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.


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

AMD, not there...
By Belard on 6/14/2013 4:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
"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.

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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