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
60 Comments on AMD to Launch FX-9590 Refresh Package
i wish i had bothered to check what my Q6600 idled at (but it was always running at 3.7 and never clocked down with the way i had it)
the i5 at full load occt gets to 111.54w
( represents a decent load, which is a bit more than you get from gaming or cpu intensive pc tasks)
These measurements are taken from aida64 and only measure the cpu power draw not the system draw..
maybe we need to compile a list some where a "post your aida 64 cpu power consumption idle and load" Thread. and after a set amount of time make it in to a nice little graph..
This would help us know just how much you stand to save over a given period at your electricity tariff.
I am certain that i am making a substantial saving with the i5 vs the q6600 but only because my tarif is close to 50c P/kwh
however i cant find power consumption figures for the q6600 alone. only system power usage.. which makes it a bit more difficult to calculate properly.
-=edit=-
found some one elses results and they had these numbers
47.23w Idle
145.6w Load
so seems there is a conciderable difference. and i probably should have had my q6600 clock down from 3.7 when it wasnt under load.
(over 100% diference in idle consumption and about 25% difference under load.)
I will call my idle usage of the q6600 at 75w as a guess. so you guys are right even at my tarif the main bulk of my savings must have come from swapping the tv.
but at idle this i5 saves a considerable amount ~65w compared to the q6600. and 34w at load, so it does add up over the avarage upgrade course of 3 years at my tariff of 48c p/kwh.. and does mean that the cpu will pay for its self with ease.
There is difference between Intel and AMD, but things are not so melodramatic when talking about power bills. It depends on the person and how much it uses the system. If the system is constantly loaded, or idle. If it is constantly open, in stand by mode, or most of the time off. We can create scenarios where the PC is OCed and constantly runs all the time at high loads and come out with numbers that favor Intel greatly, or create other scenarios where the person has 5 PCs in his house usually only one or two of then ON not doing much, where the AMD is a better choice if we factor how much cheaper 5 AMD solutions are compared with 5 Intel. But these are extreme scenarios that only want to come out with an advantage for Intel or AMD and nothing else.
but i was comparing intel to intel.
edit: found the article the title:
"AMD goes punch-for-punch with Intel's top-end i7 processors"
Yet they used an i7 4500u for comparison and claim that is "top-end i7" only dual core i7. they had to use water cooler, nothing else could cool the damn thing. Its the silicon lottery, some cpu's can do same voltage at lower volts but a lot of them can't. So they gotta set voltage based on what works on everything. If you looked at intel cpu's, same thing happens with theirs. my 4770k can do 4.5ghz at 1.20volts but a lot of other chips are closer to 1.30-1.35volts or even higher.