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

[Shawn Knight]

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.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/52862-amd-first-to-reach-5ghz-with-fx-9590-processor.html

 

[amstech]

Pretty badass. Its still an AMD though!

 

[veLa]

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.

 

[Ranger1st]

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]

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]

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.

 

[psycros]

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]

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]

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

 

[GhostRyder]

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

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+@+3.40GHz

I beg to differ...

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[customcarvin]

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

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+@+3.40GHz

I beg to differ...

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

He said at 4.5Ghz...

 

[Lionvibez]

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

 

[VitalyT]

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

 

[Heihachi1337]

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]

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.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz

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]

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

 

[Scavengers]

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

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]

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

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]

"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.

 

[LinkedKube]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Jad Chaar]

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