# AMD Unleashes First-Ever 5 GHz Processor



## Cristian_25H (Jun 11, 2013)

AMD today unveiled its most powerful member of the legendary AMD FX family of CPUs, the world's first commercially available 5 GHz CPU processor, the AMD FX-9590. These 8-core CPUs deliver new levels of gaming and multimedia performance for desktop enthusiasts. AMD FX-9000 Series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators.

"At E3 this week, AMD demonstrated why it is at the core of gaming," said Bernd Lienhard, corporate vice president and general manager, Client Products Division at AMD. "The new FX 5 GHz processor is an emphatic performance statement to the most demanding gamers seeking ultra-high resolution experiences including AMD Eyefinity technology. This is another proud innovation for AMD in delivering the world's first commercially available 5 GHz processor."



 



"AMD continues to push the envelope when it comes to desktop capabilities and power performance," said Wallace Santos, CEO and founder of MAINGEAR. "In unveiling the world's first 5 GHz 8-core CPU, AMD continues to lead the way in innovation while providing our customers with a best-in-class experience. We are thrilled to be part of this exciting launch."

The new 5 GHz FX-9590 and 4.7 GHz FX-9370 feature the "Piledriver" architecture, are unlocked for easy overclocking and pave the way for enthusiasts to enjoy higher CPU speeds and related performance gains. Additionally, these processors feature AMD Turbo Core 3.0 technology to dynamically optimize performance across CPU cores and enable maximum computing for the most intensive workloads. 

AMD was the first to break the 1 GHz barrier in May of 2000 and continues to set the standard in technology innovation including the first Windows compatible 64-bit PC processor and the first native dual-core and quad-core processors. AMD also introduced the first APU (unifying CPU and Radeon graphics on the same chip) and the first x86 quad-core SoC, continuing forward with HSA architectures and programming models.

The new AMD FX CPUs will be available from system integrators globally beginning this summer. Two models will be available:

FX-9590: Eight "Piledriver" cores, 5 GHz Max Turbo
FX-9370: Eight "Piledriver" cores, 4.7 GHz Max Turbo

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Xenturion (Jun 11, 2013)

I wonder if this will have the 220W TDP. And with that, I wonder what board's VRMs will be able to handle it. I'd imagine AMD will come up with a compatibility list.


----------



## jigar2speed (Jun 11, 2013)

Reviews or this is just a paper lunch.


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

With all these GPU's gobbling up power in excess of 200W, I suppose a higher-powered CPU isn't that outlandish. 

I do also however wonder what this is going to mean for efficiency(probably going way downhill )


----------



## BernardV (Jun 11, 2013)

Single threaded performance will probably still suck as per normal?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 11, 2013)

When can we expect a comparison review please?


----------



## Jorge (Jun 11, 2013)

1. The "reported" 220w number is not necessarily TDP, it is probably total power consumed not power dissipated. TDP is probably more like 165w.

2. Current highend AM3+ mobos with good VRM circuits already run Vishera FX-8350's at ~5.0 GHz. without issue @ 1.5v so no new mobo is required if you have an AM3+ mobo now with a good VRM circuit design.

3. Single thread performance increases with clockspeed just like multi-threading performance

4. Properly written software for 8 -core CPUs such as the FX-8350 have shown as much as a 50% performance advantage over Intel CPUs.

5. AMD continues to up the CPU/APU clockspeeds and that has significant advantage in current APUs and when Kaveri shows up this Fall.


----------



## Melvis (Jun 11, 2013)

5GHz is just insane!!! 

Benchmarks in programs that use 8threads are going to be where these things beat everything else I would near expect? Maybe


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

What are peoples opinions by the way:

Does this chip include some of the mojo which made trinity into richland or,,
Is this chip just the result of heavy binning and upping the TDP?


----------



## Melvis (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> What are peoples opinions by the way:
> 
> Does this chip include some of the mojo which made trinity into richland or,,
> Is this chip just the result of heavy binning and upping the TDP?



Theres gotta be more then just heavy binning and upping the TDP you would have to think?


----------



## blibba (Jun 11, 2013)

Jorge said:


> 1. The "reported" 220w number is not necessarily TDP, it is probably total power consumed not power dissipated. TDP is probably more like 165w.



Conservation of energy. If 220W goes in, 220W goes out.


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

blibba said:


> Conservation of energy. If 220W goes in, 220W goes out.



Aye, but not all as heat, energy can also just flow through it, generating nothing(like it would through an (ideally conductive) wire).


----------



## badtaylorx (Jun 11, 2013)

price???

id like to pick one of these up......but if the price is even close to an intel 3930k im out......


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 11, 2013)

jigar2speed said:


> Reviews or this is just a paper lunch.



An unveiling is not a launch.



Mathragh said:


> Aye, but not all as heat, energy can also just flow through it, generating nothing(like it would through an (ideally conductive) wire).



In that case then energy wouldn't be "consumed", so it wouldn't be "power consumption".


----------



## blibba (Jun 11, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> An unveiling is not a launch.



Or even a lunch


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jun 11, 2013)

blibba said:


> Or even a lunch



Lunch does sound good right now!


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> An unveiling is not a launch.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case then energy wouldn't be "consumed", so it wouldn't be "power consumption".



It would be actually Since it would have been pulled from the net before it ran through the CPU, and because after it ran through the CPU, it wont be usable anymore, it is effectively part of the power used and part of the power consumption.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 11, 2013)

jigar2speed said:


> Reviews or this is just a paper lunch.



Don't remind me of my middleschool years, when I used to munch on my homework in front of my teacher as a protest every once in a while.

back on topic: Indeed, would like more info in this chip. Especially the TDP and pricing...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> It would be actually Since it would have been pulled from the net before it ran through the CPU, and because after it ran through the CPU, it wont be usable anymore, it is effectively part of the power used and part of the power consumption.



That isn't how power works.  Power doesn't become unusable, if it is put back in the system it is usable.  The only way it can become unusable would be for it to be completely removed from the system, and the only way it can be completely removed from the system would be to be turned into heat.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 11, 2013)

blibba said:


> Conservation of energy. If 220W goes in, 220W goes out.





Mathragh said:


> Aye, but not all as heat, energy can also just flow through it, generating nothing(like it would through an (ideally conductive) wire).



Nope. Energy is work done. If it is using 220 W, then it is doing 220 J of work every second.

Work is done when energy changes forms. So when you read 200 W, that means that 220 W of energy is changing forms every second. 

So may people have the idea that energy flows. Physics classes at school must really be failing


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> That isn't how power works.  Power doesn't become unusable, if it is put back in the system it is usable.  The only way it can become unusable would be for it to be completely removed from the system, and the only way it can be completely removed from the system would be to be turned into heat.



Or run through the ground wire/positive wire, exiting the part, and the system(closing the loop). 

Anyway, look it up if you want, or someone with a degree in electrical engineering correct me. Lets not derail this thread more =D

Edit: just think of a short circuit: no all energy is used(transformed in heat), but there is still a lot more energy running through than without a short circuit


----------



## JDG1980 (Jun 11, 2013)

This is disappointing. I had thought that AMD learned the lessons of Bulldozer (more GHz and more cores don't matter if single-thread performance sucks), but this raises some doubts. Up until now I was sure this was a rumor, or perhaps a pre-Rory Read holdover that had been nixed.

Selling this to end users would be crazy. If it really has a 220W TDP as rumored, then a cheap motherboard not only wouldn't be able to support it, but might actually catch on fire. That'll be great publicity for AMD if their CPU burns someone's house down. Sure, they can say it's only supported with certain specific boards, but you know not all end users will listen. That said, the statement that these CPUs "will be available initially in PCs through system integrators" indicates to me that they may not be sold through normal retail channels at all. In which case this is basically a stunt. It reminds me of Intel's Pentium III 1.13 GHz (Coppermine Slot 1), which was basically an overclocked chip designed solely to win back the MHz crown from AMD's Athlon. It, too, was for OEMs only, and was authorized for use only with one specific motherboard. Reviewers found that it couldn't run stable at those speeds and it was recalled shortly thereafter. Sad to see the shoe on the other foot now.

Kaveri and Steamroller can't come soon enough.


----------



## Huguito (Jun 11, 2013)

FX-9590: Eight "Piledriver" cores, 5 GHz *Max Turbo*
FX-9370: Eight "Piledriver" cores, 4.7 GHz *Max Turbo*


max turbo...

MAX... it is NOT going to be ALL cores, MAX turbo works when its a single thread load !!!!

my god, amazing no one knows this already... :shadedshu


----------



## silkstone (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Edit: just think of a short circuit: no all energy is used(transformed in heat), but there is still a lot more energy running through than without a short circuit



You are energy rating with the flow of charge.

You can think of charge flowing back into the power supply is pushed back onto the positive terminal and then ready to be 'used' again.

It's not exactly how it works, and there are inefficiencies (one of the reasons PSU's need fans) but when something 'uses' 220 W of power, all that power is ultimately changed into heat by that component.

An adequate analogy is a water loop. Water flows through the loop, spinning a water-wheel (component) the waterwheel slows down the water where it flows back to another wheel (PSU) which speeds it back up. Any resulting speed that the water carries is carried through the system and water wheel 2 (the PSU) needs to do less work in bringing ti back up to speed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Or run through the ground wire/positive wire, exiting the part, and the system(closing the loop).
> 
> Anyway, look it up if you want, or someone with a degree in electrical engineering correct me. Lets not derail this thread more =D
> 
> Edit: just think of a short circuit: no all energy is used(transformed in heat), but there is still a lot more energy running through than without a short circuit



Short circuits generate massive amounts of heat.  Stuff tends to melt when there is a short circuit...


----------



## ZetZet (Jun 11, 2013)

Huguito said:


> FX-9590: Eight "Piledriver" cores, 5 GHz *Max Turbo*
> FX-9370: Eight "Piledriver" cores, 4.7 GHz *Max Turbo*
> 
> 
> ...



But it will overclock to 5Ghz so easy. ^^


----------



## Huguito (Jun 11, 2013)

ZetZet said:


> But it will overclock to 5Ghz so easy. ^^



1 core @ 5ghz its fairly easy to achive.. 8 cores its a totally diferent history


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Short circuits generate massive amounts of heat.  Stuff tends to melt when there is a short circuit...



Yeah, but only if the wire the short circuit is running through cant handle the current. The real world examples you connect with do no necessarily apply to everything.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Edit: just think of a short circuit: no all energy is used(transformed in heat), but there is still a lot more energy running through than without a short circuit



...yes, electricity flows through it but it doesn't do any work except for the work done by heating the wire. AC doesn't work that way. Remember that current changes directions and un-used electrons that went from hot to neutral go in reverse back from neutral to hot. So any electricity that leaves the circuit and isn't converted into energy will get returned to the PSU, and if you consider electron drift you will see that very slowly, despite electrons moving in both directions, that the overall flow of current is going into the device and not leaving it as electricity, but as heat.



Mathragh said:


> Yeah, but only if the wire the short circuit is running through cant handle the current. The real world examples you connect with do no necessarily apply to everything.



Wattage is *work done* which describes that transfer of energy from one form to another. You're thinking of current which is the flow of electrons, not work done.

Also consider Ohm's law. I = V / R

Unless you have a super conductor, there is always resistance, which means work is done and since electrons can flow freely, you'll heat up that wire really fast off the mains. Either that or you will fry whatever is generating that electricity (or trip a fuse.)


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 11, 2013)

Huguito said:


> max turbo...
> 
> MAX... it is NOT going to be ALL cores, MAX turbo works when its a single thread load !!!!
> 
> my god, amazing no one knows this already... :shadedshu



Which works out very well since applications that work better with high frequencies tend to be single threaded, and applications that don't need high frequencies tend to use multiple cores.

I'm surprised no one knows this already...:shadedshu 



Mathragh said:


> Yeah, but only if the wire the short circuit is running through cant handle the current. The real world examples you connect with do no necessarily apply to everything.



No, heat will still be produced regardless of the wire used.


----------



## Sempron Guy (Jun 11, 2013)

It would be interesting to know how AMD will price these chips and how far the FX9590 can be pushed further maybe 5.5 on a good AIO cooler? ( I wish  )


----------



## silkstone (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Yeah, but only if the wire the short circuit is running through cant handle the current. The real world examples you connect with do no necessarily apply to everything.





Aquinus said:


> ...yes, electricity flows through it but it doesn't do any work except for the work done by heating the wire. AC doesn't work that way. Remember that current changes directions and un-used electrons that went from hot to neutral go in reverse back from neutral to hot. So any electricity that leaves the circuit and isn't converted into energy will get returned to the PSU, and if you consider electron drift you will see that very slowly, despite electrons moving in both directions, that the overall flow of current is going into the device and not leaving it as electricity, but as heat.
> 
> 
> 
> Wattage is *work done* which describes that transfer of energy from one form to another. You're thinking of current which is the flow of electrons, not work done.



I teach this stuff up to grade 12. It fairly easy, but confusing to visualize. Go with the water example I added to my edited post above.

Wattage is power is work done over time. Mathragh is visualising it wrong.

Also the CPU takes DC current, which is quite different (and less complicated) than AC.
But, you are right that he is thinking of current. Where current in = current out (always)
Energy in =/= Energy out. But, you don;t look at the energy coming out of a system to determine the amount of energy used by that system.

You need to look at the voltage drop across the component to determine how much energy has been used (Voltage is joules per coulomb)


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Energy in =/= Energy out and is quite different.



This is what I meant, thanks. I do know current stays exactly the same, but apparently I'm not always as clear as I think I am when I'm explaining what I'm thinking. 
Lol, sorry for all the pants I got in a twist people .

Anyway, back on topic, and restating my former question: 

Does this chip involve some new mojo(trinity->richland mojo?(sort of)) or,

Just an aggressive binning of vishera?

I personally think it's just binning, but that would mean that they could potentially also implement the new turbo to current lower-end vishera chips.

Edit: 





silkstone said:


> You need to look at the voltage drop across the component to determine how much energy has been used (Voltage is joules per coulomb)



Thanks again, this was the point I was trying to make, but apparently didn't have the words for. When current leaves the chip, its not at 0V, but its also not useable anymore, so its effectively wasted energy. Ofc all appliances work like this, but in this case, it is the difference between the power consumption, and heat generated(someone again correct me if i'm wrong)


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> When current leaves the chip, its not at 0V, but its also not useable anymore, so its effectively wasted energy.



Well, that depends. You have your voltage going in and you have the current flowing towards ground. Ground is 0v, yes, but if the CPU is the only resistive load between the voltage source and the ground, then the voltage between the ground and the CPU is 0v. If there is voltage between ground the CPU, that means there is a second resistive load between the CPU and ground which uses a portion of that voltage, which would result in less voltage for the CPU. That would indicate something other than CPU is doing work (like the VRMs, they get release heat too,) but even then, that's before the voltage going into the CPU. The loss is inside the VRM itself and that makes the CPU the second load.

So I disagree. I think the CPU is the only major resistive load there and that after the CPU, the voltage is very much so 0v. The current may be several amps though, varying with load.

I'm done talking about circuits though, we digress way too much for our own good. Hopefully this chip will be able to squeeze more than stock speeds out of it with something other than phase change.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 11, 2013)

Not exactly.

Power consumption = Heat generated. It's by definition. Basically, if power is used then energy has changed forms.

The potential drop across a component will only be different from the potential difference across the terminals of the supply if you have other elements in series.

Voltage is measured in Joules per Coulmb. It is the amount to energy stored in the electrons' electric fields due to their proximity. 

Think about having rubber balls (electrons) all squashed together at one side and rubber balls far apart next to them, but separated by a 1-way barrier.

When you create a path for the rubber balls to flow (creating a circuit) the balls are going to push away from each other at the one end, go down the path (the cpu) be slowed down and push into the rubber balls at the other end which are further apart.

When they are pushed into those balls at the other end, with some extra help, they are going to push those rubber balls through the barrier in to the rest of the squashed rubber balls.

The rubber balls themselves are not used up, they don't disappear or go anywhere, they just lose energy as they travel down the path.

I believe the potential difference across a CPU is controlled very tightly by the NB. If you increase the voltage (potential difference) across the CPU, it starts using more energy and overheats.

The CPU will have a power rating at a certain number of volts. Increasing the voltage will cause the power used to go up as you are causing the CPU to use more voltage.

The rate at which electrons can carry energy out of the CPU is limited and would be very very minimal. But again, that energy they carry is "re-used."

To get into details would be too involved, and I have to admit, I don't understand it 100% as it's been a long time since studying it at Uni.

Edit - I found a water analogy illustration:


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> When current leaves the chip, its not at 0V, but its also not useable anymore, so its effectively wasted energy.



Current is in Amperes not Volts. Additionally you are using the term energy too loosely. Energy in terms of circuits is in Joules. A Joule can be called a W*s (Watt * second). A watt is a unit of power and you're using that term in the same sentence as current as if current and energy are interchangeable terms...


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 11, 2013)

silkstone said:


> The CPU will have a power rating at a certain number of volts. Increasing the voltage will cause the power used to go up as you are causing the CPU to use more voltage.



I want to work off this phrase to make it more clear.

The CPU will consume so much power with a certain number of volts some some load that is consistent. Increasing the voltage will cause the power used to go up because more voltage allows more current to flow with the same amount of resistance in the circuit. Heat is generated by the flow of electrons (current) through a resistive medium. The heat energy released is directly proportional to the resistance multiplied by the square of the current. So as current increases and resistance remains the same, for any increase in current will cause heat to increase exponentially.

The only reason voltage impacts the amount energy being released as heat is because, generally speaking, resistance isn't changing a whole lot under a constant unchanging load and higher voltages make it easier for electrons to flow through a medium. The only other way to increase current without increasing voltage is to reduce the amount of resistance and the best way to do this is to make the CPU very, very cold (hence LN2 and phase change).


----------



## Norton (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Does this chip involve some new mojo(trinity->richland mojo?(sort of)) or,
> 
> Just an aggressive binning of vishera?
> 
> I personally think it's just binning, but that would mean that they could potentially also implement the new turbo to current lower-end vishera chips.



My thought is that this may be a little of both- agressive binning is the most likely source but I would not be surprised if there are some elements of Steamroller baked into these chips.

AMD went with a more modular design since Bulldozer so it may be possible that certain design elements that are ready to go from Steamroller have been added into the chip.... it may be as simple as a cut and paste on the chip layout prior to making the wafer. 

or not 

Anyone see any reason into the numbering scheme for these?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Jun 11, 2013)

you guys need a life, a girlfriend, something...


----------



## Norton (Jun 11, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> you guys need a life, a girlfriend, something...



My wife won't let me have a girlfriend   nvm

Why?


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 11, 2013)

i think the 220W was for the other extreme chip.

plus 220W is the max TDP,. no matter how hard you overclock it wont go past 220W!


----------



## silkstone (Jun 11, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> i think the 220W was for the other extreme chip.
> 
> plus 220W is the max TDP,. no matter how hard you overclock it wont go past 220W!



Not true.

"The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, refers to the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate. The TDP is typically not the most power the chip could ever draw, such as by a power virus, but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running "real applications". This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power)" - Wikipedia


----------



## bacan (Jun 11, 2013)

It looks like these CPUs are OEM models only. (retail maybe later)
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Specials/FX-9590-FX-9370-AMD-Centurion-1073412/


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 11, 2013)

Prima.Vera said:


> you guys need a life, a girlfriend, something...



But getting a girlfriend would mean spending a lot of money on her [both directly and indirectly]. Meanwhile, that money could be spent on much more important things - like these kind of chips, for example.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 11, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> Yeah, but only if the wire the short circuit is running through cant handle the current. The real world examples you connect with do no necessarily apply to everything.



These are binned chips and don't use as many volts as 8350's at 5GHz. I would assume around 1.5 volts which any board can handle.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 11, 2013)

JDG1980 said:


> This is disappointing. I had thought that AMD learned the lessons of Bulldozer (more GHz and more cores don't matter if single-thread performance sucks), but this raises some doubts. Up until now I was sure this was a rumor, or perhaps a pre-Rory Read holdover that had been nixed.



Firstly, AMD couldn't give a rats ass if you liked Bulldozer, it made them money.

Actually, more GHz does increase single threaded performance otherwise us enthusiasts wouldn't bother overclocking.

If AMD have the technology to release a 5GHz CPU on air, then why not? Surely going down in the record books as the first is a big achievement. Think of all the positive press they'll get which translates into free marketing and increased brand awareness and sales.


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 11, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> I would assume around 1.5 volts which any board can handle.



My 8350 already does 5 GHz @ 1.5V. I expect better than that. Seems pretty simple for AMD to do this, to me. They could have been binning for this 5 GHz chip since they started making Vishera, a long long time ago, in a distant land, with fairies.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 11, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Not true.
> 
> "The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, refers to the maximum amount of power the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate. The TDP is typically not the most power the chip could ever draw, such as by a power virus, but rather the maximum power that it would draw when running "real applications". This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power)" - Wikipedia



exactly what i said. its the max power draw.
however i have heard that intel does things a bit differently. they take the RMS or something


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 11, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> they take the RMS or something



Wha? Stallman?


----------



## silkstone (Jun 11, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> exactly what i said. its the max power draw.
> however i have heard that intel does things a bit differently. they take the RMS or something



You said the opposite. 220 W is the standard application maximum power draw. It other situations, it will easily exceed that. It can easily exceed that number. I think that it is given so that companies will know what they should set as a minimum for their heatsink design.

RMS is for AC where you have a wave-like potential difference. But, yes, they calculate it differently from AMD and Nvidia.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 11, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> My 8350 already does 5 GHz @ 1.5V. I expect better than that. Seems pretty simple for AMD to do this, to me. They could have been binning for this 5 GHz chip since they started making Vishera, a long long time ago, in a distant land, with fairies.



As does mine. I would be more interested in this chip if it were 28nm or 22nm.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 11, 2013)

Ravenas said:


> As does mine. I would be more interested in this chip if it were 28nm or 22nm.



AMD is not quite there yet


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 11, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> AMD is not quite there yet



I know they aren't, but I wish they were.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 11, 2013)

Interesting! AMD, first again!

Still no love...

I'd like to see some reviews pl0x guyes


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 11, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Interesting! AMD, first again!
> 
> Still no love...
> 
> I'd like to see some reviews pl0x guyes



Ya, dumbtard persons who do not know what is up see AMD at 5GHz and Intel at 3.5GHz....... AMD wins by default.  


AMD will ride this wave as long as they can.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 11, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Ya, dumbtard persons who do not know what is up see AMD at 5GHz and Intel at 3.5GHz....... AMD wins by default.
> 
> 
> AMD will ride this wave as long as they can.



I have officially been upgraded to "Dumbtard"! 

AMD got you mad again Dr? I think you need a sammich!


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 11, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> I have officially been upgraded to "Dumbtard"!
> 
> AMD got you mad again Dr? I think you need a sammich!



Nah I am good, eating a Jimmy johns ATM!

Your not a dumbtard sir


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 11, 2013)

The real question I have is how much higher will it go and how much more power will it have to chomp down to do it if it can? Only time will tell.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 11, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Nah I am good, eating a Jimmy johns ATM!
> 
> Your not a dumbtard sir



But... But... I don't wanna be a dingus mah whole life! 

pl0x dunt kall mi Sur... I'm just a d00fus


----------



## m1dg3t (Jun 11, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> The real question I have is how much higher will it go and how much more power will it have to chomp down to do it if it can? Only time will tell.



The headroom should tell if it was binning or silicon improvements. I would think.


----------



## Ravenas (Jun 11, 2013)

I just want to see the overclocking ability. Oh... and the idle temps.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 11, 2013)

Ravenas said:


> I just want to see the overclocking ability. Oh... and the idle temps.



Seeing they are binned chips, they would certainly do better that 8350's. how good? Each chip would most likely not be the same....


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 11, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> My 8350 already does 5 GHz @ 1.5V. I expect better than that. Seems pretty simple for AMD to do this, to me. They could have been binning for this 5 GHz chip since they started making Vishera, a long long time ago, in a distant land, with fairies.



Show off  ill get there eventually


----------



## cdawall (Jun 11, 2013)

Aquinus said:


> The real question I have is how much higher will it go and how much more power will it have to chomp down to do it if it can? Only time will tell.



Who cares how much power it uses. It is an enthusiast series chip they are not designed to be mainstream or low power. I am more curious about the actual release date and price. I have been patiently waiting to get an FX series chip and I feel like this will be my one.


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 11, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Who cares how much power it uses. It is an enthusiast series chip they are not designed to be mainstream or low power. I am more curious about the actual release date and price. I have been patiently waiting to get an FX series chip and I feel like this will be my one.



I sincerely for your sake then hope that they will also release them to consumers at some point, because as it stands now, they'll only be available to system builders (atleast initially)

"Moreover, the chips will be available to system makers only, which suggests that they need more sophisticated cooling systems than typically utilized by end-users."


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 11, 2013)

and, let me guess. im most applications, a core i5 running at 4 GHz will easily destroy this thing, or in applications that actually use 8 cores, performance will be similar to the two. This is coming from someone who has benched his 4 GHZ 3570k with his friends fx-8350 that already hits 5 GHz. not all that impressed with this chip...


----------



## OneCool (Jun 11, 2013)

6 GHZ ON AIR COMING SOON!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DinaAngel (Jun 11, 2013)

now just intel must come out with 5ghz 8 core cpu!! 
i wonder how far u can overclock these 5ghz AMD cpus


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 11, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> and, let me guess. im most applications, a core i5 running at 4 GHz will easily destroy this thing, or in applications that actually use 8 cores, performance will be similar to the two. This is coming from someone who has benched his 4 GHZ 3570k with his friends fx-8350 that already hits 5 GHz. not all that impressed with this chip...



Guess again


----------



## BigMack70 (Jun 11, 2013)

Unless these things can hit 6 GHz on air cooling, I don't see the point over the 8350


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 11, 2013)

m1dg3t said:


> Interesting! AMD, first again!


Yeah, except for the small matter of IBM having a 5 GHz CPU in the marketplace for over 5 years, AMD are No1.


Jorge said:


> Properly written software for 8 -core CPUs such as the FX-8350 have shown as much as a 50% performance advantage over Intel CPUs.


Time to shoot that particular lame horse Jorge. "As much as" is 1. a relative term (especially in light of performance-per-watt), and 2. When you have to hunt assiduously for benchmarks that show a product in a good light, its not a good sign.
Even worse a sign is when AMD's own management come out with stuff like this:


> *Bulldozer was without doubt an unmitigated failure. We know it... It cost the CEO his job, it cost most of the management team its job, it cost the vice president of engineering his job. You have a new team. We are crystal clear that that sort of failure is unacceptable.*- Andrew Feldman ( corporate vice president and general manager of the server business unit at AMD)





Dent1 said:


> Firstly, AMD couldn't give a rats ass if you liked Bulldozer, it made them money.


...but not a lot once you take into account the write downs associated with Globalfoundries 32nm process. Not to mention 6+ years of R&D...and maybe Dirk Meyers severance package.
Bulldozer as Opteron was obviously so good that AMD's server market share only started moving upwards when they started putting ARM into the enterprise sector (via SeaMicro)


----------



## esrever (Jun 11, 2013)

some people just don't know the first law of thermal dynamics.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 11, 2013)

esrever said:


> some people just don't know the first law of thermal dynamics.


Does it involve two people in the same sleeping bag?


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 11, 2013)

ahem, the 8350 is pretty competitive with the 3770, and this is pile driver, not bulldozer.
and synthetic benchmarks dont mean shit.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 12, 2013)

Mathragh said:


> I sincerely for your sake then hope that they will also release them to consumers at some point, because as it stands now, they'll only be available to system builders (atleast initially)
> 
> "Moreover, the chips will be available to system makers only, which suggests that they need more sophisticated cooling systems than typically utilized by end-users."



I don't care if the release it to system builders only simply means I have to order it out of Asia on ebay. Not exactly a big deal.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 12, 2013)

PIE- power = voltage * current increase or decrease any of those values will determine how much or less power is used.


----------



## bim27142 (Jun 12, 2013)

So... AMD is back on the GHz race now...


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> ahem, the 8350 is pretty competitive with the 3770, and this is pile driver, not bulldozer.
> and synthetic benchmarks dont mean shit.



Depends on what metric you are using.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 12, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Depends on what metric you are using.



Most multithreaded apps do rather like piledriver.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jun 12, 2013)

last week i tested a Powercolor 7950 *V2* vs which was built in Calendar week 5 of 2010! (my old 6970 was built in calendar week 15 of 2010!!) It only had *58% Asic Quality, lowest i have ever found* but if they had functional 28nm, even in GPU segment, over 3 years ago...in *V2!* they are years in front of what they show the public.

so, what now?


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 12, 2013)

Velvet Wafer said:


> last week i tested a Powercolor 7950 *V2* vs which was built in Calendar week 5 of 2010! (my old 6970 was built in calendar week 15 of 2010!!) It only had *58% Asic Quality, lowest i have ever found* but if they had functional 28nm, even in GPU segment, over 3 years ago...in *V2!* they are years in front of what they show the public.
> 
> so, what now?



And the FX-8320 I've bought in 2012Q4 was made in in 2011.
Now *add many more examples here*

Well, yes - they only release stuff after they get a f***ton made + other sh*t. It often takes more than a year for chips to be released after they start making them.
So, what's Your point?
(On the same note - I also bet Your ass both Volcanic Islands and Steamrollers were already being produced for a while now.)


----------



## Recus (Jun 12, 2013)

Vinska said:


> But getting a girlfriend would mean spending a lot of money on her [both directly and indirectly]. Meanwhile, that money could be spent on much more important things - like these kind of chips, for example.



I know somebody turn their fists into girlfriend, but this...


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 12, 2013)

@Recus
You should add a boner going in from behind on the Xbone one, a face that feels like "meh" on the PS4 one and make the AMD one to be an awesome one PLUS trippy eyes and a f***ton of swag around, w/ a bunch of weed around.


----------



## D007 (Jun 12, 2013)

Lol only a month ago I said. "Haswell,? Unless it has a standard 5 ghz, I'm not even considering upgrading.. Well done AMD.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jun 12, 2013)

Vinska said:


> @Recus
> You should add a boner going in from behind on the Xbone one.



Why? Because it represents some kind of compulsive disorder, or because it calls to your artistic side ?


----------



## DigitalUK (Jun 12, 2013)

This is more than just high binning, ive used a fair few piledriver 8350's and none of them would do 5Ghz on 1.5v stable (by stable i mean prime or ibt and core temps 62c or under) and you sure as hell wont get anywhere near 5ghz on stock cooling. if they are 5Ghz with turbo stock as with every other Bulldozer/Piledriver (8core) chip ive ever had should be able to get 5.5Ghz out of it easy with good cooling.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 12, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Guess again



yeah, a 5-10% performance lead in stuff like 3d rendering isnt worth losing the same amount of performance in everything else, and drawing more than double the power of an equivalent intel chip. the 125 watt fx 8350 drew over 184 watts at full load, so i cant imagine how much this thing must gulp down. my i5, running at 4 GHz while undervolted, only pulls about 40 watts. and the 5 ghz 8350 can barely keep up, while pulling over 200 watts. not worth it in any sense of the word.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 12, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> yeah, a 5-10% performance lead in stuff like 3d rendering isnt worth losing the same amount of performance in everything else, and drawing more than double the power of an equivalent intel chip. the 125 watt fx 8350 drew over 184 watts at full load, so i cant imagine how much this thing must gulp down. my i5, running at 4 GHz while undervolted, only pulls about 40 watts. and the 5 ghz 8350 can barely keep up, while pulling over 200 watts. not worth it in any sense of the word.



Pass what you have been smoking.  Their mobile chips at load pull that. You sir are being rather fanboyish and making statistics up.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 12, 2013)

Yeah, what cdawall said.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 12, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> yeah, a 5-10% performance lead in stuff like 3d rendering isnt worth losing the same amount of performance in everything else, and drawing more than double the power of an equivalent intel chip. the 125 watt fx 8350 drew over 184 watts at full load, so i cant imagine how much this thing must gulp down. my i5, running at 4 GHz while undervolted, only pulls about 40 watts. and the 5 ghz 8350 can barely keep up, while pulling over 200 watts. not worth it in any sense of the word.



You should start providing proof of that because that's the biggest load of crap I've heard.  5-10% is the difference in IPC between the two CPUs and I seriously doubt that any i5 could achieve this while under-volting it. Not to mention that a 50% increase in clock would overcome a 5-10% drop on *single threaded performance only* so you're numbers are a bit contradictory my friend.

I expect to see two pictures with multi-meters to be proving your point if you're going to make such a claim.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Pass what you have been smoking.  Their mobile chips at load pull that. You sir are being rather fanboyish and making statistics up.



I want some of your good stuff too, a loaded 3570K 4.0Ghz takes in more than 100w from the wall. At least among those I have seen (relatively few, I must admit).


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 12, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> yeah, a 5-10% performance lead in stuff like 3d rendering isnt worth losing the same amount of performance in everything else, and drawing more than double the power of an equivalent intel chip. the 125 watt fx 8350 drew over 184 watts at full load, so i cant imagine how much this thing must gulp down. my i5, running at 4 GHz while undervolted, only pulls about 40 watts. and the 5 ghz 8350 can barely keep up, while pulling over 200 watts. not worth it in any sense of the word.



Your logic is backwards, Intel's most formidable advantage is just in gaming. AMD dominates most other tasks in the same price bracket.

I would rather lose 5-10% in gaming, and gain 5-10% in everything else.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jun 12, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> yeah, a 5-10% performance lead in stuff like 3d rendering isnt worth losing the same amount of performance in everything else, and drawing more than double the power of an equivalent intel chip. the 125 watt fx 8350 drew over 184 watts at full load, so i cant imagine how much this thing must gulp down. my i5, running at 4 GHz while undervolted, only pulls about 40 watts. and the 5 ghz 8350 can barely keep up, while pulling over 200 watts. not worth it in any sense of the word.



ahh but you see, the AMD has dragons in its CPU (which is why tehy symbolize with the dragon thing)
Dragons breathe fire, and fire causes more heat. i bet if you ask the fellow dragon you are seeing around you now, he will confirm the same


----------



## DigitalUK (Jun 12, 2013)

i thought it was scorpions in the FX chips, dragons were in the phenom II's


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 12, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> yeah, a 5-10% performance lead in stuff like 3d rendering isnt worth losing the same amount of performance in everything else, and drawing more than double the power of an equivalent intel chip. the 125 watt fx 8350 drew over 184 watts at full load, so i cant imagine how much this thing must gulp down. my i5, running at 4 GHz while undervolted, only pulls about 40 watts. and the 5 ghz 8350 can barely keep up, while pulling over 200 watts. not worth it in any sense of the word.



Guess again... You don't get why they released this chip do ya?


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2013)

Dent1 said:


> Your logic is backwards, Intel's most formidable advantage is just in gaming. AMD dominates most other tasks in the same price bracket.
> 
> I would rather lose 5-10% in gaming, and gain 5-10% in everything else.



Or you can get best of both worlds with 4770k: better gaming and better multi threaded. For a premium of course.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 12, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Or you can get best of both worlds with 4770k: better gaming and better multi threaded. For a premium of course.


I don't see  any 4770ks doing 5ghz and anyone can get the max from a 4770k , its 4.3


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 12, 2013)

I think AMD would be making a big mistake releasing this chip. If they are going to make an enthusiast chip, they need to apply this to a Steamroller part, not Piledriver cores.  We all know the performance of an 8350, we don't need one with a higher clock rate, what we need is a Steamroller FX chip.  Chop chop!

Edit:  Okay, so looking back on my original 'wrench in the mix' post, I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "mistake".  I should replaced it with "disappointment".  

To me, even though it's a good thing that they have matured their process to the point where they can turn up the speed on their existing enthusiast chip, as an AMD fan I say, "Big deal."  They're turning up the speed on an architecture that we all know is lacking.  I am one of the biggest AMD enthusiasts I know and Bulldozer was one of the biggest let downs/disappointments ever.  I retain my PII@4GHz, because Bulldozer wasn't even an upgrade.  Single core IPC was terrible in comparison.  We were all facepalming.  So we waited, for Piledriver, hoping that it would redeem AMD, but when it came out, yeah, it was better, but it was still lackluster.  Only a small jump in performance.  They said it would use much less power, but it uses almost the same.  It's still the power hungry, weak single core IPC, CPU we all know.  The improvements are nice, but not enough to make a fan like me finally jump out of my chair with excitement.  

Steamroller on the other hand, now THAT is what will do it.  That is the chip that will finally give AMD fans something to be excited about.  They rehired Jim Keller, they realized many of the shortcomings of the architecture, and are finally implementing the changes needed to truly achieve what they wanted to achieve with the modular design in the first place.  Some rumors state 15-20% improvement in IPC.  Other's state 30%.  I've even read 40% that someone said was leaked from an AMD engineer.  Regardless or what it is, the fact that we can expect 15-40% improvement in IPC is finally something really look forward to.  I couldn't care less about speeding up Piledriver.  I want Steamroller.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 12, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> AMD would be making a big mistake releasing this chip. If they are going to make an enthusiast chip, they need to apply this to a Steamroller part, not Piledriver cores.  We all know the performance of an 8350, we don't need one with a higher clock rate, what we need is a Steamroller FX chip.  Chop chop!



Why they have the silicone its not exactly going to hurt profits to sell something they already have at a higher price.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 12, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> AMD would be making a big mistake releasing this chip. If they are going to make an enthusiast chip, they need to apply this to a Steamroller part, not Piledriver cores.  We all know the performance of an 8350, we don't need one with a higher clock rate, what we need is a Steamroller FX chip.  Chop chop!



Your  missing the point. 2% of users know this but 98% don't. They will see a 5GHz core speed and buy a system or chip based upon this. This has nothing to do with your personal view and will add revenue for AMD. They are not making a mistake.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 12, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Your  missing the point. 2% of users know this but 98% don't. They will see a 5GHz core speed and buy a system or chip based upon this. This has nothing to do with your personal view and will add revenue for AMD. They are not making a mistake.



In terms of missing points...you do know that the general purpose of forum threads is to for people to hold conversations and discussion, which, if you weren't already aware, include personal views, right?  

You also fail to realize your hypocrisy in that your belief that it "will" add revenue and that AMD is not making a mistake is also a personal one.  

All I can say is that we should agree to disagree and since Steamroller is around the corner already, once the FX version is out and AMD posts their dismal sales numbers for 9000 series FX chips, I may or may not make fun of you.   Only time will tell.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 12, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> In terms of missing points...you do know that the general purpose of forum threads is to for people to hold conversations and discussion, which, if you weren't already aware, include personal views, right?
> 
> You also fail to realize your hypocrisy in that your belief that it "will" add revenue and that AMD is not making a mistake is also a personal one.
> 
> All I can say is that we should agree to disagree and since Steamroller is around the corner already, once the FX version is out and AMD posts their dismal sales numbers for 9000 series FX chips, I may or may not make fun of you.   Only time will tell.




I did not mean to offend you, just spelling out the facts. Overclocking a FX-8350 to 5GHz also gives a 20-25% performance increase and some will pay the premium to have a default CPU at 5GHz. 

Steam Roller will be lucky to hit the shelves by 2014. You will make fun of me??? I have done many AMD processor reviews and AMD always pushes back their releases. So steamroller is not around the corner but in the meantime, they have marketed the first 5GHz CPU.




> "AMD continues to push the envelope when it comes to desktop capabilities and power performance," said Wallace Santos, CEO and founder of MAINGEAR. "In unveiling the world's first 5 GHz 8-core CPU, AMD continues to lead the way in innovation while providing our customers with a best-in-class experience. We are thrilled to be part of this exciting launch."



My so called Hypocrosy is not that rather turned around to yourself. Obviously you know what retails and what doesn't. These processors are for OEM manufacturers to start and if they did not have a commitment from them, I am sure captain AMD would not produce them.

The cost of manufacturing these chips does not change from FX-8350's thus capturing higher margins for AMD. Remember, these are not specialize CPU's rather higher binned chips. (I hope you realize this)


----------



## Fourstaff (Jun 12, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> I did not mean to offend you, just spelling out the facts. Overclocking a FX-8350 to 5GHz also gives a 20-25% performance increase and some will pay the premium to have a default CPU at 5GHz.
> 
> Steam Roller will be lucky to hit the shelves by 2014. You will make fun of me??? I have done many AMD processor reviews and AMD always pushes back their releases. So steamroller is not around the corner but in the meantime, they have marketed the first 5GHz CPU.



Chill guys, this is starting to get personal. Continue poking at each other and I will need to hand out "presents"


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 12, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> Chill guys, this is starting to get personal. Continue poking at each other and I will need to hand out "presents"



Just debating, Not intended to start anything personal.....


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> In terms of missing points...you do know that the general purpose of forum threads is to for people to hold conversations and discussion, which, if you weren't already aware, include personal views, right?
> 
> You also fail to realize your hypocrisy in that your belief that it "will" add revenue and that AMD is not making a mistake is also a personal one.
> 
> All I can say is that we should agree to disagree and since Steamroller is around the corner already, once the FX version is out and AMD posts their dismal sales numbers for 9000 series FX chips, I may or may not make fun of you.   Only time will tell.



Look up marketing ploy. That is all this is. They could sell one of these and it will still make the point of being the first 5ghz CPU to hit the market. Intel did the exact same thing over exaggerating P4's clockspeed when AMD K8 based chips performed substantially better (not this 5-10% BS). Uneducated people buy big numbers. This CPU is a big number the highest number as a matter of fact. It is already proven at that speed that they perform quite well, as good if not better across the board than a 3770K at stock. Since not everyone overclocks this will be one of the highest performing CPU's on the market.


----------



## mandis (Jun 13, 2013)

cdawall said:


> It is already proven at that speed that they perform quite well, as good if not better across the board than a 3770K at stock. Since not everyone overclocks this will be one of the highest performing CPU's on the market.



Have a look at this: AMD FX 8350 vs i7 (1155 & 2011)

I suppose it all comes down to what you use your pc for and how much you're willing to spend on it. So as per the video link above, I too don't think all of intel's offerings are really "intelligent" purchaces...


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 13, 2013)

"But... but... *muh games*!"

(*not* directed at the post above. I don't have time to watch that video right now, so I can't respond to it  )


----------



## cdawall (Jun 13, 2013)

I really hope they give me a free game with these new processors too.


----------



## Super XP (Jun 14, 2013)

Can you imagine a 5GHz Steamroller based CPU 
The only issue I have with these new Piledriver CPUs is the naming scheme. I don't like it, they should have kept Piledriver in the FX-8000 series and move Steamroller to either FX-9000 and/or FX-10000.
What are they going to name the Steamroller cores then? FX-1050 and FX-1070 or something


----------



## xorbe (Jun 14, 2013)

Super XP said:


> Can you imagine a 5GHz Steamroller based CPU
> The only issue I have with these new Piledriver CPUs is the naming scheme. I don't like it, they should have kept Piledriver in the FX-8000 series and move Steamroller to either FX-9000 and/or FX-10000.
> What are they going to name the Steamroller cores then? FX-1050 and FX-1070 or something



Probably FX-8*5*50?


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 14, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Look up marketing ploy. That is all this is. They could sell one of these and it will still make the point of being the first 5ghz CPU to hit the market. Intel did the exact same thing over exaggerating P4's clockspeed when AMD K8 based chips performed substantially better (not this 5-10% BS). Uneducated people buy big numbers. This CPU is a big number the highest number as a matter of fact. It is already proven at that speed that they perform quite well, as good if not better across the board than a 3770K at stock. Since not everyone overclocks this will be one of the highest performing CPU's on the market.



The fact that it's a marketing ploy is obvious, it's written on the wall.  They want to boast the 5GHz number and sure, go ahead, but I disagree that people will mindlessly see 5GHz and flock to AMD.  People who were burnt with that the first time with Bulldozer learned their lesson.  They will know to research ahead of time.  The Bulldozer debacle also created enough of a stir in the community that just about everyone knows that the Bulldozer arch isn't as good, even with higher clocks than Intel and in a lot of cases, even not as good as their old Stars architecture.  I believe that most people who are looking to purchase FX chips are enthusiasts and know exactly what they are buying.  5GHz, although a high clock and a first for a stock part isn't all that great once you know that it's AMD's architecture.

Now, to say that it will beat a 3770K at stock across the board is plainly and simply wrong.  

Feel free, like I did, to go ahead and calculate the performance, adding 20% (and that's being generous as performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed) to any of the AMD FX8350 benchmarks and you will find that *most* of the time (note that I did not say all), even with the additional 20%, the FX8350 still performs worse than the 3770K, although it is close, with the FX8350 winning in some of the more multithread focused benchmarks.

The problem is simply with the architecture.  IPC has been AMD's biggest problem since they decided to go modular.  It wasn't even as good as their old architecture.  They made some improvements with the Piledriver update, but it just wasn't enough.  

Steamroller with it's providing each core with it's own instruction decoder instead of having to share one, with both of these decoders being able to operate in parallel instead of having to alternate every other cycle, will finally create IPC greater than Stars cores and something that will finally compete with Intel.  That is what I will be upgrading to when it comes out.  

People like me are not going to waste their money on Piledriver cores when we could just go and get a 2600K, 3770K, or 4770K, or wait for Steamroller and finally have a better performing rig.

Here, I took a slide from Anand and added a Steamroller column for comparison.  You can see why Steamroller will finally be the change everyone will want.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 14, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> The fact that it's a marketing ploy is obvious, it's written on the wall.  They want to boast the 5GHz number and sure, go ahead, but I disagree that people will mindlessly see 5GHz and flock to AMD.  People who were burnt with that the first time with Bulldozer learned their lesson.  They will know to research ahead of time.  The Bulldozer debacle also created enough of a stir in the community that just about everyone knows that the Bulldozer arch isn't as good, even with higher clocks than Intel and in a lot of cases, even not as good as their old Stars architecture.  I believe that most people who are looking to purchase FX chips are enthusiasts and know exactly what they are buying.  5GHz, although a high clock and a first for a stock part isn't all that great once you know that it's AMD's architecture.



There are plenty of people who own and still use bulldozer chips without any issues.



MLScrow said:


> Now, to say that it will beat a 3770K at stock across the board is plainly and simply wrong.



Pretty much across the board it will win. The 8350 already encodes faster and runs well coded multithreaded apps better, the extra clock will speed up the single threaded IPC issues in applications that had an issue so I fail to see were my statement was wrong.



MLScrow said:


> Feel free, like I did, to go ahead and calculate the performance, adding 20% (and that's being generous as performance doesn't scale linearly with clock speed) to any of the AMD FX8350 benchmarks and you will find that *most*of the time (note that I did not say all) , even with the additional 20%, the FX8350 still performs worse than the 3770K.



in?



MLScrow said:


> The problem is simply with the architecture.  IPC has been AMD's biggest problem since they decided to go modular.  It wasn't even as good as their old architecture.  They made some improvements with the Piledriver update, but it just wasn't enough.



I love how people bring up IPC and have no idea what it is. There is no given number to IPC it depends entirely on application.



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> The number of instructions per second for a processor can be derived by multiplying the instructions per cycle and the clock speed (measured in cycles per second or Hertz) of the processor in question. The number of instructions per second is an approximate indicator of the likely performance of the processor.
> 
> The number of instructions executed per clock is not a constant for a given processor; it depends on how the particular software being run interacts with the processor, and indeed the entire machine, particularly the memory hierarchy. However, certain processor features tend to lead to designs that have higher-than-average IPC values; the presence of multiple arithmetic logic units (an ALU is a processor subsystem that can perform elementary arithmetic and logical operations), and short pipelines. When comparing different instruction sets, a simpler instruction set may lead to a higher IPC figure than an implementation of a more complex instruction set using the same chip technology; however, the more complex instruction set may be able to achieve more useful work with fewer instructions.







MLScrow said:


> Steamroller with it's providing each core with it's own instruction decoder instead of having to share one, with both of these decoders being able to operate in parallel instead of having to alternate every other cycle, will finally create IPC greater than Stars cores and something that will finally compete with Intel.  That is what I will be upgrading to when it comes out.



So you just posted to troll AMD's attempt to make more money out of a product they already have. You do understand without the money from bulldozer and piledriver AMD doesn't exist. They have the processors and need to sell them to make profits to fund new product developement.



MLScrow said:


> People like me are not going to waste their money on Piledriver cores when we could just go and get a 2600K, 3770K, or 4770K, or wait for Steamroller and finally have a better performing rig.



Better performing in WHAT. People like you are past frustrating. If you want to go play futuremark then go do it on intel. It is well known even when AMD was better performing that still fell to intel same for many many benchmarks. I personally prefer something that works and for what I do the FX9590 would be a drop in performance upgrade that will cost substantially less than ANY intel option. Smart guys like me purchased an upgrade path and have chosen to make incremental upgrades.



MLScrow said:


> Here, I took a slide from Anand and added a Steamroller column for comparison.  You can see why Steamroller will finally be the change everyone will want.
> 
> http://imageshack.us/a/img89/1750/steamrollerdecodingg.png



When the benchmarks roll out I will care until then pictures on a screen mean nothing. AMD and intel have proven time after time things change.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 14, 2013)

cdawall said:


> There are plenty of people who own and still use bulldozer chips without any issues.



Uh, where did I say anything about anyone with Bulldozer chips having issues?  



cdawall said:


> Pretty much across the board it will win. The 8350 already encodes faster and runs well coded multithreaded apps better, the extra clock will speed up the single threaded IPC issues in applications that had an issue so I fail to see were my statement was wrong.



No, not "pretty much across the board".  Again, go and calculate the performance.  Take every single benchmark done by any and every single review site and make the calculations.  I promise you that you will see the 3770K still win *most *of the time.  



cdawall said:


> I love how people bring up IPC and have no idea what it is. There is no given number to IPC it depends entirely on application.



I'm well aware of what IPC is, and sorry, but there actually is an actual value to peak IPC and I'm well aware that different applications will utilize more or less of a chips potential IPC.  Cinebench does a decent job, but that's not a very important benchmark for me.



cdawall said:


> So you just posted to troll AMD's attempt to make more money out of a product they already have. You do understand without the money from bulldozer and piledriver AMD doesn't exist. They have the processors and need to sell them to make profits to fund new product developement.



Uh...where am I trolling and what am I trolling?  Do you understand what a troll is, because I believe you are using the word incorrectly.  I have no idea why you are trying to explain that AMD needs money to function as a business.  That's elementary.  I'm sorry, but you seem to be defending points that have nothing at all to do with anything I've said.



cdawall said:


> Better performing in WHAT. People like you are past frustrating. If you want to go play futuremark then go do it on intel. It is well known even when AMD was better performing that still fell to intel same for many many benchmarks. I personally prefer something that works and for what I do the FX9590 would be a drop in performance upgrade that will cost substantially less than ANY intel option. Smart guys like me purchased an upgrade path and have chosen to make incremental upgrades.



I already told you, if you read, but once again go and check all of them.  Intel is better performing in most situations, in most benchmarks, even with an additional 20% performance increase to Piledriver.  And to say that incremental upgrades make you a smart person...are you trying to make me laugh?  Because that's a pretty hilarious statement.  "I like to spend money more frequently, to get smaller upgrades, more often, which makes me smarter"  



cdawall said:


> When the benchmarks roll out I will care until then pictures on a screen mean nothing. AMD and intel have proven time after time things change.



If you don't want to care about a factual piece of information, that's your choice, but if you are going to make a comment about something, please make sure that your comment has something to do with the subject at hand.  AMD and Intel proving time after time things change?  What does that even mean?  How does that have anything to do with my image?  All my image is showing is how and why front end IPC will finally be great with Steamroller and how it has been poor with Bulldozer and Piledriver in comparison to the older Stars cores, Intel, and the up and coming Steamroller.  

And people like me are frustrating?


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 14, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> How does that have anything to do with my image?  All my image is showing is how and why IPC will finally be great with Steamroller and how it has been poor with Bulldozer and Piledriver in comparison to the older Stars cores, Intel, and the up and coming Steamroller.:



No, It's only showing each CPU's instruction decoder capabilities. And the image doesn't imply anything at all.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 14, 2013)

cdawall said:


> No, It's only showing each CPU's instruction decoder capabilities. And the image doesn't imply anything at all.



Yes, and the instruction decoder capabilities are measured in IPC.  I am not saying this is total IPC for the entire architecture, but IPC for the front end, which will, however, end up having a major impact in overall IPC.  I've edited my post to save confusion, but the image should be self explanatory.  And you must be joking.  The image implies a lot actually.  The front end change is the single biggest performance increasing change to the entire architecture, ever.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 14, 2013)

Still, the image itself doesn't imply anything at all.
But yes, I agree that this change will increase performance.
Now, You keep on saying "single biggest performance increasing change to the entire architecture, ever.". Do You have any, any idea how much of an increase this will give, eh? (note: I myself know it fairly well.)


----------



## cdawall (Jun 14, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> Uh, where did I say anything about anyone with Bulldozer chips having issues?



You claimed they performed poorly. They perform fine for the money.




MLScrow said:


> No, not "pretty much across the board".  Again, go and calculate the performance.  Take every single benchmark done by any and every single review site and make the calculations.  I promise you that you will see the 3770K still win *most *of the time.



Plenty of reviews would say you are wrong (on non-biased sites), but believe what you want.




MLScrow said:


> I'm well aware of what IPC is, and sorry, but there actually is an actual value to peak IPC and I'm well aware that different applications will utilize more or less of a chips potential IPC.  Cinebench does a decent job, but that's not a very important benchmark for me.



No no there is not. There is a general idea of how it performs in specific tasks IPC-wise.



MLScrow said:


> Uh...where am I trolling and what am I trolling?  Do you understand what a troll is, because I believe you are using the word incorrectly.  I have no idea why you are trying to explain that AMD needs money to function as a business.  That's elementary.  I'm sorry, but you seem to be defending points that have nothing at all to do with anything I've said.



This is a thread about the first ever 5ghz retail chip not about how the Intel wxyz or steamroller performs.



MLScrow said:


> I already told you, if you read, but once again go and check all of them.  Intel is better performing in most situations, in most benchmarks, even with an additional 20% performance increase to Piledriver.  And to say that incremental upgrades make you a smart person...are you trying to make me laugh?  Because that's a pretty hilarious statement.  "I like to spend money more frequently, to get smaller upgrades, more often, which makes me smarter"



No I purchased a platform were I have the ability to buy parts as I go. Ie want a new motherboard I don't have to replace the CPU like with most intel setups, same way with the CPU and this is across generations...





MLScrow said:


> If you don't want to care about a factual piece of information, that's your choice, but if you are going to make a comment about something, please make sure that your comment has something to do with the subject at hand.  AMD and Intel proving time after time things change?  What does that even mean?  How does that have anything to do with my image?  All my image is showing is how and why front end IPC will finally be great with Steamroller and how it has been poor with Bulldozer and Piledriver in comparison to the older Stars cores, Intel, and the up and coming Steamroller.
> 
> And people like me are frustrating?



You keep using "factual" as a reason and have zero support, so lets think guy been here since 06 owns many AMD rigs and has some WR's or new guy?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 14, 2013)

Personally i don't see what everybody's fuss is, so AMD is bringing out more models in it's Piledriver lineup with higher clock speeds, thats got to be good, more choice, more performance, intel does the same.... whats the problem?  If the problem is that the Intel equivilent remains faster in many things... well thats not actually a problem is it?  I can't speak for anywhere but the UK but the 3770K is around £100 more than the 8350,. lets say that roughly 20% more performance gained from the higher clockspeeds AMD charge 20% more, so that would make the Piledriver chip around £65 less than the 3770K this equates to around 25% of the 3770K's price, will the 3770K remain at least 25% faster than the 5Ghz piledriver?  if the answer to that is yes then the more budget conscious of PC users (read majority) possibly would not consider straying from an existing and modern Intel build (assuming they could afford it in the first place), if the answer is no then perhaps some will.

If what some have said is true, and that budget AM3+ boards would struggle with the additional power draw, that is a bad thing in my opinion as that actually restricts choice.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jun 14, 2013)

i think someone just brought a 3770K (maybe first puter)

@Tatty there are deffo some 990fx boards that will struggle for sure as ive had afew of them.


----------



## Super XP (Jun 14, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> People who were burnt with that the first time with Bulldozer learned their lesson.


Your logic is somewhat flawed. I purchased the Bulldozer among many more and none of us got burnt by it. The price was right on the money for the Bulldozer chips. Obviously they weren’t as fast as the rumors have stated, but still when I owned one it performed admirably.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 14, 2013)

I bought a bulldozer and a piledriver and I am *very* happy with both.
I bought them _after_ hearing all those opinions of them being horribly slow. And thus, to my surprise, they were much faster than I anticipated when buying.
When used in the right way, those chips are smokin' fast.


----------



## drdeathx (Jun 14, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> The fact that it's a marketing ploy is obvious, it's written on the wall.  They want to boast the 5GHz number and sure, go ahead, but I disagree that people will mindlessly see 5GHz and flock to AMD.  People who were burnt with that the first time with Bulldozer learned their lesson.  They will know to research ahead of time.  The Bulldozer debacle also created enough of a stir in the community that just about everyone knows that the Bulldozer arch isn't as good, even with higher clocks than Intel and in a lot of cases, even not as good as their old Stars architecture.  I believe that most people who are looking to purchase FX chips are enthusiasts and know exactly what they are buying.  5GHz, although a high clock and a first for a stock part isn't all that great once you know that it's AMD's architecture.
> 
> Now, to say that it will beat a 3770K at stock across the board is plainly and simply wrong.
> 
> ...



You make a good read but do you realize less than 2% of users are enthusiasts and all of this this means nothing. All people will see is 5GHz and BTW, the 5GHz processors will give 20% more performance than FX-8350. So that said, it is good marketing.


----------



## Deadlyraver (Jun 15, 2013)

I just admire the fact that AMD is bringing more value for the common build. Obviously, not the best performance but certainly not the worst.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 15, 2013)

Super XP said:


> Your logic is somewhat flawed. I purchased the Bulldozer among many more and none of us got burnt by it. The price was right on the money for the Bulldozer chips. Obviously they weren’t as fast as the rumors have stated, but still when I owned one it performed admirably.



My logic is not flawed simply because you happen to like your BD.  Unlike you, many people purchased BD, because they thought it was going to be the best CPU ever and they put faith into all of AMD's marketing, which we all know was horrible, which in turn is the reason why they were all, for the most part, fired.  Those people who expected their CPU to outperform Intel and perform up to AMD's forecasts ended up disappointed.  To me, being disappointed by a product, because of shady advertising, is what I consider "being burned".  

There is no need to try and insult or claim faulty logic, just state that you didn't feel burned and are an exception to my view, there will always be exceptions.



drdeathx said:


> You make a good read but do you realize less than 2% of users are enthusiasts and all of this this means nothing. All people will see is 5GHz and BTW, the 5GHz processors will give 20% more performance than FX-8350. So that said, it is good marketing.



Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it.   I understand the architecture (and even with +20% to FX8350 performance, it still does not beat the competition in most cases), I understand the business decision, I also understand that most users are not enthusiasts and will not even be looking to get an FX chip.  All I'm saying is that I think it's more of the same crappy AMD marketing that got them into trouble the first time around and I dont like it.  Boasting about 5Ghz when it can't even beat a 4GHz product from a competitor is embarrassing, at least it is for me to watch AMD do.  I wish that they waited for FX Steamroller before they decided to put their top of the line product under the spotlight, because at least then it would beat it's competitor soundly, which is what really deserves the spotlight.  Intel won't be at 5Ghz by then that time, they still haven't broken 4Ghz on a stock part, there's no need to rush.  Again, just my .02. 

For anyone who wishes to discuss, I'm more than open for it, but please keep the insults at bay, there is no need to insult simply because you might disagree.  You can make your counterpoints without having to be rude or offensive.  It would be much appreciated.


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 15, 2013)

What point are You trying to make MLScrow-san?
You write all these things about bulldozer being bad, how this new chip would underperform and so on. But what's Your goal? What are You trying to achieve by all this?

(doubleposts are frowned upon, you know?)


----------



## RCoon (Jun 15, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> WALL OF INFALLIBLE TEXT



I'm all for opinions and discussions, but you know, only when the user knows what they're talking about, and have actually done some proper research. Implying the 8350 is bad i find amusing. I also find it amusing when people compare a £150 chip to a £270 chip, and then boast how the latter outperforms. Most of the people here who are capable of discerning benchmarks properly will know they are an extremely poor way of visualizing a components actual real world performance.
Also not entirely sure where this "people feeling burned" thing is coming from. This is a preoverclocked chip with warranty. There are a *huge* percentage of users who *dont overclock*, so this chip is an awesome way for them to grab a hold of an _excellent_ gaming processor without any worries of its performance.
I dont know if you just bought a 3770k, or if you're really sensitive about benchmark scores (you shouldn't, its like having low self esteem, just doesnt make sense), but if I were building a new rig for someone, be it budget or a high end single gpu rig(I'll underline that so you can do research about single GPU PC's and how processors perform, HINT HINT GO TO ANANDTECH) I would gladly buy my *third* 8350.
There is nothing you can say that would otherwise change my opinion, and would kindly request you dont bother quoting or bother replying to this post. Instead, go and find out what benchmarks actually mean, how they're done, and how the 8350 performs in terms of its price/performance in every task. You might find out just why so many people _still_ buy them.


----------



## Super XP (Jun 15, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> You make a good read but do you realize less than 2% of users are enthusiasts and all of this this means nothing. All people will see is 5GHz and BTW, the 5GHz processors will give 20% more performance than FX-8350. So that said, it is good marketing.


Think about it this way, Intel just launched a line of new CPU's. AMD has to somehow answer for this, but releasing a similarly clocked Piledriver core like the FX-8350 is useless, AMD had no choice but to increase the clocks. This is not just for marketing; it was more of necessity IMO. Now if AMD were to release Steamroller cores instead, that would have been a different story. I don’t see Steamroller cores clocked at 5GHz, I don’t think the initial CPU’s will be that fast. If rumours are correct, Steamroller will defeat Piledriver clock for clock by about 30% or more.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 15, 2013)

Vinska said:


> What point are You trying to make MLScrow-san?
> You write all these things about bulldozer being bad, how this new chip would underperform and so on. But what's Your goal? What are You trying to achieve by all this?
> 
> (doubleposts are frowned upon, you know?)



Well seeing how he has six posts in this thread and only this thread since he has joined I wouldn't be surprised if he just so happened to be a little more intel than anyone of us. I wouldn't be surprised if he his ip traced back to somewhere blue if you will. Considering his arguments seem to match the typical M$ toad.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 15, 2013)

RCoon said:


> I'm all for opinions and discussions, but you know, only when the user knows what they're talking about, and have actually done some proper research. Implying the 8350 is bad i find amusing. I also find it amusing when people compare a £150 chip to a £270 chip, and then boast how the latter outperforms. Most of the people here who are capable of discerning benchmarks properly will know they are an extremely poor way of visualizing a components actual real world performance.
> Also not entirely sure where this "people feeling burned" thing is coming from. This is a preoverclocked chip with warranty. There are a *huge* percentage of users who *dont overclock*, so this chip is an awesome way for them to grab a hold of an _excellent_ gaming processor without any worries of its performance.
> I dont know if you just bought a 3770k, or if you're really sensitive about benchmark scores (you shouldn't, its like having low self esteem, just doesnt make sense), but if I were building a new rig for someone, be it budget or a high end single gpu rig(I'll underline that so you can do research about single GPU PC's and how processors perform, HINT HINT GO TO ANANDTECH) I would gladly buy my *third* 8350.
> There is nothing you can say that would otherwise change my opinion, and would kindly request you dont bother quoting or bother replying to this post. Instead, go and find out what benchmarks actually mean, how they're done, and how the 8350 performs in terms of its price/performance in every task. You might find out just why so many people _still_ buy them.



You know its strange to me , the discourse regarding dual gpu on amd systems as I have four gpus in my main rig and despite the bottleneck alleged I do get reasonable fps on most games with sensible ultimate settings on 1080p ie morpho AA plus 2x msAA not crazy aliasing , two for render two fpr physx btw.
I can except an intel might run these better (2011 skt only though) but ive not owned an Isomethingmeaningless anyway so my 8350 @4.9  runs very well imho, I also have a pciex ssd thats going back in when I get hold of a socket extender there aren't many intel setups with 4-5 gfx use able pciex slots and mobo and cpu wouldn't cost 《300uk notes as mine did.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 15, 2013)

*sigh*  If anyone actually wants to have an intelligent discussion about this with me, again, please make intelligent comments and refrain from insults and ridiculousness.  I know just about everything there is to know about AMD's chips and Intel's chips and how they compare to one another in just about every single category, including price/performance, in which AMD easily takes the crown, but we weren't discussing that, we were discussing performance alone.  One may be priced more than the other, but they both offer 8 cores (physical or virtual) and are, for the general public, the best of each company (excluding the E parts from Intel).

And just for the record, the number of posts that I have in a thread has absolutely no relevance to my personal preference for one company's product over the other, but, if you read anything I wrote earlier in the thread, you'd realize that I fully admit to being an AMD supporter more than an Intel supporter.  I like AMD, I'm just disappointed in Piledriver.  It wasn't enough of an upgrade over Zambezi for me to want it.  If it was for you, good for you, enjoy what you bought, but again, SR FX will be much better and I also don't think that SR FX will come out starting at 5GHz, but one can hope.  Considering it's being made with High Density Libraries, it will cut down on the clocks.  I personally foresee it being released in the 4GHz range, but only time will tell.


----------



## xorbe (Jun 15, 2013)

What's the price on this 5GHz booster gonna be?  Surely it can't be super $$$ like some posts threw around last month. (Just curious -- I'm working on an A8-5500 mini-itx openSUSE 12.3 build presently.)


----------



## librin.so.1 (Jun 15, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> *sigh*  If anyone actually wants to have an intelligent discussion about this with me, again, please make intelligent comments and refrain from insults and ridiculousness.


I mostly see people trying to have an intelligent discussion and hardly any "insults/ridiculousness" at all. *shrug*



MLScrow said:


> I know just about everything there is to know about AMD's chips and Intel's chips and how they compare to one another in just about every single category, including price/performance


Meanwhile, every time I asked You about that I was silently ignored. [yes, more than once. srsly, man, WTH]
If You claim to know that much (and claim You a lot - nearly every post), why don't You share it? Nobody will care if You flail around claiming to know everything, while not showing anything to back it up.


----------



## MightyMission (Jun 15, 2013)

Interesting discussion...quite in depth for the most part, but interesting all the same..makes me wonder how many watts my 2500k pulls while sitting under load at 5ghz,obviously it's only got half the cores and it was only £150 retail but there is food for thought..


----------



## cdawall (Jun 15, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> *sigh*  If anyone actually wants to have an intelligent discussion about this with me, again, please make intelligent comments and refrain from insults and ridiculousness.  I know just about everything there is to know about AMD's chips and Intel's chips and how they compare to one another in just about every single category, including price/performance, in which AMD easily takes the crown, but we weren't discussing that, we were discussing performance alone.  One may be priced more than the other, but they both offer 8 cores (physical or virtual) and are, for the general public, the best of each company (excluding the E parts from Intel).
> 
> And just for the record, the number of posts that I have in a thread has absolutely no relevance to my personal preference for one company's product over the other, but, if you read anything I wrote earlier in the thread, you'd realize that I fully admit to being an AMD supporter more than an Intel supporter.  I like AMD, I'm just disappointed in Piledriver.  It wasn't enough of an upgrade over Zambezi for me to want it.  If it was for you, good for you, enjoy what you bought, but again, SR FX will be much better and I also don't think that SR FX will come out starting at 5GHz, but one can hope.  Considering it's being made with High Density Libraries, it will cut down on the clocks.  I personally foresee it being released in the 4GHz range, but only time will tell.









You know just about everything huh?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 15, 2013)

It would be a good idea if we get back to discussing the CPU as opposed to each others personalities.... thank you!


----------



## RCoon (Jun 15, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> You know its strange to me , the discourse regarding dual gpu on amd systems as I have four gpus in my main rig and despite the bottleneck alleged I do get reasonable fps on most games with sensible ultimate settings on 1080p ie morpho AA plus 2x msAA not crazy aliasing , two for render two fpr physx btw.
> I can except an intel might run these better (2011 skt only though) but ive not owned an Isomethingmeaningless anyway so my 8350 @4.9  runs very well imho, I also have a pciex ssd thats going back in when I get hold of a socket extender there aren't many intel setups with 4-5 gfx use able pciex slots and mobo and cpu wouldn't cost 《300uk notes as mine did.



Dont get me wrong, the AMD series is excellent, and is fully capable of running dual GPU setups. I ran two 570's and two 7950's on an 8350 with no complaints other than drivers for the cards and the occasional game that didnt have crossfire support. The 8350 was and is still my favourite CPU in the last few generations. However the skt2011 does actually produce more frames in multiple GPU setups. I wouldnt want to come across as an AMD fanboy, so I would have to openly and clearly state that the high end intel are far better at bleeding all the performance out of multiple GPU setups. I just prefer the AMD featureset overall, intel has PCI 3.0, AMD seemingly has everything else, including multiple SATA 6Gb/s support in comparison to Intel's mere two on mid end MoBos, and PLX at a cheaper price.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 15, 2013)

RCoon said:


> Dont get me wrong, the AMD series is excellent, and is fully capable of running dual GPU setups. I ran two 570's and two 7950's on an 8350 with no complaints other than drivers for the cards and the occasional game that didnt have crossfire support. The 8350 was and is still my favourite CPU in the last few generations. However the skt2011 does actually produce more frames in multiple GPU setups. I wouldnt want to come across as an AMD fanboy, so I would have to openly and clearly state that the high end intel are far better at bleeding all the performance out of multiple GPU setups. I just prefer the AMD featureset overall, intel has PCI 3.0, AMD seemingly has everything else, including multiple SATA 6Gb/s support in comparison to Intel's mere two on mid end MoBos, and PLX at a cheaper price.



Yeah I'm a reasonable guy I agree , I think a fair amount of its due to memory channels ,it would be nice to see amd do similar.   Damn phone sorry.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 16, 2013)

Vinska said:


> I mostly see people trying to have an intelligent discussion and hardly any "insults/ridiculousness" at all. *shrug*



Then you obviously aren't reading closely enough, because from my point of view, there has been exactly the opposite.



Vinska said:


> Meanwhile, every time I asked You about that I was silently ignored. [yes, more than once. srsly, man, WTH]
> If You claim to know that much (and claim You a lot - nearly every post), why don't You share it? Nobody will care if You flail around claiming to know everything, while not showing anything to back it up.



First of all, to say that I "flail around" is an insult itself.  These are words on a screen, no "flailing" can take place.  Unnecessary.  And if I did, perhaps, ignore something you've said, it wasn't on purpose and it was probably because of snide remarks such as that.  I have no problem discussing anything, so what exactly have you asked me that I haven't answered?  Please feel free to ask me anything and I will give you my answer as best as possible and I have no problem admitting when I don't know enough to answer you.  I'm not trying to be arrogant here, I'm just trying to explain that I understand what I'm talking about as other's have tried to insinuate that I do not.  

Also, keep in mind my word choice, because I'm very careful with what I say, and I didn't say that I know everything, I said "just about", which leaves room for a lot of information.  I am not a chip designer (though I'd like to be one day), so I can't quite tell you certain in-depth details, but I can provide what information is publicly available and provide reasonable predictions and speculation based on that information.  Hardware is probably one of the only passions that I have in my life (sad perhaps, but true) and I make it a point to educate myself and search for any piece of new information (rumor or not) regarding this topic on a daily basis.



MightyMission said:


> Interesting discussion...quite in depth for the most part, but interesting all the same..makes me wonder how many watts my 2500k pulls while sitting under load at 5ghz,obviously it's only got half the cores and it was only £150 retail but there is food for thought..



I ran a theoretical calculator which came up with around 189W, however, I found a review that Bit-Tech did that actually had their 2500K clocked to 4.9 (not quite 5.0, but close enough) and theirs was pulling 221W.  Keep in mind, these are total system power draw numbers, but you can get an idea of how much more power your system is drawing just by the overclock alone as their value for the stock 2500K running at 3.3GHz pulled 148W, so a 73W increase.  By the way, grats on getting a golden chip that'll hit 5.0GHz.  What kind of cooling are you running if you don't mind me asking?



Tatty_One said:


> It would be a good idea if we get back to discussing the CPU as opposed to each others personalities.... thank you!



Thank you. 



RCoon said:


> Dont get me wrong, the AMD series is excellent, and is fully capable of running dual GPU setups. I ran two 570's and two 7950's on an 8350 with no complaints other than drivers for the cards and the occasional game that didnt have crossfire support. The 8350 was and is still my favourite CPU in the last few generations. However the skt2011 does actually produce more frames in multiple GPU setups. I wouldnt want to come across as an AMD fanboy, so I would have to openly and clearly state that the high end intel are far better at bleeding all the performance out of multiple GPU setups. I just prefer the AMD featureset overall, intel has PCI 3.0, AMD seemingly has everything else, including multiple SATA 6Gb/s support in comparison to Intel's mere two on mid end MoBos, and PLX at a cheaper price.



You're not coming off as an unreasonable brainwashed AMD Fanboy, but you admit to being an AMD fan.  Me too.  I do wish that AMD had included PCIE 3.0 in Vishera, but I suppose I wouldn't really quite need it since I haven't gone with my triple monitor setup yet, requiring multi-gpu's.  PCIE 2.0 is good enough for a single card at the moment, but god damn will both AMD and NVidia hurry up and release their new mid level cards already!?  I don't like spending $500 on a single card.  I'd rather spend $200 on two mid level cards and run SLi/XF, or just find a upper mid-range card that can meet my needs (60fps avg, w/4xMSAA).  I might actually need something twice as good in the near future as I'm considering getting a 3D setup (I played Arkham Asylum in 3D and it was fantastic - 3D Vision, never tried AMD's version yet). 

Anyway, back to the thread subject.  I'm not saying it's a bad chip overall, just not one that I would buy nor one that I would recommend for someone looking for a new rig right now.  This new Piledriver doesn't add anything new, such as PCIE 3.0, it' simply the same old chip, with better binning and higher clock rate.  For someone who is looking to purchase a new rig right now and are intent on AMD, I would advise them to wait just a little while longer and they can have an a better overall processor.  

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade who wanted to jump for joy at the news of a 5GHz part.  I honestly believe that's an incredible feat for AMD to have achieved.  I mean, 20-25% increase in clock just from 1 year of process maturity, that's pretty sick, and that jump in clock will definitely narrow the gap between AMD and Intel in terms of overall performance.  Something I think AMD has needed to do for a while now and it looks like they are finally on track.  YAY for a company that we all thought might have gone under.  They really saved their asses, especially with capturing all the major video game console contracts.  

The only things I'm concerned about with SR is that they are moving from SOI to Bulk for their process and it will be early in terms of maturity.  Hopefully the time they have between Kaveri and their next FX line will be enough to mature the process so that we can perhaps see something similar to this 20% clock speed increase in this PD 2.0 when SRFX comes out.  Fingers crossed.


----------



## erocker (Jun 16, 2013)

Am* said:


> I just can't help but laugh at AMD's CPU market stategy. I can imagine their CPU division's meetings happening like this:
> 
> ENGINEERS: "Sir, Intel just announced their new uber-power efficient architecture, we should put Research & Development money into a new architecture."
> 
> MANAGEMENT: "**** THAT ****, I WANT MOAR CORES!!! MOAR THREADS! MORE GHZ!!! WHOOOOOOAAAA!!!!"



Well.. Your posting strategy needs some help too. With a little less caps lock and a little less colorful language, people may actually take you seriously.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jun 16, 2013)

MLScrow said:


> I ran a theoretical calculator which came up with around 189W, however, I found a review that Bit-Tech did that actually had their 2500K clocked to 4.9 (not quite 5.0, but close enough) and theirs was pulling 221W.  Keep in mind, these are total system power draw numbers, but you can get an idea of how much more power your system is drawing just by the overclock alone as their value for the stock 2500K running at 3.3GHz pulled 148W, so a 73W increase.  By the way, grats on getting a golden chip that'll hit 5.0GHz.  What kind of cooling are you running if you don't mind me asking?



i wonder how that compares to the 8350? out of the box power consumption for the 8350 was 189 watt for the full system. wonder how much that shoots up to while running at 5 GHZ?
My i5 will also hit 5 ghz, using the intel water cooler (effectively a rebranded antec 620)


----------



## Am* (Jun 16, 2013)

erocker said:


> Well.. Your posting strategy needs some help too. With a little less caps lock and a little less colorful language, people may actually take you seriously.



How were people meant to take that seriously? I was joking...jeeze, nobody can take a joke anymore...a pretty bad one, I admit, but it sounded good before this hangover passed, I promise


----------



## erocker (Jun 16, 2013)

Am* said:


> How were people meant to take that seriously? I was joking...jeeze, nobody can take a joke anymore...a pretty bad one, I admit, but it sounded good before this hangover passed, I promise



They always seem to sound good before you post them for some reason.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 17, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> i wonder how that compares to the 8350? out of the box power consumption for the 8350 was 189 watt for the full system. wonder how much that shoots up to while running at 5 GHZ?
> My i5 will also hit 5 ghz, using the intel water cooler (effectively a rebranded antec 620)



Actually, by bit-techs numbers (they also ran an 8350 through its paces), it pulled (on their system) 213W running P95 stock and overclocked to 4.8GHz was 364W.  That isn't 5GHz but you can use that to calculate what 5Ghz would theoretically be on that system or find someone who actually posted that info somewhere. Link: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7

Forum links aren't working with IE for WP8, something to know for anyone looking into WP8 for their next phone (could be temporary, bit still a problem since it's release?  C'mon now).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 17, 2013)

Am* said:


> How were people meant to take that seriously? I was joking...jeeze, nobody can take a joke anymore...a pretty bad one, I admit, but it sounded good before this hangover passed, I promise



heres a hint, turn off the computer or hit it with a hatchet while youre drunk or hung over, it will make you feel better


----------



## Relayer (Jun 17, 2013)

I can't understand why all of the interest in this chips power usage. It's going to be more than a comparable Intel. It's likely gonna be a bit scarey. If that concerns anyone, then I advise they don't consider this CPU. 

I find it interesting that they feel confident enough to release a commercially available chip at these clocks for 24/7 use. Is it reasonable to assume it will be "common" in the not too distant future? Intel seems to be content with their clock speeds and is focusing more on power figures. I think it could get interesting to see where this ends up.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jun 17, 2013)

Relayer said:


> I can't understand why all of the interest in this chips power usage. It's going to be more than a comparable Intel. It's likely gonna be a bit scarey. If that concerns anyone, then I advise they don't consider this CPU.
> 
> I find it interesting that they feel confident enough to release a commercially available chip at these clocks for 24/7 use. Is it reasonable to assume it will be "common" in the not too distant future? Intel seems to be content with their clock speeds and is focusing more on power figures. I think it could get interesting to see where this ends up.



I own a Bloomfield so power consumption clearly isnt my overiding priority!


----------



## Mathragh (Jun 17, 2013)

This TDP is actually quite impressive if you compare it to the first gen bulldozer CPU's. My chip under load is pulling in excess of 25 Amps over the 12V CPU rail at 4,6Ghz-> 300 Watts for 4,6 GHz. Compare that to a MAX powerdraw of 220W at 4,7GHz on all cores and the TDP of these chips suddenly seems quite good.


----------



## MLScrow (Jun 18, 2013)

xorbe said:


> What's the price on this 5GHz booster gonna be? Surely it can't be super $$$ like some posts threw around last month. (Just curious -- I'm working on an A8-5500 mini-itx openSUSE 12.3 build presently.)



I certainly hope it won't be priced like the FX's of old.  In my opinion, they should release these at the same price-point they released all of their recent flagship parts so far ~$200USD (-$30 for underclocked unit).



Mathragh said:


> This TDP is actually quite impressive if you compare it to the first gen bulldozer CPU's. My chip under load is pulling in excess of 25 Amps over the 12V CPU rail at 4,6Ghz-> 300 Watts for 4,6 GHz. Compare that to a MAX powerdraw of 220W at 4,7GHz on all cores and the TDP of these chips suddenly seems quite good.



Agreed, "if" the chip actually runs at the advertised TDP which AMD has lowballed before, but even if it does run at 220W+, that should be expected.  It's still a PD core after all.  It takes exponentially more power the further you clock beyond 4GHz.  The maturing of a process can only do so much and with 8 physical cores, even if sharing resources, it is reasonable for it to use twice as much power than a 4 core part.  Why it is being made out to be such a big deal (beyond MB requirements) by some, is somewhat silly to me.


----------

