Tuesday, September 2nd 2014

AMD Announces Three New FX-8000 Series Eight-core Processors, New Pricing

AMD made three additions to its FX-8300 series eight-core socket AM3+ processors, along with adjustments to the series' overall pricing. The company launched a new performance-segment part, the FX-8370, along with two energy-efficient eight-core chips, the FX-8370E, and the FX-8320E. The FX-8370 features the same 4.00 GHz nominal clock speed as the FX-8350, but a tiny bit higher TurboCore frequency of 4.30 GHz, compared to the latter's 4.20 GHz. This chip is priced at US $199.

The FX-8370E, on the other hand, features the same maximum TurboCore frequency of 4.30, but its nominal clock speed is much lower, at 3.30 GHz. Not all cores run at TurboCore frequency simultaneously. The FX-8320E features a maximum TurboCore frequency of 4.00 GHz, same as that of the FX-8320, but a lower nominal clock speed, of 3.20 GHz. Both these two parts feature rated TDP of 95W, compared to 125W of the other parts in the series.

With the introduction of these three parts, AMD came up with an all new pricing scheme. The top-end FX-9590 is now priced at US $230, competitive with the Core i5-4690K. It's followed by the FX-9370, priced at $211. These two 220W TDP chips are supported on a limited number of AM3+ motherboards, owing to their high power requirements. Next up, is the FX-8370 at $199, the FX-8350 at a new $180 price tag, making it a compelling alternative to the likes of Core i5-4440, and the FX-8320, at an attractive $150. All chips mentioned in this article feature unlocked base-clock multipliers, allowing you to overclock them.
Add your own comment

20 Comments on AMD Announces Three New FX-8000 Series Eight-core Processors, New Pricing

#1
Silas Woodruff
Wow, such low prices well I guess if they cant compete in quality(performance) they will make up with quantity.
Posted on Reply
#2
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
Looks like a move to please the MoBo manufacturers. I'm guessing 990FX sales have slumped considerably. Perhaps they're just trying to clear stock.
Posted on Reply
#3
revanchrist
prices are tempting. but reviews from other sites show E-series processors although are slightly more energy efficient than their non-E brothers, is still no where close to Haswell's. Power consumption is still way too high. Looking forward to your new architecture in 15/16, AMD. Best wishes.
Posted on Reply
#4
LAN_deRf_HA
Looking at the reviews showing near bottom of the chart performance I'd have to say those prices are way way off. I mean to the point where to price them appropriately I don't think AMD would even make any profit. Coupled with the 285 reviews it's like today is just a postmortem pants shitting by AMD.
Posted on Reply
#5
Petey Plane
by: LAN_deRf_HA
Looking at the reviews showing near bottom of the chart performance I'd have to say those prices are way way off. I mean to the point where to price them appropriately I don't think AMD would even make any profit. Coupled with the 285 reviews it's like today is just a postmortem pants shitting by AMD.
They can only go so low, I guess. Their top processor, running at 5ghz and 220 watts, get's beat on virtually all real-world benchmarks by a mid-range, multiplier locked Intel chip that is $30 less and uses only 77 watts. This all just seems to be a way of clearing inventory by labeling formally OEM only chips as new, preceding an eventual withdrawal from the desktop CPU market. They'll continue to sell low-powered, low-priced APUs, but the days of AMD even pretending to offer a competitive, enthusiast CPU that can offer similar performance to Intel while undercutting the price are over, and will likely never return.

But hey, they do have the consoles, which will probably outsell traditional desktops (not laptop or tablet) 10 to 1 over the lifespan of the PS4 and XB1.
Posted on Reply
#6
DiegoHH
NEW??,jajajaja,7 cpu, all the same chip only different clock. i bought only amd cpus for last 15 year, and now i have the fx 8350, but i sorry amd, my next cpu is going to be intel (not in the near future,but when i update in 2 years or so).
Posted on Reply
#7
Cybrnook2002
I think this is fine. The 9590 is a perfectly fine CPU, sure it takes voltage (It runs at 5GHZ) But we are silly........ AMD releases chips like 9590 and all the way down to 8320 and we do nothing but complain about TDP, OMG it takes so much voltage it runs so hot. Soooo, they take the chip design that we are complaining about and address the issue and lower the TDP. Now that they answer, we complain that it's not a whole new chip all together. Completely missing that these lower TDP chips are AMD answering the AMD community.

Bash away, but I just had to add that.
Posted on Reply
#8
Petey Plane
by: Cybrnook2002
I think this is fine. The 9590 is a perfectly fine CPU, sure it takes voltage (It runs at 5GHZ) But we are silly........ AMD releases chips like 9590 and all the way down to 8320 and we do nothing but complain about TDP, OMG it takes so much voltage it runs so hot. Soooo, they take the chip design that we are complaining about and address the issue and lower the TDP. Now that they answer, we complain that it's not a whole new chip all together. Completely missing that these lower TDP chips are AMD answering the AMD community.

Bash away, but I just had to add that.
The complaints are from those numbers compared to what is available from Intel. As long as AMD continues to release "new" products that are in no way competitive to similarly priced Intel products (in performance and energy usage), people will continue to justifiably complain. a $200, 77 watt Intel CPU will perform better than AMD's $230 220 watt CPU. In fact, why should someone choose AMD, when they could find a 4 year old, 95 watt Sandy Bridge 2500K that will still out-perform any of AMD's new 95 watt parts?
Posted on Reply
#9
Cybrnook2002
Petey Plane, please tell me your name is from the Skydivers MST3K?
Posted on Reply
#10
Petey Plane
by: Cybrnook2002
Petey Plane, please tell me your name is from the Skydivers MST3K?
Haha, Yes. The Coleman Francis trilogy are my favorite movies that they did.
Posted on Reply
#11
Cybrnook2002
While we don't agree on everything, I can tell you that I also own the box set, and I watched the petey the plane scene probably 20 times back to back rofl. When the wife (helmet head) is going to fly the plane and they dub over her being confused that its not the car.......weak
Posted on Reply
#12
Petey Plane
I'm not an AMD hater or anything and would buy their product if they i could get $180 Intel performance on a $150 AMD CPU, as used to be the case.
Posted on Reply
#13
D.Crepit
by: RCoon
Looks like a move to please the MoBo manufacturers. I'm guessing 990FX sales have slumped considerably. Perhaps they're just trying to clear stock.
Something else that seems missing from this product line.
Updated MoBo chipsets might be a good idea.
Posted on Reply
#14
GhostRyder
by: Petey Plane
The complaints are from those numbers compared to what is available from Intel. As long as AMD continues to release "new" products that are in no way competitive to similarly priced Intel products (in performance and energy usage), people will continue to justifiably complain. a $200, 77 watt Intel CPU will perform better than AMD's $230 220 watt CPU. In fact, why should someone choose AMD, when they could find a 4 year old, 95 watt Sandy Bridge 2500K that will still out-perform any of AMD's new 95 watt parts?
Depends on the program, when it comes to things like video editing/rendering or other programs that use all threads available (Or at least 8) correctly you see great performance even when compared to Intels Z platform i7's. Its mostly gaming and single threaded programs these fall apart because each core is not as good as an Intel core.

I see the FX 8370E did have a clock reduction...Oh well either way this is quite a cool addition being a 95Watt TDP but they desperately need a refresh on the 990FX platform and to move on already to the 1090FX platform.
Posted on Reply
#15
eidairaman1
Its Probably the DDR 4 platform Steamroller
Posted on Reply
#16
DiegoHH
The only thing i want is a new chip on 28mm on am3+, better cache and bus, with more performance than fx 9590 and 180w of tdp, i think is not that hard to do it, amd have jaguar 28mm apus. When i bought fx8350 on lunch and sabertooth board amd promise 2 more chips on am3+ with 15% performance boost in each generation, my idea was skip one and bought the latest and fastest chip on am3+ but not...only low tdp crapp on 32mm.
Posted on Reply
#17
micropage7
nice especially now lower than 100 watts
Posted on Reply
#18
jagd
Designing a new chip takes years and money , i hope everyone remember how long it took for intel from P4 to core2duo family for intel while they were back at race than.

More troublesome thing is AMD's financial situation ( they had to cut man power several times ) and they have to tech disadvantage now while intel can use low nm tech .

by: Petey Plane
The complaints are from those numbers compared to what is available from Intel.
Posted on Reply
#19
Fluffmeister
by: Petey Plane
I'm not an AMD hater or anything and would buy their product if they i could get $180 Intel performance on a $150 AMD CPU, as used to be the case.
Don't feel the need to justify yourself, AMD CPU's are generally shite these days.
Posted on Reply
#20
TRWOV
by: RCoon
Looks like a move to please the MoBo manufacturers. I'm guessing 990FX sales have slumped considerably. Perhaps they're just trying to clear stock.
It could also be to offer an upgrade path to the FX-8xxx series for people stuck with a 95w board. Most AM3+ mATX boards don't support 125w CPUs.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment