FX-9000 processors listed at U.S. e-tailer

So, remember how those AMD FX-9000-series processors were supposed to be exclusive to pre-built PCs? Yeah, turns out that might not be entirely true. E-tail listings for the chips have quietly popped up at PCSuperStore.com, a small U.S. online retailer based out of Erie, Pennsylvania.

PCSuperStore.com has the FX-9370 listed for $576.27 and the "5GHz" FX-9590 at a pricey $920.31. Both chips are said to be unlocked, and the part numbers are FD9370FHHKWOF and FD9590FHHKWOF, respectively. Retail-boxed AMD processors usually have "BOX" somewhere in the model code, so I assume these are tray units without heatsinks, manuals, or cool stickers included.

Oh, and neither model is in stock right now—but that’s no surprise. AMD said the FX-9370 and FX-9590 would become available from system integrators "starting this summer." We’re about three days from the start of summer and three months from the end of it, so in all likelihood, there’s still some waiting to be done.

We’ve asked AMD to further comment on the FX-9000 series’ availability and are awaiting a reply. (Thanks to X-bit labs for the link.)

Comments closed
    • jihadjoe
    • 6 years ago

    IT’S OVER $900!!!!

    • JessMcGuire26
    • 6 years ago
    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 6 years ago

    I’ve OC’d inferior AMD processors and they just aren’t as good as intel. I went all in but their product is just not as good. This proposition makes absolutely no sense. who would pay 900 dollars for a product that will loose in most benchmarks to a competitors 300 dollar processor?

    • LocalCitizen
    • 6 years ago

    the item seems to be gone. sold out already?

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      Sold out even before they had it in stock.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Btw, guys, everyone seems to be caught up with the FX-9590’s 220w TDP and crazy price tag, considering it’s practically nothing more than a glorified, overclocked, overpriced FX-8350. But, hasn’t anyone noticed that that 5.0GHz figure isn’t even the base clock? It’s just the boost clock. Perhaps AMD marketing should be a bit more honest and say this is the world’s first 4.7GHz desktop processor.

      • Farting Bob
      • 6 years ago

      It will, on it’s own without any involvement or knowledge from the user run at 5ghz. It’s base clock is “only” 4.7Ghz, but then all CPU’s run much lower than that when they don’t need the speed. This chip will likely also run at 1.0Ghz when thats all it needs. Really this chip will run “anywhere between 4.7-5Ghz under load providing adequate cooling and sufficient power.” But that doesn’t fit as well on the front of a box.

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        Today’s processors sure have confusing clock speeds. Take my FX-8350, for example. At any given moment it could be running at 1.4GHz, 4.0GHz, 4.1GHz, or 4.2GHz (and who knows what else intermediate clocks it runs at). So when I’m lazy and idling, I can be sure that it’s also dozing off at 1.4GHz, but when I suddenly get the urge to check my email, it could still be running at 1.4GHz. And when I fire up some demanding game, it should shoot up to 4.0GHz. Or is it 4.1GHz? And what if I’m just browsing and I’d like the CPU to run at full clock so that my browser would feel snappier? I disable CnQ, but that hurts power consumption as well.

        I wish it’s as simple as my old AMD Am386DX-40. If only power is free and we live in the Arctic.

    • clone
    • 6 years ago

    ok all of the valid criticisms aside these chips are destined for OEM’s who are anathema to enthusiasts, this kills off the fanboy market and the overclocker market while making a strong case that someone, somewhere, or some ppl some where have a use for these chips.

    someone somewhere looked at AMD’s 8 core product and have a app that can take full advantage of them…. I don’t know what the app in question is, I do know the app/apps must be quite significant given it’s worth ignoring pricing, power consumption and heat.

    having just revisited TR’s FX 8350 review and failing to find a benchmark showing any clues as to what the app might be I’m still not convinced it doesn’t exist.

    seriously though these cpu’s must have a buyer on the line already….. (Intel crank call?)

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      At $920 though, it’s easy to forget about that theoretical piece of software that runs best on the FX-9590, especially when you realize that you could do much better with a Core i7 Haswell.

        • clone
        • 6 years ago

        I agree these chips to me are ridiculous in every way, yet here we are, custom chips going into custom built motherboards that are going straight to OEM’s.

        by definition these chips were never destined for desktop, in truth I’ve never believed the FX series was a serious desktop cpu.

        obviously some group has found a use for these chips, at $920 per cpu…..let me repeat that….. for just the CPU….. someone obviously has a use for it that makes it a compelling alternative to Haswell and or Ivy and or Sandy.

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        It doesn’t matter… The high end desktop market doesn’t make sense, Intel or AMD. AMD is just playing catch up as far as having something ridiculously expensive that doesn’t have the performance to match. It’s a hood ornament for your BMW.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Would it be crazy to believe that this small e-tailer is just trying to attract attention?

      • Goty
      • 6 years ago

      If that were true, how would people get in their AMD-bashing? Won’t you think of the children?!

      • just brew it!
      • 6 years ago

      Not crazy at all. But also not crazy to believe that they can get at least a few of these chips.

    • just brew it!
    • 6 years ago

    I figured this would happen. “OEM only” parts always seem to have a way of leaking into the grey market channels, it has been that way for years.

    Side story: I remember picking up some K6-2+/III+ chips (manufactured on 180nm process instead of the 250nm process used for all the normal desktop K6-2/III chips) back in the day. AMD intended for them to be sold only to laptop OEMs, and they weren’t available through the normal DIY parts vendors, but you could get ’em if you knew where to look. A K6-III+ on a Super 7 board with a BIOS that had been hacked to recognize it was the pinnacle of K6-x tech. OCed to 600 MHz its performance was competitive with the early Athlons.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Screw SSE, I want 3d Now!

        • just brew it!
        • 6 years ago

        Original Athlon didn’t have SSE either. AMD didn’t implement it until 2 years later (Athlon XP), after SSE-capable software was becoming common enough to make lack of SSE support a significant issue.

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        3DNow! was cool back in the K6-2 days when I was still in college and had trouble affording a Pentium II/450, so I got a K6-2/450 for half the price instead. I remember patching Quake 2 with the 3DNow! patch. I can’t say performance suddenly rose to PII/450 levels, but hey, I guess the tech was exciting enough.

        It’s redundant today, though, with the entire SSE range of instructions being a superset of what 3DNow! can do. Plus, SSE has its own 128-bit registers (3DNow! shares the 64-bit MMX registers), so it’s more friendly with MMX code. Besides, apart from SSE, AMD supports AVX, AESNI, XOP, FMA3/4, and F16C. Those are more than enough to compensate for the lack of 3DNow! in the FX series.

          • jihadjoe
          • 6 years ago

          Cool.
          I got a Celeron 300A.

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    There are a whole bunch of comments that I don’t understand about the “ultra high end” parts that have inflated prices. I guess we’ve seen that happen, but my confusion is that there is nothing “ultra high end” about either the FX-9590 or the FX-9370 unless we have replaced performance with wattage ratings for our definition of “ultra high end.”

    If we mean, “loses by a large margin to the 2011 era 3930K (non-overclocked) while costing substantially more” then I can agree, but that’s a rather loose definition of “ultra high end.”

      • derFunkenstein
      • 6 years ago

      It is the “best”* CPU AMD makes. So therefore, ultra high end.

      *IMO the A10 5700 is their real best. Built my wife’s desktop with one and its great performance for the Monet and runs the typical Sims 3 casual game well, in a 65W package. I gutted there’s a Richland replacement but you get the point. A10 wins for me.

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        A10 is midrange at best. What’s really nice about today’s computing landscape is that we have a suitable product at every price point to meet every possible budget and usage scenario. That A10 may not be high end but I think it’s perfect for most wives (even for me if it weren’t for the fact that I sometimes need more serious compute muscle). I’d buy one for the wife except she’s already using a Lenovo laptop with a Core i5-2450M in it. Wanted one powered by a decent AMD APU back when I bought it but couldn’t get one that had a better value proposition than the Lenovo.

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          For the right type of use case, the A10 probably AMD’s best chip with the only other competitor being the recently introduced Kabinis. The 65-watt Richland parts would be excellent for an HTPC and pack a much better IGP than Intel’s products in the same price range.

          The irony is that while AMD seems to want to go all kamikaze in the Socket AM3+ platform, it is making some very nice products in other market segments that its own incompetent marketing department fails to promote while they generate hype for these FX parts that are going nowhere.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 6 years ago

            That’s my point. The price range of the A-series APUs is where AMD is actually closest to Intel. That’s the best place for them to compete, and they could sell boatloads if they marketed them. At this point yields should be good enough that they’re relatively high-margin, too – especially compared to the gargantuan FX dies.

            • ronch
            • 6 years ago

            Well, AMD would love to bash Intel in the high end, except at this time they’re in no position to do that, and instead hits Intel where they can.. that is, in the midrange and low end segments.

        • travbrad
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]It is the "best"* CPU AMD makes. So therefore, ultra high end.[/quote<] The best CPU I can make is soldering some huge transistors on a circuit board. $1000 for my ultra high end 4-bit CPU. Any takers?

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      There’s no way I’m gonna lie and tell myself that these parts are ultra high end. That title belongs to the $1K Intel SKUs, or maybe a high end Xeon if $1K is still too cheap for you.

    • south side sammy
    • 6 years ago

    I one of these threads I said it would cost $800 and was laughed at ( as being over estimated )…………. guess it was an under-estimation huh?

      • chuckula
      • 6 years ago

      They laughed at Galileo!
      They laughed at Einstein!
      But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown (who is apparently setting prices for AMD now).

    • sschaem
    • 6 years ago

    I keep checking my calendar… and no, its not April 1st.

    So the FX-9370 is going head to head with the i7-3930k

    FX-9370 cinebench : 7.5
    i7-3930k cinebench : 11.46

    The i7 is 50% faster, 70% cooler/ more power efficient, and exact same price.

    And the I7 comes with pcie3.0, a high performance quad channel 256bit DDR3 memory controler, larger caches, 12 HW thread (vs just 8 for AMD)…

    Will AMD even sell ONE of those CPU?

    In the end, was it really worth destroying what was left of their image with the tech community for this?

      • ModernPrimitive
      • 6 years ago

      I can think of at least two people over at a certain “green” website that would buy one……lol

      • brucethemoose
      • 6 years ago

      Tell that to the fanboys.

      They’ll sell plenty.

      • StashTheVampede
      • 6 years ago

      Bingo. You hit it right on the head: AMDs are slower for IPC, at a higher power envelope. The only thing I would possibly consider any recent AMD chip for: tons of cores at a lower price than Intel’s i7.

      Even when you factor in the additional cost of an i7 over an 8-core AMD, consider the workload you’re gearing it toward, it still seems cheaper to run an i7 due to faster IPC and lower power costs.

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        Personally, I couldn’t care less if the FX had half the IPC of Intel’s cores as long as AMD can clock them twice as fast to make up for the IPC deficit. Plus, of course, they should do it at competitive power consumption levels. As it is, AMD delivers less than half of Intel’s IPC, compensating for this with higher clock speeds and more cores. As long as your software can use that sort of approach, I don’t see a problem with it. Power is a tad high though, but unless you’re running a ton of them, it’s not really gonna hurt your bottomline a lot if the FX is really what you want.

      • kilkennycat
      • 6 years ago

      … and the i7-3930K also comes with 40 Pcie3.0 channels of goodness, up to Quad-SLI or Crossfire.
      (Bandwidth of x8 Pcie3.0 = x16 Pcie2.0 )…..

      Another AMD epic-fail in the desktop performance stakes. Not enough competent CPU designers left to come up with a decent new architecture on a new silicon node? Best of luck making money in the console-chip business. With AMD’s precarious financial position, no doubt the console manufacturers have full access to all the design and production documentation built into their contracts with AMD, just in case… Might save them some money if AMD quietly slipped under the waves after all initial design and production bugs have been fixed.

    • brucethemoose
    • 6 years ago

    Fanboys and a few clueless shoppers will eat these chips up, just like they always do with Intel’s extreme edition chips.

    There’s no rational reason to buy an FX 9590 or an i7 3970X. People who need that top end performance can buy faster Xeons/Opterons for the same price, so that’s no excuse. Overclocked, chips like the 3930k or 8350 are indistinguishable (bar the shiny sticker) for 1/2 the price or less.

    Yet there are 70 newegg reviews for the 3960X. The FX-9000 will get the same treatment.

    • Deanjo
    • 6 years ago

    One thing I would like to point out that this is not the first time AMD has said damn the watts. The Quad FX utilized two 125 watt TDP processors.

      • chuckula
      • 6 years ago

      I stilll remember those [url=http://www.computershopper.com/shoptalk/desktops/first-photos-of-our-vigor-quadfather-review-unit<]Quad-Father posters.[/url<] The advertising was badass, the platform... not so much. In AMD's defense, there's nothing that special about a 125 watt TDP socket and plenty of dual-socket workstations out there are at that envelope or somewhat higher. 220 Watts in a single socket though? That's innovation.

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]220 Watts in a single socket though? That's innovation.[/quote<] Na, the Itanium 2 MX2 had a 260 Watt TDP and it was a dual core running @ 1.1 Ghz.

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          Au Contraire! That Itanium MX2 was double-cheeseburger multi-chip module with two bloated dies in one package. AMD is first to 220 watts in a single beautiful piece of silicon with no need for Intel’s multi-chip gimmicks! Plus, AMD is the first to the 220 watt mark in x86.. not even Intel cares about Itanium anymore!

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            Still one socket. There are also ultrasparcs that have 240W TDP’s.

        • NeelyCam
        • 6 years ago

        “The Quadfather”…?

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          Click the link that I provided Neely…

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            I did – I posted that after clicking the link.

            • chuckula
            • 6 years ago

            Go watch more movies to get the reference Neely.

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            Dude, seriously? You don’t think I got the reference..? I just thought it was dumb to call it “Quadfather”

    • cynan
    • 6 years ago

    $920! AHAHAHAHA! Hahaha.. Ha? Herm…

    That had better be a price error. It’s not everyday you see AMD make Intel look like a value brand (Eg, overclocked 3930k).

    Wow. Just wow. Maybe the neighsayers are right and AMD is just that desperate.

      • cheerful hamster
      • 6 years ago

      Neighsayers? Those would be horses, right?

        • Krogoth
        • 6 years ago

        I thought magical ponies were the current rage.

        • NeelyCam
        • 6 years ago

        Epic!!

        • cynan
        • 6 years ago

        Of course [of course a horse is a horse]!

        Maybe it was a clever onomatopoeic pun intended to capture the incessant whinnying and snickering encountered by all the AMD doomsayers every time a story about the company rears (whoa Nelly, I did it again!) its head on this and other sites.

        But more likely, I’m probably just a dumb dumb who wasn’t paying attention to what he was typing.

        BTW, you’re welcome (for the setup) ;-P

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Don’t you get it? The price and the high clockspeed and the high wattage is all part of a ploy to get people to talk about them again. They’re doing everything to seem like they’re active, aggressive, and are, y’know, DOING THINGS.

      It’s working, too, because we’re talking about them RIGHT NOW.

      They’re Freddy Kreuger. They won’t exist long unless they’re sneaking around in your subconscious somewhere. When they don’t have actual new CPU’s to release for the performance high end, they just have to slap something together and toss it out there into the integrator market and then wait.

      Like feeding pigeons rice. You feed them and then you wait.

        • cynan
        • 6 years ago

        While you can argue the rationale for the existence of the FX-9000 processors as products as some kind of publicity stunt, the outlandish prices just makes AMD look out of touch with reality and kind of desperate. I don’t think anyone really thought that the 5 GHz chip would ever go for much more than the price the FX-9370 is listed for. Again, given the price of the 3930k, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

      • jihadjoe
      • 6 years ago

      It’s a money grab aimed at AMD fanboys with more money than brains.

      They just bin the chips that’ll make it to 5GHz, slap on a $900 price tag and boom! Profit! These things cost exactly the same to make as the FX8350s that they sell for $180.

      Meanwhile, the smart people buy FX8350s and overclock to 4.8. Well maybe not so smart, because then the wouldn’t have bought AMD.

        • anubis44
        • 6 years ago

        Much like the $1000 Intel chips being aimed at Intel fanboys with more money than brains?

          • jihadjoe
          • 6 years ago

          You know they are.

    • puppetworx
    • 6 years ago

    At these prices these chips are now confirmed as a PR stunt. NVIDIA pulled the same stunt with the Titan. It must be a pretty effective strategy.

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      People equate price with quality.

      I saw an article that was talking about some blind wine tasting. They poured two classes from the same bottle, but told the test subjects that one is from a $20 bottle, while the other is from a $50 bottle. The subjects overwhelmingly preferred the “more expensive” one.

      Apple is pretty good at this too.

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        That’s worked for intel for years. You need look no further then the original Athlon / AMD 64 days to see that.

        • Geonerd
        • 6 years ago

        It’s kind of a shame Apple isn’t offering these things in one of their super-high end systems.
        I suspect they would have no trouble moving a fair number, no matter what the price.

      • Deanjo
      • 6 years ago

      For it to be equivalent you would have to see Nvidia binning the GTX-680 and releasing that as the Titan for $1000. Apples to oranges comparison. One product is merely a binned chip, the other is a completely different chip and has many more additional features and capabilities.

      If AMD say perhaps took an Opteron, disabled a core or two and then ramped up the clock speed then that would at least be somewhat comparable.

        • brucethemoose
        • 6 years ago

        This^

        I don’t think they can squeeze dual processor CPUs into a single AM3+ socket.

        The Titan is a bigger, better slab of silicon than the GTX 680. The FX-9000 chips are essentially overclocked, rebadged 8350, like the 3960X.

        It too is a halo product, but it’s not a binned lower tier chip.

          • Klimax
          • 6 years ago

          Not correct. 3960X has bigger L3 cache compared to 3930k. You meant 3970X.
          See:
          [url<]http://ark.intel.com/compare/70845,63697,63696[/url<]

      • SCR250
      • 6 years ago

      Actually Nvidia constantly sells every Titan.

      These will be shelf warmers or would that be heaters.

        • HisDivineOrder
        • 6 years ago

        Perhaps you miscalculate exactly how many of these shelf heaters they’re making. I imagine not that many.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      They WERE codenamed Centurion according to the earlier leaks. Does seem like they were inspired by Titan’s success as an ad for the upcoming Geforce 780.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        The only problem is, Titan had performance. (Beat more or less everything except two+ chip solutions)

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    Hey remember that one time when that AMD fanboy said that without competition, Intel would charge you $1000 for a Pentium?

    Well he got it half right! There’s no competition, and now AMD is charging $920 for a chip that will end up being slower in every single benchmark than my OC’d 4770K!

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      Maybe, but your warranty is already toast because of your delidding adventure.

      At stock speeds and warranty intact, the Man’s CPU destroys your puny little stock hasbeen in most benchies. And it feels faster too.

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]Maybe, but your warranty is already toast because of your delidding adventure.[/quote<] It was worth it for the educational experience! Plus if you read my posts, you'll note that I'm still being pretty conservative with a 4.7GHz 24/7 overclock with very reasonable temperatures. When I claim that this 4770K will beat the FX-9whatever, I mean in my normal configuration without any benchmark-specific OC tricks.

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        I’ve figured you out Neely… after all these years, you could have been an AMD fanboy the whole time if they had just charged a crapton more for binned versions of the same chips you ragged on all those years!!

        YOUR SECRETS ARE MINE!

      • Deanjo
      • 6 years ago

      If you are going to run a comparison at least then compare it to a 8350 which can OC to the same speeds as these. Where does that 8350 fall into the bang for the buck?

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]Where does that 8350 fall into the bang for the buck?[/quote<] Overclocked to 5 GHz? 1. Faster performance than the 9590 (since that is turboing to 5 GHz and only actually running at 4.7GHz base. 2. Still slower than my 4770K, while having a total system cost of (at best) of around 20% better than the 4770K assuming you have a system in the $1K or higher range. 3. Blown away by the (now suddenly inexpensive sounding) 3930K that actually has a legitimate price-performance argument now that AMD has gone over the cliff. 4. Irrelevant since AMD chose not to charge $350 for the 9590, which would have made it a more interesting debate. We could rejigger the parameters in Intel's favor with the 4670K if we felt like it too, but the products are what they are.

      • Yeats
      • 6 years ago

      “…AMD is charging $920…”

      AMD is not charging $920, some retailer is.

      Hey remember that one time when that Intel fanboy said…

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      They’re in a battle to the top!

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      It’s not about being an AMD fanboy. It’s about avoiding a monopoly that doesn’t serve anyone except the monopolist.

    • Zorb
    • 6 years ago

    Has AMD totally lost it with those TDP’s and prices?? Good luck selling those units…….

      • Airmantharp
      • 6 years ago

      They’ll likely sell every one they make. That is to say, I don’t expect them to make many, but they are extremely attractive for certain uses.

        • travbrad
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]but they are extremely attractive for certain uses.[/quote<] If you are looking for a heater with good processing performance, look no further!

          • Firestarter
          • 6 years ago

          “8 cores @ 5ghz” will sell systems regardless of heat output and power requirements. Remember that there’s a market out there of people who just walk into a B&M shop and want the thing with the highest numbers that they can afford.

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      Maybe it’s just PCSuperStore.com hiking the prices because they can still sell every item..? Newegg does the same thing.

        • Goty
        • 6 years ago

        Since these aren’t really meant to be sold by retailers, I doubt retail pricing even exists for these chips.

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        Many eTailers also intentionally jack up the price quite a bit to cover their a**es for when the real pricing comes out. It is easier to lower your price then to explain to a bunch of enthusiasts why the price all of a sudden jacked up upon real availability.

      • Bensam123
      • 6 years ago

      When have ultra high end chips ever been price/performance competitive or even remotely close to it? They’ll sell, just like Intel EEs sell too. At that price point, whoever is buying them cares relatively little about what they’re actually buying and simply want the best of something (like Intel or AMD). It then also becomes a status symbol, just the same way cars are bought.

      This was actually a really good idea. The high end market doesn’t make sense and it’s not supposed to.

        • chuckula
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]When have ultra high end chips ever been price/performance competitive or even remotely close to it?[/quote<] Practically never, but we aren't talking about ultra high-end chips, we're talking about the FX-9590 & 9370. If you want to talk about ultra high end chips, we can discuss the pros & cons of an overclocked 3930K* that goes for about $400 less than the FX-9590. * or even a stock-clocked version if you are too bored to OC it.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      They got it right with the FX-8350. I guess whoever called the shots on the FX-8350’s pricing wasn’t the same person who thought of how to price this. I wonder why Rory green-lit these products. Just when they’re having a good show with the console wins, Richland, and upcoming Kaveri chips.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This