AMD Unleashes First-Ever 5 GHz Processor

I miss the days when AMD was able to compete. Now they're playing the GHz game.:rolleyes:

Sigh, I was just thinking the same thing. I'd rather see a 3Ghz AMD product that is competitive with a comparable Intel offering.
 
I think people are blowing this out of proportion. These chips will most likely be available in limited quantities anyway. It's Piledriver still so obviously there won't be any miracles, these chips are meant for AMD fans and enthusiast overclockers, really. If people want an AMD CPU with much better IPC, just be patient and wait for Steamroller. All these "zomg AMD iznt competitive" comments are getting old, especially since the FX-63xx is a pretty good bargain going against an i5. Not competitive my ass.
 
I miss the days when AMD was able to compete. Now they're playing the GHz game.:rolleyes:
well when AMD was competitive all that meant was paying top dollar for a cpu from either camp. without direct competition, Intel sold the 2500k and 2600k for just $225 and $325 and those matched their $1000 cpus in gaming and could oc pretty darn good. seems like we do just fine without AMD competing.
 
I maybe didn't read well enough but I'm interested in what the final TDP is. I read some rumors a few weeks back stating 200-250W which is incredible. If that is the case it's no different than an OC'd and over-volted FX. I'm am wondering if these are high leakage chips ala TWKR and what they'll do under LN2.

I'd be more inclined to be impressed if they managed to get these at 125W due to good binning and process maturation. We shall see. If this is the case, which I doubt, 6ghz on AIR or decent water would most likely be achievable.
 
A bit, yeah. But I would't count on 15%+ OCs with these. Especially not if the Turbo speed on other Piledriver products is going to continue to be an indicator of max OC.

On the 5.0 Turbo parts, I'd imagine 5.4~ will be the max that most people ever manage.
 
I wonder if any of existing am3+ mobos will be certified for usage with this cpu
 
They will need new special MOBO's, as has already been leaked.

I don't see why they'd release these chips, unlocked, and then users could only get a couple hundred extra MHz out of it. I'd expect at least something close to 6GHz.
 
They will need new special MOBO's, as has already been leaked.

I don't see why they'd release these chips, unlocked, and then users could only get a couple hundred extra MHz out of it. I'd expect at least something close to 6GHz.
lol that would probably be over 400 watts.
 
I would rather an unlocked 16-core socket G34 chip at 3.0 ghz stock than this, though.
 
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.

Tio be honest AMD is killing Intel in multi-thread already, seriously the gap will only widen the problem is that usually benchmarking software is pants on the windows platform so you won't see the difference there

I wonder if any of existing am3+ mobos will be certified for usage with this cpu

And if you cared to read what the announcement said you would realize that it comes attached to a system which will be sold by OEM as a package (cpu mainboard videocard powersupply)

So it is impossible not to get the right mainboard or powersupply.
 
And if you cared to read what the announcement said you would realize that it comes attached to a system which will be sold by OEM as a package (cpu mainboard videocard powersupply)

So it is impossible not to get the right mainboard or powersupply.
The article states:
"AMD FX-9000 Series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators."
Keyword "initially". Its safe to assume that eventually we'll be able to buy these online and in stores, to which Michaelius was probably was thinking as well. Will these work in existing AM3+ boards? Who knows...
 
Where?

People routinely run Bulldozer/Piledriver CPUs @ 300w+ on older boards.

It was an article somewhere, just google "AMD FX 5ghz" (I can't remember what site the article was on) but it showed new AM3+ boards and on an infocard next to the board, it mentioned the boards would "support upcoming 5Ghz FX CPU's" or something like that.

So I don't know if that means these boards will be required to run the chips, or it's just a generic "oh these boards will support these CPU's without the need of a BIOS upgrade".
 
It was an article somewhere, just google "AMD FX 5ghz" (I can't remember what site the article was on) but it showed new AM3+ boards and on an infocard next to the board, it mentioned the boards would "support upcoming 5Ghz FX CPU's" or something like that.

So I don't know if that means these boards will be required to run the chips, or it's just a generic "oh these boards will support these CPU's without the need of a BIOS upgrade".

Yep it was a gigabyte boards, however it was sporting an 8+2 cpu vrm same as alot of the higher end boards already out.

9f183e13_5ghz.jpeg
 
Ah yeah, that's the one^^^

So it seems if someone already has a suitable board, they can drop these in no problem.

edit: http://wccftech.com/amd-invincible-worlds-5-ghz-clocked-fx-9000-series-piledriver-processors/

Still no price, 220W TDP seems to be legit, and there's a random benchmark at the bottom comparing it to the i7-3770k and the i7-3960x.

It lists the price for the other two processors, but not these new ones. Seems like even these chips will potentially be cheaper than the i7-3770k, perhaps.
 
Last edited:
I'm running a Sabretooth R 2 which is not rated for 220w TDP but as far as I can see the 9590 is just a higher quality 8350 with improved die process. I've had this board up to 1.65 v_core and it still rocks. I'm sure it would go higher with better cooling. I have no idea how many watts TDP that is but it's much higher than the rating and wouldn't be surprised if it's past the 220 they're stating for the 9590.
I'm actually fairly certain that AMD wasn't exactly up front with the MOBO mfgrs. at the release of the piledriver about heat output in the first place. The rated 140W was on their terms not the end users'. They weren't calculating that on all 8 cores cranked up.
 
here is something out from left field if it is a 220w processor could this be amd testing the market for a FX apu with a 7790 series or 7800 series on die
 
here is something out from left field if it is a 220w processor could this be amd testing the market for a FX apu with a 7790 series or 7800 series on die

Doubtful. They're running into a memory bandwidth bottleneck as it is. Unless they can talk the mobo makers into putting Vram chips on the MOBO or come out with some new DDR4 or 5 that can hit 100GB/s .
 
POWER6 wants its 5 year old "1st 5GHz processor" title back. ;)

To see how this 5GHz FX will perform, TR overclocked their Piledriver based FX-8350 to 4.8GHz (max turbo, just 4% slower than the FX-9590's 5GHz max turbo): http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/13

TR's o/c power consumption implies the CPU was using ~190W and a 220W TDP doesn't sound too unreasonable for the CPU alone.
 
here is something out from left field if it is a 220w processor could this be amd testing the market for a FX apu with a 7790 series or 7800 series on die

APUs aren't limited by power budget - they are limited by bandwidth.

Just compare what APU in ps4 does with gpu part with power of 7850 to desktop ones.
 
If it is 220w I'd say it's pretty damn efficient...

i7-2600KPower-ConsumptionwithH100NT-H1.png

That graph is clearly total SYSTEM power consumption though. The 220W figure is ONLY the CPU. Even so that graph has higher power consumption than I've seen on other sites:
power_psu_load.png


Performance is also an important part of the efficiency picture which you don't see on a power/frequency graph. Also Sandy Bridge is 2 generations ago, so comparing it to Haswell (or even Ivy) would probably be more appropriate. You can't even find Sandy Bridge CPUs anymore for the most part.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify something I think others have missed, this cpu is not going to be 5.0. It is going to turbo to 5.0. Not the same thing.

I for one am most curious about the cooling solution they will provide with these chips. Its going to have to be a closed loop like they did before. I have an 8320 with a Thermalright venemousX(top 10 air cooler) and with anything over 4.5, my cpu temps during prime will hit 65*+.
 
PS4's memory is 176 GB/s

That's a proprietary board with 8Gb of fast gddr5. Like I said in an earlier post if AMD can convince the mobo mfgrs to do the same that's the only way they'll be able to continue improving their igpu core. Otherwise the system memory will just stop it in it's tracks.
 
That's a proprietary board with 8Gb of fast gddr5. Like I said in an earlier post if AMD can convince the mobo mfgrs to do the same that's the only way they'll be able to continue improving their igpu core. Otherwise the system memory will just stop it in it's tracks.

pretty much this.

The GPU's in the new APU's are good, but they are held back by memory performance. I know back in the 790gx days and amd/ati's 3300 IGP had "sideport memory" basically a 128mb ddr 3 memory config for graphics, when the systems natively supported ddr 2 memory.

I wouldn't be surprised in the near future you have some fm2+ boards coming out with integrated GDDR 5.

I for one am most curious about the cooling solution they will provide with these chips. Its going to have to be a closed loop like they did before. I have an 8320 with a Thermalright venemousX(top 10 air cooler) and with anything over 4.5, my cpu temps during prime will hit 65*+.

They probably will not come with a cooler, at E3 they used the FX or (antec 920) to cool it. I don't think this is the same thing as a 8320/8350 just clocked higher. I think this has something to do with AMD's Richland Apus which were released a short bit ago. The reason I say this is because AMD boosted the clockspeed and tweaked the Gpu, and yet it has the same power draw as the Trinity. They likely used these same tweaks on the FX processors and came up with 2 new models.

I am curious to see a review of one, to see if they have additional OC headroom, and what the power consumption is actually like.
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure these are using the "Piledriver 2.0" cores that Richland uses. AMD said there would be FX chips with these cores in them, so it only makes sense that these two new chips are using these cores. The best thing about Richland is the ability to achieve higher clocks while at the same time using less power.
 
I was under the impression AMD had been forced out of the market and stopped making it's consumer CPU's. Several places here in Kansas City only stock Intel CPU's and Intel Motherboards. I've also not seen any news lately, for a year in fact of Asus or others releasing new AMD Motherboards.

Very surprised to see this news. I thought everyone decided that AMD was dead in this space a few years ago?

I do now that AMD is still making Video Cards.
 
I was under the impression AMD had been forced out of the market and stopped making it's consumer CPU's. Several places here in Kansas City only stock Intel CPU's and Intel Motherboards. I've also not seen any news lately, for a year in fact of Asus or others releasing new AMD Motherboards.

Very surprised to see this news. I thought everyone decided that AMD was dead in this space a few years ago?

I do now that AMD is still making Video Cards.

lol seriously?

or is this just a weird troll attempt
 
I need to ask a stupid question which I really should know the answer to, so if the mocking could be kept to a minimum it would save me some blushes...

Question:

How is the Wattage of CPUs calculated and how does it relate to the CPU voltages?

I can't see how a CPU running at circa 1.5V can rack up a Wattage that runs into the hundreds...

P = IV just doesn't stack up as the current figures just get silly (i.e. hundreds of Amps).

Am I an idiot?
 
I need to ask a stupid question which I really should know the answer to, so if the mocking could be kept to a minimum it would save me some blushes...

Question:

How is the Wattage of CPUs calculated and how does it relate to the CPU voltages?

I can't see how a CPU running at circa 1.5V can rack up a Wattage that runs into the hundreds...

P = IV just doesn't stack up as the current figures just get silly (i.e. hundreds of Amps).

Am I an idiot?

I'm not saying this is 100% accurate, but it should give you an idea I think: http://www.thermaltake.outervision.com/

Play with overclocking different CPU's and adjusting voltages. It does show an overclocked FX-8350 at 5ghz with 1.5v's at 177 watts.
 
Back
Top