AMD Unleashes First-Ever 5 GHz Processor

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
AMD today unveiled its most powerful member of the legendary AMD FX family of CPUs, the world’s first commercially available 5 GHz CPU processor, the AMD FX-9590. These 8-core CPUs deliver new levels of gaming and multimedia performance for desktop enthusiasts. AMD FX-9000 Series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators.
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
Rut ro raggy, we are going to focus on mega-hurts again, ( flash back to netburst ) since overall performance is in the shitter.

Big hurts=more power! Looks good on the product sticker!
 

buttons

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
2,126
I am not sure if i misread this, but its only being sold to system integrators? That means they are basically overclocked 8350's with a higher then normal factory voltage and beefier heatsinks. Highly doubt they are 125w tdp

Its cool, but i dont think they are going to be cheap... so a lot less impressive at the end of the day. speculating that its 220w tdp. I suppose thats still better then my 4.9ghz 8320 that was using like 330watts under full load
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
I am not sure if i misread this, but its only being sold to system integrators? That means they are basically overclocked 8350's with a higher then normal factory voltage and beefier heatsinks. Highly doubt they are 125w tdp

Its cool, but i dont think they are going to be cheap... so a lot less impressive at the end of the day. speculating that its 220w tdp. I suppose thats still better then my 4.9ghz 8320 that was using like 330watts under full load

"AMD FX-9000 Series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators."

Keyword. initially
 

Gman1979

Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
640
Oh joy. Anyone else think letting OEMs pinch pennies on the power circuitry supporting these beasts is a bad idea?
 

TheBlueChanell

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
4,660
Oh joy. Anyone else think letting OEMs pinch pennies on the power circuitry supporting these beasts is a bad idea?

I believe system integrators refers more to Origin-PC, Falcon NW etc and not your regular OEM's like HP/Dell/Lenovo. They wouldn't have a use or a market for this chip imo and those boutique builders use the same quality of components we use in our builds.
 

Gman1979

Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
640
Good point. I'm actually kind of embarrassed I forgot about those companies and instantly assumed OEMs.
 

pgaster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,409
I am not sure if i misread this, but its only being sold to system integrators? That means they are basically overclocked 8350's with a higher then normal factory voltage and beefier heatsinks. Highly doubt they are 125w tdp

Its cool, but i dont think they are going to be cheap... so a lot less impressive at the end of the day. speculating that its 220w tdp. I suppose thats still better then my 4.9ghz 8320 that was using like 330watts under full load
There was already a thread about this started on 6/1. The 220W tdp was talked about at the start. Other sites were reporting this too. These things are not a surprise.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1764737
 

Advil

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,086
And what are they going to do when a $150 i5 quad at 3.0ghz utterly destroys it in every test known to man except for that rare program that NEEDS 8 threads?
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
And what are they going to do when a $150 i5 quad at 3.0ghz utterly destroys it in every test known to man except for that rare program that NEEDS 8 threads?

The same thing Intel did when they used to push the Ghz wars... start naming the i5s as 5000+ CPUs. ;)
 

stealthy123

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,149
And what are they going to do when a $150 i5 quad at 3.0ghz utterly destroys it in every test known to man except for that rare program that NEEDS 8 threads?

that's a massive over statement.

I would ask you to prove an i5 @ 3.0 ghz ever beats an fx @ 5.0ghz.
 

Pepsiennis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
1,290
Pushing the architecture to 5GHz is a tad lame on the face of it... until you stop to consider that the architecture ALLOWS it at all. Then casting aside our fabulous "disnecessity" ( to coin a term ) for 5 GHz, we really should appreciate at least the accomplishment.
 

Prox7

n00b
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
53
I miss the days when AMD was able to compete. Now they're playing the GHz game.:rolleyes:
 

Advil

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,086
I admit that may have been an overstatement. It might actually take 3.5ghz. ;)

Sorry, but I JUST CAN'T HELP IT. Lately AMD's desktop CPUs have just been... you know? And I was a massive fan back in the Athlon X2 days. There isn't any back and forth anymore though.
 

Sheppard

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
1,199
I love how quickly people become numb to how fantastic a processor of this calibre is. We understand its the opinion of a large group of people that amd processors aren't as fast as intel's, but how does that deminish the fact that a company is printing circuitry onto a piece of silicone at 32nm. Amd's processors DO compete with intel's. They don't beat intel processors, but the do compete. What's the alternative? Name one other company besides amd to make a processor that provides near the performance of intel's? Not to mention doing so at a much more lucrative price point. Anyone? Nvidia making one? Motorola? Via? Consider what they are doing and how difficult it is to develop a processor before you open your collective traps. This is coming from a guy who has three 3930k, one 3770k, one 4770k, on 3225, one 2125, 1 2100, and last but not least 1 8350. Just so you don't call me a fan boy.
 

402blownstroker

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - Nov. 2012
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,221
I miss the days when AMD was able to compete. Now they're playing the GHz game.:rolleyes:

AMD is crushing Intel in the server CPU market. Intel's latest Xeon's finally pulled ahead of AMD for the time being.
 

Pepsiennis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
1,290
In truth, we're beyond the fan boy days. Our modern processors from both camps can eat a lot more than is thrown at them. It's the software coders that suck. Until they can code, consistently, multi-threaded clients, we're all just in the dark.

Because we've anointed Intel better the last ten years because... it was faster, then because it did more per cycle, then because frame rates.

But until we have a truly multi-threaded application, we can't be sure which modern processor is superior. We poo-poo'ed FX8350, and now i7-4770, but really where are we?

So I'll say again... coders suck.Suck, I say!
 
Last edited:

tonyftw

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,817
AMD is crushing Intel in the server CPU market. Intel's latest Xeon's finally pulled ahead of AMD for the time being.

I would love to see your source on this, unless you're talking about performance.

I miss my old athlon and phenom 2 days.. good times.
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
23,849
In truth, we're beyond the fan boy days. Our modern processors from both camps can eat a lot more than is thrown at them. It's the software coders that suck. Until they can code, consistently, multi-threaded clients, we're all just in the dark.

Because we've anointed Intel better the last ten years because... it was faster, then because it did more per cycle, then because frame rates.

But until we have a truly multi-threaded application, we can't be sure which modern processor is superior. We poo-poo'ed FX8350, and now i7-4770, but really where are we?

So I'll say again... coders suck.Suck, I say!
Do you code for a living? I am betting no.
 

InternationalHat

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
1,481
In truth, we're beyond the fan boy days. Our modern processors from both camps can eat a lot more than is thrown at them. It's the software coders that suck. Until they can code, consistently, multi-threaded clients, we're all just in the dark.

Because we've anointed Intel better the last ten years because... it was faster, then because it did more per cycle, then because frame rates.

But until we have a truly multi-threaded application, we can't be sure which modern processor is superior. We poo-poo'ed FX8350, and now i7-4770, but really where are we?

So I'll say again... coders suck.Suck, I say!

I'm guessing you mean for games because virtualization, rendering, scientific software, servers, encoding, compilation and basically anything that stresses a CPU and isn't entertainment uses multi-threading at this point.

The high-end gaming community is obnoxious.
 

ICOM

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,194
I miss the days when AMD was able to compete. Now they're playing the GHz game.:rolleyes:

Intel plays the same game. :rolleyes:

It may be just me but I could give a fast mother fukin' flyin' shyt about CPU's now. Get one that's fast and cheap. Spend your money on your video card.
 

ICOM

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,194
I'm guessing you mean for games because virtualization, rendering, scientific software, servers, encoding, compilation and basically anything that stresses a CPU and isn't entertainment uses multi-threading at this point.

The high-end gaming community is obnoxious.

Obnoxious? We wear that badge with pride, Jack!
 

NaroonGTX

Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
710
Rut ro raggy, we are going to focus on mega-hurts again, ( flash back to netburst ) since overall performance is in the shitter.

Big hurts=more power! Looks good on the product sticker!

I love how people just ignore that AMD has been focusing mainly on their APU's and HSA technologies for the past half decade or so. But of course, let's just spout nonsense like this because we all know pointless incremental CPU performance enhancements are the way of the future! :rolleyes:
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
I thought in America bigger was always better :)

MOAR POWER!!

There not to many people for this CPU , The problem lies that Steamroller for AM3+ is postponed till 1Q of 2014. And meanwhile they have this , the numbering is also something which was done clever , since the 9000 series can sustain these "overclocked" cpu. Next steamroller will be on FM2+ this year.

Let's hope that Steamroller (4.4ghz?) gets close to the performance of the 5Gh Vishera :).
 

NaroonGTX

Gawd
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
710
I don't think Steamroller FX was postponed, it was never really set to be a 2013 part. The roadmaps that I've seen from 2011 and 2012 have stated that the first Steamroller part would be the APU Kaveri part.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Kaveri could reach 5GHz Vishera levels, probably going past it depending on the OC ability. These 5GHz chips are still Piledriver, and the main thing about Steamroller is getting rid of the performance hit that comes from a module being fully-loaded, as well as improving pipelines among other things for a really nice improvement in IPC.

This article has a quote from a supposed insider at AMD who said that Steamroller would drastically improve performance over Bulldozer. If you compare Bulldozer's design to Steamroller's, you'd come to the natural conclusion that Steamroller is what the Bulldozer architecture should have been from the start. I think it was true that it was internal sabotage from those idiots Dirk Meyer and Hector Ruiz. Such things as Barcelona being delayed, initial Bulldozer design being scrapped and delayed for eternity, deliberately handing the netbook market to Intel on a silver platter, among other things.

With those guys out, and the return of legends such as Jim Keller (best CPU architect ever, arguably), Raja Koduri, amazing GPU guy, is just more insurance that AMD has good times ahead. It'll probably be a while before we see the impact of their designs in AMD products, but it's cool nonetheless.
 

travbrad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,253
I miss the days when AMD was able to compete. Now they're playing the GHz game.:rolleyes:

Somewhat ironic since they were the ones who said efficiency was more important than GHz back in the Athlon XP days (and they were right)
 

Wascrash

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2001
Messages
685
I'm playen with my noodle right now after reading this lol. I'm getting one as soon as I can. 5 ghz stock? Ill take one.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
52
Somewhat ironic since they were the ones who said efficiency was more important than GHz back in the Athlon XP days (and they were right)

Awesome now AMDs IPC is so bad they're trying to push GHz like intel did 2001-2002. Guess the "more cores for your money" strategy didn't work either. I used AMD from the K6-2 400 until the Athlon XP days. When Core2 Duo came out I abandoned AMD and never looked back. Wherever the performance is I'm there, spending enthusiast dollars.

Working on an Insane Haswell build right now, my i7 920 is still relevent but old compared to many parts in my PC.
 
Last edited:

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,380
Somewhat ironic since they were the ones who said efficiency was more important than GHz back in the Athlon XP days (and they were right)

If it is 220w I'd say it's pretty damn efficient...

i7-2600KPower-ConsumptionwithH100NT-H1.png
 

Wascrash

Gawd
Joined
Apr 15, 2001
Messages
685
Awesome now AMDs IPC is so bad they're trying to push GHz like intel did 2001-2002. Guess the "more cores for your money" strategy didn't work either. I used AMD from the K6-2 400 until the Athlon XP days. When Core2 Duo came out I abandoned AMD and never looked back. Wherever the performance is I'm there, spending enthusiast dollars.

Working on an Insane Haswell build right now, my i7 920 is still relevent but old compared to many parts in my PC.

Actually its better than the first 8 core a little and the the ipc isn't near as bad as what p4 was. 5 ghz will perform nice stock compared to Intel stock.
 

xBanzai89

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,791
If it is 220w I'd say it's pretty damn efficient...

i7-2600KPower-ConsumptionwithH100NT-H1.png

Keep in mind that is total system power draw. In no way does a 2600K take that much watts for that kind of clock speed by itself. Besides that a 2600K at 5GHz will level a 5GHz PD.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,155
Actually its better than the first 8 core a little and the the ipc isn't near as bad as what p4 was. 5 ghz will perform nice stock compared to Intel stock.
I think that might be the big thing is stock for stock, since how many people overclock their systems?(overall)
I have both Intel and AMD and like both so either one is good, but since I do OC, the Intel was the better choice.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
52
Actually its better than the first 8 core a little and the the ipc isn't near as bad as what p4 was. 5 ghz will perform nice stock compared to Intel stock.

I am not a fanboy of any company at any time. But AMD has gone further and further off the rails for enthusiasts. I used to say if AMD came out with something faster than intel, I would build a system on it immediately. Now it's so bad I want to see 2 generations to be sure it's not a fluke. I'm also not happy with how Intel has gone "no competition" mode on us. AMD is worth saving for competition but they are too far gone to be relevant right now
 
Top