backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by 7Enigma.. on Jun 17 at 12:43 PM


  (Source: AMD)
Chip may be competitive with Haswell on basis of price, multi-threaded performance

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) is dropping the Gigahertz hammer on rival Intel Corp. (INTC) announcing a new Vishera (the Piledriver-core based line of "FX"-branded processors) octa-core chip that has a turbo clock of 5.0 GHz.

I. AMD Announces "First Commercial 5.0 GHz CPU"

While some may consider the fact that the stock (non-turbo) clock speed of the FX-9590 is something lower than the 5.0 GHz (AMD didn't announce the exact speed, but expect ~4.5 GHz), this marks the first time that a commercially available (x86 consumer) CPU has broken this speed barrier.

There's no word on how much power the chip is sucking down to attain that impressive clock speed.

AMD also announced that it would offer a 4.7 GHz turbo-clocked octa-core chip (FX-9370).  Together the chips will release in pre-built PCs this summer, with packaged availability trailing somewhat.  AMD also mentions that both chips are unlocked, allowing for even greater overclocks, cooling permitting.

AMD FX

Bernd Lienhard brags, "This is another proud innovation for AMD in delivering the world's first commercially available 5 GHz processor."

Computer history buffs will recall that AMD was the first chipmaker to break the 1.0 GHz barrier with a stock x86 commercial CPU.  By Mar. 2006 Intel had released the 3.73 GHz Pentium "Extreme Edition" 965 dual-core chip, built on the 65 nm node.  So far the fastest Haswell chip announced has been the Core i7-4930MX, a quad-core design turbo-clocked to 3.9 GHz.

II. The Gigahertz Myth 2.0?  Sort Of

Benchmarks have shown Piledriver to outperform Ivy Bridge in heavily threaded loads, while falling behind in lightly threaded application performance.  Pricing has allowed AMD to stay competitive (for example a FX-8350 commands $199.99 currently, while an Intel i7-3770K costs $319.99).  

So will the new FX processors truly be faster than Intel's just-launched Haswell processors? It certainly looks to have a shot in multi-threaded performance. 

AnandTech's benchmarking shows the i7-4770K (the Haswell successor to the i7-3770K) outperforming the FX-8350 by anywhere from 2 to 9 percent in heavily threaded applications like pixel pushing demoes or x264 transcoding. [source 1source 2].  Given the 20 percent boost in raw core clock while in Turbo mode, it's very possible that the 32 nm FX-9590 may top Intel's 22 nm Haswell processors in multi-threaded applications.

Haswell v. FX
AMD is unlikely to be able to keep up with Haswell in single-threaded performance.

In single-threaded benchmarks where Intel's Haswell (i7-4770K) often has a 50-60 percent lead over the FX-8350, the 20 percent bump may close the gap somewhat, but it seems unlikely that it will match Intel's single-threaded performance.  Thus the most important thing may boil down to price.  Intel's i7-4770K costs $349.99 USD.  If AMD can hit a price point around $200 USD when the chips finally air, it could be very competitive.

After all, even if it surrenders 30-40 percent in single threaded performance, if it costs 40 percent less, it may make sense to buyers, especially considering its strong multi-threaded performance and (generally) more affordable chipsets.

Source: AMD





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The Future.
By AMDftw on 6/11/2013 4:31:29 PM , Rating: 1
My biggest thing is, When is the new chip set going to be released? Will I be able to use this on AM4 socket?




RE: The Future.
By FaaR on 6/11/2013 5:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
Would you want to? Power draw is reported to be ~220W. And will you even be able to? Your mobo would have to be capable of delivering 220+ W to the CPU socket. You'd probably need more than one eight-pin auxiliary power connector in the vicinity of the CPU to manage that reliably; the ATX connector has to service more devices than just the CPU; video cards primarily of course...


RE: The Future.
By Samus on 6/11/2013 5:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
220W? Jesus how are they going to cool the VRM's?


RE: The Future.
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 8:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
where did this 220W come from? Any reputable tech site would not put that up since AMD does not even support a 220W power envelope. That is speculation and most likely wrong.

Just look at motherboards to guess power consumption for chips.


RE: The Future.
By ForceCredit on 6/12/2013 10:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
If they do introduce a new 220W tier, it's not going to be much of a problem. VRMs tend to be very efficient; something like 90-92% is a good guess. If the CPU is drawing 220W, the VRM heatsink only needs to dissipate 15-20 watts at most. Air movement from a HSF should take care of this, but good case airflow would be necessary with water cooling. Enthusiast class boards, even some in the midrange, are already engineered to handle this sort of abuse since overclocking easily gets CPUs into 200-300W power territory.


RE: The Future.
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 11:44:28 AM , Rating: 1
It's not whether they can do it or not. It's obvious they can. It just makes 0 business sense to make a 220w tier when there is little to no demand for it. It cost a ton to introduce a new power envelope anyways. On top of that, you're forcing people to upgrade motherboards when AMD is having a hard time keeping customers.


RE: The Future.
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2013 4:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It just makes 0 business sense to make a 220w tier when there is little to no demand for it.
Yep, because you TOTALLY know what people demand or don't, again, you have NO CLUE so please, STFU...


RE: The Future.
By polishvendetta on 6/14/2013 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, price dictates demand, not power envelope.

If they keep this priced competitively at 300$ I'm interested.


RE: The Future.
By Odysseus145 on 6/13/2013 9:25:21 AM , Rating: 2
There is no way AMD is going to release a 220 W processor. AMD's processors have never gone higher than 140 W, and I don't expect that to change here. It will be quite feat though if AMD can keep it at 125 W as Jarred suggests.


RE: The Future.
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/2013 6:21:23 PM , Rating: 4
You are assuming...

quote:
Today at E3 AMD announced their latest CPUs, the FX-9590 and FX-9370. Similar to what we’re seeing with Richland vs. Trinity, AMD is incrementing the series number to 9000 while sticking with the existing Piledriver architecture. These chips are the result of tuning and binning on GlobalFoundries’ 32nm SOI process, though the latest jump from the existing FX-8350 is nonetheless quite impressive. The FX-8350 had a base clock of 4.0GHz with a maximum Turbo Core clock of 4.2GHz; the FX-9590 in contrast has a maximum Turbo clock of 5GHz and the FX-9370 tops out at 4.7GHz. We’ve asked AMD for details on the base clocks for the new parts, but so far have not yet received a response; we're also missing details on TDP, cache size, etc. but those will likely be the same as the FX-8350/8320 (i.e. 4x2MB L2, 8MB L3, 125W TDP).


RE: The Future.
By silverblue on 6/12/2013 3:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's already been updated by Jarred...

quote:
we're also missing details on TDP, cache size, etc. but those will likely be the same as the FX-8350/8320 (at least for everything but TDP).


I doubt that even this late addition to the Piledriver family will have RCM. It was supposed to arrive with Trinity... a year ago.


RE: The Future.
By Odysseus145 on 6/13/2013 6:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like the rumors were true. From Jarred's article:

"...the rumors of a 220W TDP have proven true. That explains why these parts will target system integrators first..."


RE: The Future.
By ritualm on 6/11/2013 5:49:29 PM , Rating: 1
Don't bother waiting for a new socket to arrive, earliest that would happen is next year with Steamroller.

Regardless, the megahertz race stopped being relevant a decade ago. Today's game is mostly about performance per watt, and it's a game where AMD continues to be MIA at. All it has right now is a 4-core, 8-thread, 4.7/5.0 desktop CPU that puts out a whopping 220W of heat - for a ridiculously tiny improvement in actual performance.

Intel's Haswell launch looks bad right now. Then I looked at AMD's "counter-attack", and the only conclusion I can come up with is, "AMD, that's the best you can muster today?"


RE: The Future.
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/2013 6:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All it has right now is a 4-core
Are you talking about this new chip because it's 8 core.


RE: The Future.
By ritualm on 6/11/2013 7:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you talking about this new chip because it's 8 core.

Last year, we had AMD's FX-8350 being its competitor to Intel's i5-2500K. There was one little problem: it's AMD's 2012 high-end part competing against Intel's 2011 mid-range part.

The new CPU is only marginally faster than last year's FX-8350, so the new verdict ends up looking like this: AMD's FX-9590 is faster than Intel's i5-3570K. Except... it's AMD's 2013 high-end part competing against Intel's 2012 mid-range part.

AMD never has a proper current top-performing CPU to compete against Intel's latest. All it has is lots of chest-thumping for all the wrong reasons. It's cheap, it beats the other guy's chip from last year's, and it's socket-compatible with existing mobos (with a firmware update). But it pays a heavy price in power consumption, and the goal posts have already moved, such that the other guy's chip from last year's is now merely mid-range.


RE: The Future.
By testbug00 on 6/12/2013 12:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
In Windows? no. Windows is super-optimized toward Intel (or you could say not optimized for AMD)

In Linux? AMD crushes with both being optimized to the max (to my basic Linux knowledge)

AMD's real problem is getting things to be optimized in windows :/


RE: The Future.
By bug77 on 6/12/2013 4:33:18 AM , Rating: 2
You should browse phoronix.com for a dose of reality. In case you're looking for some, that is.


RE: The Future.
By Operandi on 6/11/2013 9:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then I looked at AMD's "counter-attack", and the only conclusion I can come up with is, "AMD, that's the best you can muster today?"


You clearly no nothing about CPU development.

The original Bulldozer arch was in development for years and once a design is committed to you are just that, committed to it for years to come (Piledriver was nothing more than fixing the mistakes in the original Bulldozer). They can only work with what they have and we won't really know till Steamroller comes out of this architecture is going to make it or not but my take away from this release is at least they are not conceding the high-end market completely to Intel.


RE: The Future.
By ritualm on 6/12/2013 12:07:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
...my take away from this release is at least they are not conceding the high-end market completely to Intel.

Umm, they already did.

AMD has no answer against Intel's high-end, only mid-range and lower.


RE: The Future.
By testbug00 on 6/12/2013 2:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
That depends a lot on what operating system you are using, as i said earlier.

If you use threaded programs that can work on linux, you are FAR BETTER OFF getting a piledriver, overclocking it and than using linux. It will be faster than anything in its price range, i believe it beats an overclocked 2600k (the extra Mhz over ivy/haswell makes it faster overall i believe).

Once more, AMD would be competitive if Windows (or all the programs run on it? i really don't know...) were better optimized for AMD. But they are not, because Intel has a much larger marketshare.


RE: The Future.
By Totally on 6/12/2013 4:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
The shift towards heavily thread applications (6+ threads) is starting to get traction and that's in AMD's favor. For whatever it's worth.


RE: The Future.
By Hellfire27 on 6/12/2013 10:22:56 AM , Rating: 2
Also add to the fact that the XBoxOne and PS4 will have octal core AMD processors. There will be a huge push in the gaming industry for heavily threaded games and that will fall more to AMD's favor. Given that unfortunately consoles push the industry; at least ports to the PC will be easier and already optimized for us AMD supporters.


RE: The Future.
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
When PC ports all starts running 8 threads, i will be pissed to have to upgrade my 3570k


RE: The Future.
By euler007 on 6/12/2013 11:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's great for people running SuperPI and running the few applications that use 8 cores evenly.

If you're gaming AAA titles on a PC, you're using Windows.


RE: The Future.
By bsd228 on 6/12/2013 5:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you use threaded programs that can work on linux, you are FAR BETTER OFF getting a piledriver, overclocking it and than using linux. It will be faster than anything in its price range, i believe it beats an overclocked 2600k (the extra Mhz over ivy/haswell makes it faster overall i believe).


perhaps, yes, in a few uses cases this 8 core cpu can beat out intel's 4 core with HTs from 3 years ago. The problem for AMD is that intel can easily go to 6 and 8 cores too. It hasn't bothered to because it didn't need to.

So if this latest FX actually does deliver without melting, we might get a slightly faster pace of development from intel who really hasn't improved on the 2600k performance with either IB or Haswell.


RE: The Future.
By marvdmartian on 6/12/2013 7:36:57 AM , Rating: 2
Just let me know when they get to 1.21 jiggawatts!


Almost
By lagomorpha on 6/11/2013 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 4
IBM has already released 5GHz CPUs. This is only the first x86 5GHz CPU.

Also wow they really released it. Huh.




RE: Almost
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/2013 4:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Hence, "commercially" available ;)


RE: Almost
By Argon18 on 6/11/2013 5:00:41 PM , Rating: 1
Quite true, IBM released 5 GHz POWER chips. I think they were POWER6? IBM POWER chips are faster than anything from intel or AMD, and have been for a long time. x86 is not the performance king.


RE: Almost
By retrospooty on 6/11/2013 5:52:50 PM , Rating: 1
Its not enough to just release something obscure and say "its the fastest". It has to be released, affordable and compatible to be used by all to be a success.

I dont know about power6, but Power 5 made that claim too, that it was faster than Intels lastest x86, back when Mac's used them... until they were caught fudging benchmarks using the wrong compiler for x86 hampering the x86 scores. That was PPC5 vs. Pentium4. Todays i7's are phenominally faster than P4's. If todays Power 6 are faster than i7 its news to me, and probably not quite a straight comparison. Price vs price or die vs die.


RE: Almost
By vXv on 6/11/2013 7:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Macs never used POWER cpus. They used PowerPC cpus (yes there is a difference).

As for which is "faster" it depends on the workload i.e faster at doing what?


RE: Almost
By name99 on 6/11/2013 9:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Your rant would make more sense if you knew the first thing about the issues involved.
- POWER5 maxed out at 2.3GHz
- It had NOTHING to do with Apple
- The relevant Apple chip, the 970, was based on the POWER4
- Professional's do not talk about the "speed" of a chip as though that were a single number. POWER6 (just like POWER4, POWER5, POWER7 and POWER8) target a rather different market than Intel. Just be aware that talking trash about them marks you as ignorant --- they are remarkable CPUs.


RE: Almost
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 7:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
Chill out man. Its not a pissing contest, and you are correct. I really dont know alot about the power architecture. That what what happens with obscurity.


RE: Almost
By Argon18 on 6/12/2013 3:16:59 PM , Rating: 3
Huh? Since when is POWER architecture obscure? It's been around since 1990. Twenty-three years. And its the only architecture that AIX runs on. AIX is probably the most robust general purpose UNIX out there, and most large businesses have AIX servers for their most critical processing. We've got dozens of them. Some of them we're only allowed to reboot once every 2 years. Seriously reliable stuff! They also run Linux (really well, I might add).

I can understand though how the high end stuff like POWER might seem obscure to the wintel peecee & video gamer crowd.


RE: Almost
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
Since forever. You do get that outside of a small minority of server related stuff siwht specific purposes, its basically unheard of right? You are posting all over this thread about it as if it matters, or its a player at all. Its a Niche. Like I said, its all fine if you can have your processor running its specific tasks at a high speed, but its not an all around speed king and for the most part, people arent even aware it exists. Itanium is really fast in its specific tasks as well, but no-one cares.


RE: Almost
By testbug00 on 6/12/2013 2:22:09 AM , Rating: 1
speed will vary depending on what you are doing and what platform you are doing it on.

A stock piledriver beats, ties, or barely loses to stock 4770k (and 3770k and 2600K) in most multithreaded things on Linux.

YET IT LOSES BY A LOT ON WINDOWS.

please, learn that operating systems and how stuff is coded affects how fast almost everything that does calculations actually is.

Well, you could claim Intel had the first over 5Ghz PART OF A CHIP with their double pumped ALU in Netburst, but IBM was the first that truly made a 5Ghz Chip and AMD is the first to make a chip that can REACH 5Ghz that most people can use (most people don't use operating systems that support POWER_ architecture)


RE: Almost
By Argon18 on 6/12/2013 3:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? How do you figure "most people don't use operating systems that support POWER_ architecture"? Linux supports POWER architecture, and Linux has conquered pretty much every niche of computing except the desktop peecee.

You are correct that Linux delivers much better multi-threading performance than Windows. Linux has supported multi-processor systems since the 1990's, while Windows was single-threaded until years later, with XP. (Yes, win2k could do 2 cpu's, but it was a hack and performed poorly). So its no surprise that Windows is still playing catch-up when it comes to multi-cpu performance.


RE: Almost
By Just Tom on 6/17/2013 10:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
Most people, meaning more than half, don't use Linux.


RE: Almost
By rs2 on 6/12/2013 1:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
For most people, the x86 is implied when talking about processors/CPU's. So while your point may be technically correct, it's also overly pedantic.


RE: Almost
By Argon18 on 6/12/2013 3:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Who are "most people"? This is a tech web site, where people are familiar with ARM, POWER, x86, x86-64, IA64, MIPS, etc. x86 is not the only game in town. Perhaps it is for the kiddie peecee crowd?


RE: Almost
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2013 4:35:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
kiddie peecee
You sound like a total douchebag every time you say this. But it's OK, everyone knows you are a douchebag anyway.


RE: Almost
By TSS on 6/12/2013 6:14:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yknow enough time has passed. I think the time is ripe for intel to release a 22nm or maybe even a 14nm Netburst.

They said it would become an supereffective architecture at 10Ghz. We gots to try it atleast once :p


Opteron?
By Argon18 on 6/11/2013 5:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder when we'll see the Opteron version of this? The low and middle range Opterons are extremely price-competitive with intel, but it would be nice if they could get the performance up a bit.




RE: Opteron?
By ritualm on 6/11/2013 5:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
How about never? It takes an awful amount of electricity to run that 4.7/5.0 leaker. Now multiply that by thousands of these (as is typical for server farms/clusters). Then tell me whether you're willing to pay through the nose for what little net performance gains offered by AMD versus Intel Xeon's.

AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor.


RE: Opteron?
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 8:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about never? It takes an awful amount of electricity to run that 4.7/5.0 leaker. Now multiply that by thousands of these (as is typical for server farms/clusters). Then tell me whether you're willing to pay through the nose for what little net performance gains offered by AMD versus Intel Xeon's.

LMAO!! did you just compared AMD's consumer performance parts to Intel's server parts?
It's not even apple to oranges, it's apple vs....robots.


RE: Opteron?
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
I believe if you re-read it, you will see he simply said we will not see this high end AMD chip in servers responding to a specific question from Argon - "I wonder when we'll see the Opteron version of this?" he simply answered a question.

He is right. We won't see an Opteron version of this, its way too power hungry. Not only that, its too hot. Throw a bunch of these in a server room and your AC will probably need upgrading. There is just no point for it. Intel has the server space wrapped up pretty well as far as price/performance. If AMD wants to make gains they have alot of work to do.


RE: Opteron?
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 10:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
Of course he is right. That was never a question in anyone's mind since there's 0 motherboard support for that power envelope Both the comments were stupid to begin with.

AMD's server solution is actually quite competitive overall. Most businesses choose intel for many reasons. It'll take pages to explain. But intel's solution more often superior but cost more.

Then he finished it with this
quote:
AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor.

I guess intel processors never make sense as soon as performance is not a major deciding factor. The bias is clear.


RE: Opteron?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Opteron?
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 11:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... I must aggressively point out my ambiguous stance on an issue that I am really not clear on!!!


RE: Opteron?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2013 4:38:15 PM , Rating: 1
Awww, someone butthurt by the truth?


RE: Opteron?
By retrospooty on 6/12/2013 11:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am just not getting your point here... Yes, it wasn't a great question, but the answer (the one you replied to) was correct.

"AMD processors never make sense as soon as price is not a major deciding factor."

Again, that is pretty much correct. Especially true in the server environment, as the few dollars saved on a CPU are far less important than in consumer. Intel has it on performance and power. It cant be beat in either, not with AMD's current architecture.

"I guess intel processors never make sense as soon as performance is not a major deciding factor. The bias is clear."

What BIAS? He is just correct, its not a bias to point out the obvious.


RE: Opteron?
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: Opteron?
By tamalero on 6/16/2013 9:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
no offense.. but you guys forgot some servers even used PRESCOTT and similar NETBURST burners that required very specific cooling to work?


RE: Opteron?
By Argon18 on 6/12/2013 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
Itanium has a 260 watt SKU. Also a 170 watt and 185 watt. 220w is not a big deal in the server room.

Most server owners don't pay for their actual power usage in the server room. They pay a flat colocation rate. Or a flat rackspace rate. They don't pay the actual usage like your residential power bill at home.


Not first to 5GHz
By name99 on 6/11/2013 7:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
IBM was shipping 5GHz POWER6 systems in 2008.

Yeah yeah, AMD can claim that technically it's the first to ship x86 systems or whatever, but the rest of us don't have to get caught up in their hype.




RE: Not first to 5GHz
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/11/2013 7:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
commercially available.... could you buy the IBM one in a store? online? no?


RE: Not first to 5GHz
By Argon18 on 6/12/2013 3:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you can. We bought a bunch of them. Servers from IBM, running AIX.


RE: Not first to 5GHz
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
so it's not really a product available to everyone.


RE: Not first to 5GHz
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/12/2013 4:41:14 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, way to miss the point, when you can buy them off the shelf at a store, then talk to me, until then, they aren't "commercially" available. Obviously you don't know what that means.


RE: Not first to 5GHz
By kleinma on 6/11/2013 7:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
No one is buying this stuff in the consumer market except hard core gamers anyway.


RE: Not first to 5GHz
By BRB29 on 6/11/2013 10:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
or people who compiles and encode because that's where its strength is, not gaming.


7zip, povray and x264?
By TheJian on 6/12/2013 10:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know anyone that uses the first two (newsgroups etc use winrar), and x264 perf changes depending on app used.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-...
It didn't win any encoding test (8350 vs. haswell or ivy) and that's not even discussing quicksync.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-...
Even lost to ivy in 7zip here (and of course winrar). Anandtech has some fishy AMD leanings. The 1440p articles are ridiculous. I could go on. AMD currently sucks, but these new heaters should perform faster and are recommended for anyone in alaska :) Live in AZ? Run like heck AWAY from amd.




RE: 7zip, povray and x264?
By BRB29 on 6/12/2013 11:35:56 AM , Rating: 2
lol you used toms as a source. The same website that's notorious for having biased reviews.

How about a site with a better reputation and less bias.

http://techreport.com/review/24879/intel-core-i7-4...

i7 4770k is a better performer but it doesn't win in every situation.
Whether it sucks or not depends on your wallet and what you do with the hardware.


Mick, please stop.. We know you own AMD stock...
By BSMonitor on 6/13/2013 9:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
The FX processors ARE GARBAGE.

For 130 less Watts of power the i7-3770K is faster across the board!!!!

Knowing nothing about CPU architecture, you certainly e like to prove it time and time again. These awful processors can only reach 5GHz when there is thermal headroom... How long, do you really think it maintains 5GHz??

These are AMD's attempt to appear relevant.. Most enthusiasts gave up PC space heaters in 2006.




By BRB29 on 6/13/2013 9:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For 130 less Watts of power the i7-3770K is faster across the board!!!


Yes it is. So is its price. You get what you pay for.


IT IS NOT A 5 GHZ PROCESSOR
By timothyd97402 on 6/12/2013 1:09:30 PM , Rating: 3
When someone releases a processor that runs at 5 GHz, out of the box, on all cores simultaneously, all day long, with no special tweaking then you will have yourself a 5 GHz processor.

This CPU might do 5 GHz on a limited number of cores in certain circumstance for a short period in turbo mode.

Typical "journalism" trying to stir things up and get page views rather than honestly inform the readers.




By Bateluer on 6/11/2013 5:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like they're just trying to sell off some chips that failed validation at lower voltages. 220W is nuts.




heating
By zodiacfml on 6/11/2013 9:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
if i need to heat my room, then, this would be great.




Apples and Oranges?
By ShieTar on 6/12/2013 3:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pricing has allowed AMD to stay competitive (for example a FX-8350 commands $199.99 currently, while an Intel i7-3770K costs $319.99).


Yeah, but a XEON 1230-v2 also goes for around $200, with basically the same computational power as the i7-3770 but without the internal graphics. Since the FX doesn't have any either, this is the more fitting comparison.




By unimatrix725 on 6/12/2013 12:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
Hell if price is not a consideration then I will take a CELL "chip" any day. There would be a few catches using that architecture. I bought my Phenom IIx4BE simply because I got the performance I NEEDED at the time and am still happy. I was looking at that or a 84/88xx from WIntel a few ~years back. Around the DDR3 transition (affordable) era. I am extremely happy for now. Will gift it to mother who will have it till death lol. I only late last year got a new GTX550 and replaced some drives. The fact that is known you usually do not have to buy another motherboard when AMD releases another CPU is great. I still have some wiggle room with my setup. My decision today is even more so about price than it was years back. I think AMD follows the motto of "walk softly and carry a big stick"?
I can remember a teacher telling me " for every 1k$ spent it will add a year to the life of your computer ", I personally think now it is more like 500$, maybe even less.
Not everyone is a psycho porn addict, sickening pedophile, octa-screen gamer or a server queen. (end rant)




A better idea
By johnsmith9875 on 6/13/2013 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
AMD should have just hand-redrawn all the traces for the 1100T, shrink it down to 32nm, slap 2 of them on a chip and sell it as a 12 core.




AMD, not there...
By Belard on 6/14/2013 4:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"This is another proud innovation for AMD in delivering the world's first commercially available 5 GHz processor."

So? If that brings it inline with an intel i5-3570K that is not over-clocked and running at about 3.5Ghz its not an amazing feat. Also, you're talking about a 220w TDP CPU vs a 77watt CPU. The 3570K isn't much slower than the 3770K (which also runs at 77w). That = less heat, less noise from cooling fans, more reliability.

Now... at 125w, it was already not good power draw... but 220w?! Anyone remember the OLD Days of Pentium4(Netburst) vs AMD X2/64? Intel was racing to ramp up the Pentium to 4~5Ghz and beyond. Especially as they were constantly behind the AMD CPUs. At stock speed, the FX8350 "8core CPU" is at best the same as the 3570K on multi-tread, and 50% slower in single threads. And when it comes to gaming, even slower. And if you add overclocking to the Intels... they just pull ahead, again.

Now, AMD has totally flipped that, and unlike Intel - they are going forward with a super HOT chip that will burn out and run very very hot.

"76% increase in TDP relative to the FX-8350 to get a 19% increase" = bad bad bad... and stupid. Does some folks at AMD come from Microsoft?

AMD is now supporting 3 maybe 4 desktop chipsets in which some are incompatible with the other. FM2 / FM3 vs AM3+. Still don't have PCIe 3.0 until 2014. Those with the "performance" FX chips don't get native USB3.0... nor the option of using a GPU for accelerated math processing like intel.

And then there is the pricing. The 4Ghz FX8350 is $180 vs $190 for the intel 3570K or the $200 4670K (At Microcenter).

I would still buy AMD if they did better. But they are all over the place with chipsets/CPUs/heat issues etc.

FM3+ should replace FM2/AM3x. There should only be a single desktop socket. All these SKUs doesn't help their business.




Oh the (power) humanity!
By 7Enigma on 6/17/2013 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
The amount of power dissipation for these are insane for the slight performance possible increase over Intel. The cost to cool a room from this CPU (and obviously the increase over the rest of the system) boggles my mind. In winter (if electric is cheap for you which for most of us it is not) this would be like a portable space heater. But in the summer it would be a massive cost for running AC in the same room. I would love someone to run the numbers on how quickly you would break even compared to an Intel build when AC costs are factored in. I think it would be shockingly short...




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki