Report: New FX chip is just an FX-9590 with liquid cooling

You know that new FX processor AMD’s Roy Taylor tweeted a picture of last week? Yeah, it may not be a new FX processor, technically speaking. According to the guys at Hardware Canucks, this mystery FX chip is simply an FX-9590 bundled with a liquid cooler.

Hardware Canucks claims to have learned this bit of info after "poking and prodding the right people at AMD and Overclock.net’s ExtravaLANza." (The ExtravaLANza event took place this past weekend at AMD’s Markham, Ontario offices, so I’m sure there was an abundance of the right people to poke and prod.)

The bundled liquid cooler will reportedly help the FX-9590 overclock better out of the box, but it doesn’t sound like we’re in for any changes to the chip’s base specs. That means the processor will still run its eight cores at 4.7GHz with a 5GHz Turbo speed, and it will still have a humongous 220W thermal envelope. Remember, that’s up from 125W for the FX-8350 and 88W for Intel’s Core i7-4790K.

According to Hardware Canucks, the bundled liquid cooler will be one of Cooler Master’s Seidon 120 offerings, and it will kick up the FX-9590’s list price from $319 to $359. Since the current version of the FX-9590 is a bring-your-own-cooler type of deal, and the cheapest version of the Seidon 120 retails for $49.99, the new bundle may not actually be such a bad deal.

Just… you know. 220W.

Comments closed
    • carcakes
    • 5 years ago

    space heaters! 219W!

    • carcakes
    • 5 years ago

    space heaters! 219W!

    • BaronMatrix
    • 5 years ago

    You may all suck…

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    AMD’s upcoming big x86 core just can’t come soon enough. And it better be really good. Until then, AMD will just have to rely on crazy stunts like this if they have no plans to switch to a smaller process node for the FX lineup.

      • Kretschmer
      • 5 years ago

      1) It won’t be for a long time. Leaked roadmaps put the next non-APU chip at what…2016ish?

      2) Performance will continue to be relatively poor. Intel has a process lead, an R&D budget lead, and a huge head start. It’s best to just let this one go…

      • WaltC
      • 5 years ago

      Nice article here…

      [quote<]Come 2015, a new Bulldozer architecture called Excavator will be unveiled, Expreview reports. AMD will unveil a new general-purpose x86 core that should benefit from at least some of the great ideas that Jim Keller tends to get when he involves himself in a project.[/quote<] [url<]http://news.softpedia.com/news/K7-K8-Inventor-Back-at-AMD-Prepares-Excavator-for-2015-441617.shtml[/url<] Looks like easily in the next 12 months...

    • LoneWolf15
    • 5 years ago

    I keep thinking my Core i7-2600K at 4.2GHz and two Radeon 6970 cards, all three running Folding@Home on Light may consume about as much power as this AMD processor does at peak.

    EDIT: And I was once proud of having an Athlon 64 X2 3800+.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      The 2600K at stock is about as potent as an FX-8350 at stock in most highly threaded workloads, so overclocking the 2600K by 23% and the FX-8350 by 17% (the 9590 is essentially an OC’ed 8350) means the 2600K will likely keep up with the 9590, if not edge it a little. As for power, I’d expect Intel’s 32nm to be better than GF’s so the 2600K may still hold the edge in efficiency, enough so that you can plug three hot video cards and suck the same juice off the wall as this crazy product.

      Come on, AMD! The FX-8350 is actually quite respectable, if not the most efficient. Don’t hurt the FX brand further by doing stupid stunts like this!! It’s not just about your paychecks, you know!

      • maxxcool
      • 5 years ago

      Even better, unless you are encoding video all day your rig will last you another couple years were as EVERY amd rig on earth will need a refresh in 18 months.

    • fhohj
    • 5 years ago

    do you want to see the fx-9590 go super-saiyan?

    do you?

    • albundy
    • 5 years ago

    no freakin way for 220w!!! isnt it just cheaper to get a better performer? newegg has the Intel Core i7-4770 Haswell for $310. but if you want comparable performance, the Intel Core i5-4570 was $140 at microcenter like two weeks ago. i just dont see how amd will keep selling CPUs this way.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      AMD knows this but their marketers don’t care as long as they get their paychecks.

    • Meadows
    • 5 years ago

    On the flip side, all press is good press.

    …Right?

    • chuckula
    • 5 years ago

    Trip down memory lane: The FX-9590 first reared its head over 1 year ago: [url<]https://techreport.com/news/24940/amd-intros-fx-9590-processor-with-5ghz-peak-turbo-speed[/url<] So in that time: Intel has given us... Haswell refresh (bad). AMD has given us... FX-9590 re-launch (worse). A pox upon both their houses!

      • Concupiscence
      • 5 years ago

      I still don’t get the loathing for Haswell. Outside of overclocking it’s a nice incremental improvement on Ivy Bridge.

        • chuckula
        • 5 years ago

        I was more referring to the refresh of Haswell vs. Haswell in general. I’m quite happy with my year-old 4.7GHz overclocked 4770K.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      Why’s the Haswell refresh bad? I think the 4790K is great.. same price, 500MHz more, purportedly better TIM. What’s not to like? I know we should have had Broadwell already but Haswell 2.0 is better than nothing and it still moves things forward.

        • spugm1r3
        • 5 years ago

        I’d argue that the Haswell refresh is a direct result of the fact that AMD has nothing more to offer than a “refresh” of it’s top offering. Competition has been pretty light in the CPU market, from an enthusiast’s standpoint, leaving us with rehashes of processors that should have been outdated a year ago. I had mistakenly hoped that AMD’s recent ability to legitimately compete at the top end of the video segment again might bleed over to the other half of their business, but that optimism hasn’t been given much justification as of late.

        • jihadjoe
        • 5 years ago

        Certainly better than the 2600k – 2700k refresh which was a paltry 100MHz more, and 3770k which didn’t get a refresh at all.

      • Airmantharp
      • 5 years ago

      Y’all all lost it on Haswell. Haswell is *not* about more performance at the high-end; it’s about pushing more performance to the low-end. 2c/4t tablets that can last most of a day are nothing to scoff at :).

    • maxxcool
    • 5 years ago

    … “”it will kick up the FX-9590’s list price from $319 to $359″”

    359$ for a cpu that can be beat out by a 210$ i5 with a aftermarket cooler… :\

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    Haven’t they learned enough from the launch and quick demise of the FX-9370 and -9590? I swear, AMD’s marketers don’t care about wrecking AMD’s image as long as they get their paycheck — a sleezy marketing guy’s only goal in life.

    • DPete27
    • 5 years ago

    Called it!!

    • Wildchild
    • 5 years ago

    And nothing of value was lost.

      • NeelyCam
      • 5 years ago

      The materials used to make that cooler could’ve been used to cool a Haswell Refresh

    • ronch
    • 5 years ago

    I hate AMD’s marketing department.

      • Meadows
      • 5 years ago

      Don’t, they’ve been fired.

        • Klimax
        • 5 years ago

        And apparently rehired. Like Hurd. (He is already throwing impressive amount of crap around. Generally at NVidia for being supposedly evil and bad company. Only one guess why…)

        • Jigar
        • 5 years ago

        I wonder what’s Roy’s position.

      • maxxcool
      • 5 years ago

      So does AMD apparently …

    • kilkennycat
    • 5 years ago

    Between Intel’s latest round of Haswell and nVidia’s Maxwell, it seems as if AMD is going to have a very rough end to 2014.

    Cooler band-aids on sweaty FX CPUs and 290X as opposed to brand-new power-efficient designs are not going to save AMDs high-end products.

    The continuing loss of design talent and inferior CPU fab capability at AMD is beginning to show.

    • Concupiscence
    • 5 years ago

    There’s no money for new R&D, and consequently the FX architecture’s still a dead man walking. Pity. I like mine, but this is half-assed even as rebadges go.

      • Farting Bob
      • 5 years ago

      It’s not a rebadge, it’s a bundle that just includes a cooler. Its no different from Intel selling chips with or without their coolers. AMD tried to market it as something new and exciting, which tells us something about AMD’s marketing and lack of R&D.

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 5 years ago

    I thought the FX-9590 was AMD’s last hurrah for the desktop king-of-the-hill competition?

    I guess not.

    Where’s the desktop A8-7600 and the mobile FX-7600p anyways? Neither one of them has showed up.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 5 years ago

      Well the 9590 is still the latest hurrah, so it doesn’t really conflict with what you previously thought.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      Well, there’s no new chip here, just a new bundle. So the 9590 is still the latest hurrah from the FX lineup. Last? Who knows.

    • Laykun
    • 5 years ago

    I don’t think there’s a single person alive that’s surprised by this.

    • Voldenuit
    • 5 years ago

    Finally, AMD has found a use for all the sweet, sweet tears its fans are shedding.

    What, you think that’s regular water in the CLC?

    /former Opteron 165 and Athlon II X4 user.

      • windwalker
      • 5 years ago

      Damn, that’s harsh.
      I’m not even close to being an AMD fan and I still sighed.

        • Airmantharp
        • 5 years ago

        The rest of us are beyond sighing- AMD has thrown their market share away through their own incompetence. It would be maddening if anyone still cared.

      • maxxcool
      • 5 years ago

      YEEESSSSS cooled by the tears of rage and disappointment .. omg you are my hero 🙂 <3

    • Geonerd
    • 5 years ago

    Lower power consumption is nice, but is also over-emphasized, IMO.

    Assuming your PS and motherboard don’t explode, and you’re not running a heavy CPU load 24/7, 220W peak is really not that big of a deal. And if you are running heavy loads on all cores, a custom turbo profile will allow mild high-thread-count underclocking as desired.

      • Arclight
      • 5 years ago

      Graphics cards easily exceed that. The problem with it, imo, it’s that it’s not competitive in most workloads. If these chips outperformed the competition, most of us wouldn’t care if it’s 140W or 220W TDP.

      • Sargent Duck
      • 5 years ago

      I assume you don’t live where I live where my electric bill will go up 40% this year…that’s after the rate hike last year that absolutely gouged me which is after the rate hike the year before…

        • Geonerd
        • 5 years ago

        Then don’t use this chip for 24/7 computing. Compared to a 125W chip, it will draw an extra ~100W _IF_ you can manage to load all the cores. Can any game other than a chess engine manage to saturate 8 cores at 4.7? I doubt it. (I’d really like to see a real-world-gaming power consumption test.) For most ‘normal’ use, you’re looking at a few hundred watt-hours per day, max. Even at NY power costs, that’s single-digit pennies per day, 2~3 bucks a month. Woop. Unplugging your network hardware at night would probably save at least that much…

        Look, I’m not saying this kit is a particularly good value. I’ll agree that it’s little more then a cheap marketing ploy. But I am pushing back against the “OMG, 220W! We iz all gonna die!!!!” hysteria that is so popular.

          • just brew it!
          • 5 years ago

          Yup. As long as your motherboard’s VRMs are up to the task, 220W TDP isn’t that big a deal unless you’re running CPU-intensive workloads 24×7. But as others have pointed out (repeatedly) there are better choices out there. The FX-9590 just doesn’t cut it on price/performance.

          FWIW I’m still quite happy with my FX-8320. Didn’t cost an arm and a leg, supports ECC RAM, and idles at around 50W according to the on-die power monitor. When I need more horsepower (say, to do a bunch of media encoding or run some VMs), I’ve got 8 cores available. My only real complaint with the FX-83xx series is the stock cooler.

      • tipoo
      • 5 years ago

      Sure, many won’t care. But twice the power draw for worse performance in 8 in 10 workloads isn’t ideal.

      • ronch
      • 5 years ago

      220w is no big deal IF this were the fastest CPU on the planet to justify 220w. But then, you can spend the same amount on a Core i7 and get comparable or better all-around performance… for a fraction of the power. Even an AMD fanboi will think hard before getting a 220w FX chip. As if the power difference between an FX-8350 and a Core i5/i7 isn’t bad enough (off the wall at full load, not TDP or ACP or whatever).

    • Kretschmer
    • 5 years ago

    Ouch. It’s like AMD product development and marketing are trying to out-fail each other in a bet.

      • itachi
      • 5 years ago

      Lol man.

    • Wirko
    • 5 years ago

    Oh, the closed loop (°) fluid (F) cooler edition. FX-9590°F.

    • jessterman21
    • 5 years ago

    And the $300 77w i7-3770 still outperforms…

      • Dracius
      • 5 years ago

      Yea its quite sad. It would of been at least OK if the FX was faster than the i7, or even just deliver the same performance.

      I’m using a 8350, and my CM Hyper 212 EvVO works very very very very hard during a Prime95 street test. Can’t image what 220w would do.

      I’ve shocked myself with 220v, and that wasn’t very nice 🙁

        • crabjokeman
        • 5 years ago

        Watts != Volts. I hope that was sarcasm.

          • UnfriendlyFire
          • 5 years ago

          It’s not the voltage that kills. Static electricity is 20,000 volts and all it does is surprises you.

          But a lighting strike or high voltage line will carry lots of current.

          • jihadjoe
          • 5 years ago

          At 1A they are! 🙂

      • itachi
      • 5 years ago

      Yea and where is the value of a 3770k when there is the 4770k at the same price (and now the devils canyon even ?), gotta wonder, real smartasses the guys taking care of pricing @ Intel

    • bthylafh
    • 5 years ago

    Yawn. </krogoth>

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This