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

Lionvibez

TS Evangelist
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

TS Evangelist
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....
 

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley

ikesmasher

TS Evangelist
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...
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...
 

Darth Shiv

TS Evangelist
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!
 

LogicSays

TS Rookie
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.
 

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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.
 

dividebyzero

trainee n00b
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 ?
 

LinkedKube

TechSpot Project Baby
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jad Chaar

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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.
 

St1ckM4n

TS Evangelist
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.
 

EEatGDL

TS Evangelist
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.
 

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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...
 
G

Guest

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

TechSpot Project Baby
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

TS Evangelist
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.
 

GhostRyder

TS Evangelist
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.
 

SexyMan

TS Rookie
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jad Chaar

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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.
 

Jad Chaar

Elite Techno Geek
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

TS Evangelist
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.