# AMD to release new FX processor (with AIO)



## RCoon (Jun 22, 2014)

_Advanced Micro Devices plans to release another FX-series desktop microprocessor that will come bundled with closed-loop liquid cooling system, the firm said this week. The company did not unveil any details about the upcoming chip, but demonstrated its packaging and said that it will be available soon.

Roy Taylor, vice president of global channel sales at AMD, on Friday published a photo of an FX processor packaging on Twitter saying that “something new is coming.” The box, which says it contains an “FX-series processor with liquid cooling technology,” is vastly different from packages of currently available AMD FX products.

Since the package says “processor,” then it is highly-likely that AMD plans to release [at least] another high-performance multi-core chip without integrated graphics designed specifically for enthusiasts (update: confirmed by a source close to AMD). If AMD planned to release a high-end Kaveri-based FX-series offering, it would call the product an “accelerated processing unit.” As there are no “Steamroller” micro-architecture-based multi-core CPUs for servers/high-end desktops scheduled to arrive in mid-2014 anywhere in AMD’s roadmaps, it is highly likely that the company plans to further increase frequencies of the existing Vishera design that features the Piledriver micro-architecture x86 cores.

It looks like (at least, based on the current information) AMD decided to release a microprocessor that will be a respond to Intel’s code-named “Devil’s Canyon” microprocessors. AMD yet has to release actual specifications of the novelty, but if the company actually plans to speed-up the Vishera design one more time, then it looks like we are probably going to see an eight-core chip with default clock-speed of 5GHz or higher_


----------



## Frick (Jun 22, 2014)

I had to check the date to make sure this wasn't from 2013.

Could be interesting anyway.


----------



## patrico (Jun 22, 2014)

hmmm interresting indeed and '_it looks like we are probably going to see an eight-core chip with default clock-speed of 5GHz or higher'_


----------



## m0nt3 (Jun 22, 2014)

I don't think an AIO that would fit in that box would handle a 5GHz Piledriver.


----------



## TheHunter (Jun 22, 2014)

Its still a big box, something like H90 type+


Would be nice if they made a SteamRoller FX 16thread cpu, heck even std 8 thread would be just fine 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6201/amd-details-its-3rd-gen-steamroller-architecture


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 22, 2014)

Probably so hot that it run effectively as good as an air cooler with that AIO.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 22, 2014)

i friggin knew it!

the last month 3 new AM3+ motherboards have come to light, the first i was why? the next i was like hmm? and now im like told ya so!!

edit: im going to buy another 8350 or this maybe!! still have my 990FX mobo. WOOP!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2014)

Well ive been at 5 a while and they are going to have to pull out something special for me to swap , nice news though I thought something was brewing due to the recent influx of new am3+ boards


----------



## raphaell666 (Jun 22, 2014)

This should be interesting, if the price is good (less than intel i7-4770k) I will consider it.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jun 22, 2014)

Frick said:


> I had to check the date to make sure this wasn't from 2013.
> 
> Could be interesting anyway.



Yeah that was EXACTLY what I thought too.


----------



## Norton (Jun 22, 2014)

An AM3+ FX built on the current 28nm process* that the APU's use would be interesting....

sub'd

* wishful thinking I know but that would be pretty cool (like the Phenom I to Phenom II transistion)


----------



## Misaki (Jun 22, 2014)

Steamroller FX for AM3+? If it's possible, this will be really good CPU.


----------



## Trompochi (Jun 22, 2014)

This will be interestng, I hope it's at least built on the 28nm process.


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 22, 2014)

Just in time for an AM3+ build I'm planning  I hope they release a version without HSF/AIO as I already have an H80 doing nothing.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 22, 2014)

Woohoo!


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

O look anouther AMD speedbump pretty soon they are gonna need to start shipping phaseschange units with these


----------



## natr0n (Jun 22, 2014)

I want something new after a long time and this might be it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 22, 2014)

Norton said:


> An AM3+ FX built on the current 28nm process* that the APU's use would be interesting....



Agreed, even if they just did a die shrink on Vishera to 28nm I'd be interested.  However, if this is just the same old 32nm Vishera with a clock bump I'm not going to be that impressed.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 22, 2014)

This is gonna be interesting. The included AIO suggest that this will be a more than 125W part but due to the size of the cooler I would expect sub 220W.
Things AMD can do between 125W and 220W:
1. Even more clock speed (I have a hard time imagining AMD managing a sub 220W 5.1+Ghz FX8350) 
2. More cores (people have managed to OC the 16 core opterons to over 4ghz on water cooling)
3. 28nm with more cores (They did recently sign a contract with Global Foundries)


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

they would have needed to seriously rework the fab process AND Chip to get a 5Ghz FX8xxx down to even like 150W the architecture stinks more then likely its just another die shrink
nothing to see here people move along .. stop giving AMD free PR


----------



## suraswami (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> they would have needed to seriously rework the fab process AND Chip to get a 5Ghz FX8xxx down to even like 150W the architecture stinks more then likely its just another die shrink
> nothing to see here people move along .. stop giving AMD free PR



Well they don't have a good PR and no money either, so we as last '300' will keep screaming until last breath!!!


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 22, 2014)

Has anyone else thought that this could just be a highly binned FM2+ Kaveri chip with disabled iGPU?  That certainly would be "multi-core," not an "APU", and "unlike anything else."

Remember, high end Kaveri mobile processors are also in the FX series.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> they would have needed to seriously rework the fab process AND Chip to get a 5Ghz FX8xxx down to even like 150W the architecture stinks more then likely its just another die shrink
> nothing to see here people move along .. stop giving AMD free PR


There's also the Fact that we don't know what it Is exactly yet so stick both your neg posts elsewhere. 
It's ok for the goose this Pr melarky and its good for the gander especially on a slow Sunday.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> stop giving AMD free PR



AMD's PR department is a bunch of asshats. This is the best piece of PR AMD has ever formulated in YEARS. We need to show them some appreciation for doing something right at least, even if this is just another faildozer chip. They had computer generated lightsaber wielding robot videos, GPU giveaways on some late night TV show with completely unknown presenters and an audience that had no clue what they were on about, and a GPU chip release with a fat guy from some obscure audio company that spoke in stupid ways.
This picture teasing a new chip-in-a-box is possibly the most intelligent piece of PR they've come up with.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 22, 2014)

Imho its got to be an all or nothing release ie you wouldn't put the work in for a die shrink without swapping the cores as the setup layout and masks all change anyway and significantly afaik, so its that ,a clock bumped vishera or an apu based cpu imho prob clock bump.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 22, 2014)

apparently this isnt the only thing AMD will be bringing out soon... rumours of a new hawaii flagship card. So ive been reading the 290x isnt the full thing...

also seen this in all the hype, http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/am...with_integrated_pci_express_3_controller.html 

why would you need pcie3 on a server cpu?!


----------



## RCoon (Jun 22, 2014)

d1nky said:


> rumours of a new hawaii flagship card. So ive been reading the 290x isnt the full thing...



The power consumption and TDP of such a thing would be entirely ridiculous, and would require liquid cooling as a reference cooler (unless they want a repeat of the 290X release and having their cards labelled as plasma heated jet turbines)


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

untill amd do the following they will get no love from me
1.release a chip with single threaded performance 25 to 40% better then the phenom thuban II while keeping the power consumption below 140w
2. throw there entire driver code repo out and fire the existing team and then proceed to start completely over supporting only the 7000 series and up gpus
3. hire some management and PR people that actually know what they are doing


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> untill amd do the following they will get no love from me
> 1.release a chip with single threaded performance 25 to 40% better then the phenom thuban II while keeping the power consumption below 140w
> 2. throw there entire driver code repo out and fire the existing team and then proceed to start completely over supporting only the 7000 series and up gpus
> *3. hire some management and PR people that actually know what they are doing*



i.e. Bribe forum owners such as W1zzard to ban anyone that talks bad about AMD.

---------
BTW when are we going to see an 8 core based APU?


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> i.e. Bribe forum owners such as W1zzard to ban anyone that talks bad about AMD.


lol
seriously they should just throw there entire driver code tree out and start over


----------



## RCoon (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> untill amd do the following they will get no love from me
> 1.release a chip with single threaded performance 25 to 40% better then the phenom thuban II while keeping the power consumption below 140w
> 2. throw there entire driver code repo out and fire the existing team and then proceed to start completely over supporting only the 7000 series and up gpus
> 3. hire some management and PR people that actually know what they are doing



1. Happening Q4 of 2015 (google it)
2. That will never happen, costs too much money and time, and their current driver team is getting on with things these days
3. AMD already destroyed their PR department, at one point I'm fairly certain they didn't have one. This may be true now, hence the lack of PR that makes any sense whatsoever


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

RCoon said:


> 1. Happening Q4 of 2015 (google it)
> 2. That will never happen, costs too much money and time, and their current driver team is getting on with things these days
> 3. AMD already destroyed their PR department, at one point I'm fairly certain they didn't have one. This may be true now, hence the lack of PR that makes any sense whatsoever


if amd releases a chip thats not terrible in Q4 2015 I will eat my phenom II Without ANY mayo


----------



## RCoon (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> if amd releases a chip thats not terrible in Q4 2015 I will eat my phenom II Without ANY mayo



Mayo makes an exceptional TIM


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 22, 2014)

This going to be an AM3+ Part or a FM2+ Part


----------



## d1nky (Jun 22, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> This going to be an AM3+ Part or a FM2+ Part



Guessing AM3+ as theres a bunch of new ones about.

also


RCoon said:


> The power consumption and TDP of such a thing would be entirely ridiculous, and would require liquid cooling as a reference cooler (unless they want a repeat of the 290X release and having their cards labelled as plasma heated jet turbines)




http://www.overclock.net/t/1497475/...i-xt-gpu-might-not-be-the-full-chip-after-all


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 22, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> There's also the Fact that we don't know what it Is exactly yet


If we go by the boxart I can surely assume that it is water resistant and thus can be used in my bathtub as either armor for my battleship or a bed of nails for the waterborne t-rex.
Either way, the battle will have its epicness increased.


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

I wonder if I can heat my coffee in the radiator( like  my coffee about 120 to 125F) tho brew temp would need to be about 200f
if I could do that + make toast on the VRM's I would be good to go in the morning


----------



## d1nky (Jun 22, 2014)

_JP_ said:


> If we go by the boxart I can surely assume that it is water resistant and thus can be used in my bathtub as either armor for my battleship or a bed of nails for the waterborne t-rex.
> Either way, the battle will have its epicness increased.



LOL thats submerged in liquid nitrogen!


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 22, 2014)

Interested in the performance and how many cores this actually has!


----------



## OneMoar (Jun 22, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> Interested in the performance and how many cores this actually has!


you mean "threads"


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 22, 2014)

I really doubt that this will be FM2+ it doesn't make any sense.
Current FM2+ APUs pull 95W and that's with the GPU. without the GPU they would probably pull around 80W so water cooling one of those doesn't really make sense.
They can't release a higher binned FX 9590 because that would cost close to 450$ and would achieve nothing. It would be slower than any i7 and cost more than most i7s.
More cores should be pretty easy to do since the bulldozer design is very modular. However if we look at past water cooled CPUs by AMD the last one was the FX 8150 which marked the release of the FX CPUs and a  complete architectural redesing so this could very well be a tweaked 8 core Kaveri AM3+ CPU. The other thing is that the AM3+ platform is still damn good so AM3+ it will be. 32 PCI-e 2.0 lanes and 6 SATA III ports puts 990FX basically on par with Z97.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 22, 2014)

I suppose it could just be Excavator.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 22, 2014)

RCoon said:


> I suppose it could just be Excavator.


But wouldn't that need a new/revisioned socket...for DDR4?


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 22, 2014)

d1nky said:


> why would you need pcie3 on a server cpu?!



The HPC market is one of AMD's strengths, and the HPC market is increasingly using GPUs (e.g. supercomputers like Titan use AMD CPUs along with NVidia GPUs).   GPU Compute workloads are one of the limited scenarios where the extra PCIe bandwidth results in extra performance, so it makes sense for AMD to have a PCIe 3.0 controller it it wants to remain relevant in the HPC market.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 22, 2014)

OneMoar said:


> you mean "threads"


Nope Cores, specifically "Cores"



RCoon said:


> I suppose it could just be Excavator.



Well at least now we know why all these new AM3+ motherboards have been coming out.


----------



## dom99 (Jun 22, 2014)

I hope they have something epic up their sleeves, I'd love AMD to give me a reason to pick them over intel next upgrade


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 22, 2014)

A Vishera die shrink would be interesting but I'm hoping it's 28nm Steamroller


----------



## HammerON (Jun 22, 2014)

Curious...
Sub'd


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 22, 2014)

Well, it seems that nobody has dropped the ball in the cpu support pages (in the global sites, at least).
That new msi 970-based gaming board lacks such page, though.


----------



## Arjai (Jun 23, 2014)

RCoon said:


> Mayo makes an exceptional TIM


LOL,


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jun 23, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> This is gonna be interesting. The included AIO suggest that this will be a more than 125W part but due to the size of the cooler I would expect sub 220W.
> Things AMD can do between 125W and 220W:
> 1. Even more clock speed (I have a hard time imagining AMD managing a sub 220W 5.1+Ghz FX8350)
> 2. More cores (people have managed to OC the 16 core opterons to over 4ghz on water cooling)
> 3. 28nm with more cores (They did recently sign a contract with Global Foundries)



I'd take option 3 please


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 23, 2014)

I'm getting anxious


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 23, 2014)

I have the liquid cooler already... Great stock cooler I might add. I am interested in this processor as I am looking for an upgrade. I think the current offering of the 9 series processors are quite high in price. IF this processor is released at 28 nm I would be extremely surprised... Die shrink on the same socket.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jun 23, 2014)

My guess is a 150W Kaveri part running 4.5GHz stock.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 23, 2014)

RCoon said:


> _Advanced Micro Devices plans to release another FX-series desktop microprocessor that will come bundled with closed-loop liquid cooling system, the firm said this week. The company did not unveil any details about the upcoming chip, but demonstrated its packaging and said that it will be available soon.
> 
> Roy Taylor, vice president of global channel sales at AMD, on Friday published a photo of an FX processor packaging on Twitter saying that “something new is coming.” The box, which says it contains an “FX-series processor with liquid cooling technology,” is vastly different from packages of currently available AMD FX products.
> 
> ...



Is their a rule that you must post the source if you are going to quote an article from an outside website. If there isn't there should be.

I'll do it anyhow... http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...x-microprocessor-with-bundled-liquid-cooling/


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 23, 2014)

HalfAHertz said:


> My guess is a 150W Kaveri part running 4.5GHz stock.



That would basically blow up the VRMs in any available FM2+ motherboard


----------



## v12dock (Jun 23, 2014)

Newegg had the FX-9590 on sale... Trying to clear inventory?


----------



## d1nky (Jun 23, 2014)

Ravenas said:


> Is their a rule that you must post the source if you are going to quote an article from an outside website. If there isn't there should be.
> 
> I'll do it anyhow... http://www.kitguru.net/components/c...x-microprocessor-with-bundled-liquid-cooling/



the source is actually started via a guy at AMD and twitter.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 23, 2014)

I just got a 8350 so ill see how this all unfolds. Ive seen AMD with news of a FM2+ FX cpu.


----------



## n0tiert (Jun 23, 2014)

sounds interesting, i wanted to get the FX-9590, but i´ll wait for this going gold to see how it performs


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 23, 2014)

sub'd i took a FX 6300 for waiting to get a 8350 or a 9590 but waiting a bit more could be good ... just hope it's a 28nm Steamroller and possibly AM3+ if they keep the CMT block type well make it 16 core so it make a 8 core + 8 shared core
in fact my hope doesn't matter as long as it's a FX AM3+ i am fine : because that could translate in a price lowering for 8350/9370/9590  (technically with the 9590 being cheaper than a i7-4770K i don't mind if the price drop a bit more, it's almost on the i5-4670K where i am atm)


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 23, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> sub'd i took a FX 6300 for waiting to get a 8350 or a 9590 but waiting a bit more could be good ... just hope it's a 28nm Steamroller and possibly AM3+ if they keep the CMT block type well make it 16 core so it make a 8 core + 8 shared core
> in fact my hope doesn't matter as long as it's a FX AM3+ i am fine : because that could translate in a price lowering for 8350/9370/9590  (technically with the 9590 being cheaper than a i7-4770K i don't mind if the price drop a bit more, it's almost on the i5-4670K where i am atm)


I still think it has to be on AM3+ (Just a hunch) because there has to be a reason for the Sapphire board that was just (Edit) announced along with the MSI boards and such.  It would not make any sense if they released something on a dead platform just to have the next platform come around.

That is of course, unless there is some secret we have yet to see which is always a possibility.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 23, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> I still think it has to be on AM3+ (Just a hunch) because there has to be a reason for the Sapphire board that was just released along with the MSI boards and such.  It would not make any sense if they released something on a dead platform just to have the next platform come around.
> 
> That is of course, unless there is some secret we have yet to see which is always a possibility.



Have you seen the Sapphire board in retail? I haven't seen it yet.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 23, 2014)

Ravenas said:


> Have you seen the Sapphire board in retail? I haven't seen it yet.


Should have said "announced" not "released".


----------



## GLD (Jun 23, 2014)

I would be happy to see a 95w 8350. Now that would be sweet. The announced cpu, with it's AIO cooler will probably be another 220w chip. They could surprise us though as a pair of the previous high end FX chips had liquid. I forget, were they 125w or 140w chips?


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 23, 2014)

GLD said:


> I would be happy to see a 95w 8350. Now that would be sweet. The announced cpu, with it's AIO cooler will probably be another 220w chip. They could surprise us though as a pair of the previous high end FX chips had liquid. I forget, were they 125w or 140w chips?


Are you referring to this?

It could just be another 125 watt or around that area chip, I do not think its another 220Watt chip at least yet.  Its probably just going to be a launch special edition.


----------



## TheHunter (Jun 23, 2014)

d1nky said:


> apparently this isnt the only thing AMD will be bringing out soon... rumours of a new hawaii flagship card. So ive been reading the 290x isnt the full thing...
> 
> also seen this in all the hype, http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/am...with_integrated_pci_express_3_controller.html
> 
> why would you need pcie3 on a server cpu?!



Exactly, that's why I assumed maybe its this uber SteamRoller cpu in it, then it would own even Haswell-E for sure ^^


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

ok so if the cpu comes with an aio as standard.. exactly where do you get a 120+2 power phase board to use it without horrible throttling, and giving you possible room to OC without little fires coming from the vicinity of the vrm ?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> ok so if the cpu comes with an aio as standard.. exactly where do you get a 120+2 power phase board to use it without horrible throttling, and giving you possible room to OC without little fires coming from the vicinity of the vrm ?


 
......................wow.


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> ok so if the cpu comes with an aio as standard.. exactly where do you get a 120+2 power phase board to use it without horrible throttling, and giving you possible room to OC without little fires coming from the vicinity of the vrm ?


Not sure if bait...

EDIT: iirc, the last time that happened was with gigabyte boards + intel sockets...


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jun 23, 2014)

What if it is just a 9590 rereleased with a cooler from astec (or whoever did the 295x2) and a 0.2Ghz bump? I hope for more but leave it to amd.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

ok a bit ott with the fire lol... but i definitely expect a lot of throttling with out pretty high power phase count.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 23, 2014)

If you buy the right kit and know how to set a bios up there's no throttling. 
Does your 5 phased adventure make you an expert now shambles


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

dunno about expert lol. But i would chalk down some expirience points towards needing a much higher power phase for an amd chip compared to an intel one. and if you cant really oc a 6 core cpu on a 4+1 without throttling and they seem to think a new cpu will need water cooling as a standard one can only speculate on the power consumption which would imply the need for a pretty expensive board with a high vrm count.
but hey ho maybe it will run at 6ghz with 95w and the aio will put it at 55c max under stress test.. 
kinda doubt that but who knows..


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> dunno about expert lol. But i would chalk down some expirience points towards needing a much higher power phase for an amd chip compared to an intel one. and if you cant really oc a 6 core cpu on a 4+1 without throttling and they seem to think a new cpu will need water cooling as a standard one can only speculate on the power consumption which would imply the need for a pretty expensive board with a high vrm count.
> but hey ho maybe it will run at 6ghz with 95w and the aio will put it at 55c max under stress test..
> kinda doubt that but who knows..




I can give you a list of like 10 990fx (Pretty much every 990FX board on Newegg) boards that can overclock and AMD chip with out issues. You don't have a clue. Its been an obvious trend these last few years that AMD chips are indeed more power consuming, so congrats on stating the obvious.

1. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514&cm_re=990fx-_-13-128-514-_-Product
2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131877&cm_re=990fx-_-13-131-877-_-Product
3. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131851&cm_re=990fx-_-13-131-851-_-Product
4. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157479&cm_re=990fx-_-13-157-479-_-Product
5. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131876&cm_re=990fx-_-13-131-876-_-Product
6. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157358&cm_re=990fx-_-13-157-358-_-Product
7. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130649&cm_re=990fx-_-13-130-649-_-Product
8. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128508&cm_re=990fx-_-13-128-508-_-Product
9. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128509&cm_re=990fx-_-13-128-509-_-Product
10. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130677&cm_re=990fx-_-13-130-677-_-Product

You tend to just get the cheapest stuff you can and hope it works, because your wife won't let you get the nice stuff.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

ok.. sorry i didnt know you knew what the power requirements of this new chip was going to be so can guarantee it will oc just fine on those boards..

perhaps you could let us know what they will be..


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 23, 2014)

Just to throw this it there I OC'd a 8350 just fine on a mobo I got for $50. 

Not recommended unless you know what you're doing.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> ok.. sorry i didnt know you knew what the power requirements of this new chip was going to be so can guarantee it will oc just fine on those boards..
> 
> perhaps you could let us know what they will be..



Look at my system specs. The 8350 overclocks just fine.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

my some what conveluted point is. 
IF it needs an aio to run at stock its going to be rediculously power hungry and any further oc will undoubtedly need a more robust vrm setup. 
if it dosent need the aio as stock. then why gimick it up.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> ok.. sorry i didnt know you knew what the power requirements of this new chip was going to be so can guarantee it will oc just fine on those boards..
> 
> perhaps you could let us know what they will be..



If the power requirements for the new chip are higher then the FX9xxx chips http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347 I will be very surprised, and even then those 990FX boards can handle the FX9xxx fine. I expect about the same as the FX8350.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> my some what conveluted point is.
> IF it needs an aio to run at stock its going to be rediculously power hungry and any further oc will undoubtedly need a more robust vrm setup.
> if it dosent need the aio as stock. then why gimick it up.


Or if you look back it could just be a special bundle like the the FX 8150 LC edition...  AMD has been including things like this just for fun bundle deals in the past so why would it be any different now?  Just because it comes with an Asetek cooler does not mean it needs it, they just wanted to do a promotional thing where you can get an bundle with a LC cooler instead of a junky little box fan...  Now it could very well be another 220Watt chip, but that has yet to be seen...


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 23, 2014)

The Von Matrices said:


> That would basically blow up the VRMs in any available FM2+ motherboard


Here's a review on a budget A88X board I did. You should check the VRM section of it.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> my some what conveluted point is.
> IF it needs an aio to run at stock its going to be rediculously power hungry and any further oc will undoubtedly need a more robust vrm setup.
> if it dosent need the aio as stock. then why gimick it up.


Why don't you go complain about the X79 VRMs. A 3930K at 5Ghz will pull much much more power than an FX 8350 at 5Ghz.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> Here's a review on a budget A88X board I did. You should check the VRM section of it.


that board can support 100w.. its not that good..


----------



## _JP_ (Jun 23, 2014)

GhostRyder said:


> Or if you look back it could just be a special bundle like the the FX 8150 LC edition...  AMD has been including things like this just for fun bundle deals in the past so why would it be any different now?  Just because it comes with an Asetek cooler does not mean it needs it, they just wanted to do a promotional thing where you can get an bundle with a LC cooler instead of a junky little box fan...  Now it could very well be another 220Watt chip, but that has yet to be seen...


This. 
AMD FX 8300 (95W) w/AIO cooler!! Heck yeah!


Shambles1980 said:


> that board can supply 100w.. its not that good..


APUs aren't rated above 100W.


----------



## Xzibit (Jun 23, 2014)

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


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

this new cpu isnt apu.. i hope its going to be 95w and be 4.5 stock with a aio just for fun dont really need it but here you go..

but it seems like either its a really hot running lets use 220+ w of power and you will need aio just to keep it under 60c at stock.
or
its really not that good. its basically just a piledriver over clocked as far as we can manage it. but look over here ! AIO ! Yeah pay attention to this.. just ignore the cpu for now..

-edit-
ok above post answered my question and its just the same overclocked cpu that did need to be water cooled to run properly at stock.  with a sedion 120 lcs thrown in. i guess if you dont shop around thats a cheap way to get that aio..

not to impressed to be honest.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 23, 2014)

Xzibit said:


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



Lel. Joke is on everybody it seems. Nice PR overhyping a rather lacklustre release.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> this new cpu isnt apu.. i hope its going to be 95w and be 4.5 stock with a aio just for fun dont really need it but here you go..
> 
> but it seems like either its a really hot running lets use 220+ w of power and you will need aio just to keep it under 60c at stock.
> or
> its really not that good. its basically just a piledriver over clocked as far as we can manage it. but look over here ! AIO ! Yeah pay attention to this.. just ignore the cpu for now..



I guess you also don't understand that the wattage number they say, 125w for FX8350 or 220w for FX9xxx is the TDP (Thermal Design Power: Maximum amount of heat generated by CPU, which the cooling is required to dissipate during normal operation), not the ACTUAL CPU power consumption. It is typically lower.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

run an 8120 on a board that can only do 100w and tell me it wont run at lower than stock speeds as default..



MxPhenom 216 said:


> I guess you also don't understand that the wattage number they say, 125w for FX8350 or 220w for FX9xxx is the TDP (Thermal Design Power: Maximum amount of heat generated by CPU, which the cooling is required to dissipate during normal operation), not the ACTUAL CPU power consumption. It is typically lower.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> run an 8120 on a board that can only do 100w and tell me it wont run at lower than stock speeds as default..



Why would you even think about using a board that can do that if the actual power consumption of the chip is higher then what the boards power delivery can deliver? Sounds pretty dumb too me.

.......but oh wait. 



And also power delivery is not all about how many phases there are. There could be a motherboard with say 12 phases just for CPU, where as another motherboard with 8 phases, but higher quality overall design that can delivery as much as a motherboard with more phases.

If you have a motherboard with say 4+1 phases and you try and use a CPU that really should need more, then jokes on you.


----------



## GhostRyder (Jun 23, 2014)

Well looks like we all got our answer as to what is coming.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

so now you say a TDP of 220 will use less power than a cpu with a tdp of 125 using the same nm ? and so you can use it on a 100w board?
sounds pretty dumb to me

but of course your either just having a pissing contests or deliberately taking things out of context to suit your point because you were/are wrong.

its also funny how the tdp scales with power usage. and board mfrs state the thdp of the chip that can be used on the board..
i.e a 100w board will list a 8120 95w as useable, but an 8120 (standard 125w tdp) as not useable..


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 23, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> so now you say a TDP of 220 will use less power than a cpu with a tdp of 125 using the same nm ?
> sounds pretty dumb to me



No....jesus, completely opposite of what I was saying. Re-read what I said. I am sure other people here understand what I am trying to say.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 23, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> No....jesus, completely opposite of what I was saying. Re-read what I said. I am sure other people here understand what I am trying to say.


thats pretty strange you just said that tdp is tdp "which i know" you then went and stated that the actual power usage is less.. and pointed to a 125 tdp cpu using 95w. when i asked you to run a 125w tdp cpu on a 95w board you said that would be dumb..
which  both contradicted your 1st point and reinstated what i initially said.. 

I wish you knew what irony was.


----------



## Vario (Jun 24, 2014)

TDP is thermal design power, its the amount of heat the electronics is rated to give off.
Just because unit is in watts doesn't mean its a measure of input power requirement.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 24, 2014)

Vario said:


> TDP is thermal design power, its the amount of heat the electronics is rated to give off.
> Just because unit is in watts doesn't mean its a measure of input power requirement.


i know that.. it is what tells me the minimum heat sink i need to use...


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> thats pretty strange you just said that tdp is tdp "which i know" you then went and stated that the actual power usage is less.. and pointed to a 125 tdp cpu using 95w. when i asked you to run a 125w tdp cpu on a 95w board you said that would be dumb..
> which  both contradicted your 1st point and reinstated what i initially said..
> 
> I wish you knew what irony was.



Show me a single AM3/+ board that supports FX Bulldozer and Piledriver chips that only can supply the CPU with 100w. All the boards I showed earlier can supply easily more than that.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 24, 2014)

FX 9xxx series power consumption

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_7.html


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 24, 2014)

ok i see what your arguing now, and why you pointed out the tdp thing..
I should have said rated for 100w tdp cpu's

but my point is still the same.

you wont be running that cpu on a 4+1 whats a 12+2 board cost any way?


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 24, 2014)

Xzibit said:


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



Bummer... ok, 8350, here I come.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> that board can supply 100w.. its not that good..


It has 4 phases for the CPU core each rated at 40A on the MOSFETS the chokes I would guess support 25A to 35A. I would trust this board to run an Athlon II X4 760K at 1.6V. I have run an Athlon II X2 370K on it at 5.1Ghz with 1.75V on that board and that chip was pulling at least 128W and the VRM was just fine. It's too bad my A10-6800K died because that would probaly get to about 200W at 1.75V. Even at 250W using 1.75V the VRM should be fine because because that would only be 142A of current on a VRM rated for 160A. 

BTW: I don't mind blowing the board up in the name of science so if someone would be willing to send me a quad core FM2 chip that they don't mind getting back as a keychain(my favorite use for dead CPUs) I would be very happy to feed it 1.75V at 5Ghz to see if I can kill this board.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 24, 2014)

i should have said support not supply  its been pointed out to me lol.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> i should have said support not supply  its been pointed out to me lol.


Well most 990FX boards on supported 125W CPUs until the 9590 came out. Then they all got spec sheet updates to support 220W CPUs. 
Really I wish companies would stop spouting marketing crap about their VRM and just give a list of components(MOSFETS, chokes, PWM controller) they used or the maximum supported current. Would make my life a lot easier since looking up datasheets for semi custom MOSFETS and PWM controllers is a giant pain in the ass.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jun 24, 2014)

bubbleawsome said:


> What if it is just a 9590 rereleased with a cooler from astec (or whoever did the 295x2) and a 0.2Ghz bump? I hope for more but leave it to amd.





Xzibit said:


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


They didn't even add the Ghz.  Dang it AMD.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 24, 2014)

bubbleawsome said:


> They didn't even add the Ghz.  Dang it AMD.





bubbleawsome said:


> They didn't even add the Ghz.  Dang it AMD.


You have dashed my hopes quite expertly. I will now proceed to express my feelings.
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY AMD WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY WOULD YOU DO THIS.


----------



## Champ (Jun 24, 2014)

okay, maybe I'm looking at this wrong. People, including myself, would love a cpu that stock can hit 5 GHz. I'm interested in making a stock bad ass gaming rig and this processor is all you can hope for. I don't think any intel can hit 5ghz without special means of cooling. I feel the heat is necessary to hit those frequencies. My next rig may feature one of these.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 24, 2014)

TRWOV said:


> Bummer... ok, 8350, here I come.


Not buying it. Why would new motherboards be released for a previously released processor with a what cooler included...?


----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 24, 2014)

Subbed for a good read and possible new cpu from the red side


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 24, 2014)

Champ said:


> okay, maybe I'm looking at this wrong. People, including myself, would love a cpu that stock can hit 5 GHz. I'm interested in making a stock bad ass gaming rig and this processor is all you can hope for. I don't think any intel can hit 5ghz without special means of cooling. I feel the heat is necessary to hit those frequencies. My next rig may feature one of these.


 
Why, when an Intel chip at 4.5ghz is still faster and less power consuming.


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 24, 2014)

Ravenas said:


> Not buying it. Why would new motherboards be released for a previously released processor with a what cooler included...?


I can answer that one

Because the terrible old designs barely run 83xx chips unless you got the super deluxe 300$ versions of the 9xx boards, a "220W" 5ghz cpu will likely fry any old 970 or cheaper 990 board.

The reason I quote 220W is that rating only applies if you have AMD power management on, without downclocking cores and reducing voltage FX cpu's will pull over their respective stock TDP running AVX linpac.
This caused issues for MB MFG's a while back.


----------



## The Von Matrices (Jun 24, 2014)

The official TPU news thread with the information showing a FX-9590 re-release:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-to-launch-fx-9590-refresh-package.202388/


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 24, 2014)

I heard they were goingvto have FM2+ Fx parts ala 760K


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 24, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> I heard they were goingvto have FM2+ Fx parts ala 760K


None of the boards have ports for onboard video, I fail to see the point of APU's on AM3+


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 24, 2014)

You read it wrong


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 24, 2014)

eidairaman1 said:


> You read it wrong


oh you mean FX chips on FM2 ? that would be useful to some.


----------



## d1nky (Jun 24, 2014)

just a 9590 with an aio?!

dafuq AMD you could of made a better climax!!

http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/fx


----------



## Batou1986 (Jun 24, 2014)

http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/fx 
Says the WC is from coolermaster so
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835103195
saving a whopping 9$ + shipping


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> ou wont be running that cpu on a 4+1 whats a 12+2 board cost any way?



12+2 ... i have a 6+2 on my M5A99X and it could support a 9590 ...

from: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/M5A99X_EVO/13.html

_*VRM capable of 275W, near double AMD CPU TDPs*_
and a slight marge to OC technically but iirc the CPU is not in supported list and on the next board i will have (ASRock 990FX FK) 8+2 should also handle it but again not listed in CPU support  unlike the ASRock 990FX Extreme 9 who is a 12+2 but if a 6+2 VRM are capable to hold 275W a 8+2 should too

and price of a 12+2 well 169$ quite cheap tho compared to launch price ... 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157358


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 24, 2014)

Well what an anti climax amd are finally selling a 9590 the everyman can use easily , this should have been out day 1 and isn't worthy of my further attention or any prior for that matter.


----------



## ne6togadno (Jun 24, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I can give you a list of like 10 990fx (Pretty much every 990FX board on Newegg) boards that can overclock and AMD chip with out issues. You don't have a clue. Its been an obvious trend these last few years that AMD chips are indeed more power consuming, so congrats on stating the obvious.
> 
> 1. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514&cm_re=990fx-_-13-128-514-_-Product
> 2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131877&cm_re=990fx-_-13-131-877-_-Product
> ...


new msi am3+ mb is 970 not 990
http://www.techpowerup.com/202248/msi-officially-announces-the-970-gaming-am3-motherboard.html
asrok's is 990
http://www.techpowerup.com/201653/asrock-launches-first-socket-am3-motherboard-with-m-2-slot.html
bah i missed 2 pages comments


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 24, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> 12+2 ... i have a 6+2 on my M5A99X and it could support a 9590 ...
> 
> from: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/M5A99X_EVO/13.html
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## buildzoid (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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.
> ...


I think the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P probably use 40A or 30A mosfets and has 8 of them for the core so that board would be fine for running a 9590. I have the ASUS 990FX-EVO so I'll have a look at what the VRM is actually like and post here about it.

BTW rating VRMs in watts is complete BS since what actually causes the heating and explosions is current.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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.
> ...


328W 

O.O


----------



## Vario (Jun 24, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> 328W
> 
> O.O


Dayum


----------



## 64K (Jun 24, 2014)

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


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 24, 2014)

64K said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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_ (Jun 24, 2014)

Xzibit said:


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


Still out of my budget. Keepin' mah apu.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Jun 24, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Jun 24, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_8.html#sect0 said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

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 (Jun 24, 2014)

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 (Jun 24, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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?



Shambles1980 said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> 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 (Jun 24, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> i think you confusing yourself
> 
> No the 9590 never included a cooler until now with this AIO bundle.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 24, 2014)

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 (Jun 25, 2014)

Dent1 said:


> 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 (Jun 25, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> 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



Shambles1980 said:


> 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 (Jun 25, 2014)

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 (Jun 25, 2014)

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 (Jun 25, 2014)

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



(I hope)


----------



## Durvelle27 (Jun 25, 2014)

Vario said:


> 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 (Jun 25, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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..
> ...


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 (Jun 25, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> 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 (Jun 25, 2014)

Shambles1980 said:


> 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


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 25, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


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


thats what i think too.. But hey ho.


theoneandonlymrk said:


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


I know of a chip That was supposed to do that but didnt...
Its a bit like having a giant ocean liner thats been built to be un-sinkable but then it sinks.. it has to be considered a fail..


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 25, 2014)

My dicks bigger my cars faster and so is my pc mate and I can prove it.
See I can be a chimp too...

im done here your not using reasoned arguments yourself its fail because its not as advanced as intels best thats absolute ass chowder, its not great but mine works fine..


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 25, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> My dicks bigger my cars faster and so is my pc mate and I can prove it.
> See I can be a chimp too...


lol, i guess a rational and coherent debate is not something you were able to do.. but nvm.


----------



## HammerON (Jun 25, 2014)

Enough of the inappropriate comments. It is time to move along.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 25, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> im done here your not using reasoned arguments yourself its fail because its not as advanced as intels best thats absolute ass chowder, its not great but mine works fine..



no what i said was they set out to do something said what they were going to do. then cut corners, cut costs. and managed to produce a limp wrist-ed Shadow of what they tried to do..

if i set out to build a house to hold 12 people in comfort. using eco friendly materials, and have renewable energy built in so i had no electricity bills.
then decided to cut corners. Ended up with a shed that could hold 4 people cramped made out of cement and its power came from the national grid, that would be a fail..

If i tried to climb mount Everest, arrived at the bottom and decided to take a shortcut that only took me 1/2 way up then i came back down.. That would be a fail..

so if amd say they are going to make a 8 core low tdp high ghz cpu that will show intel whats what. then all they manage is a over clocked cpu that runs hotter than the sun using twice as much power and at best can only manage to achieve similar performance to an intel chip of the same price. then that is a fail..

If they said We are going to make a ridiculously power hungry and hot cpu that has 4 fully featured cores and then 4 kind of bits of cores added on and call it 8 cores. that will just about manage to compete with an i7 but it will cost you twice as much to run and will need a really good mother board and water cooling to even think about achieving its potential.
Then it would have been what they said.. probably wouldnt have been the best marketing idea ever. and probably wouldnt have sold many. but atleast they would have achieved what they set out to do.

thats pretty well explained as in "amd failed to achieve their goal"
Then we have the fact that
It is power hungry needs a expensive mother board and water cooling to perform the same as the same priced i7..
so thats a fail there again. amd are suposed to provide more bang for your buck. but with this chip they managed to provide less than intel did whilst at the same time costing you more in electricity, and making you pay more for a mother board, also you need really good and expensive cooling..
So thats multiple fails on all points.. 

so this chip is a fail.

is that reasoned enough for you "mr lets edit my last word in after i think no one will read any more of this"


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 25, 2014)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Why, when an Intel chip at 4.5ghz is still faster and less power consuming.


Because bragging rights maybe. Sure I can get an AMG A45 AMG which is a little quicker than its rival, BMW M135i but the 135i has a six-cylinder engine vs the four pot in the A45. I'd prefer the 135i just because of that. Also having an underdog product can be awesome if it then comes to out perform its better rival in some task/activity.


Shambles1980 said:


> no what i said was they set out to do something said what they were going to do. then cut corners, cut costs. and managed to produce a limp wrist-ed Shadow of what they tried to do..........................................................................................................................


You seem pretty convinced that this is a fail chip yet you were saying earlier in this thread that because it hasn't been relaunched with its AIO yet we can't say if it will be able to cope without throttling. Should this not be the same for the chips weaknesses too? as well as its strengths?


Shambles1980 said:


> ok.. sorry i didnt know you knew what the power requirements of this new chip was going to be so can guarantee it will oc just fine on those boards..
> perhaps you could let us know what they will be..


Besides Haswell processors don't use much power at all compared to AMDs offerings yet they run pretty damn hot. I'm predicting that watt/degree will be heaps better on AMDs side when we look at what AMD and Intel have produced recently. I doubt that the AMD chip will run into throttling issues.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 25, 2014)

my issue is with the chip its self not the re-release.. adding an aio is simply polishing a turd.
They needed to do much more than just add water cooling for it,
an 8350 is a much better offering from them.
i just dont see the point in getting a chip that even users say mostly wont get to 5ghz due to heat. and review sites say really cant be oc'd past 5.15
when others have gotten an 8350 to 5.5 for less money..
i understand that not all 8350s will get to 5.5 and your mostly looking at around or below 5ghz.
but given its lower thermal throttle point the 9590 is actually going to be 4.7 possibly 5ghz if you have the right cooling but only when not using all cores. and throttle back sooner due to heat than an 8350..
so its worse.. more expensive and just throwing an aio in to the box wont change that.

I will admit they do seem to get more mhz as an avarage, but they use higer v compared to intel.
but my point simply is an 8350 is cheaper can probably achive the same or faster clock speeds with the same board and cooling, and is less likley to throttle due to temps because of a higher ceiling.
that makes the 8350 better in all aspects..

i would like to know what my cpu's tdp is when over clocked. but having said that amd's tdp is rated with all the cool and quiet settings and stuff like that enabled. so they will sail past that tdp when pushed even at stock.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 25, 2014)

The expert speaketh still eh nice


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 25, 2014)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> The expert speaketh still eh nice


butt hurt much?


----------



## RCoon (Jun 25, 2014)

Discussion is over, I've asked for the thread to be locked as the OP. The PR was shown, the debate was had, and the release was detailed.

Party is over, move along, start a different thread if you wish to discuss TDP and CPU design.

It would be nice if somebody was at least a gentleman and decided not to continue crap-posting in order to stop the dick parade in its tracks, but sometimes the stern approach has to be taken.


----------

