Monday, June 17th 2013

AMD FX-9000 Series Processors Available For Pre-Order

by
Sin
 Discuss (45 Comments)
On Friday, we published and commented on The Tech Report's FX-9000 insight and findings from their interview with an unnamed AMD official, among which was the undecided or improbable retail availability of the new processors. Today, the exact same two processors which made the object of AMD's Friday disclosure are available for pre-order from online retailers such as PCSuperStore, and while speculation on the causes or reasons of the apparent misinformation might be expected and could even be interesting, I will spare you the usual AMD bash and just point out the prices of these two new AMD processors, $ 960 for the FX-9590 and $ 576 for the FX-9370, vexing, to be blunt. Unless we're dealing with circumstantial speculation by a retailer (not unheard of), these prices would put the two new CPUs in direct competition with Intel's Core i7 Extreme processors, very unlikely targets for AMD's Vishera chips. We'll know soon enough, with retail availability imminent, it shouldn't be long before benchmark scores and charts start surfacing.
Source: CPU World

Related News

Add your own comment

45 Comments on AMD FX-9000 Series Processors Available For Pre-Order

#26
NC37
lol...Piledriver is nice and all but really...clocking it up like this and charging insane prices is not smart. It is not $500+ worth of performance. I got my 8320 at 4.5Ghz and love it but anything over $300 for 5Ghz is stupid due to the IPC disadvantage. You're relying on stupid customers and fanboys to sell a subpar product.

I'd have understood this if it was Steamroller or new tech to try and ride hype but Piledriver, come on.
Posted on Reply
#27
TheoneandonlyMrK
NC37lol...Piledriver is nice and all but really...clocking it up like this and charging insane prices is not smart. It is not $500+ worth of performance. I got my 8320 at 4.5Ghz and love it but anything over $300 for 5Ghz is stupid due to the IPC disadvantage. You're relying on stupid customers and fanboys to sell a subpar product.

I'd have understood this if it was Steamroller or new tech to try and ride hype but Piledriver, come on.
Id say the price and tdp aim these at the ln2 crowd or at least phase change as most would only pay this much if their Is more to get ie oc potential.
Posted on Reply
#28
LAN_deRf_HA
$250 for cherry picked overclocking chip would have been ok, but this is just a joke. Being limited edition run it makes a little more sense, but still.
Posted on Reply
#29
PopcornMachine
Insane pricing. Unless there's more to them than just oc'ing previous chips, and I seriously doubt that.
Posted on Reply
#30
Dent1
RejZoRThe price is a bit ridiculous considering the fact that they don't hold the crown for fastest CPU's on Earth at the moment...
Never stopped Intel with their Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.

Seems like double standards to me.

PS. is pcsuperstore.com a legitimate store? Looks like a site somebody with limited web development skills built on a weekend. I won't take the price quoted seriously until I see it on Newegg or Tiger Direct or somewhere credible.
Posted on Reply
#32
micropage7
price - performance - power consumption ratio?
Posted on Reply
#33
HumanSmoke
Dent1Never stopped Intel with their Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
Except that Intel jumped from the burning building that was NetBurst at the earliest opportunity.
Dent1PS. is pcsuperstore.com a legitimate store? Looks like a site somebody with limited web development skills built on a weekend. I won't take the price quoted seriously until I see it on Newegg or Tiger Direct or somewhere credible.
A (very) quick Google says that a fair amount of the 850+ customer reviews at resellerratings.com seem positive, as well as an A- rating with the BBB. Legitimate enough ?
Posted on Reply
#35
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Dent1Never stopped Intel with their Pentium 4 Extreme Edition.
This chip will be the next P4EE, unless this pricing is just an etailer trying to rip some folks off :slap:
Posted on Reply
#36
techtard
The price is a head scratcher, maybe the retailer (or AMD) is trying to catch the clueless consumers who buy 'the best' based on price.
Posted on Reply
#38
Dent1
HumanSmokeExcept that Intel jumped from the burning building that was NetBurst at the earliest opportunity.?
Really? The net burst architecture was around from 2000 - 2006 spanning the entire Pentium 4, Celeron based Pentium 4 and Pentium D family. Almost six years is not the earliest opportunity.

One rule for Intel, another for AMD.
HumanSmokeA (very) quick Google says that a fair amount of the 850+ customer reviews at resellerratings.com seem positive, as well as an A- rating with the BBB. Legitimate enough ?
I'm from the UK and never heard of PC Super Store.

The website looks like a kid designed it, I wouldn't buy from them.

I guess now their legitimate, is this AMD's RRP or are they cashing in on enthusiasts and low stock to make money?
Posted on Reply
#39
torgoth
I think its safe to say it was some fake... :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#40
RCoon
That price is speculation and uncomfirmed, no sense in getting all sandy about it.
Even if they did price it that high, there is a very clear reason for pricing it in such a way, we're just not the customers that see the same value in it that others do.
Posted on Reply
#41
librin.so.1
RCoonThat price is speculation and uncomfirmed, no sense in getting all sandy about it.
Even if they did price it that high, there is a very clear reason for pricing it in such a way, we're just not the customers that see the same value in it that others do.
*Ahem* the price WAS that high. They removed the preorders a a while ago, remember? Shortly after this was posted.
Posted on Reply
#42
HumanSmoke
Dent1Really? The net burst architecture was around from 2000 - 2006 spanning the entire Pentium 4, Celeron based Pentium 4 and Pentium D family. Almost six years is not the earliest opportunity.

One rule for Intel, another for AMD.
And Bulldozer has been in development for six years. All that goes to prove that the lead-in time for architectures runs to many years. Intel didn't just design, tape out, debug/validate, and release the successor to NetBurst in 2006 - the original concept dates from 1999, and the core design from 2003 iirc.
Posted on Reply
#43
Dent1
HumanSmokeExcept that Intel jumped from the burning building that was NetBurst at the earliest opportunity.
HumanSmokeAnd Bulldozer has been in development for six years. All that goes to prove that the lead-in time for architectures runs to many years. Intel didn't just design, tape out, debug/validate, and release the successor to NetBurst in 2006 - the original concept dates from 1999, and the core design from 2003 iirc.
New technology always requires time to develop.

My argument was that Bulldozer microarchitecture was only released from October 2011, about 1.5 years ago.

Whereas Intel Netburst architecture was actively around for almost 6 years.

So to say Intel moved from Netburst at the earliest opportunity is incorrect and misleading.

You expect AMD to move from the Bulldozer microarchitecture after 1.5 years but its OK for Intel to wait 6 years with Netburst?
Posted on Reply
#44
HumanSmoke
Dent1You expect AMD to move from the Bulldozer microarchitecture after 1.5 years but its OK for Intel to wait 6 years with Netburst?
By the time AMD's Excavator launches(assuming AMD keep to their launch schedule:ohwell: ) the basic Bulldozer µarch will have been in available in retail for 4 years....and that's assuming that Excavator is replaced immediately by a succeeding µarchitecture. Figure a year for Excavator and a second year for a tweaked revision and you're at six years.

If you are under the impression that the Bulldozer µarch is not long for this world (i.e. all the talk of Steamroller and Excavator is bullshit), then why aren't AMD talking up an x86 alternative. After all, this is a company that spent the four years before BD's launch telling anyone who would listen that BD was going to clean Intel's clock. :roll:
Posted on Reply
#45
Dent1
HumanSmokeBy the time AMD's Excavator launches(assuming AMD keep to their launch schedule:ohwell: ) the basic Bulldozer µarch will have been in available in retail for 4 years....and that's assuming that Excavator is replaced immediately by a succeeding µarchitecture. Figure a year for Excavator and a second year for a tweaked revision and you're at six years.
There is no denying that the Bulldozer Microarchitecture may be around for at least 6 years. No different from the six years we had of Netburst. Neither architecture will be exit at the earliest opportunity as you said.
HumanSmokeIf you are under the impression that the Bulldozer µarch is not long for this world (i.e. all the talk of Steamroller and Excavator is bullshit), then why aren't AMD talking up an x86 alternative. After all, this is a company that spent the four years before BD's launch telling anyone who would listen that BD was going to clean Intel's clock. :roll:
Who cares, It's called healthy competition. It's like boxing, everyone from Robert Guerrero, Miguel Cotto, United States Victor Ortiz, Shane Mosley and 40 other contenders all said they were going to beat Floyd Mayweather Jr. They all lost - But its all about the promotion and hyping the fight up which made them tens of millions.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 22nd, 2024 11:06 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts