AMD first to reach 5GHz with FX-9590 processor

By on June 11, 2013, 11:33 AM
amd, intel, cpu, chip, overclocking, 5ghz, fx-9590

The first commercially-available processor to reach clock speeds of 5GHz is now a reality courtesy of AMD. The FX-9590, the latest addition to the chipmaker’s FX lineup, features eight Piledriver processing cores and is completely unlocked as per its Black Edition branding to aid in overclocking, should 5GHz still not be enough for you.

The Fx-9590 carries a base clock of 4.7GHz but is able to hit the 5GHz mark using Turbo Core technology which means it’s about 17.5 percent faster than the FX-8350, AMD’s current top chip. It’ll arrive using the AM3+ package, we’re told, because there aren’t many boards that officially support a ship with such high power consumption.

The chip will initially be available only through system integrators which means the average enthusiast won’t be able to get their hands on it right away. The reason for this likely has to do with cooling requirements as some end users won’t have the necessary cooling capability to keep the chip from overheating.

Reaching the 5GHz mark is good news for AMD as it’s another feather in the proverbial cap as the chipmaker was also the first to reach the 1GHz barrier way back in May 2000. They were also the first to build a 64-bit processor for the PC, the first to launch native dual- and quad-core processors, first to market with an APU and the first to produce a quad-core x86 SoC. In reality, however, the FX-9590 will do little to help AMD position themselves against rival Intel.

The FX-9590 is expected to be released later this summer. Pricing remains unknown at this hour, however.




User Comments: 165

Got something to say? Post a comment
amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Pretty badass. Its still an AMD though!

4 people like this | veLa veLa said:

I'll gladly support AMD. The money saved on their processors, which are still plenty powerful enough, is money I can invest in a better video card or more RAM.

1 person liked this | Ranger1st Ranger1st said:

AMD is always a win for me, Fed up with Intel after PIII's. Nice to see AMD pushing power in the desktop market.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Since AMD is not as efficient as Intel, it was only a matter of time for AMD to be first in reaching 5GHz milestone. While this is impressive, I'd love to see a benchmark comparison of an Intel CPU with the same frequency and core count.

Critica1Hit said:

So why exactly is Intel still king when their's is more expensive? I'm asking honestly...

Though I'm an IT guy I've never been to savvy with CPU architectures and stuff. Would anyone care to provide some insights? Thanks.

7 people like this | psycros psycros said:

The Intel vs AMD debate is really about hard-core gamers vs everyone else. Most people aren't going choose between the absolute cheapest computer around or a high-end gaming rig - they go for the comfortable middle ground. AMD beats Intel in price-to-performance at the low end. Intel beats AMD in the top range..if you're willing to pay the premium. But there's almost no difference between them in that vast middle ground where most consumers spend their money. A $175 dollar AMD chip will match the performance of a similar-priced Intel CPU in nearly every respect. Yes, both will do a little better in certain areas but overall their neck in neck. At day's end, bang for the buck is really all that matters, and if anyone's winning that war its gotta be AMD.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

I'm still shocked these things exist, but whatever, it's here so let's see how they do. I really wanna see 3 major things before I'd consider these 2 chips.

The performance gains

Overclocking potential

Runnings temp/power consumption

It's already sounding like its going to run warm, but if there is some decent performance increases and it can still be overclocker to higher levels without the chip frying everything, then I might consider grabbing it. But I won't if the benchmark on cpumark is not over 10k minimum.

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

I used to be an AMD guy for years, but my 2 yr old 2600k @ 4.5 still beats this...

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

I used to be an AMD guy for years, but my 2 yr old 2600k @ 4.5 still beats this...

[link]

I beg to differ...

I'm still looking forward to ivy bridge-e though.

Guest said:

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.

1 person liked this | customcarvin customcarvin said:

I used to be an AMD guy for years, but my 2 yr old 2600k @ 4.5 still beats this...

[link]

I beg to differ...

I'm still looking forward to ivy bridge-e though.

He said at 4.5Ghz...

Lionvibez said:

I'll gladly support AMD. The money saved on their processors, which are still plenty powerful enough, is money I can invest in a better video card or more RAM.

Until you play a game that requires High IPC like starcraft 2 and you now notice you are processor bottlenecked and no amount of overclocking will save you :p

VitalyT VitalyT said:

AMD can go flogging it as The Hottest CPU ever made, and it will be true...

Heihachi1337 said:

Nice! I hope this indicates that AMD isn't totally out of the game yet and that this year they actually show they are still something of a threat to Intel. The last 2 years haven't been that great for them.

I love AMD for the price/performance point but I will have to admit my current rig is running an Intel Core i7 2600k and an nVidia GTX-680 card (replaced my GTX-580, heat issues).

My kids are due for new computers soon....

Lionvibez said:

Since AMD is not as efficient as Intel, it was only a matter of time for AMD to be first in reaching 5GHz milestone. While this is impressive, I'd love to see a benchmark comparison of an Intel CPU with the same frequency and core count.

[link]

I beg to differ...

I'm still looking forward to ivy bridge-e though.

lol dude quit playing.

that is one benchmark it easy to play that game.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287

Here is a review both at stock covering multiple applications now add 1Ghz to each its not going to change the position.

Guest said:

AMD is cheaper $ for $ only if you're on a decent solar array and\or prefer to heat your house with your computer. :p

2 people like this | Scavengers Scavengers said:

I'll gladly support AMD. The money saved on their processors, which are still plenty powerful enough, is money I can invest in a better video card or more RAM.

Until you play a game that requires High IPC like starcraft 2 and you now notice you are processor bottlenecked and no amount of overclocking will save you :p

This was true 3 years ago Lionvibez. Back then an OC'ed i5 750 came in at mid 50's in Starcraft 2 while a Phenom 2 x4 965 clocked in at a still playable 40 fps. However now the Piledriver and Vishera core AMD's are quite a bit faster than the old Phenom 2's.

These new AMD CPU's still cant get to the framerate of the Intel CPU's in CPU dependant games (which are getting fewer all the time) but we no longer see a scenario where having an AMD processor will actually cause an obvious loss in playability.

Dave

punisherx punisherx said:

I'll gladly support AMD. The money saved on their processors, which are still plenty powerful enough, is money I can invest in a better video card or more RAM.

Until you play a game that requires High IPC like starcraft 2 and you now notice you are processor bottlenecked and no amount of overclocking will save you :p

sry to say man my amd 8 core does better then the intel I7 on that game and I dont over clock it. starcraft 2 is to ez to run lol now go with a FPS game like black ops and battle field now theres a game to test it on but I still wont lag vs the I7 which will get a lil lower frame rate then a amd just cuz intels dont like vid cards that are not intel , amd + ati work together to make a better pc.

I run at 360fps in battle field off 1 vid card no lag ever and never over clocked.

hell a I5 gen 2 can in some games beat the I7 I have seen it both my frends have the pc we put all 3 side by side and the amd beat all on load and frame rate and minimzin the game and open new windows.

till u put them all side by side u will never know the dif its all just here say intel people love there stuff amd people love there they all think the rest is crap lol im a amd guy cuz well its cheaper and runs longer and better I have seen to many intel pc blow up and start on fire or just fry out

likedamaster said:

"In reality, however, the FX-9590 will do little to help AMD position themselves against rival Intel."

Just something to note. I hope their hard work pays off one day, but truth is their chips aren't as efficient as Intel's. My 2 cents.

2 people like this | LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

I'll gladly support AMD. The money saved on their processors, which are still plenty powerful enough, is money I can invest in a better video card or more RAM.

Until you play a game that requires High IPC like starcraft 2 and you now notice you are processor bottlenecked and no amount of overclocking will save you :p

sry to say man my amd 8 core does better then the intel I7 on that game and I dont over clock it. starcraft 2 is to ez to run lol now go with a FPS game like black ops and battle field now theres a game to test it on but I still wont lag vs the I7 which will get a lil lower frame rate then a amd just cuz intels dont like vid cards that are not intel , amd + ati work together to make a better pc.

I run at 360fps in battle field off 1 vid card no lag ever and never over clocked.

hell a I5 gen 2 can in some games beat the I7 I have seen it both my frends have the pc we put all 3 side by side and the amd beat all on load and frame rate and minimzin the game and open new windows.

till u put them all side by side u will never know the dif its all just here say intel people love there stuff amd people love there they all think the rest is crap lol im a amd guy cuz well its cheaper and runs longer and better I have seen to many intel pc blow up and start on fire or just fry out

I'm just going to quote your post and wait for the next guy to comment because it looks like this forum has become a satirical comedy blog with the way you're talking.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

lol dude quit playing.

that is one benchmark it easy to play that game.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287

Here is a review both at stock covering multiple applications now add 1Ghz to each its not going to change the position.

That "one benchmark" is an aoe benchmark tha tests lots of different properties of the CPU. It's one of the least biased benchmarking tools out there and puts CPUs at the proper place based on overall performance from multiple samples.

That link you provided showed mostly biased benchmarks and outdated ones at that. I play Starcraft 2 HOTS on Ultra, I'm not getting 45 fps, I'm getting constant 60.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm just going to quote your post and wait for the next guy to comment because it looks like this forum has become a satirical comedy blog with the way you're talking.
LOL

Yeah, I found the comment humorous too.

Lionvibez said:

That "one benchmark" is an aoe benchmark tha tests lots of different properties of the CPU. It's one of the least biased benchmarking tools out there and puts CPUs at the proper place based on overall performance from multiple samples.

That link you provided showed mostly biased benchmarks and outdated ones at that. I play Starcraft 2 HOTS on Ultra, I'm not getting 45 fps, I'm getting constant 60.

Luckily for us everyone that designs software goes out of their way to make sure it runs great on all processors. Actually wait a min they don't :P

why does everyone I know that plays SC2 recommend intel processors?

JC713 JC713 said:

The heat that will come out of that huge TDP will be a problem.

Lionvibez said:

This was true 3 years ago Lionvibez. Back then an OC'ed i5 750 came in at mid 50's in Starcraft 2 while a Phenom 2 x4 965 clocked in at a still playable 40 fps. However now the Piledriver and Vishera core AMD's are quite a bit faster than the old Phenom 2's.

These new AMD CPU's still cant get to the framerate of the Intel CPU's in CPU dependant games (which are getting fewer all the time) but we no longer see a scenario where having an AMD processor will actually cause an obvious loss in playability.

Dave

I know you will still get playable frame rates but there are games as you pointed out that prefer the high IPC of the intel cpu's and do show a difference SC2 was just one example there are some others also.

And I do not think Pile driver @ 5ghz will be greater than a 2600K @ 4.5Ghz but we will have to wait until its out to confirm this. And once you go up to Ivy or Haswell the distance should be greater.

Lionvibez said:

sry to say man my amd 8 core does better then the intel I7 on that game and I dont over clock it. starcraft 2 is to ez to run lol now go with a FPS game like black ops and battle field now theres a game to test it on but I still wont lag vs the I7 which will get a lil lower frame rate then a amd just cuz intels dont like vid cards that are not intel , amd + ati work together to make a better pc.

I run at 360fps in battle field off 1 vid card no lag ever and never over clocked.

hell a I5 gen 2 can in some games beat the I7 I have seen it both my frends have the pc we put all 3 side by side and the amd beat all on load and frame rate and minimzin the game and open new windows.

till u put them all side by side u will never know the dif its all just here say intel people love there stuff amd people love there they all think the rest is crap lol im a amd guy cuz well its cheaper and runs longer and better I have seen to many intel pc blow up and start on fire or just fry out

Dude that was difficult to read.

Not even sure where to go with this....

1 person liked this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Since AMD is not as efficient as Intel, it was only a matter of time for AMD to be first in reaching 5GHz milestone.

Well, technically, the article premise is wrong. IBM have had a "commercially available" 5GHz processor out for over 5 years (Power6 series)

The Intel vs AMD debate is really about hard-core gamers vs everyone else.

Correction:

Hard-core gamers and the entire x86-64 based enterprise sector vs everyone else.

For those debating the relative merits of FX vs Core i7 overclocked, I'd point you towards HWBot's multi core Linpack benchmark results as an effective measure of core/CPU efficiency- and of course, if you're looking at the sharp end of the stick with regards gaming, then there are plenty of evaluations available.

According to PCGH, these CPU's are only available to OEMs.

ikesmasher said:

I used to be an AMD guy for years, but my 2 yr old 2600k @ 4.5 still beats this...

[link]

I beg to differ...

I'm still looking forward to ivy bridge-e though.

He said at 4.5Ghz...

and how much did the cooling system to get a 2600k at 4.5 cost? that places the system at a significantly higher price than the 8350. so duh...

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

and how much did the cooling system to get a 2600k at 4.5 cost?
Under air-conditioning my $40 air cooler works well enough under 24/7 100% CPU load. Were you implying it would cost more to maintain a 4.5GHz over-clock? Or were you simply implying, it would take an after-market cooler to obtain the over-clock?

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

and how much did the cooling system to get a 2600k at 4.5 cost? that places the system at a significantly higher price than the 8350. so duh...

It's generally accepted that the stock HSF allows close to 4.5 ( voltage dependant) if you don't mind the CPU running fairly warm. A bog-standard low-end aftermarket tower cooler like the Hyper 212 should be sufficient in most cases.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

So why exactly is Intel still king when their's is more expensive? I'm asking honestly...

Though I'm an IT guy I've never been to savvy with CPU architectures and stuff. Would anyone care to provide some insights? Thanks.

Higher end chips AMD literally does not have chips which can compete with Intel.

Also AMD motherboard chipset lags behind Intel's in quality which I find bad because Intel's aren't great to begin with imho!

3 people like this | LogicSays LogicSays said:

If this were Intel making the 5ghz milestone you people would be drooling all over yourselves. AMD is down but not out. Don't bash until you've tried it. Intel's high end processors may be better in some aspects.. but in most cases if not all the gains to the average person would not be noticeable. The most noticeable aspect of either brand of processor is price. My FX processor handles anything and everything I throw at it and doesn't even remotely cost as much as the most expensive Intel. A fool and his money are soon parted.

JC713 JC713 said:

If this were Intel making the 5ghz milestone you people would be drooling all over yourselves. AMD is down but not out. Don't bash until you've tried it. Intel's high end processors may be better in some aspects.. but in most cases if not all the gains to the average person would not be noticeable. The most noticeable aspect of either brand of processor is price. My FX processor handles anything and everything I throw at it and doesn't even remotely cost as much as the most expensive Intel. A fool and his money are soon parted.

Well said in most aspects.

3 people like this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

If this were Intel making the 5ghz milestone you people would be drooling all over yourselves.

Unlikely. Intel have had a 4.4 GHz CPU in their lineup for a while. I'd guarantee not one in ten thousand could tell you anything about it, and it certainly didn't raise the pulse of anyone when it launched.

I'd also guarantee that if Intel did launch a 5GHz CPU, the comments section would be inundated with "Meh. My FX processor handles anything and everything I throw at it" posts (for example see every Intel CPU review since the AMD FX-5x/6x/7x ceased being top dog).

The most noticeable aspect of either brand of processor is price

Only if you're pushing the "performance per dollar" boat out. To some people, feature set might be the overriding qualification, or form factor (when was the last time you saw a mITX AM3+ socket board?).

I'd also bear in mind that short of browsing eBay or Alibaba, price isn't a factor since these are OEM units. I'd also hazard a guess and say that if these are indeed 220-225W TDP, you certainly wont be able to pair the CPU with anything less than a top range motherboard.

My FX processor handles anything and everything I throw at it

That's actually a subjective argument that anyone could use to justify any piece of hardware

and doesn't even remotely cost as much as the most expensive Intel.

Of course, the other side of that argument is do you really need to compare the FX to the most expensive Intel CPU ?

1 person liked this | LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Well said.

If this were Intel making the 5ghz milestone you people would be drooling all over yourselves. AMD is down but not out. Don't bash until you've tried it. Intel's high end processors may be better in some aspects.. but in most cases if not all the gains to the average person would not be noticeable. The most noticeable aspect of either brand of processor is price. My FX processor handles anything and everything I throw at it and doesn't even remotely cost as much as the most expensive Intel. A fool and his money are soon parted.

True, but the difference is that as soon as "that article" would appear I'd be on newegg soon after making a purchase. If it were intel that is.

AMD hasn't produced anything to talk about since 2006. Oh wait, maybe 5

JC713 JC713 said:

True, but the difference is that as soon as "that article" would appear I'd be on newegg soon after making a purchase. If it were intel that is.

AMD hasn't produced anything to talk about since 2006. Oh wait, maybe 5

The X4 and X6 black editions were some great value a few years back.

2 people like this | St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

I don't understand how people can even think that this is a good thing. It's just a stock overclocked CPU. It'd be like NVIDIA releasing the Titan with 350W rating and overclocked to the bejeezus with a triple-slot cooler. The unavailability to general public due to heat concerns is hilarious at best, and coupled with the huge TDP it's not winning any green awards. Bundle in the fact that it can't compete at high-end, it's easy to see that AMD has zero answer to Intel. The fact that this chip exists is proof.

tl;dr the new AMD chip is not viable for ANY market sector.

ikesmasher said:

It's generally accepted that the stock HSF allows close to 4.5 ( voltage dependant) if you don't mind the CPU running fairly warm. A bog-standard low-end aftermarket tower cooler like the Hyper 212 should be sufficient in most cases.

2600k already costed at least $50 more than the 8350. So at 4.5, id expect around a passmark score very close (slightly above or below)...for more money.

EEatGDL said:

Why even compare with an i7 when an i5 of the same price tag can outperform it anyway consuming much less power, the point where money could be saved is in keeping the mobo and RAM of the AMD platform instead of building a Haswell platform from scratch.

JC713 JC713 said:

I don't understand how people can even think that this is a good thing. It's just a stock overclocked CPU. It'd be like NVIDIA releasing the Titan with 350W rating and overclocked to the bejeezus with a triple-slot cooler. The unavailability to general public due to heat concerns is hilarious at best, and coupled with the huge TDP it's not winning any green awards. Bundle in the fact that it can't compete at high-end, it's easy to see that AMD has zero answer to Intel. The fact that this chip exists is proof.

tl;dr the new AMD chip is not viable for ANY market sector.

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...

Guest said:

What part of 4.5GHz did you not understand? The link you posted has NO overclocked CPUs. I see you have the 2600K highlighted, but we all know that is just a best guess. You fished pretty hard for that one benchmark that has AMD on top. Too bad it's irrelevant.

Fail.

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

The X4 and X6 black editions were some great value a few years back.

Besides benches I really wouldn't know. I've build some units for family members but I need intel in my upgrades, UNLESS AMD can produce a high end processor that can at least match Intel's TDP and efficiency ratings.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Why even compare with an i7 when an i5 of the same price tag can outperform it anyway consuming much less power, the point where money could be saved is in keeping the mobo and RAM of the AMD platform instead of building a Haswell platform from scratch.

Depends on what you want the system for of course. For gaming, sure maybe i5 is the better choice but for decently scaling multi-threaded applications (software development, 2D/3D graphics design, video encoding/decoding, compression/decompression), running server ops in general such as VMs, web services, SQL, you'll get better perf from i7.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

... running server ops in general such as VMs, web services, SQL, you'll get better perf from i7.

You'd get best performance from a proper server architecture: Xeon.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

What part of 4.5GHz did you not understand? The link you posted has NO overclocked CPUs. I see you have the 2600K highlighted, but we all know that is just a best guess. You fished pretty hard for that one benchmark that has AMD on top. Too bad it's irrelevant.

Fail.

Your Joking right? Yeah I fished pretty hard reading cpumark, its not like that's one of the biggest CPU benchmarkers and has its own dedicated website and software...

If I was "Fishing" as you put it, I could have found a few benchmarks that put it even above the 3770k, but those are limited to extreme multithreading only. If you actually took the time to read that page, you would see the list of CPUs and note that the I7 3770k was above it by a marginal gain as it should be. That benchmark shows stock speeds from multiple samples. As for the 4.5, ok that's a heavy overclock, mines clocked at 4.8 and I still have not hit the end of the chips potential. Stating to compare it to a stock AMD chip overclocked like that is pointless, I showed you a stock to stock performance chart.

I personally think this chip is a bit stupid imho, its going to be interesting and all speculation till we see some actual benchmarks and stuff. I only want to see it just to see what its scores are and if there are any improvements on the chip to improve things beyond an FX-8350 Clocked to the same speeds.

1 person liked this | SexyMan SexyMan said:

I am still using my 2600k @ 5ghz but I support AMD by building AMD rigs for family, friends, customers. Average people are not interested in 5fps difference in gaming or 3 seconds difference in video encoding. It's really hard to see the difference, even me who is a power user unless you are really doing some extensive benchmark. But I don't know an average person who does benchmark just to justify he spent $100 more for that better benchmark score.

Go AMD.. Go Intel.. Competition is good for consumers.

JC713 JC713 said:

Besides benches I really wouldn't know. I've build some units for family members but I need intel in my upgrades, UNLESS AMD can produce a high end processor that can at least match Intel's TDP and efficiency ratings.

If you are a gamer, that is the mentality. AMD is yet to really make their mark as "king" in terms of CPU performance.

JC713 JC713 said:

I am still using my 2600k @ 5ghz but I support AMD by building AMD rigs for family, friends, customers. Average people are not interested in 5fps difference in gaming or 3 seconds difference in video encoding. It's really hard to see the difference, even me who is a power user unless you are really doing some extensive benchmark. But I don't know an average person who does benchmark just to justify he spent $100 more for that better benchmark score.

Go AMD.. Go Intel.. Competition is good for consumers.

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.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

If you are a gamer, that is the mentality. AMD is yet to really make their mark as "king" in terms of CPU performance.

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.

Guest said:

AMD FX 9590 benchmarks! See for yourself

http://AMDFX. blogspot.com

2 people like this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

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...

[link]

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

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.