AMD Wins Race to 5GHz with FX-9000 Series Processor

26

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Insula Gilliganis

A few points to consider before getting overly excited about these chips..

1 - AVAILABILITY - AMD's press release (amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-unleashes-2013jun11.aspx) said.. "AMD FX-9000 Series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators.. The new AMD FX CPUs will be available from system integrators globally beginning this summer." So no word on availability to the DIY crowd, meaning these may never be available to buy at Newegg, Amazon, etc, although the word "initially" gives the connotation that it will be made available at some later date outside of system integrators.

2 - COST - The FX-8350 goes for about $200.. tack on at least $50 or more for the speed bump. Then, have to factor in a thermal solution ($50 for beefier than normal heatsink or $100 for water cooling) so now the cost will be $300 or more which gets it near the 4770K price point. Next, have to determine if your current motherboard can handle a FX-9000 CPU.. if not then a new motherboard will have to be bought. At Comdex, Gigabyte showed off the GA-990FXA-UD7 (990FX + SB950, 8+2 phase CPU VRM) motherboard that was labled "supports AM3+ 5.0GHz FX series". This board is discontinued at Newegg but there might be a new revision in the pipeline.

3 - OVERCLOCKING - In essence, these CPUs are already overclocked, just that AMD did it instead of the end user. The FX-8350 has a stock speed of 4.0GHz and it's turbo is only 0.2GHz higher) (4.2GHz Turbo) while the FX-9590 will have a stock speed of 4.7GHz and 5.0GHz turbo. So if the FX-9590 are specially binned FX-8350 (both use the same Piledriver microarchitecture), then there probably isn't much left in the overclocking tank once the end user gets it. And if you do overclock, remember this.. "It’s worth noting that, if you damage your FX-9000 series chip through overclocking it, AMD won’t replace it under warranty. That’s even the case if you use AMD’s own overclocking tools that are supplied for the chip." (slashgear.com/amd-fx-9590-processor-hits-5ghz-but-is-speed-everything-11286007/)

4 - WATTAGE - Quoting Kyle from [H]ardOCP's FX-8350 Piledriver review (hardocp.com/article/2012/10/22/amd_fx8350_piledriver_processor_ipc_overclocking/6).. "AMD's processors are and continue to be more power hungry than Intel's last two generations on the desktop.. Vishera is less of a pig than Zambezi, but not by much." Tom's Hardware overclocked a FX-8350 to 4.4GHz and it used about 90 watts more than a stock FX-8350 at CPU load (tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407-8.html) while a i7-3770K overclocked to 4.4GHz used about 50 watts more. Doubtful the FX-9590 won't be sucking down juice from your electrical outlet like NFL linemen sucking down Gatorade during an August practice. Quoting Tom's again.. "AMD's FX-8350 generates around two-thirds as much performance per watt compared to Intel's Core i7-3770K."

5 - PERFORMANCE - Quoting Kyle again.. "Is Vishera a better part than Intel's Ivy Bridge or previous Sandy Bridge processors? No it is not, not even close. Intel still has a healthy lead in both Performance per Watt, and Instructions per Clock. AMD cannot best or match Intel on the desktop and keep in mind that AMD brings 4 more processing cores to the table than the Intel processors compared here today" I speculate that since a i7-4770K is approximately 10-15% faster than a i7-3770K, and the FX-8350 had the same basic performance as a i5-3570, the FX-9590 probably will be slightly faster a 3770K running at stock speed given the results Tom's Hardware had overclocking a FX-8350 to a stable 4.8GHz (tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-2.html). And this isn't even really considering the "better" overclocking abilities of the Intel CPUs.

avatar

vrmlbasic

I see that you took some liberties with logic in there.

But when one, like the OP here, is an irrational AMD-hater that is to be expected.

avatar

Insula Gilliganis

First day on the Internet? If not, then stop acting like you wandered in here from AOL. But if it is, then I will give you a "mulligan", a do-over. Either way, how about actually writing a reasoned, well thought-out critique of what I wrote with SPECIFICS on where I "took some liberties in logic" and where I actually hated on AMD. You are wasting everyone's time with childish "you are wrong.. I don't know why but you just are you because you are a doo-doo head AMD hater" responses.

avatar

limitbreaker

I agree with him, You first talked about price and then you eventually went on about wattage and eventually talking about performance but you failed to take into account the greatest selling point for AMD and thats Performance per dollar. Atleast when it comes to fx8350, it is by far a greater value than anything intel has to offer in the i5 category or even i7 for the 1155 socket. The fx9000 series is clearly not meant for mainstream, is it an enthusiast chip for AMD which makes almost your entire post irrelevant specially because the details are not even out yet and we don't know how far it'll overclock.

It is clear that you're biased specially after quoting one of the most shady tech sites on the web, Toms hardware is unable to give balanced and fair reviews and I guess you follow their example.

avatar

Insula Gilliganis

Limitbreaker wrote.. "greatest selling point for AMD and thats Performance per dollar. Atleast when it comes to fx8350".. you are correct in writing that currently the FX-8350's performance per $ is higher than Intel's CPUs.. but this discussion is about the FX-9590. You would be correct IF AMD kept the cost of the FX-9590 a lot lower than a i7-3770K/i7-4770K but I just can't see how that will be possible.

Yes, most of what I previously wrote (or will write below) is mere speculation because AMD hasn't given much specifics to go on so I decided to play the "guessing game." So, yes, I admit my entire discussion is speculative, although I like to think it has been thoughtful and educated speculation.

Going though my points again (with all new examples)..

1 - AVAILABILITY: Quoting The Tech Report (techreport.com/news/24940/amd-intros-fx-9590-processor-with-5ghz-peak-turbo-speed).. "There's no mention of retail availability—or of pricing, for that matter." And PCPerspective added "If AMD does in fact sell to consumers (not implied at all in the press release) then they likely will have to bundle it with a very robust cooler. Probably something along the lines of what we saw with the original FX-8150 LCS bundle" (pcper.com/news/Processors/AMD-Releases-First-5-GHz-Processor-Consumers-FX-9590-and-FX-9370). I hope this chip will be available for anyone to buy but no one outside of AMD knows for sure.

2 - COST: I can't see how it won't go for less than $300 since a "a very robust cooler" will have to be included, either by the system integrator or bundled with the CPU. Quoting The Tech Report again.. "I overclocked the FX-8350 to a Turbo peak of 4.8GHz.. we couldn't get the base clock speed past 4.5GHz without overheating or instability. AMD only quotes Turbo peak frequencies for these new CPUs, so I expect the limitations haven't changed much on this silicon since our review. Also, notice that the total system power draw in our test workload was 262W with this overclocked config. That lends some credence to the rumors of a 220W TDP for these parts. Don't expect to remove that kind of heat from a CPU quietly without some fairly exotic water cooling." Either way, a "robust cooler" or water cooling is going to cost some $.

3 - OVERCLOCKING: Quoting The Tech Report again.."the fastest Piledriver-based FX chip available today, the FX-8350, has a 125W thermal envelope and only hits 4.2GHz in Turbo mode. Achieving an 800MHz increase over that no doubt requires certain tradeoffs." Since the FX-9590 uses that same Piledriver silicon, I doubt there will be much overclocking potential left for the end user or system integrator to use. Conversely, an i7-3770K can overclock on it's stock cooler to a stable 4.6GHz (hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73770K-Ivy-Bridge-Processor-Review/?page=3) while The Tech Report got their 3770K to a stable 4.9 using a $48 aftermarket air cooler (techreport.com/review/22833/ivy-bridge-on-air-the-core-i7-3770k-overclocked-on-four-motherboards) and also added "4.4GHz represents the highest speed we achieved at the default voltage".

4 - WATTAGE: Piledriver uses a lot more power than Ivy Bridge.. Bit-Tech.net overclocked a FX-8350 to 4.8GHz and found, at idle, the power consumption as 160 watts, while overclocking an i7-3770K to the same 4.8GHz only consumed 115 watts, a difference of 45 watts. But at load, that difference was 364 watts vs. 244, or 120 watts. Bit-Tech did mention that there might be a 20W difference not attrituted to the CPUs. (bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8) And power consumption on the Intel side only gets more efficient with Haswell.. the i7-4770K was shown having mostly lower idle and load numbers than the i7-3770K while either stock or overclocked (bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7). SilentPCReview's table of "performance per watt" (silentpcreview.com/article1316-page5.html) shows that the 3770K gives "twice as much performance per Watt" than a FX-8350, what SilentPCReview calls "crummy energy efficiency".

5 - PERFORMANCE: The FX-9590 will be clocked between 17% (stock speed) and 19% faster (turbo speed) than a FX-8350. But, for argument sake, let's say that the FX-9590 will be 20% faster.. so what does that 20% equal? SilentPCReview.com has the stock speed i7-3770K being 25% faster in overall performance than a FX-8350 (silentpcreview.com/article1316-page5.html).. so adding 20% makes the FX-9590 about equal with a 3770K. SilentPCReview also wrote what limitbreaker is arguing, that if measured by "performance per dollar", the FX-8350 is much better than a 3770K (by about 11%), but the FX-9590 should cost a lot more than the FX-8350. With the 4770K costing just slightly more than a 3770K along with having 10-15% more performance, I seriously doubt the FX-9590 will compete as well as the FX-8350 did in this "performance per $" measurement.

I never wrote that I "hated" AMD. And I am sorry that, by quoting from Tom's , that automatically made me an AMD hater and that I was biased in what I wrote. I was just trying to write an honest opinion about what I believe the performance of the FX-9590 might be, because we have nothing from AMD to go on at this time. Fudging on the "5GHz" label doesn't inspire me with tons of confidence about AMD. I'll stick by my original conclusion that "the FX-9590 probably will be slightly faster a 3770K running at stock speed ". I don't think that conclusion denigrates AMD in any way, and that this may be a great processor for someone with specific needs or using certain programs. Gordon Muh Ung wrote when comparing the 3570K with the FX-8350.. " If your chores are mostly limited to gaming and tasks that can’t exploit all eight cores, the Intel part has the advantage. If, however, you are rendering 3D, transcoding or rendering video (except in Adobe’s Premiere Pro CS6), the new FX-8350 should be your pick. It offers a longer socket roadmap and gives you better performance in multi-threaded apps." (maximumpc.com/article/features/vishera_review?page=0,0) The Tech Report echoed Gordon by writing.. "the FX-8350 outperforms both the Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in our nicely multithreaded test suite. As a result, the FX-8350 will give you more performance for your dollar than the Core i5-3570K" but also added.. " the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350." (techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

The FX-8350 is basically tied with the 3570K in overall performance. From the MaximumPC article, the 8350 won 8 of the 16 benchmarks Gordon ran between the two CPUs. CPU-World.com has the 3570K having a 6% overall performance advantage over the 8350 (cpu-world.com/Compare/444/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-3570K.html) while the 4670K is shown as being 10% faster. The Tech Report has the 8350 about 5-7% faster in overall performance than a 3570K (but 25-30% slower than a 3770K). Only when the site overclocked their 8350 did it approach 3770K performance territory. And CPUBoss.com shows the 3570K having a higher overall score of 8.6 vs. 8.3 for the 8350 (cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3570K-vs-AMD-FX-8350).

The Tech Report's overclocked 8350 (4.5/4.8GHz turbo) was shown slightly faster than a 3770K in doing 7-Zip and x264 encoding workloads. That is why I believe the FX-9590, at best, will be slightly faster than a 3770K. Hopefully it will be available for everyone to purchase, not just on pre-built machine.

*Disclaimer - No information from Tomshardware.com was used or harmed while writing this.

avatar

chop_slap

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands...impressive total word count.

avatar

limitbreaker

lol funny disclaimer

i agree with your assessment of this CPU, this will be a specialty item and not really for anyone who is looking for a logical buy. I suspect the main beauty of this cpu will be to cater to those who want to build a full AMD system. I for one may actually buy it if i can hit at least 5.6 ghz with a custom water loop cooling that im planning to get after i design and construct my own case. Right now i have the corsair h100 and my 8350fx can only reach 4.8 stable (prime95). I just hope that it will be available for purchase.

avatar

USraging

I remember Intel pulling this trick when AMD was preforming better with lower frequencies. It's kinda hard for me to get excited about more heat and lower life expediencies that more heat causes. But whatever keeps AMD in the game. :)

avatar

RUSENSITIVESWEETNESS

Love to see some benchmark testing here, MPC.

I switched to AMD back in the day, when their chips were out-performing Intel's parts. And I went back to Intel when AMD stopped being competitive.

Guess Intel pays AMD board members well....

avatar

hypersonic

I don't know where AMD is taking this, but it better be somewhere fast !

avatar

thekkeffect

sweet! ive been wanting to upgrade my fx 6100 to the fx 8350 but since this 9590 is coming out i guess i can wait. have to see some benches on these first though see how they perform. cant wait!

avatar

vrmlbasic

What is the default clockspeed of these chips? Is that info public yet?

I'm really curious to see, if the 220W TDP is accurate, what performance increases they'll get over the 8350 with the additional 95W of TDP "overhead".

avatar

bensen408

If the remark regarding the higher TDP is correct, I see liquid cooling (liquid hydrogen?) in our future! Bwahahaha!

avatar

YellowApple

Correction: The FX-9000 is the first commercially-available *x86-64* processor to hit the 5GHz mark. IBM's POWER CPUs had hit that mark previously with the POWER6 systems (their 550 Express, 570, 595, and DS8800 servers all supported 5.0GHz speeds, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6).

That said, this is still impressive.

avatar

xRadeon

Looking forward to this. I think I will FINALLY do water cooling when this comes out. :D Yay!

avatar

bensen408

220W TDP? My motherboard will MELT!

avatar

vrmlbasic

My Hyper 212+ might not be up to the task of cooling such a beast as this, if it truly does have a TDP of 220W. That's 95W more than their current flagship, the 8350...

avatar

vrmlbasic

I must have missed the memo that there was to be another "tier" of Piledriver parts before Steamroller. Now my still-semi-new 8350 in this machine is sad.

I wonder if they'll up the supported RAM speeds, and if they'll ever release another motherboard setup: 990fx is getting long in the tooth.

avatar

bensen408

Im running an FX-8150 that I bought weeks before your chip was announced so dont feel bad.

Ive contemplated buying your chip but cant justify it yet.

avatar

warptek2010

Nice. Might be time to upgrade soon and use my current parts for my wife's rig but I would like to wait for a Newegg sale price on it. Also, would be interesting to see if they release this core in their APU version paired up with a more late model graphics core. A12 perhaps?

avatar

warptek2010

There we go again. Multiple posts.

avatar

limitbreaker

I've only managed to get 4.8 out of my 8350fx and I'm using the Corsair H100 in push pull, I wonder what I will achieve with this one :-) I'm not buying it unless I can get at least 5.7ghz.

avatar

tom_m

Just FYI, the 9590 appears to have a 220W TDP. A number of motherboards will not have enough voltage regulation to handle that much juice, and the chip will throw off a noticeably higher amount of heat.

avatar

Gikero

Oh wow! That is HOT! Are they going to send a water cooling unit with it?

avatar

limitbreaker

Rumor is that it's on air cooling with no info on the size of it.

avatar

limitbreaker

Thank you but I know, I bought the only sensible motherboard for a chipset that lasts 3 generation of cpu and that's the sabertooth 990fx and I can assure you that it can handle anything you throw at it.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.