Unluckily it will be a bit CPU is in Texas and I am deployed :/Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
Augustish for me.
Printable View
Unluckily it will be a bit CPU is in Texas and I am deployed :/Quote:
Originally Posted by felix_w
Augustish for me.
:(
Well, i hope someone else has it also then...
You can't be serious. AMD gets the benefit of the doubt more than any other company out there on these forums and most in general. A product like Sandybridge E, Ivy bridge E/ivy-bridge or even Haswell were given a lukewarm to negative reception by forum goers. So it shouldn't come to a surprise when people hammer on a up clocked vishera with 4 to 5 times the price and its the same silicon as their cheap processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg83
If AMD was judged by the same standards as Intel processors, nothing positive could be said from a technological stand point.
A maxed clocked Nehalem is still faster than a max clocked Vishera. And nehalem was released in 2008.
People just expect a lot from technology nowadays and they are hard to impress.
When AMD was king, everyone liked them. Intel fanboys included. The problem as, particular as a pure CPU part, they haven't released anything exciting for the enthusiast in years(this forum) from a performance standpoint. It also didn't help that JF-AMD lied to people about bulldozer and got people to commit to the platform by buying the motherboard instead of going Intel by hyping up bulldozer.
See it really depends on what you are doing as well. Take your max clocked nahalem and AMD chip toss both of them into a heavily multithreaded enviroment and the nahalem struggles, just like gen 2 i7's. Games are slowly moving that way and with the new consoles being AMD based I would not be surprised if multithreading got substantially better along with a bit more biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
and when the world decides it needs more cores...AMD decides they only need 4 :( (possibly no +4 core steamrollers)Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
That was dismissed forever ago and was FUD to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evantaur
With max clocks, nehalem still takes it more often than not. In a review like anandtech's for example of Vishera vs a 2.66ghz bloomfield is surprising competitive with fx 8350. However, considering the overclocking room, 75% increase for Nehalem(2.66ghz to 4.66ghz) vs 25% increase for Vishera(4ghz to 5ghz), on average the Nehalem with come out on top.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
With Vishera having few huge advantages over Nehalem for example it is 5 years newer, has 60 percent more transistors going for it and is built on a much smaller process, has way more built in instructions added, of course its going to get some victories.
Vishera should be really smoking Nehalem after 5 years. A max clocked sandy bridge vs a max clocked Vishera is nearly a blowout.
In case anyone is curious of the new steppings FA 1317PGS for my 9370.
Unluckily there are still quite a few benchmarks that completely and utterly screw over AMD regardless of performance being better or worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Show us more pics of that 9370!!!
some power usage test....
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?p=13313020
"Looks like the full test rig is already able to run at ~170W on full load off the wall so the official figure of TDP 220W just for the CPU seems simply extreme overkill attention seeking behaviour from AMD! "
Lol this made me laugh
My 990FX system with the FX-9590 installed pulls a ridiculous amount of power. The 220W isn't grandstanding. Rather, it is a maximum value that advises system integrator of what to expect in a "worst case" scenario.
pics or it didnt happen
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cp...990fxa-ud5/26/
Yup, its a power guzzler. First review I think.
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/407/buhg.png
Basically had the same conclusion I originally had.
"Sure, we could say that fanatical AMD overclockers will love the FX9590, but unless you have money to burn we can think of better ways to spend that ?700. When up against the Core i7 4770k or 3930k/3960x it is seriously outgunned. This is probably why AMD aren’t sampling the part directly to the press, aiming it at system builders. Again, we can’t imagine a system builder will want to cool this monster long term, while offering a warranty. There is only a 1 year warranty on the FX9590 too, so that is worth bearing in mind."
155 watts more than an overclocked 4770k.
These processors are for the hardcore AMD fanbois or the ignorant.
Like all other extreme edition limited edition hardware than :D
its for hardcore AMD enthusiast, thats right....Interesting could be FX-9370, the price is more better.
I think the concept of this Crazy CPU is that AMD want to Put Pressure on MB Industrial to make Mobo that can handle up to 200W.so we will see new APU with much more Power consume ( for example : HD7850 + 1GB GDDR5 + Steamroller Core = Up to 200W ).a New Socket FM4 will be released and expandable up to 200 watts or maybe more.Is it going to happen?
Problem with this idea is too much Gpu power kills the sale of a discrete GPU which tends to be more profitable looking at the average MSRP of AMDs APU processors. In addition, unless we get ddr5 as the ram for these things, A 78xx class gpu in an APU form factor is going to be held back by memory bandwidth. It won't perform close to a 78xx chip with the memory bandwidth provided by ddr3 and even ddr4.Quote:
Originally Posted by behrouz
This processor is simply a bizarre marketing decision and a Ghetto way to bring up AMD's brand somehow.
This processor isn't going to put pressure on any MB manufacture. I am 100 percent certain that this is going to be a very very low volume part. And most Mb manufacturers already have high wattage lines that can handle this processor. And these boards are enthusiast overclocking boards that manufactures like to sell for more money.
I can see the 9370 selling to people who have existing AMD platforms like an fx 8150. But any person who owns an AMD platform is better off getting an fx8320 or 8350. These processors simply don't make much sense when they are based on the same stepping as previous chips and all the chips are unlocked from the beginning.
This might even be moot if these things overclock only as well as fx 8350s.
I would rather see TheStilt review this processor
so only the ignorant people or the fan boys will buy this cpu? speaking of ignorant....Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
ghetto? wtf dude... speaking of moot. speculation time is over the cpu is released. now go to sleep and take your theories to bed with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
How so? There is no solid evidence one way or the other but more evidence that we wont actually see an AM3+ Steamroller with 8 cores. I really hope we do, I would love to be able to just drop one into my current motherboard and be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
As for evidence to the contrary:
Steamroller was bumped off the desktop roadmap for AM3+ (at least till the end of 2013), and is no longer on the roadmap for server sockets either in more than 4 core configurations (through 2014)
AMD has been concentrating more and more on APU's instead of high performance CPU only, and you cant fit a full 8 core with L3 cache and a GPU on the AM3+ socket.
AM3+ is old and AMD never said once that we would see a Steamroller core on this socket. The only thing I have seen confirmed is Steamroller on an FM socket, which was originally supposed to be consolidated between FM2 and AM3+ into one socket for all desktop use.
AMD just "maxed out" their model names for the FX line with a Vishera core release, and fullfilled their promise that we would see 1 more CPU release for this socket.
Nothing new has been announced at all, and all leaked rumors have only mentioned an APU or just talked about the module itself. Nothing on 8-core non-GPU variants.
The only evidence we have right now that we will see an 8-core Steamroller variant on AM3+ is: all other cores have been released so it only follows logic that we will see next models release too.
And that is some pretty flimsy evidence. Still, I do really hope AMD brings us an 8 core Steamroller processor for AM3+.
Performance of L3 Cache's BL/Piledriver is still lower than SB or Iv.Pf of Writing L3 Cache is Very poor.
AMD 9590 = 36569 MB/s
Intel 3770 = 131146 MB/s
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-07...enchmarks5.jpg
http://www.vmodtech.com/main/wp-cont...-mem-bench.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by behrouz
I thought the caches were designed completely different though and one was exclusive and the other inclusive? Or is that no longer true on this new architecture?
So someone buys a FX-9590 and all of a sudden they're arrogant but someone who buys a 3960X isn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Interested in seeing how you come to that conclusion.
-PB
Any overclock results?
More interested in the 9370
There's a huge difference between arrogance(I didn't use this word) and ignorance. Ignorance implies not knowing. Arrogance is better described for AMD for releasing this processor at $800+, regardless of the performance characteristics, pricing of other processors and other characteristics.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
To explain why purchasing an fx 9590 is more ignorant than a 3960x is simple. The fx 9590x is the same silicon(down to the same stepping), same amount of cores and chip as fx 8350 or even fx 8320. These processors cost $150-220 dollars. They also have unlocked multipliers too so getting the same frequency is a matter of matching up multipliers.
The 3960x however is unique in a sense that it is the only processor beside the 3930k to have a 6 cores from Intel. The 3930k costs 550 dollars but it a far cry from the around 150-220 dollar range. Thus to get a 6 core from Intel, you need to pay atleast 550 so the marketup isn't as extreme. Plus the 3960x is the fastest processor on the market. In addition, the fx 9590 has performance characteristics are similar to a 4770k but it uses more than double the power and costs 2.5 as much. Plus it overclocks worse for most people.
Thus buying a 9590 makes little sense considering products from Intel(4660k and up) or even AMD(fx8120 and up). The kit guru even showed its overclocking prowess wasn't that special under convention cooling and wasn't stable at standard voltage even at the standard 4.7ghz. 5 ghz didn't even happen under bigger loads unless you overclocked it.
This is directly from the review and I can imagine describes what most informed buyers on what they think of this processor.
"With a TDP of 220W and a price around 700 pounds we do have to ask. What the hell are AMD thinking?"
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cp...te-990fxa-ud5/
The irony of this processor is that this chip is aimed at primarily amateur overclockers( it is mainly being targeted at system builder applications), but under 99.99% of circumstances, this things value decreases vastly under overclocking conditions.
In regards to an earlier post, why I mentioned ghetto is AMD didn't have to spend much money at all and basically no R and D to release this processor. This is AMD attempt to compete with Intel in the ultra high end enthusiast market without having to develop a new chip for it(its not even a new stepping). However it falls terrible short(the silicon of the actual chips shows horribly in the performance and power characteristics) of Intel's effort while costing a similar amount. I think AMD wanted to create a Halo effect with this processor but it fails at that considering the conclusion of that review.Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
The only saving grace of this processor is it is the first 5ghz processors(but this even comes with caveats) which means very little when the performance is similar to 300 dollar processors.
overclocked Liquid Nitrogen results would be nice to see...
and how easily the 9370 can reach 5ghz (also max OC)
i guess people still cant get over that this is just a show piece for one last hurrah of the desktop FX AM3+ era. and to leave it at that. glad they released it and didn't hold back on the count of of what people might say.
Nobody said am3+ was the socket amd would use. They are allowed to change sockets after several years.Quote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
My local store just got some in...
http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX46698
I found this to be interesting and funny at the same time...;)
Quote:
1.This AMD FX Processor does not included a Cooling Solution, which is required and available separately. Due to the extreme heat generated by this processor (220 Watt TDP at stock clock!), an extreme Cooling Solution rated for at least 220 Watts TDP is strongly suggested; even at stock clock rates. The experienced Staff at Memory Express is ready to assist in your selection of suitable cooling solutions.
2.AMD's product warranty does not cover damage caused by overclocking, even when overclocking is enabled via AMD OverDrive? software. Liquid Cooling is desirable with the 220W TDP of the stock FX-9370 CPU.
so not spending money and making money is ghetto? sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
That is yet to be seen as AMD CPU haven't been making money in years and I doubt this is going to have a dent on their revenue statement. The 9370 might sell a something but it is still a poor value when 2 8320s are 150 dollars and the fx 9320 is 350 dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
AMD still has to pay to advertise these processors and bin them.
AMD needs new desktop processors ASAP. This processor is being released just a bit after Haswell has been released. Haswell going to make their sales even worse and further more, if these things get in reviewers hands, this might actually turn out to be anti advertisement for AMD.
I.E People see a 4770k and a fx 9590 in a review. The 4770k comes slightly ahead in most scenarios at stock and constantly ahead when both are overclocked. Considering it uses half the power is $500-550 cheaper. You don't need to buy some sort of water cooling system to cool it. 4770K all of a sudden looks like a steal, even for people with an AMD platform. With that 500 dollars savings, you could buy a motherboard and a new videocard. Heck you could buy a 3930k and a motherboard and have a much faster platform.
Even the reviewer said in the review I posted, what the hell is AMD thinking releasing these at 700 pounds. Negative reviews of a products can help your competition sell processors. This should be one of those cases.
As an upgrade path, it's not going to tempt people with 8320 and 8350 unless they are AMD fans and just want to throw money AMD's way as some sort of charity gesture. They might get a couple hundred mhz but this isn't worth 600-700 dollars. They aren't getting any more cores, a new stepping or anything particularly new. Heck they are not even getting a cooler which at least came with their cheap processor. Even people who want to break records are better off buying 5 or 6 fx83xx since these things are not tested for ln2 or He2 conditions and suicide runs kill processors.
this chip would be a great tester for heatsinks and coolers.
all is not lost
This I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Depends on what you are doing latest review shows the 9590 competing with the 3960x overclocked while the 9590 is at 5ghz in games. I personally could care less how it does in synthetic benchmarks realworld is what matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
just shush! Ok you're right we're all wrong we worship you!!
A 4770k beats a 3960x in games. The 6 core variants of Intel product line have rarely done well in reviews for gaming, particularly for the dollar. I think a better test would be considering the cost, would be multi GPU configurations and in this scenario, I think we both know AMD loses. Sometimes by a great deal sometimes by a little bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
LOL just tell him he's right and he will most likely go to another thread. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by i found nemo
They denied Kyle over at hardocp a sample to review and amd flat out told him no haha
Really? Do not make joke:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...lrjfEocAKtYd_w
FX all core 5GHz not turbo 5GHz,
After OC
Games:
ARMA 2, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Max Payne 3, Metro 2033,Civilization V, Shogun 2 Total War, StarCraft 2, Flight Simulator X, WOT,Assassin's Creed, GTA IV, Skyrim, The Witcher 2, DiRT Showdown
All realworld not benchmarks.
3930K cost less than 9590
Welcome to the matrix and wake up.
http://i.imgur.com/asjAngu.png
FX 5ghz 80.8
3930 4.75ghz 108.6
4770 4.8ghz 115.7
competing:eek:
Wy need new CPU from AMD not new (old) FX with empty Mhz performance
These must all be a lie then. They somehow manage to keep the AMD within 1-2FPS the entire time occassionally beating the 3960x at 4.4ghz. I must just be unable to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...13/07/AvP5.png http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ping-dogs4.png
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...mb-raider3.png http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ax-payne-3.png
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...-showdown5.png http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...ast-light5.png
http://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/up...07/GRID-21.png
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cp...te-990fxa-ud5/
cdawall do you know word video benchmarks and What difference is in CPU test
Look 400mhz more does not make any difference
http://maxforces.com/articles.php?ar...=67&rowstart=4
At high resolutions like 2560x1600 the video card is doing the majority of the work and the deciding factor in performance, so when actually playing stuff it doesnt matter very much which processor you have. When the resolution is set really low so the deciding factor becomes CPU power then it shows how far different Vishera is from Ivy and Haswell.
The extra power consumption in an entire year isnt even close to $500 more, if you actually do the math you will see that. Nor do you NEED to run a water cooler if you use a Vishera processor.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
resolution doesnt matter when you hit the spot depending on cpu
http://i.imgur.com/fTjaY0C.png
http://i.imgur.com/mp5QGB2.png
Here we go again!
lol. You know that is comparing AMD to Nvidia in one game right? Not AMD to Intel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
^^ It's all part of the fun.
you know how its is, add some irrelevant information and hope noone realises it bears no meaning whatsoever.
http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/...ers-Work-2.jpg
LolQuote:
Originally Posted by EniGmA1987
let's put this simple
1 game 2 computers AMD vs Intel, the same place to bench and you have two video cards.
NV computer nr. 1 52.9
NV computer nr2. 43
AMD computer nr1. 48.8
AMD computer nr2. 29.9
difference in computers CPU and motherboard , the rest is the same
I'm sorry if someone saysQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
you have to say something because this person speak bullshiet.Quote:
the 9590 competing with the 3960x overclocked while the 9590 is at 5ghz in games
barbecue:up: well done pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
I feel like this thread is at the end of that flame-thrower getting slammed with non relevant info.
Vishera @5ghz is a great chip, no doubt in my mind. Kind of the number were all shooting for anyway. The wattage aspect has been done daily for years by many of us already as well.
So really in my mind it is not an awful concept for AMD fans that want AMD,s fastest chip, plug and play.
That price however is embarrassing, plain and simple.
AMD is hot right now (stock has doubled) but they really need to clean house in the marketing department if they wish to fully capitalize off of there recent momentum.
Makes one wonder why amd is so set on only providing system integrators with this chip. Are they being provided with a different bios or different hardware than current boards have right now...
I agree that the price is what makes this product terrible. AMD needs to maintain the value angle to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
I think the price of this chip at the very most should be $349(fx9590) dollars. AMD isn't even packing a cooler in and it shouldn't cost AMD $100 to bin some processors let alone 600 dollars.
The fx9370 should be $279.
Even at $349, people are making some sacrifices vs a 4770k, such as the low overclocking room, generally worse performance, heat/power consumption and the need to buy an more expensive cooler.
They do gain in some scenario's where a program is multithreaded, but these scenarios are rare and it's not like AMD blows Intel away in these cases.
Anything about 500 is simply arrogant pricing.
For an 800 dollars for a processors from AMD to be justified, I expect 12 or more cores, hopefully higher IPC and 5 ghz. If AMD matched the performance of the 3960x, I would expect them to undercut Intel since their reputation and branding is worse. The fx9590 is the opposite and makes Intel entire lineup look value priced, even the 3960x.
Can you please write this in a way that makes sense. I play video games so I give a :banana::banana::banana::banana: how it does in video games not some non-real synthetic crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Apparantly the 9590@5 and 3960x@4.4 have that same spot
That's weird the review I linked and posted SS's from says you are incorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Why because there is no way an AMD could ever keep up? Do you have anything to support your claim I posted a ton of benchmarks all of which supported me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
AMD FX-9590 ES review at PCTUNING (use translate from czech language to english)
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/pr...x-9590?start=1
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot103.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot106.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot116.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot117.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot101.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot121.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot120.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot137.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot098.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot099.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot114.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot113.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot115.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot131.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot112.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot122.png
For graphs: "meně je lepe" = "lower value is better" "vice je lepe" = "higher value is better"
If I were AMD's engineers I would see this Job's video and mark with fire in my head his speech about "performance per-watt" at 2:55+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doVyNVxovX8
And I think that 220W is simply not acceptable for a CPU.
for OC no problem...my i7-3930K at 4700 MHz has +100 W more than 5 GHz Vishera :) (I used the same GPU card). So this 100W will be in most part from CPU.
GPU is the problem here or a bottleneck if you wanna call it that. If the GPU's were faster the difference would be much wider than 1 or 2 frames. That's why benches like these are useless when you want CPU results. It's low res or bust...Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
any reviews for the 9370 yet? wonder if the 9370 can get stable at 5ghz? would be a much better deal.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113346
lol combo only
It appears as though newegg has found a clever way around the bundle requirement by "bundling" the processor with a heavily discounted copy of norton Internet security
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...106.19-113-347
It also appears they have no problem selling them alone on eBay
http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewi...d=380680341498
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ace123
should have combo bundles with corsair/nzxt/thermaltake/swifttech AIO liquid coolers
I don't play at 1024x768 so why would I care if an i7 was faster at that resolution. As long as it can push a pair of GPU's for eyefinity I would be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
That can tell you which CPU is really better at a game, but still isnt useful info. Doesnt matter if someone has a CPU that is 200% faster at low resolutions when it is only 1 fps different average at the resolution people are playing at (or more importantly when the user views a benchmark, the res that person is going to play at). What really needs to happen for a CPU benchmark for games is to show high res benchmarks but show both minimum FPS as well as frame times for the GPU between the different CPU systems. Min, average, and max FPS are important when showing benchmarks for the GPU only, but the min FPS is what will show the most difference when trying to benchmark CPUs with games.Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
And to show I am not completely biased to AMD trying to justify stuff, I have seen a couple people do proper reviews like this back in Sandy Bridge days and the 2600K seemed to get between 5-10 minimum FPS better than Zambezi cores in every benchmark that was shown, which is a pretty big area of difference in gaming. I haven't looked to see how Vishera compares to Ivy or Haswell in this regard though.
Dude the price on this amazon link us fluctuating all over the place. It has been as low as $416 And as high as 878 and now its 800 even
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...w_bottom_links
Well damn I would have grabbed one for $416 :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123