Monday, June 23rd 2014

AMD to Launch FX-9590 Refresh Package

AMD is preparing a new retail package of its feisty FX-9590 eight-core processor, in a bid to woo crowds away from Intel's Core i7-4790K "Devil's Canyon" processor. The package combines an FX-9590, which till now was sold chip-only (without a cooling solution), with an Asetek-made liquid CPU cooler, for US $359. Given that without the cooler, the FX-9590 costs $319, the extra $40 for a liquid cooler adds great value. Based on the 32 nm "Vishera" silicon, the FX-9590 features eight CPU cores based on the "Piledriver" micro-architecture, clocked at 4.70 GHz, with Turbo Core speeds of 5.00 GHz; a dual-channel DDR3 integrated memory controller that natively supports DDR3-1866 MHz, 8 MB of total L2 cache, 8 MB of L3 cache; and modern instruction sets such as AVX, AES, FMA3, etc.
Source: HardwareCanucks
Add your own comment

60 Comments on AMD to Launch FX-9590 Refresh Package

#26
Recus
AMD plans to deliver 25x APU energy efficiency gains but also plans to deliver 25x CPU energy consumption, heat gains. :roll:

Now compare:
code:
i7-4790K - FX-9590
5GHz air water
nm 22nm 32nm
price 340$ 360$


So you are paying same price for old tech. :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#27
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
I know the 28nm nodes are busying pumping out PS4/Xbone APUs, but I think it is time to dedicate a little of that 28nm time to a new AM3+ CPU! Come on AMD!
Posted on Reply
#28
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Sony Xperia S said:
That is ridiculous. Intel just relaunched its already 1-year-old piece of junk and you all jump around it like small kids...

As I said, give AMD your damn money and they will have the financial resources to move onto new manufacturing processes. God damn it!
I'm a consumer not an investor. If AMD has a good plan they should be able to pitch it to investors to gain confidence in AMD stock so people will actually buy it. The problem is that AMD keeps doing these PR moves instead of focusing on what is important. I'm not going to buy something lesser because I want AMD to do better. They need to have their own plan and they need to say how they're going to achieve that goal so people will be willing to give the money in exchange for a stake in the company. People buy good products as consumers, they don't buy something expecting the next one to be better because you bought their product in the first place, that's not the consumer's job. The consumer's job is to find the best product for their needs, be it performance or cost effectiveness, take your pick. Also given their latest track record, even if I were an investor, I wouldn't invest in AMD as it stands right now. They need to clean up their act first.
Posted on Reply
#29
Hilux SSRG
I can support AMD including water coolers for their top CPUs. It differentiates itself from Intel. Whether they are great CPUs, that's debatable.
Posted on Reply
#30
ensabrenoir
john_ said:
4790K is nothing more than the SAME 4770K factory OCed with better thermal paste. The fact the the thermal paste lowers the cpu's temps doesn't mean that the cpu is something new. The fact that the cpu is running at higher stock speed it doesn't make it something new because the TDP is also higher. It's not a refresh as most of you say, except if you are willing to accept marketing stuff from Intel without question, when on the other hand you can find all the right arguments to point that the new AMD is in fact the old AMD with a new box.
......thats why they call it a refresh its not new.... just updated..... I f D.C. can out and the only difference was a water cooler..... 97% of the comments would be the same. Speaking for myself alone I don't give intel any free passes. ivy-e didn't wow me so i stayed on sandy-e. But this is but a Ford Vs Chevy argument...and i Love my Tahoe as much as I love my Expedition. So its all good. Roy Taylor shouldn't have tweeted the words Something new is coming....

I'm not yelling.....not sure why my font got all whacky......prob that user error thing i keep hearing about......;)
Posted on Reply
#31
Sony Xperia S
Aquinus said:
I'm a consumer not an investor. If AMD has a good plan they should be able to pitch it to investors to gain confidence in AMD stock so people will actually buy it. The problem is that AMD keeps doing these PR moves instead of focusing on what is important. I'm not going to buy something lesser because I want AMD to do better. They need to have their own plan and they need to say how they're going to achieve that goal so people will be willing to give the money in exchange for a stake in the company. People buy good products as consumers, they don't buy something expecting the next one to be better because you bought their product in the first place, that's not the consumer's job. The consumer's job is to find the best product for their needs, be it performance or cost effectiveness, take your pick. Also given their latest track record, even if I were an investor, I wouldn't invest in AMD as it stands right now. They need to clean up their act first.
Yes, the disadvantage of doing what you want and choosing the current fastest is the lack of consciousness and responsibility, and your future choices will suffer because of it. Be it because of resulting very slow evolution of performance (not only by AMD themselves, but you see that Intel is a shit which for three-four years have only marginally improved something if anything), or lack of competition at all, like monopoly.
Posted on Reply
#32
john_
ensabrenoir said:
......thats why they call it a refresh its not new.... just updated..... I f D.C. can out and the only difference was a water cooler..... 97% of the comments would be the same. Speaking for myself alone I don't give intel any free passes. ivy-e didn't wow me so i stayed on sandy-e. But this is but a Ford Vs Chevy argument...and i Love my Tahoe as much as I love my Expedition. So its all good. Roy Taylor shouldn't have tweeted the words Something new is coming....

I'm not yelling.....not sure why my font got all whacky......prob that user error thing i keep hearing about......;)

You are playing with words, which of course it is a victory for any marketing department.
Let me tell it a little differently. 9590 (this, or the original, it doesn't matter) is NOT a refresh of 8350.
let me go one step further. If 8320 was the top FX processor and one year later AMD was showing 8350 with better thermal paste, no one, but AMD's marketing department, would be calling it a refresh.
If you run cpu-z on 4770K and 4790K you will get identical info with the only difference being in watts and multiplier. I don't call this a refresh. I call it an overclock.



I am kidding with the "not" size :p
Posted on Reply
#33
Dent1
john_ said:
You are playing with words, which of course it is a victory for any marketing department.
Let me tell it a little differently. 9590 (this, or the original, it doesn't matter) is NOT a refresh of 8350.
let me go one step further. If 8320 was the top FX processor and one year later AMD was showing 8350 with better thermal paste, no one, but AMD's marketing department, would be calling it a refresh.
If you run cpu-z on 4770K and 4790K you will get identical info with the only difference being in watts and multiplier. I don't call this a refresh. I call it an overclock.
To be fair AMD never called it a refresh.

Tech Power Up misquoted HardwareCanucks.com.

Hardware Canucks said "It's interesting and "newish" but not a brand new processor or even a refreshed architecture."

Saying that TPU did say "refreshed packaging". Maybe to stop confusion they should have said "revised packaging" or "updated packaging".
Posted on Reply
#34
ensabrenoir
Dent1 said:
To be fair AMD never called it a refresh.

Tech Power Up misquoted HardwareCanucks.com.

Hardware Canucks said "It's interesting and "newish" but not a brand new processor or even a refreshed architecture."
The source of my irritation:


Amd employee saying something new when its not.... either intentionally miss leading or clueless to his own products...
Posted on Reply
#35
dwade
I laugh at that price.
Posted on Reply
#36
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Sony Xperia S said:
Yes, the disadvantage of doing what you want and choosing the current fastest is the lack of consciousness and responsibility, and your future choices will suffer because of it. Be it because of resulting very slow evolution of performance (not only by AMD themselves, but you see that Intel is a shit which for three-four years have only marginally improved something if anything), or lack of competition at all, like monopoly.
I hardly think so. I had a Phenom II 940 before my i7 3820 and my rig now at idle and under load consumes less power than it did before. I had already saved money by the simple fact that I've been paying less power for electricity for the last two years and will continue to do so. As a consumer, I'm hardly suffering because I chose Intel. Once again the stuff you're complaining about is up to the company and investors. You don't buy a car in hopes that the safety rating in the future gets better on a car with a poor track record, you buy a car that already has a good safety rating. It's incentive for the business to do better and if the company can't adjust to the needs of the market they go under. It's as simple as that. As for Intel becoming a monopoly, I think that's already inevitable and I'll assume that antitrust laws will keep Intel in line until a company with more competence can give Intel a run for their money.

Also keep in mind if AMD goes under and Intel does become a monopoly in the market, antitrust laws may force them to make changes that would enable other companies to better compete, so I don't buy that argument. It's like saying banks that are doing badly shouldn't be able to fail to make room for ones that won't. It doesn't make any sense. I should reiterate that Intel is based out of the United States and is subject to our antitrust laws and in the past they've worked in AMD's favor.
Posted on Reply
#37
Dent1
Aquinus said:
I hardly think so. I had a Phenom II 940 before my i7 3820 and my rig now at idle and under load consumes less power than it did before. I had already saved money by the simple fact that I've been paying less power for electricity for the last two years and will continue to do so .
Unless you're a company running 100+ PCs all day it won't make a dent in your electricity bill.

OK you may save $30 per 5 year upgrade cycle going Intel in electricity. Which is negated by the fact that the Intel rig was likely more than $30 to purchase to begin with.

Sony Xperia S said:
Yes, the disadvantage of doing what you want and choosing the current fastest is the lack of consciousness and responsibility, and your future choices will suffer because of it. Be it because of resulting very slow evolution of performance (not only by AMD themselves, but you see that Intel is a shit which for three-four years have only marginally improved something if anything), or lack of competition at all, like monopoly.
I disagree, as a consumer I want the fastest for my budget. Whether Intel or AMD.

If Intel and AMD have similar performing CPU within my budget I may opt for with the smaller company, but I'm not obliged to.

Saying that most CPUs from Intel or AMD, whether mainstream, midrange or high end is enough to fulfil and exceed the average user's expectations. So buying the fastest CPU for the sake of it is becoming illogical. Its only us enthusiasts on forums and users with specific specialist needs that worry about the latest i7s and FX ranges
Posted on Reply
#38
Shambles1980
i totaly missed this thread, been yacking away in the original..
ok TO ME.. i would get an 8350 rather than this. the money saved could buy either a custom loop, or a good aio and decent board.
either way you could get that 8350 up to these specs and possibly further for the same money.
What benefits you would get running at 5ghz.(+) compared to 4.7 or so is pretty debatable though.
So really its not the aio that would annoy me. nor the fact that this is the same cpu re released. What would annoy me is they ever made the thing to start it..

As for the "give amd your money so they can make better stuff" quite a few people here do line amd's pockets although not via enthusiast cpu purchaces. Apu's, laptops, consoles. and A LOT of graphics cards all fund amd nicely.
It really isnt our fault that they took that money and said.
"lets make a 5ghz cpu that runs cool. has 8 cores and we will call it bulldozer. Then they said.. well lets not do this by hand, lets cut this corner.. Im sure it will be fine if we do this. No we dont need to just work on the phenom"
And in the end ended up with this..
the bulldozer did more damage to amd than any thing intel could have done. and then this is just a swan song for enthusiast cpu's.
Some one said it as AM3+ is dead.. Well i think and HOPE it is.
Amd should now go concentrate on gpu's and apu's rake some money in from the console monopoly. and then in 3-4 years time come back and do it properly.

p.s
on average we are spending £6 a week less on electricity now with the i5-2500k vs the q6600..
this is entierly down to the cost of electricity where i live and with my provider. but you cant just say you wont notice a difference unless your running 100+ Pc's. not every where has regulated prices with a max cap. i wish we had the same tariff as Ireland does. but we dont we just have them jacking up the price every year.

p.p.s
thats a measly $2649 saved in 5 years after conversion. provided the tariffs dont go up which they will.
Posted on Reply
#39
TRWOV
FX chips are severely overvolted. I've tuned core voltage down to >1.3v on my 8350s and 1.225v on my 8320s without crashes or any other problem (running Boinc 100% of the time they're on). Heck, at that VCORE, my 8320s run on 95w boards (Asrock 880GM-LE FX) without any problem.

Why do they ship with a 1.4v VCORE? My guess is that some of the worse chips do need the 1.4v and AMD chose to play sure.

Not like that would suddenly turn them into power sipping powerhouses but every bit helps :toast:
Posted on Reply
#40
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Assume an 80 watt difference, that's constantly, all the time. It's probably more than that in reality but I'll stick with a conservative value.

That's 80 watt all the time as my tower is typically on all the time.
24 hours in a day, 365 days in a year which is 8760 hours.

We want watt hours because that is how at least I get billed for power.
So 80 Watts * 8760 Hours is 700,800 watt/hours or 700kW/hours. That is almost a month of electricity for me of the course of one year, somewhere around probably 1/15th of my total power consumption and electricity costs me ~130 USD every month. That's me saving over 100 dollars every year, so I've had my tower for 2 years (assuming I lived in the same place, I used to pay almost 50% more for electricity where I used to live) that's around 200 dollars saved over the old tower in 2 years, but if you wanted to factor difference in cost for electricity where I used to live, it would be higher.

The simple point is, it doesn't have to be 100s of computers for it to add up. It depends on how much you already use and how often the tower is on and drawing power. You underestimate how much power computers use even more so if it's always on.

I know that crunchers can attest to this as having machines under load 24/7 makes a big impact on your power bill where 100 watts less can be significant on your power bill.
Posted on Reply
#41
The Von Matrices
Shambles1980 said:
p.s
on average we are spending £6 a week less on electricity now with the i5-2500k vs the q6600..
this is entierly down to the cost of electricity where i live and with my provider. but you cant just say you wont notice a difference unless your running 100+ Pc's. not every where has regulated prices with a max cap. i wish we had the same tariff as Ireland does. but we dont we just have them jacking up the price every year.

p.p.s
thats a measly $2649 saved in 5 years after conversion. provided the tariffs dont go up which they will.
I'm calling exaggeration in your calculation. It's not reasonable to save that much with a CPU change alone; something else much have changed either with your computer or something else in your household. To get that type of savings with a CPU change you would not only do you have to have the highest electricity prices in the world but you also must be running your PC at max load 24 hours a day.

Let's use realistic numbers and say there's a 100W difference in platform power consumption (motherboard + CPU + memory) between an overclocked i5-2500 system and an overclocked Q6600 system. Even running your PC 24 hours per day, over 168 hours (one week) you will have only saved 16.8 kWh of electricity. That means you would have to pay at least £0.36/kWh ($0.61/kWh) to save £6 per week. If you even shut off your computer while you are asleep (say 6 hours per night) you need an electricity rate of at least £0.48/kWh ($0.82/kWh) for you to save £6 per week.

I think you changed more than just the processor and that's where you see the power savings. If you change from a CRT to an LCD, use a lower power GPU, use your computer less, or even change some other usage pattern in your household, then the £6/week is possible, but that savings from a CPU change alone seems exaggerated.

Note: I'm not disputing that buying a processor that consumes less electricity can make financial sense, just that saving $2649 over five years from a CPU change alone in unrealistic. Aquinus's scenario of $100/year is much more realistic.
Posted on Reply
#42
Shambles1980
well hes in the us and not wales which has the highest electricity per unit prices in britain.
with britain being the 4th heighest per unit for electicity in the EU.. whilst the USA is THE least expensive of any oecd nation..

prehaps that has more of a factor than you imagine? also with conversion rates you get almost $2 for £1

also the cheapest tarif i can get is 17.62p p/kwh but thats if i have a anual or quartely paid bill.. For reasons which are obvious to share holders. our provider wont just give you that unless you are A already using it or B have a medical reason for having it..
so we have to go out and buy pre paid cards. and for the benefit of that they also then add on a rental for the meeter..
so i actually have 18.56p p kw/h unit price + an extra payment taken from my electricity credit for meeter rental.

I will however conceed that i have changed from crt tv to a lcd in the living room which could well help impact on the bill..
but the wife told me we on avarage now spend £6 less per week on electricity.
and the pc is on 24/7
Posted on Reply
#43
TheinsanegamerN
And here I thought AMD would do something cool, like putting four Kaveri modules in a cpu for sale on the am3+ or fm2 platform, rather than taking the same outdated piledriver cpu and giving it a watercooler. ivy core i7 chips are already faster overall than the FX, the haswell i7 is faster than that, and devils canyon will be great for overclocking., there is NO way the fx will catch the devil chips, unless it could do 8 ghz on a standard water cooler.
Posted on Reply
#44
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Shambles1980 said:
well hes in the us and not wales which has the highest electricity per unit prices in britain.
with britain being the 4th heighest per unit for electicity in the EU.. whilst the USA is THE least expensive of any oecd nation..

prehaps that has more of a factor than you imagine? also with conversion rates you get almost $2 for £1

also the cheapest tarif i can get is 17.62p p/kwh but thats if i have a anual or quartely paid bill.. For reasons which are obvious to share holders. our provider wont just give you that unless you are A already using it or B have a medical reason for having it..
so we have to go out and buy pre paid cards. and for the benefit of that they also then add on a rental for the meeter..
so i actually have 18.56p p kw/h unit price + an extra payment taken from my electricity credit for meeter rental.

I will however conceed that i have changed from crt tv to a lcd in the living room which could well help impact on the bill..
but the wife told me we on avarage now spend £6 less per week on electricity.
and the pc is on 24/7
Ditching a CRT for a modern day LCD alone could save you up to 200 watts whenever it is on. That probably had a bigger impact than the computer did.

Also you exaggerate again. The exchange rate is 1.7 USD to 1£.
Posted on Reply
#45
Shambles1980
just went to dig out my payment plan..
and my actuall tarif is...

25.060 p/pkwh with a 24.950 p Per day rental charge..
i think this all factors in a bit.

so i am certain that a lower power cpu will make a prety substantial annual difference to me lol.
that would work out at the equivalent of 43.48c p/kwh if the usa had to pay that..

(i would call $1.70 for £1 almost $2 lol. i wasnt going to go check the actual rates but knew it was close to it)
Posted on Reply
#46
xenocide
AMD has basicaly abandoned AM3+, which isn't surprising since Intel has pretty consistantly trounced them since Sandy Bridge.
Posted on Reply
#47
HumanSmoke
Sony Xperia S said:
Yes, the disadvantage of doing what you want and choosing the current fastest is the lack of consciousness and responsibility, and your future choices will suffer because of it.
Arguably, the consumers future suffered more from AMD's mismanagement than consumers turning away from the company.
AMD was recording record revenue - i.e. plenty of people buying their CPUs and chipsets, and what did they do with those revenues?
Pay twice the book value for ATI when they were the only interested buyer.
Realize, after spending $2.7 billion too much, that they had better try to balance the books, by
Selling their mobile IP for a paltry $65m to Qualcomm. $65 million + some R&D = Adreno (shuffle the letters around and you get...Radeon).
Not content to toss money away like a drunk Dallas Cowboy at a strip club, they then get themselves into a position where they have to pay their former OWN foundry business to NOT make chips for them.

I'm all for supporting the underdog ( How about VIA?), but giving money to the financially irresponsible is called "enabling" not "supporting". I'd like to think that AMD have turned over a new leaf, but then I look at the BoD and note how many of that group still draw a salary despite presiding over the financial clusterf_ck that caused AMD's present problems.
Posted on Reply
#48
Sempron Guy
Aquinus said:
I hardly think so. I had a Phenom II 940 before my i7 3820 and my rig now at idle and under load consumes less power than it did before. I had already saved money by the simple fact that I've been paying less power for electricity for the last two years and will continue to do so. As a consumer, I'm hardly suffering because I chose Intel. Once again the stuff you're complaining about is up to the company and investors. You don't buy a car in hopes that the safety rating in the future gets better on a car with a poor track record, you buy a car that already has a good safety rating. It's incentive for the business to do better and if the company can't adjust to the needs of the market they go under. It's as simple as that. As for Intel becoming a monopoly, I think that's already inevitable and I'll assume that antitrust laws will keep Intel in line until a company with more competence can give Intel a run for their money.

Also keep in mind if AMD goes under and Intel does become a monopoly in the market, antitrust laws may force them to make changes that would enable other companies to better compete, so I don't buy that argument. It's like saying banks that are doing badly shouldn't be able to fail to make room for ones that won't. It doesn't make any sense. I should reiterate that Intel is based out of the United States and is subject to our antitrust laws and in the past they've worked in AMD's favor.
this got me intrigued cause any reviews I looked at, the i7-3820 seems to consume more power than the old 940



it is understandable that 940 consumes around what 10-15w? more than the 945? But even if we add it up that would still fit in the not negligible bracket between the i7-3820 so I'm curious where you pulled that 80w difference.
Posted on Reply
#49
Desert_fox
I know amd doesn't try to compete with the high end intel chips but these are great chips. I have the original fx9590 that came with the liquid cooler before it was d/c and its a great system fast though because I have 7990's the stock cooler is not enough for it to reach 5ghz the system gets to hot with the dual 7990's since there bad design just blows hot air all around the damn case. im sure if i kept my resirator xt and water cooled the 7990's it be different but to see the thermal rating is unchanged etc its kind of pointless id rather see amd spend the cash in r&d though r&d has defiantly been hit or miss with amd
Posted on Reply
#50
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Sempron Guy said:
this got me intrigued cause any reviews I looked at, the i7-3820 seems to consume more power than the old 940



it is understandable that 940 consumes around what 10-15w? more than the 945? But even if we add it up that would still fit in the not negligible bracket between the i7-3820 so I'm curious where you pulled that 80w difference.
Okay, first of all you can't just pull screenshots from anywhere and expect that you're talking about the right thing. First of all, if you read what they were doing:
For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, while simultaneously loading the GPU with OCCT v3.1.0 GPU:OCCT stress test at 1680x1050@60Hz in full screen mode.
Also are those overclocked power draws? Yeah, I don't think so. Those are stock. So consider for a moment that SB-E idles like a champ even when overclocking.

So okay, assuming they did the same amount of work, they're the same. Oh wait, how much slower is the 945 against the 3820 again? Look at the numbers, most of them show the 3820 to be twice as fast as the 945, according to the review that you took that screenshot from. So lets assume you have both CPUs and the 3820 spends half as much time doing the same job because it does twice as much in the same amount of time (more or less, but on average I would say that is correct.)

So lets assume we record over a few days of load where the 3820 takes 0.75 days instead of 1.5 days like the 945 would. That's the 3820 running at "166-watts" for 0.75 hour (124.5 watt/hours) plus idle which is hours at 64-watts @ 1.75 (80 watt/hours) for a total of 204.5 watt/hours.

Take the 945, loaded for twice as long (1.50 days) and idle for only (0.5 days). So 173-watts would be 259.5 watt/hours a day plus idle of 0.5 days @ 79-watts (39.5 watt/hours) which totals ~300 watt/hours.

So the actual power used difference is right there. If the 945 draws more power, the result of subtracting the value of the 945 from the 3820 should yield a negative number.

300 watt/hours - 204.5 watt/hours = 95.5 watt/hours difference for the same workload which would be recorded for twice the length of time of the longest running CPU.

Now that's the calculated difference from Cannucks. Hilbert Hagedoorn would disagree with the 3820 power consumption figures there. It doesn't help that their stressing the GPU which has nothing to do with CPU load if you're already maxxing it out.

What they leave out is what happens when you overclock the 945 and it ate power in a similar manner as Hilbert's graph does for the 8150 but not as bad, but it got up there.


So not only am I talking about machines that are overclocked, my idea of saving power over it holds true even for stock speeds, the power issue will only become more apparent the more you overclock.

I thank you for the challenge, but a little more research might be in order before making such claims.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment