.techspot.com/review/679-intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k/page10.html

The Core i5 owns the FX-8350 in most of those tests, particularly the real-world applications.

Having said all that the FX-8350 is a great value chip given the price so essentially what you are trying to say is correct

 

[dividebyzero]

Just got word from AMD, they are not sampling the FX-9000 series at this point which is surprising. At a guess I would say the reason is the performance isn't that great given the tradeoffs.

What tradeoffs ???
Oh...

 

[Steve]

What tradeoffs ???

LOL come on own up who turned their FX-9000 system on?

 

[SexyMan]

AMD is the budget CPU, but a lot of people I know (not much tech knowledge) associate AMD with lower quality and being slow. They have to produce a product that can change that mentality.

You are right, AMD is a budget CPU that is more than very capable... that's why I built this for average people who does spreadsheet, word processing, internet browsing, Facebook, Skype, and casual gaming (windows 8 app store games, Facebook games like candy crush etc) .. these average people does not download 3Dmark, Sandra, super pi, passmark etc.. to benchmark.. They don't even know the word "benchmark". However, they know there's an INTEL and they don't care because money dictates.

Analogy is... the average people know there such a car called Lamborghini or Ferrari but they still drive a Corolla because MONEY is a big factor and the Corolla can serve them very well for the everyday use like going to grocery, point A to point B and ETC but not racing at the track.. >>> There's an Intel but AMD is more than good enough for everyday use.

For the money they save, I usually tell them to get an SSD instead.. that's were you can really feel a very good speed improvement.

 

[dividebyzero]

You are right.

Who's "you" ? You just referenced most of the people that posted on the thread. You keep this up and we'll need a bigger internet.

 

[SexyMan]

Who's "you" ? You just referenced most of the people that posted on the thread. You keep this up and we'll need a bigger internet.

I quoted him but my tag did not work.

Edit.. just fixed it

 

[Guest]

I think all you people criticizing AMD for not being efficient, you're spot-on wrong... Everyone who does, seems to forget that AMD is squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of each manufacturing process / node they get their hands on. The current AMD CPUs still run on the 32nm process, whereas Intel is at 22nm since Sandy Bridge. So give me a break with your lack-of-efficiency claims that are simply bogus. Comparing process to process is the only way to be honest and fair, and the fact that AMD holds [relatively] their own using an aged [32nm] process is a de facto statement about being the most efficient company from the two. Current AMD's FX processors have been designed for a future that hasn't arrived yet (multi-core applications etc), and you'll see this mentioned time and again in every review, along with one-off benchmarks that AMD bests Intel's -X series CPUs that cost +$1K! Simply put, Intel's capitalizing on legacy applications whereas AMD's moved on...(unfortunately maybe a little too soon to make a good bottom-line).

P.S. Not too long after Rory Read took the CEO spot at AMD, it was formally announced that AMD stopped formally competing with Intel, which IMO was a good decision to end the rat-race. It's one thing competing fairly, and another when your competitor has their own foundry and uses monopolistic tactics, and kickbacks, and influence on blocking AMDs CPUs to be sold by OEMs. History is littered with Intel's foul play, which is in part why AMD is struggling because they don't have that much liquidity/resources to splurge on "buying" OEMs.

 

[GhostRyder]

The FX-8000 series are not 8-core processors, they are really 4-core processors with a HyperThreading like technology. So its 8-threads rather on 4-cores.

Ehhhhhhh, not really, there are 8 "logical" cores in the fx 8350 so it is in truth an "8 core processor". I mean, they aren't 8 full cores, it's a different idea like you and I said to hyper-threading. Hyper-threading splits a core and half and considers itself 2 cores, on the fx chips, each module in truth contains "2 logical cores". It's a different concept than what intel was going for.

 

[Steve]

I think all you people criticizing AMD for not being efficient, you're spot-on wrong... Everyone who does, seems to forget that AMD is squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of each manufacturing process / node they get their hands on. The current AMD CPUs still run on the 32nm process, whereas Intel is at 22nm since Sandy Bridge. So give me a break with your lack-of-efficiency claims that are simply bogus. Comparing process to process is the only way to be honest and fair, and the fact that AMD holds [relatively] their own using an aged [32nm] process is a de facto statement about being the most efficient company from the two. Current AMD's FX processors have been designed for a future that hasn't arrived yet (multi-core applications etc), and you'll see this mentioned time and again in every review, along with one-off benchmarks that AMD bests Intel's -X series CPUs that cost +$1K! Simply put, Intel's capitalizing on legacy applications whereas AMD's moved on...(unfortunately maybe a little too soon to make a good bottom-line).

P.S. Not too long after Rory Read took the CEO spot at AMD, it was formally announced that AMD stopped formally competing with Intel, which IMO was a good decision to end the rat-race. It's one thing competing fairly, and another when your competitor has their own foundry and uses monopolistic tactics, and kickbacks, and influence on blocking AMDs CPUs to be sold by OEMs. History is littered with Intel's foul play, which is in part why AMD is struggling because they don't have that much liquidity/resources to splurge on "buying" OEMs.

Intel only moved to the 22nm process with Ivy Bridge which isn’t a great deal faster than Sandy Bridge (32nm part). I wasn’t even talking power consumption, by core efficiency I mean a single Intel core is much faster than a single AMD core. We have seen Intel Core i5 processors clocked at just 2.0GHz providing the same or even more performance in some cases than an FX-8000 series processors at 4.0GHz, that is the efficiency I and virtually everyone else is talking about.

I am not bashing AMD for the sake of bashing them. Saying that AMD is squeezing every last bit of performance out of the 32nm process isn’t just wrong, it’s pretty silly as well.

Ehhhhhhh, not really, there are 8 "logical" cores in the fx 8350 so it is in truth an "8 core processor". I mean, they aren't 8 full cores, it's a different idea like you and I said to hyper-threading. Hyper-threading splits a core and half and considers itself 2 cores, on the fx chips, each module in truth contains "2 logical cores". It's a different concept than what intel was going for.

Ehhhhhhh put it however you want, does it change anything about core efficiency? Also when I said HT "like" that is very much what I meant, didn't say it was the same concept.

 

[captaincranky]

I

P.S. Not too long after Rory Read took the CEO spot at AMD, it was formally announced that AMD stopped formally competing with Intel, which IMO was a good decision to end the rat-race. It's one thing competing fairly, and another when your competitor has their own foundry and uses monopolistic tactics, and kickbacks, and influence on blocking AMDs CPUs to be sold by OEMs. History is littered with Intel's foul play, which is in part why AMD is struggling because they don't have that much liquidity/resources to splurge on "buying" OEMs.

So your suggesting that was was strategic decision, and not based on the fact it didn't matter what announcement was made, they couldn't compete anyway.

I have to laugh at all this "root for the underdog garbage".

Back when Intel was pushing clock speed, using net burst architecture, peddling P-4s and struggling to keep up with AMD, the AMD fanbois were having a field day running their yaps.
In fact, AMD even numbered their CPUs to indicate the clock speed they felt was comparable to an equivalent Intel CPU.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and AMD has to overclock everything to keep their heads above water. Suddenly, clock speed is the ultimate measure. Maybe Intel should start numbering their products commensurate with AMD's old policies as well.

And CPU efficiency , well that means nothing. And just because an Intel CPU will do the same work for half the energy, well that's just "foul play and industrial bullying", now isn't it?

 

[dividebyzero]

The current AMD CPUs still run on the 32nm process, whereas Intel is at 22nm since Sandy Bridge. So give me a break with your lack-of-efficiency claims that are simply bogus. Comparing process to process is the only way to be honest and fair,

That would mean pitting the FX-8350 against the 990X (Gulftown: 22% smaller die, 15.6% lower core speed, 2 fewer "cores" if you don't buy into the shared front end of PD's modules negating the 8 core theory), or Xeon E5-2690 (equal number of "cores", 36% larger die, 27% lower all cores enabled speed)
Both Intel's early and late 32nm process tend to stack up pretty well with PD- and that's without the benefit of PD's wider range of instruction set compatibility. AMD's efficiency deficit stems just as much from an inefficient cache structure as shared front end resources, and Intel being able to maximise their cache performance (minimizing cache miss penalties) thanks to an integrated µOp cache with SB/IB/Haswell.

and the fact that AMD holds [relatively] their own using an aged [32nm] process is a de facto statement about being the most efficient company from the two

Efficient in what way ? Performance per mm² or performance per watt. These are the two metrics most used in judging process efficiency. The other measure is usually a foundry process metric ( transistors per mm²), and PD works out at 5.02 million/mm² to SB-E's 5.22m/mm².

Not too long after Rory Read took the CEO spot at AMD, it was formally announced that AMD stopped formally competing with Intel.

Pap to relieve the weight of expectation from AMD's shoulders. You can bet your bottom dollar that Kaveri is aimed squarely at Haswell. AMD will leverage the graphics IP they have as a head-to-head competitor against Intel. Conventional CPUs and chipsets might be an entirely different prospect, but then, AMD haven't really been in that particular race for a while. How much real difference is there between the 800 and 900 series chipsets? and how long as the 990FX been AMD's flagship? No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.

 

[Kelorth]

Pretty badass. Its still an AMD though!

Very nice sounding CPU, if you're into PC games, this is the CPU to go for, the next gen consoles are all AMD and their Radeon hardware based, so makes sense to go AMD, most PC games are now console ports, so they'll run far more smoothly on AMD, I've cancelled my new Nvidia GPUs and waiting for the new Radeon 8000 series, I'll most likely have to upgrade my Motherboard too, but what the hell, it's due for an overhaul.

I'm glad I waited until the new consoles were announced and didn't waste my cash on Intel.

 

[Guest]

GG to anyone who can run Battlefield at 360FPS when the FPS

cap is 200.

 

[JCrysis86]

AMD winning the war? First, there has to be a war. There isn't one. Intel has beatin AMD for several years. Yes Intel is more expensive but it sells very well. Its performance is KING. AMD while it is heaper doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just doesn't work against gaming and some other areas where alot of money can be made. AMD is IMO a good company that is struggling. They maybe on their way back but only time will tell for sure. You can be as cheap as you want but if reviews and consumers still say Intel is better, they could offer their products for free and most still won't get as it just isn't good enough. Your avergae consumer would take it but the real money is in the enthauesiast and gaming market. I would like to see AMD become a stronger competitor but they are doing things so different, that they are basically not even competing against Intel. Maybe that's their goal or maybe they are planning for the future. Who knows for sure, we'll all have to wait and see.

Since when is the real money in the Enthusiast market?!? The Enthusiast or "Hardcore" makes up what? 1-2% of overall sales......Most people walk into wal-mart see a laptop or desktop for $50-$100 less with an AMD in it and it's a no brainer. I have an Ivy Bridge, but The difference is not exactly mind blowing anymore between the 2 in gaming performance maybe 5-10 frames. Haswell is an absolute joke as well the performance difference is hardly there compared to its Ivy Bridge counterparts, and the integrated GPU performance still gets destroyed by AMD APU offerings. I hope AMD makes a comeback, intel is pulling a 3DFX and resting on its laurels instead of making quality products to push the market further.

 

[amstech]

Very nice sounding CPU, if you're into PC games, this is the CPU to go for, the next gen consoles are all AMD and their Radeon hardware based, so makes sense to go AMD, most PC games are now console ports, so they'll run far more smoothly on AMD, I've cancelled my new Nvidia GPUs and waiting for the new Radeon 8000 series, I'll most likely have to upgrade my Motherboard too, but what the hell, it's due for an overhaul.

I'm glad I waited until the new consoles were announced and didn't waste my cash on Intel.

I've had AMD CPU's to game on and while they perform awesome for the price, Intel is king. They (i7's) rule the gaming charts. As far as the Radeon's they are awesome for the price but again, I am not saving money. I want the fastest GPU with the least amount of driver issues and most features, so I spend the money and get Nvidia. Everything is priced accordingly, you get what you pay for.

 

[PC nerd]

>AMD
>2013

Seriously though, with a TDP of 500 million watts, no one is going to be able to keep this thing cool.

 

[Jad Chaar]

I think AMDs whole team needs a shake up. The CPU and GPU division seem to like increasing the clock speeds more than squeezing out pure performance.

 

[GhostRyder]

and how long as the 990FX been AMD's flagship? No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.

Wrong
http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/asus_amd_sabertooth_motherboard_with_pci_express_3.html

/re Ignore

Yeah JC713, I agree on the CPU part, not the GPU part, they are doing excellent there no matter what anyone is saying. When Steamroller comes out, I want to see where they turn their attention to because that could easily be a better deciding factor then this lol. Ill still probably unless the claims of performance are true with this next architecture are true, grabbing the Ivy Bridge-E chip.

Ehhhhhhh put it however you want, does it change anything about core efficiency? Also when I said HT "like" that is very much what I meant, didn't say it was the same concept.

...I agreed with you lol, I said you were right on the HT like part. Im just saying in terms of HT versus the multi-core idea of AMD, the concept is only better in multi-threaded apps that can really take advantage of that concept. Intel is better a Core efficiency, I never denied that and anyone who is is obviously ignorant to that fact. Intel Focuses on the Single Core Efficiency, AMD went for Multi-Core efficiency and they are moving along. Only time will tell who was right, but at the moment, Intel was right.

Very nice sounding CPU, if you're into PC games, this is the CPU to go for, the next gen consoles are all AMD and their Radeon hardware based, so makes sense to go AMD, most PC games are now console ports, so they'll run far more smoothly on AMD, I've cancelled my new Nvidia GPUs and waiting for the new Radeon 8000 series, I'll most likely have to upgrade my Motherboard too, but what the hell, it's due for an overhaul.

I'm glad I waited until the new consoles were announced and didn't waste my cash on Intel.

Hit the nail on the head there

 

[Jad Chaar]

I've had AMD CPU's to game on and while they perform awesome for the price, Intel is king. They (i7's) rule the gaming charts. As far as the Radeon's they are awesome for the price but again, I am not saving money. I want the fastest GPU with the least amount of driver issues and most features, so I spend the money and get Nvidia. Everything is priced accordingly, you get what you pay for.

AMD has fixed their driver issues a bit with the uninstall utility. But that is only for Windows 7 at the moment. I hope they build it into the installer soon. AMDs problem now is really the fact that they dont get drivers out on major title release dates like nVidia does. That is where AMD needs to improve.

 

[stonarda]

Why is this now becoming a debate about who is better..Intel or AMD??? They both have advantages and disadvantages, we all know this! I run an 8350 and am perfectly happy with it! But I still am aware that Intel has better single threaded performance than AMD, but AMD has better multithreaded performance. Give the chip a chance and then discuss it.

 

[GhostRyder]

AMD has fixed their driver issues a bit with the uninstall utility. But that is only for Windows 7 at the moment. I hope they build it into the installer soon. AMDs problem now is really the fact that they dont get drivers out on major title release dates like nVidia does. That is where AMD needs to improve.

Yea, that having to uninstall first thing and driver sweep was annoying. Though now with the uninstall utility, its fine now (FYI it does work on windows 8). I do wish they would speed up driver releases for games as they come out.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Yea, that having to uninstall first thing and driver sweep was annoying. Though now with the uninstall utility, its fine now (FYI it does work on windows 8). I do wish they would speed up driver releases for games as they come out.

Dat pic (y). Their driver team is a mess, that is the reality.

 

[cliffordcooley]

But I still am aware that Intel has better single threaded performance than AMD, but AMD has better multithreaded performance.

Seriously how can a chip have better multi-threaded performance when they suffer at single-threaded performance. Forgive me but this sounds to be contradictory statements. Not to mention the fact that if true, AMD would be on top of the benchmark test.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Seriously how can a chip have better multi-threaded performance when they suffer at single-threaded performance. Forgive me but this sounds to be contradictory statements. Not to mention the fact that if true, AMD would be on top of the benchmark test.

Like I said, AMD doesnt know how to optimize cores. They just know how to up the clock speed and TDP .

 

[amstech]

That is where AMD needs to improve.

AMD still has all types of driver issues, ranging from more bugs/glitches on average to install/uninstall problems.
This quote from Toms Hardware by a review done on May 30th caught my eye.

Enthusiasts ready to go big with multiple GPUs should be looking to Nvidia’s cards until AMD can sort out the issues with its frame pacing that we saw affect Battlefield 3, BioShock Infinite, Crysis 3, Far Cry 3, and Tomb Raider.

Article located here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-31.html