AMD to release new FX processor (with AIO)

[64K]

328 watts is total system draw excluding monitor. It says that in the article.

 

[Shambles1980]

328 watts is total system draw.

yep went to have a better look and it says at close to the start system power.
its still just over double a 4770k though
and the same system with an 8350 was using 118w less power. so it's still an absolute beast when it comes to power consumption.. i still dont think i would want to use it on less than a 12+2

It is basically an 8350 with factory OC right? or is it a bulldozer with a factory oc.. because i dont see how it is a bulldozer instead of a Pile driver, but the internet seems to say its a bulldozer..

 

[Durvelle27]

yep went to have a better look and it says at close to the start system power.
its still just over double a 4770k though
and the same system with an 8350 was using 118w less power. so it's still an absolute beast when it comes to power consumption.. i still dont think i would want to use it on less than a 12+2

It is basically an 8350 with factory OC right? or is it a bulldozer with a factory oc.. because i dont see how it is a bulldozer instead of a Pile driver, but the internet seems to say its a bulldozer..

Yea i had to check again also. My 8350 @5.5GHz never went that high under load also on a 6+2 board

 

[_JP_]

HardwareCanucks - AMD to Launch "New" FX-9590 CPU

Still out of my budget. Keepin' mah apu.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_7.html
seems to say that this cpu can suck up 328w of power at 100% load..
Id hate to see what it does over clocked (although really it is just factory over clocked any way so i dont see much head room in it for the avarage user)
but $170 isnt that bad i guess for a 12+2 so i suppose it could work out.

Really think they should have actually done more to make the thing have a lower tdp rather than just slap an aio in the box. they really need to drop the tdp down by 100w or so to make this cpu attractive to me. I like fast. I love to over clock. but i dont want my fans running at 100% at stock speeds idle just to stay under 50c.
and really if it takes 2x the power to perform the same as an intel equivalent then its becoming quite a lot more expensive to run "atleast where i am" its suprizing how much money a week we saved in this house changing from the oc'd q6600 running 24/7 to an oc i5-2500k running 24-7. In the usa and even ireland this would not really be noticable. but here we are saving enough so the wife even commented on the savings.

So here's the thing though Tdp is total design power and it refers to heat dissipation and you understand that right.
Now technically my 125watt 8350
And this chip are probably physically identical ish (revision and stepping happens)
However the microcode on this chip will allow a higher thermal throughput at max clocks And higher volts before bsod why does that matter, because Amd manage internal P states core load and its thermal shutdown point via an algorithm and not a temperature sensor, if that algorithm calculates that the core should be overheating then it is and it shuts down so with my chip im not hitting it's thermal margin point at 5ghz but because it thinks it should be I can't go higher.
If the chip knows its good for 220 watts then the algorithm can be configured to allow a higher clock v voltage range.
Amds safety and p state control effectively limits just how high some can get. At least afaik anyway.
Mine leaks that much it would likely be awesome on n2

 

[Shambles1980]

So here's the thing though Tdp is total design power and it refers to heat dissipation and you understand that right.
Now technically my 125watt 8350
And this chip are probably physically identical ish (revision and stepping happens)
However the microcode on this chip will allow a higher thermal throughput at max clocks And higher volts before bsod why does that matter, because Amd manage internal P states core load and its thermal shutdown point via an algorithm and not a temperature sensor, if that algorithm calculates that the core should be overheating then it is and it shuts down so with my chip im not hitting it's thermal margin point at 5ghz but because it thinks it should be I can't go higher.
If the chip knows its good for 220 watts then the algorithm can be configured to allow a higher clock v voltage range.
Amds safety and p state control effectively limits just how high some can get. At least afaik anyway.
Mine leaks that much it would likely be awesome on n2

im pretty sure "from what i read" that these chips have a more extreme thermal throttling than an 8350. so technically. you can probably oc a 8350 further than this without it throttling.. but it would be hotter..

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

im pretty sure "from what i read" that these chips have a more extreme thermal throttling than an 8350. so technically. you can probably oc a 8350 further than this without it throttling.. but it would be hotter..

I doubt it and the cpu shuts down regardless when it calculates it should so no I don't think it would.

 

[Shambles1980]

Considering their high heat dissipation, AMD played it safe and set very strict temperature limits for the FX-9370 and FX-9590. Their thermal throttling threshold is lower compared to other FX series processors, so you need an efficient cooler to keep their temperature at an acceptable level. That’s easier said than done, so the FX-9370 and FX-9590 turn out to be much harder to overclock than the similar 8000 series models.

so really..
its quite a pointless cpu.. its a overclocked fx-8xxx with a lower thermal throttling point for protection..
so it really makes an fx-83xx a much better option. can be oc'd to the same level really at the same voltages, for less money, and you have a higher thermal throttle ceiling so you can push it that little bit keeping it below the the throttling margin..

i know you love amd and all that. and intel is the devil. but even you must realize that this cpu is pointless. and more of a statement saying:
"Here is what you should have had from the start But sorry we still couldnt fix the tdp issue, and kind of just had to over clock what we gave you and then rename it... But it gives you kind of an idea of what we wanted to achieve, So who wants some apu's now we messed that up?.."

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Well if he says so eh.
I have had , , still have and will again buy intel stuff and yeah I like ! Like! Amd , I don't like this part now anymore than you and posted before as much so what are you on about , im not getting baited by your Bs google foo , well done but you missed my point and the point of this new budle.
You always had to keep fx cool to clock high
They always did suck in power and spit out heat
Before though, if you bought the right shit like I did and you didn't(I bought a phenom x4 960t as a standin(ie I dodged faildozer), it still hit limits it shouldn't have.
Oh and I set mine up right since day one also hence ive never ever seen mine throttle , , even at 5ghz..im out rattle on if you wish.

 

[Shambles1980]

all im saying is. that a 8350 is cheaper and will do the exact same thing for less money.. so this cpu is pointles..

 

[Dent1]

Before though, if you bought the right shit like I did and you didn't(I bought a phenom x4 960t as a standin(ie I dodged faildozer), it still hit limits it shouldn't have.
Oh and I set mine up right since day one also hence ive never ever seen mine throttle , , even at 5ghz..im out rattle on if you wish.

How was mentioning Bulldozer or "Faildozer" relevant to your point?

all im saying is. that a 8350 is cheaper and will do the exact same thing for less money.. so this cpu is pointless..

Cheaper, yes. But it doesn't do the same thing as an overclocked FX 8350 will not reach 5GHz out the box without additional equipment e.g. Good aftermarket cooler, motherboard etc.

 

[Durvelle27]

How was mentioning Bulldozer or "Faildozer" relevant to your point?



Cheaper, yes. But it doesn't do the same thing as an overclocked FX 8350 will not reach 5GHz out the box without additional equipment e.g. Good aftermarket cooler, motherboard etc.

Same goes for 9590

 

[Dent1]

Same goes for 9590

What additional equipment do you need. I'm confused.

You mean the 9590 doesn't come with a air cooler? and the 9590 + AIO bundle doesn't come with a liquid cooling system?

 

[Durvelle27]

What additional equipment do you need. I'm confused.

You mean the 9590 doesn't come with a air cooler? and the 9590 + AIO bundle doesn't come with a liquid cooling system?

i think you confusing yourself

No the 9590 never included a cooler until now with this AIO bundle.

Both an 8350 and 9590 will need a capable motherboard and cooler to achieve decent clocks

difference is the 8350 + motherboard + cooler will still cost less than a 9590 while being able to clock the same or more

 

[Dent1]

i think you confusing yourself

No the 9590 never included a cooler until now with this AIO bundle.

Both an 8350 and 9590 will need a capable motherboard and cooler to achieve decent clocks

difference is the 8350 + motherboard + cooler will still cost less than a 9590 while being able to clock the same or more

I see.

I agree the 9590 stand alone can do the same thing as its guaranteed 5GHz out the box for cheaper.

But the FX 8350 may not achieve 5GHz , most people will fall short at 4.4-4.8Ghz. I agree its still better value for money and the better choice but I don't think it does the same thing as the 9590 or 9590 + AIO.

 

[Shambles1980]

id call the 9590 a fail to be fair.. 8350 is just better for every one if you go amd in reality. and really only competes with the same price point i7 but does it using twice the power.. so its a double fail.

 

[Durvelle27]

I see.

I agree the 9590 stand alone can do the same thing as its guaranteed 5GHz out the box for cheaper.

But the FX 8350 may not achieve 5GHz , most people will fall short at 4.4-4.8Ghz. I agree its still better value for money and the better choice but I don't think it does the same thing as the 9590 or 9590 + AIO.

Out of 5 or so 8350s most of them did 4.8-5GHz and one i was able to shoot past 5.4GHz. With the 8350 it's very possible but it comes down to volts and cooling. The 9590 comes OC'd out of the box to 4.7GHz yes which is easily doable with a 8350 and it has a Turbo boost of 5GHz which isn't on all of the cores meaning there's not guarantee that it can even do 5GHz on all of the cores

 

[Dent1]

Out of 5 or so 8350s most of them did 4.8-5GHz and one i was able to shoot past 5.4GHz. With the 8350 it's very possible but it comes down to volts and cooling. The 9590 comes OC'd out of the box to 4.7GHz yes which is easily doable with a 8350 and it has a Turbo boost of 5GHz which isn't on all of the cores meaning there's not guarantee that it can even do 5GHz on all of the cores

Ok fair enough

id call the 9590 a fail to be fair.. 8350 is just better for every one if you go amd in reality. and really only competes with the same price point i7 but does it using twice the power.. so its a double fail.

IMO I feel the 9590 is too expensive relative to the FX 8350 for a mere clock boost. 9590 definitely isn't value for money it's just bragging rights. I bet it'll hold its value for resell though.

Would rather see a 16 core FX at that price.

 

[Vario]

Its my understanding that the number of 8350s that could do 5.0 were fewer as time went on because the better Visheras were being binned for the 9590/9570. So if you were an early adopter the 8350 was a good deal (better OC) relative to the current Vishera being sold as 8350.

 

[Shambles1980]

if they could have done the same base clocks 4.7-5ghz at 100w lower tdp it would have been something worth having imo.
if they could have done that at 1.3v that would have been well worth talking about.
and if it could have been over clocked untill it was 220w TDP using 1.5v Then it would have been what they were trying to make to start it..
they just failed which really is a shame..
Should just concentrate on the other income for the next few years then come back to the enthusiasts with a cpu that can do what they wanted it to do at acceptable heat and power consumption levels..
I doubt it would take much.. just do the things they need to do by hand by hand, and not cut corners. and use 8 full featured cores. not 4 and a bit..

 

[Vario]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7990/amd-announces-k12-core-custom-64bit-arm-design-in-2016 this thing should be sweet



(I hope)

 

[Durvelle27]

Its my understanding that the number of 8350s that could do 5.0 were fewer as time went on because the better Visheras were being binned for the 9590/9570. So if you were an early adopter the 8350 was a good deal (better OC) relative to the current Vishera being sold as 8350.

Nahhh their about the same. I've even seen alot of 9370s and 9590s that were piss poor at OCing.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

if they could have done the same base clocks 4.7-5ghz at 100w lower tdp it would have been something worth having imo.
if they could have done that at 1.3v that would have been well worth talking about.
and if it could have been over clocked untill it was 220w TDP using 1.5v Then it would have been what they were trying to make to start it..
they just failed which really is a shame..
Should just concentrate on the other income for the next few years then come back to the enthusiasts with a cpu that can do what they wanted it to do at acceptable heat and power consumption levels..
I doubt it would take much.. just do the things they need to do by hand by hand, and not cut corners. and use 8 full featured cores. not 4 and a bit..

Perhaps you know of a chip with eight cores on a 32nm node that does what you are asking for but I don't

 

[Shambles1980]

Nahhh their about the same. I've even seen alot of 9370s and 9590s that were piss poor at OCing.

i think his point is any 8350 that could oc to 5.0 was pounced upon and thrown in to a box with 9590 written on it.
the ones that couldn't were sold as 8350's/9370's or lower..
That is pretty standard practice for cpu's though

 

[Durvelle27]

i think his point is any 8350 that could oc to 5.0 was pounced upon and thrown in to a box with 9590 written on it.
the ones that couldn't were sold as 8350's or lower..
That is pretty standard practice for cpu's though

Seeing as the 9590 still uses 1.5V+ i think its no different