9590 all the speed now -$500

Haha the last time an fx proc cost $500+ it could beat any chip on the market:)
 
The price is still way too high, imo. At $300, this proc would be a lot more attractive.
 
My impression the initial release was amd allowing the experiment of releasing a chip like that. They must have gathered enough data supporting the plausibility of a product of that nature, because I have currently been seeing roadmaps including the fx-9000 series as a replacement or extension of the am3+ platform.

While 200w may be considered high by today's standards, for enthusiasts the experiment that a product could be launched with unusually high power consumption and still be purchased will be good. What Amd now knows that they can release much higher performing parts with higher TDP and enthusiast (not mainstream) will still be interested. What this may do in the future is allow amd to manufacture APU with much higher core frequencies and much stronger graphics with higher TDP and enthusiast will be interested.

Think about Kaveri with higher frequency and a graphics core closer to 7850 or higher performance. This would allow much more robust crossfire-x performance as well
 
Sheppard said:
My impression the initial release was amd allowing the experiment of releasing a chip like that. They must have gathered enough data supporting the plausibility of a product of that nature, because I have currently been seeing roadmaps including the fx-9000 series as a replacement or extension of the am3+ platform.

While 200w may be considered high by today's standards, for enthusiasts the experiment that a product could be launched with unusually high power consumption and still be purchased will be good. What Amd now knows that they can release much higher performing parts with higher TDP and enthusiast (not mainstream) will still be interested. What this may do in the future is allow amd to manufacture APU with much higher core frequencies and much stronger graphics with higher TDP and enthusiast will be interested.

Think about Kaveri with higher frequency and a graphics core closer to 7850 or higher performance. This would allow much more robust crossfire-x performance as well
Click to expand...

i expect one of three things to happen the fx brand to given a 1 year vacation and will return when amd has an excavator 20nm 8 core with a next gen gpu or amd to release a 28nm fx 8 core apu on fm2+ or as older roadmaps had a 3 module kavari apu on them that would be the fx part. i do not see any reason for amd to do a am3+ steamroller at this time.
 
220w TDP is not that high, my rig has two 120w TDP CPUs in it and watercooling keeps them both below 30C in the same loop.
 
$300 at the most. $250 would be more realistic. I'd love to have one but when I can get a 8320 for $145 and get pretty close to this thing, I can't see where the extra $355 is being spent on.
 
Newegg lists $880, so if the price is -$500 then it's gonna be $380?
 
Remember that in the UK we have 20% VAT

So about 20% of that £299.99 is tax, plus the fact base product price is high in the UK.

US price would be around $315
 
Sheppard said:
If it hits 315 ill order one tomorrow to play with
Click to expand...

Yep, I would pull the trigger too. but 500 is way to much for this cpu, but I'm in no hurry. Running the latest bios on my board but still asus has no cpu support listed for this cpu, will they ever? Would be funny if they said it's supported if your running water :p
 
maxius said:
i expect one of three things to happen the fx brand to given a 1 year vacation and will return when amd has an excavator 20nm 8 core with a next gen gpu or amd to release a 28nm fx 8 core apu on fm2+ or as older roadmaps had a 3 module kavari apu on them that would be the fx part. i do not see any reason for amd to do a am3+ steamroller at this time.
Click to expand...

I do see an AM3+ Steamroller based FX chip as something definitely worth producing. I would then drop it into my home computer and transfer my 8350 to my work computer. I would then perhaps sell my FX 8320 that I just bought for my work computer that is running very fast.

Sorry but, I am not buying a 4 or 6 core anything nor am I going out and buying another mainboard. I have an Asrock 990FX Extreme 9 and Asrock 990FX Extreme 4 and they both run great. (The Extreme 9 does run cooler and overclocks my 8350 better.)
 
How does this Chip SCALE with BF3? You get great gain going from a a Intel 4 core to 6 core, does 8 cores help in Battlefield?
 
MacLeod said:
$300 at the most. $250 would be more realistic. I'd love to have one but when I can get a 8320 for $145 and get pretty close to this thing, I can't see where the extra $355 is being spent on.
Click to expand...

Oh please... I bet you have to set the voltage 0.01 volts higher and have a TDP ~ 2W higher.
 
I don't really see the point of this processor. It would have made a lot more sense to have a 10 threaded/10 core (5 module design) which would have allowed it to really pump things up for heavily threaded applications.

Rather than pumping clock speeds which don't really yield massive gains for the type of CPU design the FX CPU is.
 
Mr Spocko said:
I don't really see the point of this processor. It would have made a lot more sense to have a 10 threaded/10 core (5 module design) which would have allowed it to really pump things up for heavily threaded applications.

Rather than pumping clock speeds which don't really yield massive gains for the type of CPU design the FX CPU is.
Click to expand...

The current chips are idling along with 8 cores. Adding 2 more cores to idle accomplishes nothing. They need to get more out of each individual core rather than hoping that multithreaded software is coming soon.
 
cageymaru said:
The current chips are idling along with 8 cores. Adding 2 more cores to idle accomplishes nothing. They need to get more out of each individual core rather than hoping that multithreaded software is coming soon.
Click to expand...

Not sure were you've been but lots of software is multi threaded esp photo and video processing software. Those extra 2 cores would give a boost to performance that would smoke the i7's in this kind of application workload.

We've been down the more work per clock cycle road and that's fine, But kid yourself not that the dual core days are coming to an end. Intel might try to charge more for an i3 than an FX6300, but for what I do you just can't get that robust performance for heavy threaded workloads with a dual core.

The idea of the FX processors is to add more cores for performance scaling. I'm sure they will improve IPC as they have with piledriver v bulldozer.
 
Not sure were you've been but lots of software is multi threaded esp photo and video processing software. Those extra 2 cores would give a boost to performance that would smoke the i7's in this kind of application workload.
Click to expand...

To me the extra cores would make the FX about equal to the Intel 6core / 12 threaded processor in applications that can use 10 threads provided you can clock the 10 core to 4GHz. There will be very very few desktop applications that are designed to use 10 threads especially since over 99% of that market will not have a 10core cpu. Remember that being multithreaded does not guaranty that an application will use or scale to any number of threads (or how well it scales).
 
Last edited:
AMD makes 12 core and 16 core CPUs, If you need more then 8 cores then you need to start looking at other sockets like G34. Socket G34 also allows for Single, Dual or Quad CPU configurations.

AMD did have plans to make FX 10 Core chips but that will likely come with Excavator.
By then most game will be optimised for 8 cores so having 2 spare to do OS and other application things would help.
 
By then most game will be optimised for 8 cores so having 2 spare to do OS and other application things would help.
Click to expand...

Some will however I highly doubt most games will be optimized for 8 cores in this decade. Maybe next.
 
amd needs IPC more than it needs more cores.

in short; it needs an eight core steamroller far more than it needs a ten core piledriver.
 
Spazturtle said:
Every game made for PS4 and XBone will be optimised for 8 cores.
Click to expand...

A game written specifically for these consoles will be optimized for 8 cores if it was needed for game play to be smooth. If the performance was not needed there will be no need or desire to optimize even though the extra cores exist.

http://www.flounder.com/optimization.htm

One thing that may help here is jaguar cores are going to be slow compared to the cores we have on a PC so the need to optimize for all 8 cores may exist on a greater percentage of the console games.
 
Last edited:
Spazturtle said:
Every game made for PS4 and XBone will be optimised for 8 cores.
Click to expand...

Eventually. Initial XB360 and PS3 games didn't use all CPU cores and in the case of the PS3 it took a while to fully exploit Cell.
 
Gman1979 said:
Maybe not, but this could be a sign the yields are getting better.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with yields....
They can see that this CPU is as popular as a shit covered rocky mountains oyster, that's why the price drop... :cool: Like many have already said, this is still a "no sale" item, until it hits $300 or less mark.... PERIOD!
 
mzs_biteme said:
Nothing to do with yields....
They can see that this CPU is as popular as a shit covered rocky mountains oyster, that's why the price drop... :cool: Like many have already said, this is still a "no sale" item, until it hits $300 or less mark.... PERIOD!
Click to expand...

Proof? Not saying that the price made it a no buy for most, but, you have evidence that this not related at all to better yields? Most likely it is not or at least not exclusively, but, evidence it needed.
 
ManofGod said:
Proof? Not saying that the price made it a no buy for most, but, you have evidence that this not related at all to better yields? Most likely it is not or at least not exclusively, but, evidence it needed.
Click to expand...

Ahh, how about a simple fact that yields normally don't get THAT good within 30 days for a company to decide to drop the price of it's "top tier" CPU by almost 50%..... And this is a highly exclusive (read, LOW bottom line impact) product that they don't put too much emphasis on, and definitely are not tweaking it for better performance/yield. It's a PR stunt, and a failed one at that.... It's more like: "Hey we cherry picked these 8350's for overclocking ability, so let the dumbasses with more $$$ than brains scramble for them... Just like Intel's Extreme Edition, except with less performance to back it up... " :eek:
 
ManofGod said:
Proof?
Click to expand...

Nobody has proof. It's just common sense. You could be right that yields are improving leading to a $500 price drop, but most would bet large sums of money against that position. When yields go up, normally manufs just don't turn around and slash prices if sales are going well, don't you think?
 
I don't have any proof but I do think it's feasible.

Here's my baseless theory pulled compleye out of thin air:

AMD needed something to get some press since they're not releasing any new CPU's in '13. They come up with this idea but are only going to offer it to OEM builders. They just want the headlines. It gets its balls beat off on forums and blogs and apparently, OEM's aren't touching it with a 10' pole. So since they're not selling any and theyre only getting bad press, might as well slash the price since they don't cost anymore to make than a 8350, and sell a few of them.
 
MacLeod said:
.....So since they're not selling any and theyre only getting bad press, might as well slash the price since they don't cost anymore to make than a 8350, and sell a few of them.
Click to expand...

Hence the suggested $300 price point, at which I'd bet my good testicle, they'd sell a butt load more than they are now, even at $500.... GET A FUCKING CLUE AMD!!!!!!! :eek:
 
I think it was a test. They haven't lost anything, 9590s are just cherry picked 8350s that can run at 5GHz. So no additional manufacturing costs. My guess is they just wanted to see what would happen if they release a high cost CPU.
 
mzs_biteme said:
Hence the suggested $300 price point, at which I'd bet my good testicle, they'd sell a butt load more than they are now, even at $500.... GET A FUCKING CLUE AMD!!!!!!! :eek:
Click to expand...

Still unsure if you grasp any of it, it is just a FX-8350 which has been tested for overclockers and maybe some OEM just for only people who are interested in higher speeds without doing the work of overclocking yourself.

It is not about selling numbers it is about margins.

No one is putting a gun to your head making your spend your money on these chips so what is all the fuss about?
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Still unsure if you grasp any of it, it is just a FX-8350 which has been tested for overclockers and maybe some OEM just for only people who are interested in higher speeds without doing the work of overclocking yourself.

It is not about selling numbers it is about margins.

No one is putting a gun to your head making your spend your money on these chips so what is all the fuss about?
Click to expand...

Very sure you didnt read any of my previous posts... :cool: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040140147&postcount=31
 
Stoly said:
I'm not that confident, as Piledriver and Bulldozer are pretty much even on IPC.
Click to expand...

Well not entirely true there are IPC improvements and I know as I updated from a 6100 to 6300 FX, even running at the same clock speeds there is an uptake on performance with the newer processor. It's not "massive" but still it is improved

10-15% seems about right
 
I just ordered a 9590 from Aria here in the UK with a special online deal priced at GBP299.99. Will see how much difference it makes to my OC'd 8350, which currently runs nicely at similar speeds and with all the green stuff enabled to save on my energy bill. I guess there won't be much difference, but I had to buy the 9590 for that price, just to play with it a bit and maybe sell my well-OC'ing 8350... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top