Rumor: AMD to shake up FX series on Labor Day

After fleshing out its desktop Kaveri lineup last month, AMD may soon turn its attention to the FX series. On September 1, Hexus reports, AMD will expand the FX lineup and cut prices on existing models. Word comes from the same sources who spilled the beans about the FX-9590 last year, so there’s an air of plausibility to it all.

The scuttlebutt is that there will be three new FX-8000 processors, including two with 95W thermal envelopes. AMD is also expected to reduce the price of its flagship, the FX-9590, to match that of Intel’s Core i5-4690K. The FX-9590 sells for $299.99 today (or $369.99 with a closed-loop liquid cooler in the box), while the i5-4690K, which is the cheapest Intel quad-core with a fully unlocked upper multiplier, costs $224.99.

Considering the FX-9590’s humongous 220W power envelope and somewhat lackluster performance, a price cut seems overdue. Even if priced more competitively, though, I expect the chip will remain unappealing to all but the most die-hard AMD fans out there. The new 95W FX-8000 parts may be more tantalizing, if their specs aren’t too pared-down.

Comments closed
    • carcakes
    • 6 years ago

    space heaters! 219W.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 6 years ago

    If there are new FX chips coming, then they will almost certainly be APU’s with the GPU disabled.

    If these are rebadged updates with an extra 100mhz thrown on the top, then well that’s not much of anything.

    Isn’t it sad I can’t even begin to muster hope that this is an actual, honest-to-God Steamroller update to the FX octa-core setup? I can’t remember the last time I held hope about AMD and a CPU architecture. It was probably pre-Bulldozer.

    Even before Bulldozer launched, I knew it was bad just from the way they were running damage control around it. It’s been a long time since I held hope about any AMD performance CPU that didn’t have a GPU built-in and quite a while even with those that do…

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      That would be like closing the lid on the casket for AMD CPU’s .. 🙁 sad day if that comes about.

    • Mark_GB
    • 6 years ago

    AMD is attempting to do something that for AMD is bizzare…. Become a profitable company. On a regular basis no less. They are not quite there yet, but they are working hard at it. And if they succeed, and show they can do it quarter after quarter, then they will have the time to go back and kick Intel in the arse again, and be king of the consumer market for awhile.

    Intel is sleeping, at least in the x86 markets. AMD could come back and hurt them some if they can get a really powerful x86/x64 out that had a super efficient IPC.

    BTW, isn’t it about time that our CPU’s dropped the 32 bit side of themselves? After all, if software is not available in a 64 bit version by now, it probably never will be. That should make em smaller and allow the chip designers some additional options.

      • absurdity
      • 6 years ago

      Considering the next version of Windows is reported to have a 32-bit version, we probably won’t see the death of CPUs supporting that version of Windows anytime soon. I think the argument about 64-bit software is a bit flawed – a lot of applications simply have no need for a 64-bit version, and so they haven’t made the move.

      • gamerk2
      • 6 years ago

      The entire point is to maintain backward compatibility. Even the old 16-bit HW remains.

        • ColeLT1
        • 6 years ago

        Also to add to your point, you can’t just drop the 32bit registers, they are half of the 64bit registers. When AMD64 was spec-ed out, they didn’t do the fresh instruction set itanium approach, they did the add-to-x86 approach, much like 16 -> 32 bit.
        [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Architectural_features[/url<]

    • Wesmo
    • 6 years ago

    Dear AMD, one steamroller am3+ chip, doesn’t have to be special OMG goes like a cheetah where are the l337 overclockers 250w. just fx6300 speeds + the die shrink. Nothing else… Heck you can even hide a quickly hacked togeather fm2+ to am3+ adapter & a kaveri chip within the processors package. Think of all the trees you would save due to perf per watt increases and less motherboards chucked out… One can dream…

    • Chrispy_
    • 6 years ago

    AMD should have been fast-tracking the hell out of their x86 redesign since [i<]Fail[/i<]dozer yet three years on we're still seeing tweaks to a fundamentally uncompetitive design. If AMD released a 6GHz variant tomorrow it would still be irrelevant to today's buyers. We have learned over and over again that IPC is the single most fundamental requirement for an x86 CPU and AMD still has worse IPC today than they did three years ago. C'mon AMD. Throw us a frickin' bone here, the entire industry is stuck at a performance ceiling because you're not playing anymore.

      • srg86
      • 6 years ago

      I think your second point is the best one, in most of the tasks that x86 processors are used for (I’d even say server tasks as well), IPC has been proven to be the most important requirement. AMD showed us this back in the Netburst days, when they more often than not, trounced the P4. But then they seemed to repeat Intel’s mistake.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      Processor performance is a result of two things: IPC and clock rate. If they managed to run Vishera at ~6.0GHz and make their memory controllers better (say, run it at the same clock as the CPU cores like Intel does instead of being stuck at 2.0GHz or 2.2GHz) it can theoretically match a 3.5GHz Ivy or Haswell in terms of per-core performance, considering a 4.0/4.2GHz FX-8350 manages roughly 66% the per-core performance of a 3770K which runs at 3.5GHz. Of course this doesn’t take power consumption or energy efficiency into account since we’re talking about performance.

        • Chrispy_
        • 6 years ago

        Exactly. 66% the per-core performance of a 3770K. So 4.2*(100/66) = 6.3GHz to equal a 3.5GHz Ivy.

        At 6GHz, it’s interesting, at 4GHz or so it’s underwhelming, hot, power hungry, and supported by a dated, troublesome platform and IO hub with throughput issues.

    • Ashbringer
    • 6 years ago

    Pay attention to those motherboard VRMs.

    [url<]http://cdn.overclock.net/c/c5/900x900px-LL-c5863dae_amdboardroomsugguestionmeme.jpeg[/url<]

    • Arclight
    • 6 years ago

    So, like, uh, PCI-E 3.0, new chipset, LGA socket and 22nm when AMD? When?

      • windwalker
      • 6 years ago

      When the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, when the seas go dry and mountains blow in the wind like leaves.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Some anti-AMD comments here actually made me chuckle, but really guys, the FX isn’t a bad chip at all. I’m using an FX-8350 now and it handles everything just fine. Heck, there’s a guy over at YouTube who even claims he’s owned both the FX-8350 and the 3770K (which all of you here surely approve of) and says he sure as heck [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLRZxRL8N8<]can't tell the difference between the two in day-to-day usage[/url<]. Edit - not sure why people are down-voting this. Can't they accept that the FX-8350 really isn't bad at all?

      • Deanjo
      • 6 years ago

      If you already had a motherboard that could handle a 8350 and you were looking to get a bump up from an older processor like a 955 then sure, knock yourself out.

      Investing in a board and CPU is a waste however. I wouldn’t recommend anyone buying a new system based on 4+ year old platform no matter who’s it is. I wouldn’t recommend going out and buying a new sandy bridge processor and motherboard either. There are just better options out there that are still being actively supported.

      As it is, the number of AM3+ boards are dwindling many are discontinued and there are no plans for replacements. If you do have issues and have to RMA a board, you can almost guarantee yourself it will likely be a refurb.

      • Kretschmer
      • 6 years ago

      Most people wouldn’t tell the difference between a Celeron and an i7 in day-to-day usage; that doesn’t mean that the chips are compareable. It just means that day-to-day usage isn’t taxing.

      If I only played Solataire I could opine about Intel’s Iris Pro feeling like SLI GTX 780s for my gaming, but it would be a worthless anecdote.

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        Except in the video the guy says he runs demanding apps, not just Solitaire.

          • Deanjo
          • 6 years ago

          I’m also a guy that runs demanding apps, who also has an 8350 last of a long line of AMD systems and i7/i5/i3’s. I can tell you that there is an appreciable and noticeable difference in terms of performance, heat output, features, and power consumption and it isn’t in the AMDs favor. Even in virtualization, at least my intels have working IOMMU, same can’t be said with any of my AM3 boards and likely never will having it working due to bios development screaching to a halt a couple of years ago.

      • srg86
      • 6 years ago

      10 years ago, you could have said exactly the same about the Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 or even Athlon XP. In day-to-day usage they will be just the same. The Athlon 64 was still an unquestionably better product though (I’d even stretch that to the Athlon XP was as well, though later Northwoods did start to overtake them).

      • JumpingJack
      • 6 years ago

      You obviously have lower standards.

      • dragontamer5788
      • 6 years ago

      At its price point, the Fx-8350 seems pretty good. I’ve seen some rather valid benchmarks where the Fx-8350’s extra cores helps over an equivalently priced i5 and even has an edge over the i7.

      The sucky part is that the Fx-8350 only has 4 FPUs and only 4 vector units, so it doesn’t actually have a core-advantage against the i5 when it comes to rendering or any other vector-accelerated benchmark. Its 4 vector units vs 4 vector units, and the i5’s superior IPC wins out. Finding a benchmark where 8 integer-units actually wins out is rather rare.

      [url=https://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/qtbench.gif<]Compiling[/url<] however seems to be the Fx-8350 forte, as compilers tend to be heavily integer-based code. It also seems to be a superior database / web server chip. But in the consumer space, photoshop and video games are more common, and they appreciate the AVX instructions which are weak in the Fx-series of chips. So yes, with the appropriate workload, the Fx-8350 can indeed keep up with an i7. But the typical consumer tasks (Photoshop / Video Editing == AVX, video games == low-thread count + IPC) seem to work against the Fx-8350. But with a proven niche, I do believe the Fx-8350 is a good, solid chip. But a [b<]more[/b<] solid chip is the Fx-6300, which honestly has no competitor at the $110 price point. Vt-d, AES acceleration, fully unlocked, and all the features of CPUs you can hope to get. 6 integer cores (Fx 6300) vs 2 cores (i3) offers much better odds as well at this mid-range price point.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 6 years ago

    Top secret AMD business strategy EXPOSED!

    [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeCglp33fjI&list=PL6BDCC8236648E158[/url<] *credit to [url=https://techreport.com/news/26934/14-hp-laptop-will-run-windows-cost-199?post=842042#842042<]ludi[/url<] #newTRmeme

    • Delta9
    • 6 years ago

    The FX chips are not bad, it really depends on what you are doing with them. In gaming and everyday computer use you are better off with what Intel offers, better single core IPC and much lower power consumption. Now if you are doing Photoshop, video encoding or any process that is highly multi-threaded, then they are very competitive chips. Add to it the fact that I can stroll into the Microcenter by my house and grab an 8 core FX 8320 for $120, it makes for a very compelling option if I am building a workstation for heavily threaded programs ( Photoshop etc.) The unlocked multiplier is just gravy. Of course for $100 you can get a Pentium Anniversary edition chip and motherboard at the same store, and it will handle the FX chips in games and general computing tasks, but for another $80 you have a full blown FX platform ready to to do heavy multi-threading and able to handle server type workloads. So let them cut the prices, these chips have there benefits in situations they are designed to take advantage of.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Site say 160$

        • Delta9
        • 6 years ago

        Choose the Paterson New Jersey store as the preferred location, CPU prices vary from store to store.

        • just brew it!
        • 6 years ago

        That’s the CPU + motherboard bundle you’re looking at. For some reason they are defaulting to the bundle when you add the CPU to your cart.

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          hmm, still 160 as a cpu alone, from NJ.

            • just brew it!
            • 6 years ago

            Weird. If I remove the motherboard from my cart I definitely get the $120 price.

            Edit: And I’m even running through a NJ-based SOCKS proxy, so that makes no sense! Try selecting the Westmont IL store as your “home” store and see what happens.

            Edit #2: I tried selecting the NJ store and I still get $120. Are you looking at the *8320*? $160 is the CPU-only price for the *8350*.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Sounds like a loop hole! buy one and resell it!

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Ahhh the site is listing the 8320 price.. the 8320 is the 119$ and change. I think it is a typo.

            Too bad, i’d buy one for 120$ for one of my vmware rigs and clock it up a bit.

            • just brew it!
            • 6 years ago

            What typo? The post you originally replied to said 8320.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Oh S##t … damn auto-complete eyeballs

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Monday part two 😛

            • just brew it!
            • 6 years ago

            LOL @ “auto-complete eyeballs”.

            Given that the 8320’s turbo-core speed is only 5% less than the 8350’s (for those why prefer to run stock), and it’s unlocked (for those who want to OC), that’s still a decent price for the CPU. And the motherboard bundle is a pretty sweet deal.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            It really is, I’d go with the UD3 board in the list. I have had good luck thus far with the 2 I had to swap into my private vmware lab here at work.

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 6 years ago

      I remember running Simcity 4 (single-core) and TF2 (dual-core) on a quad-core 1.6 GHz i7 720qm.

      Since SC4 took forever for one in-game year to pass for a city with 8+ million population and 10+ million commuters coming in/out of the city, I decided that I would check on the SC4 city at the end of every TF2 round.

      • blastdoor
      • 6 years ago

      The thing is, people who really can take advantage of lots of cores also tend to be people who are using them for some productive purpose (not playing games), where time is money and electricity costs matter. For those people the FX could be free and would still be a bad deal compared to a high-end Core i7. In fact I am such a person — I wouldn’t use an FX if you gave it to me for free, because a $1,000 Core i7 uses less power and will get the job done faster. When you add up the value of my time and the value of electricity over a year, the Core i7 is easily worth the extra money.

      This is where the price/performance comparisons we often see on enthusiast review sites fall apart — they don’t account for the value of a person’s time. That’s ok for students who just use their computer to play games, but it’s not useful for people who use their computer to get work done.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 6 years ago

        First, the $1000 Core i7s use approximately 20W MORE than the Fx-8350. So… no.

        [url<]http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-FX-8350-Vishera-8Core-CPU-Review/?page=9#!bGidHR[/url<] Second, the Fx-8350 uses 20W more than Ivy Bridge, and Haswell uses [b<]more[/b<] power than Ivy Bridge. 20W at $0.12 per KW/hr * 24 hours/day * 365 days == $21. You'll have to run a computer for years before you make up the difference between an i7 and a Fx-8350 in terms of energy costs. Fx-8350 is like $180 or so, which means it is competing against an i5. Frankly, I think its actually a good chip vs the i5.

          • Bubster
          • 6 years ago

          Trying to see how 242-159 = 20.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 6 years ago

            Because you run your computers at 100% load all the time?

            109-91 == 18W difference.

            • Waco
            • 6 years ago

            If you’re just comparing idle draw then you can do a lot better than the numbers posted in that review for idle between careful component selection and idle states.

            For most people the power issue has little to do with the actual number and more to do with the amount of heat dumped into the room [i<]while[/i<] you're using the machine.

            • Bubster
            • 6 years ago

            And blastdoor’s comment referred to heavy usage?

          • blastdoor
          • 6 years ago

          If all you do is play games, then sure, your system will sit idle for a big chunk of time.

          I run monte carlo simulations 24 hours a day for days at a time.

          At 100% load, the Core i7 4960X draws 216 watts (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4960x-4930k-4820k_8.html#sect0)

          At 100% load, the FX 5590 draws 328 watts (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_7.html#sect0)

          328 – 216 = 112 watts.

          And that’s just raw watts, not accounting for performance/watt.

          I personally don’t use Photoshop, but you brought up that example, so let’s look at it:

          [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i7-4960x-4930k-4820k_7.html#sect0[/url<] [url<]http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_6.html#sect0[/url<] Core i7 4960X completes the benchmark in 81.5 seconds FX 5590 completes the benchmark in 100.3 seconds So, to complete the same benchmark the FX 5590 requires (100.3*328)/(81.5*216) = 1.87 times as much power. Seems to me that FX processors suck just as much for multithreaded work as they do for single threaded work. But I agree -- if you want to buy a processor that sits idle all the time then AMD definitely has the better deal.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 6 years ago

            Sure, if you take the turd product and compare it against the Intel one, you’re gonna get those stats.

            [quote<] At 100% load, the FX 5590 draws 328 watts (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_7.html#sect0)[/quote<] What the hell is a Fx 5590? Maybe you mean 9590? But that processor is a piece of trash. We're talking about the $180 Fx-8350, not the grossly overpriced, over-heated 9590 at 220W TDP. The benchmarks I showed the Fx-8350 have a [b<]maximum[/b<] power draw (across the whole system) of 242W. It looks like the Ivy Bridge 4960X (a $1000 chip) is only 26W more efficient under load. Once again, we're talking about $10 or $20 in electricity over the course of a year. Sorry that your argument of "I'm going to pay $1000 for a chip so that I can save $10 in electricity" doesn't exactly win me any favors. ------------------ How about this. Why don't you take your $1000 chip in your (probably $3000+ computer) and compare it against someone attempting to make more than a turd-sandwich system. Something like a... dual-socket Opteron 4386. I bet the Dual Opteron 4386 is going to be cheaper and gets more work done than the i7-4960X. At the prices Intel charges for their high-end, you can build dual or quad-socket systems. ---------------- [quote<]I personally don't use Photoshop, but you brought up that example, so let's look at it: [/quote<] What the flying ****? You aren't reading my posts. [url<]https://techreport.com/news/26938/rumor-amd-to-shake-up-fx-series-on-labor-day?post=842284[/url<] [quote<]So yes, with the appropriate workload, the Fx-8350 can indeed keep up with an i7. But the typical consumer tasks (Photoshop / Video Editing == AVX, video games == low-thread count + IPC) seem to work against the Fx-8350.[/quote<] I know where Intel has their advantages. But AMD is making a good value buy as long as you stay away from crap like the Fx-9590.

            • blastdoor
            • 6 years ago

            I was just comparing the top of the line desktop processors from both AMD and Intel. Sorry if that didn’t fit your narrative, but the 9590 was mentioned in this article. Oh but you caught me in a typo, so I guess that means you’re right about everything and I’m wrong about everything.

            If you want to switch to dual socket server chips, then you’ve got Opteron competing against 12 core Xeons. Good luck with that.

            Also, as I said before, it’s not just electricity — it’s the value of the time of the person using the computer.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]I was just comparing the top of the line desktop processors from both AMD and Intel.[/quote<] I'm not a fanboy. I can blatantly see that the AMD Fx-9590 is a turd processor and a bad value. [quote<] If you want to switch to dual socket server chips, then you've got Opteron competing against 12 core Xeons. Good luck with that. [/quote<] Money must just grow on trees for you, since you seem to think that a [url=http://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9B-19-116-925<]$2500 processor[/url<] should be compared to a [url=http://www.neweggbusiness.com/product/product.aspx?item=9b-19-113-323<]$350 processor[/url<].

      • DarkMikaru
      • 6 years ago

      No, FX chips aren’t that bad at all. Totally agree. I’ve built several FX-8000 Series Workstations type machines where clients needed more grunt but didn’t quite have the budget for the i7 of their dreams.
      For those who make a living doing Photo, Video Editing, 3D Graphic Modeling, etc… if it is in your budget by all means buy as much horse power as your budget allows. For those individuals or businesses on a tight budget the FX 6 or 8 Core’s are a great value.

      Intel Core i7 6 Core – $579.99
      Intel Core i7 4 Core – $339.99
      Intel Core i5 4 Core – $224.99

      AMD FX-8350 8 Core – $179.99 (I’ve seen it dip as low as160 on the Egg)
      AMD FX-6300 6 Core – $119.99 (on sale for 109 right now)

      Once you factor in an AM3+ board & 8GB Ram your already halfway done! 80 for the board & 75 for ram = 334.00 That is the price of the i7 itself. I think for an entry level budget conscious build, it should be considered. Then one can invest in enhancing other areas of the build. 🙂

        • just brew it!
        • 6 years ago

        If you watch Microcenter’s bundle deals it gets even better. Sometimes you can even get the motherboard for free with the CPU purchase! Granted it’s just an entry-level uATX board, but hey, it’s free!

          • dragontamer5788
          • 6 years ago

          The better values are the ~$40 or $50 motherboard bundles from Microcenter, since they aren’t pieces of ****.

          But yeah, you can get a Fx-8350 + a decent Motherboard for $250 or less from Microcenter. Of course, their Intel prices are outright ridiculous as well. So its more about Microcenter just being an awesome store.

          You do have to come in and deal with lines and all that stuff… but its good to have a retail location handle return issues or defects. I built my computer from Microcenter, and the motherboard was bad. So I was able to just drive back over there (same-day) and exchange it. Got my computer bought and built in one day.

          You really can’t do that with Newegg… and Microcenter’s prices beat Neweggs most of the time now. Plus free shipping! (I guess I spent like $3 on gas…)

            • just brew it!
            • 6 years ago

            I did exactly that just a few weeks ago — FX-8350 + Asus M5A97 R2.0 for $220 at Microcenter. I don’t think I’ve ever had more than ~3 people in front of me in line either. The main downside for me is that they aren’t directly on my way home from work like TigerDirect. I guess I am spoiled though; I have TigerDirect, Frys, and Microcenter all within a ~15 mile radius!

      • culotso
      • 6 years ago

      Photoshop craves single core speed in many key areas; too much doesn’t benefit/isn’t rigged for multi-threaded stuffs.

        • Sgttwinkie
        • 6 years ago

        It doesn’t matter if you love AMD or hate AMD, we all need amd to succeed as a company. If amd closes intel will have a monopoly on desktop CPUs and we will all suffer because there will be no competition to keep prices lower. I have no problem with people that use intel parts. And lately AMDs offerings don’t keep pace pound for pound against Intel. That being said I run a fx8120 in my pc. It runs everything I throw at it just fine for my needs. It just seems crazy to me when people bash someone for not using intel CPUs. If you have a budget of 5,000 dollars for your pc more power to ya. My budget was 600.00 dollars and I am just happy with my fx 8120 and my gigabyte 970 mobo.

    • moose17145
    • 6 years ago

    Seeing a lot of hate on the FX platform. Just feel like mentioning that it isn’t by any means a bad chip. My buddy built a nice little ESX box around the FX 8350 on the cheap and it does a very very good job. Didn’t take us long to discover all those AMD cores do a pretty good job in an environment like that. And unlike Intel, AMD leaves all the nice little virtualization bits and stuff enabled. Yea Intel has them beat on raw performance in many areas while running a bit cooler and consuming less power (not things to take lightly), but scenarios do exist where these truly are not bad chips.

    The chip is still overclockable while having all the VT bits and doohickies enabled, and it was crazy easy to find a motherboard loaded up on features that likely won’t even be needed that supported the amount of ram he wanted for a very low price. And overall the performance has been well above what we were ever expecting it to be. Overall it really is a pretty nice little platform really.

    Just felt like throwing out there that these really aren’t BAD chips. In fact they do have places where they seem to work exceptionally well.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      devils canyon fixes the binned off virtual bits.. But before that AMD was my choice a few years ago.

      • JumpingJack
      • 6 years ago

      Make sure you are true to what features are turned off and on, the K series are capable of virtualization (VT-x) but do not support device peripheral virtualization (VT-d) which is more important in server/enterprise applications and is of little use in desktop workloads.

      • DarkMikaru
      • 6 years ago

      As I’ve said for years, AMD gives you 70 – 80% of the performance of Intel for 70-80% of the price. Usually. But you guys know what I mean. Sit anyone down in front of an Intel or AMD machine with similar configurations and they’ll be hard pressed to notice a difference on day to day computing.

    • albundy
    • 6 years ago

    “AMD is also expected to reduce the price of its flagship, the FX-9590, to match that of Intel’s Core i5-4690K.”

    whats the point if it cant match performance? AMD should offer it at half the cost like it did back in the K6 days.

    • LoneWolf15
    • 6 years ago

    My new i7-4790k has a TDP of 88w IIRC. Tell me again why 95w should impress me.

      • Deanjo
      • 6 years ago

      Moar = bettah

      • moose17145
      • 6 years ago

      I live in MN… land of the cold winters. Last place I lived had crap for wall insulation and I would mine litecoins with my 7970 GHz while running prime95 on three of my i7-920’s overclocked cores just to keep the dang room warm. Dang I am glad the utilities were included in rent… that place had to be a fortune to keep warm last year when it was getting below -40 at night. And IIRC the 920 was a 130 watt chip…

      I remember one night my machine rebooted mid way through the night because windows update had done its thing (apparently it was set to just do whatever it wanted still from my last wipe and reload… yea I fixed that really fast…), meaning my mining had stopped along with the Prime95 workers… yea the room was like 40 degrees or less when I woke up. The room consisted of two outside walls, and one of the inside walls was against the unheated attic, meaning only a single wall was truly a heated shared wall with the rest of the house. The house was built in the early 30’s. Seriously that thing needs to be gutted and updated something fierce…. especially the insulation… Oh the joys of living in a college town. lol

      But yea I sure was thankful during those cold winter nights my machine was the heat spewing power hog it is lol.

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      The 4790K is built on 22nm. AMD manages to squeeze a huge chip with 8 cores and tons of cache built on 32nm into a 95w TDP envelope. And lest we forget, AMD has a far smaller R&D budget. Intel folks probably couldn’t pull that off if they’re given AMD’s situation. Gotta give AMD engineers big points for that.

        • jihadjoe
        • 6 years ago

        I should send them a cookie?

          • Flatland_Spider
          • 6 years ago

          They would probably appreciate that.

        • Waco
        • 6 years ago

        I’m pretty sure the Intel engineers could prove you wrong if they chose to do so.

          • tcubed
          • 6 years ago

          well… they have 10x the R&D budget… do they get you 10x the performance? Or 10x the features? No… so no… Intel engineers would just quit their jobs and go to Apple or Nvidia if the funds would be cut a tenfold… If at least Intel would do the optics or EUV or any other major tech they use, I’d say they deserve the 10x budget… but since they buy and tool themselves from other companies … nope. You know the tools are the incredibly complex part in building chips – Intel/GloFo/TSMC/Samsung just buy them and use them to scale production the rest is a walk in the park compared to the ammount of research needed to improve the optics/lithography process. Compared to the lithography guys Intel is just a dumb worker bee just like all the other fabbers… and the production is pretty much the only thing they do more then AMD. And while AMD is slower on the CPU side Intel is slower on the GPU side… even with that huge R&D budget they still lease Nvidia’s patents for their GPUs… soo… when you talk iris pro thank Nvidia for it!

        • maxxcool
        • 6 years ago

        *IF* it had 8 Fpu’s and 8 INT cores then i’d be impressed. It doesn’t, and it suffered because of that all the way up too now. Sure it’s the little core that could.. but .. it is not a marvel.

    • brucethemoose
    • 6 years ago

    AMD, instead of rebranding yet another vishera desktop chip, how about you push Kaveri out to laptops?

    It’s already late, but it’ll be REALLY late if broadwell comes out first.

    EDIT: And no, a craptop doesn’t count.

      • kalelovil
      • 6 years ago

      That’s up to OEMs now, not AMD.

      • UnfriendlyFire
      • 6 years ago

      Did you not notice HP’s recent AMD laptops?

      First they introduced ULV APU Elitebooks that are priced high enough that i5/i7 Elitebooks are competitive against them.

      And then they introduced 10.5″ and 14″ netbooks that don’t have any quality other than their bottom-of-the-barrel price.

      Acer is more interested in pushing out 768p 15″ laptops with dual graphics powered by an ULV that has an underpowered CPU for the job.

        • brucethemoose
        • 6 years ago

        I see. I was looking for the FX-7600P in particular, which is the only fully-enabled APU and therefore the only one worth buying in my eyes, but I haven’t seen any notebooks with those.

          • UnfriendlyFire
          • 6 years ago

          It would be nice if HP updated the Probook 645 G1’s A10-5750M with the FX-7600P. Both have the same TDP and support the same socket.

      • LostCat
      • 6 years ago

      Kaveri already is out to laptops. I saw a few on Amazon and Newegg some time ago.

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    AMD’s playlist: [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq-yoorI7lo[/url<]

      • MadManOriginal
      • 6 years ago

      Downvotes for this need to DIAF.

      *note: I had this album on vinyl from a record club in the 80s….lol, 1980s.

      *note 2: OMG 80s perm @ 2:20!

    • fhohj
    • 6 years ago

    Like the shaking you do to somebody who’s sleeping funny and you aren’t sure that they’re not actually dead.

    just kidding go AMD.

    • Meadows
    • 6 years ago

    Three new FX processors? Define “new”.

      • brucethemoose
      • 6 years ago

      2 years [s<]old[/s<] new

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 6 years ago

        They’re as fresh as the mobile R5/7 2xx lineups.

        *Aka, 2 year old rebrands of the Radeon HD 7000s

        EDIT: Still not sure if that’s better or worse than Nividia’s policy of using Fermi, Kelpar, 28nm Maxwell, and eventually 20nm Maxwell in a single family of mobile 8xxM GPUs.

        The fact that the GTX 870M and MxXM GTX 860M is Keplar, but the soldered GTX 860M is Maxwell is confusing.

        And it’s also interesting how a Maxwell 850M with GDDR5 can match the Kelpar 860M’s performance under certain circumstances.

      • albundy
      • 6 years ago

      core2duo performance new

      • Geonerd
      • 6 years ago

      I get the impression that AMD (GloFo) hasn’t fabbed any of these guys for several years. All the Centurion chips, and this upcoming FX ‘release,’ will simply be the Marketing Monkeys trying new ways to hype and sell all the old inventory.

      This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The chips are more than enough for 90% of the computer users out there, and AM3+ boards are cheap enough that they FX lineup is still a viable option. Sure, the chipset is tired, and PCI-E 3.0 would be nice, but who REALLY needs it?

      Except for the 220w+ monsters, the whole “OMG THE POWERZ :(” critique is a little over stated. So long as you’re not running heavily threaded CPU apps for hours at a time, the power costs are trivial. Sure a heavily OC system will needs a bigger PS and cooler but for Joe Sixpack, the 125W peak TDP for most of the chips is not real-world significant.

      I suspect they’ll knock ~1/3 off the current prices, just to get the damn things out the door.

      Do we dare hope for a 3 or 4 module Kaveri with reduced GPU die space? That would generate a marginally relevant FM2+ chip in my eyes. As is, dedicating so much die space to a desperately bandwidth-starved GPU seems a real waste of resources. Save enough GPU to run the HSA/Huma/blah-blah code, and dedicate the rest to x86 resources and a bit more cache.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      New box, New log, new lower clock speeds!

    • Deanjo
    • 6 years ago

    And still a dead end, outdated platform.

      • sweatshopking
      • 6 years ago

      YEAH, BUT IT’S AMD!

        • crabjokeman
        • 6 years ago

        I gave you an upvote ssk. Deanjo could use a little trollling now and then.

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        AMD – Smarter Choice

      • James296
      • 6 years ago

      you mean like two year intel 😛

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        That two year intel however is still is too much for the FX and has things like native USB 3, PCIe 3 etc.

          • Waco
          • 6 years ago

          A Sandy Bridge quad is still faster than anything AMD has ever produced for damn near anything in the consumer space…

            • James296
            • 6 years ago

            depends on which sandy quad’s your talking about.

            • Waco
            • 6 years ago

            And the workload…for anything < 4 threads the SB chip (even the low clocked versions) will wipe the floor with an 8350. I believe < 4 threads is pretty fitting of most consumer workloads.

            • cosminmcm
            • 6 years ago

            Only the i7 quads, the i5s would lose most of the multithreaded tests.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This