AMD Cuts Prices of 8-Core FX Series Processors

15

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

praack

i so want a new motherboard and processor,

i have two machines- one is a 990fx asrock extreme 4 vintage, with an 8 core 8150 - so both 2011 vintage. i realy did not see much of a difference with my overclocked amd Phenom II 965 in the other machine- a 2009 core ona 2007 motherboard.

it just has been a REALLLLY REALLLY LOONG TIME

avatar

vrmlbasic

Hopefully this is a sign that they're going to make some progress in "real" desktop chips in the near future. 2015, the year of Excavator, is right around the corner at this point.

I can't say that I expected to still be on a 2011 motherboard and a 2012 CPU in 2014.

avatar

John Pombrio

AMD is only starting to get it's heat and power profiles down on their offerings. A lot of business customers look at the costs of operation for the lifetime of the buy vs. performance or initial costs. That is why Intel is on such a power savings kick. It isn't just for laptop batteries that people look at the computer, electricity costs over the life of a machine can swamp the initial investment. AMD has got to get a better handle on this.

avatar

Thiazolium

I'm not exactly sure where you're getting your information from or what you're basing it on.

Quote: "A lot of business customers look at the costs of operation for the lifetime of the buy vs. performance or initial costs."

The reality is most business customers are still running XP; more than 53 percent according to recent stats (July 2014) at the TechEd North America Conference. It can be reasonably assumed they don't care about electricity costs at all as they're probably running really old hardware. Most likely Northwood/Prescott Netburst Pentiums that use obscene amounts of power are still being used. If you're also including Data Centers in your argument (the above chips in this article are old desktop chips designed way back in 2006), then this may be of interest to you.

Quote: "That is why Intel is on such a power savings kick. It isn't just for laptop batteries that people look at the computer, electricity costs over the life of a machine can swamp the initial investment. AMD has got to get a better handle on this."

Intel's focus is bit monolithic. The days of the traditional computationally high powered server is over, or at least segued to some other duties. The problem today is I/O. AMD is focusing heavily on I/O with low power. Today they have the A1100 (Seattle A57 SOCs) and are developing K12. Technologies that use ARM. Also, they recently acquired SeaMicro. SeaMicro produces a technology that results in massive power savings when used in volume in Data Centers. A technology Intel really wants badly. Whether this gamble (ARM etc.) pays off only history will tell, but it is a technology that purely focuses on low power consumption.

So to suggest AMD needs to get a "better handle on this" is somewhat disingenuous.

As for the current FX series, I fully agree with you. They're clearly outdated (i.e. low IPC), especially in the die process. They were designed for a massively parallel future that never really came to fruition.

avatar

mattman059

I wish Intel could touch these prices

Intel i7-4790K 4-Core 4.0GHz : $339.99
AMD FX-8320 8-core 3.5GHz/4GHz : $147

avatar

jbitzer

Why should they try? Amd can't touch their performance.

avatar

Upyourbucket

Intel can't beat AMD's price to performance ratio.

avatar

LatiosXT

Only in the FX range of processors, most of which are two generations old now and such price drops are expected. And even then, only in well multi-threaded tasks. Give an FX processor a task that excels better in single core performance and you pretty much fall flat.

The APUs though suck for their prince/performance ratio on CPU alone. You could say "but muh HSA" all you want, but I'll wait until HSA is actually implemented on general use programs.

avatar

nick779

Who cares? Ill pay to play.

Everyone always flaunts how cheap AMD is, well with that price you sacrifice other things.

Look at the 9590 for instance, yes its cheap, but it also has a 220W TDP, with benchmarks showing it can put out over 240W on load at stock clocks. You can overclock a 4790k to 4.3ghz+ and it will walk the 9590 easily for around half the power. Now lets factor in the power savings over the next 3-5 years, plus the money you save from not having to cool your house down from the heat put off by the cpu.

Its even worse for AMD GPUs since theyre basically a small space heater.

Nobody ever looks at the big picture, they only see the initial costs.

avatar

AFDozerman

That 220 watt TDP will only cost you a few dollars per year, assuming you don't live in a communist country, and why the hell are you choosing the worst chip in their lineup to compare against? Also, AMD's only "space heater" GPU is the 290x family, with the new 285 being extremely energy efficent.

avatar

jbitzer

I used to love AMD until the core 2 duo, they seemed to give up. They overpromised and underdelivered, remember the spider "platform"? and basically seemed to stay stagnant.

The intel chips meanwhile are insanely overclockable on stock fans, and I can encode a bluray video in a few minutes with quicksync, which smokes both Nvidia and AMD GPU encoding.

I'd love to give AMD my money, but they need to offer me more than "cheaper" as an incentive to do so.

Your argument sounds a lot to me like "they're not as shitty as they used to be"

avatar

LatiosXT

The 285 may be more power efficient, but I don't feel that's saying much considering it's reached Kepler levels. I'm waiting for a more solid review to come out though.

You can say "extremely energy efficient" when it's down to Maxwell levels.

avatar

jbitzer

I know right? I can get a 1973 ford pinto cheap too, doesn't mean I'd take it over a new mustang.

avatar

jbitzer

I know right? I can get a 1973 ford pinto cheap too, doesn't mean I'd take it over a new mustang.

avatar

LatiosXT

Unfortunately the performance delta is kind of big. Not 2x difference, but usually 1.5x