Vishera 5Ghz FX-9000/8770

[BababooeyHTJ]

Back in that day, you were paying for the unlocked multiplier and you had the fastest performing CPU on the market by a long shot. Your only getting the unlocked multiplier here, but that incentive isn't really there when their fx 8320 has the same feature but only costs 150 dollars.

The only market for these chips is Hardcore AMD fans or the ignorant who buy processors based on frequency. Not having the highest performance really kills this thing as well as the unlocked multiplier feature/silicon being found on their vastly cheaper processors.

Who is was buying a QX9770 for a day to day rig? Benchmarkers were the only people buying those processors. Just like the people selling binned 3770k cpus on the forums for big money.

I agree that the market will be much smaller for an FX cpu but there will be people willing to pay the extra money to throw one of these chips under ln2.

This will probably be like the Phenom 2 Twkr. I don't think that they're expecting to move huge volumes of this sku.

[tajoh111]

There were alot of people who bought the qx9770 and basically any other extreme edition just because it was the fastest. Not just benchers. I think if anything, people wanting the fastest chip on the market is alot bigger than the benchmark people. Especially the liquid nitrogen/helium group.

One more thing any benchers that worth a damn isn't going to buy these things. That because the only record that AMD can get at this point is a pure frequency one and just because this thing overclocks better on air or water, doesn't means its going to clock better on liquid nitrogen or helium. Some of the best overclocking chips are high leakage chips that overclock bad on air/liquid.

Thus AMD binning doesn't mean much to these people and rather particularly because it is a high risk suicide screen shot, they are better off buying 5 or 6 fx 8320/8350s than buying an fx 9590 that have only been binned for normal conditions.

[mAJORD]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1975

The pentium 4 extreme edition just used a little more energy than a athlon 64.

This uses 100watts more than an intel model which is close to double and will likely be the biggest power hog for a desktop processor ever.

Also the pentium 4 could still be cooled with a rather conventional cooler. This things needs beyond air cooling and a special motherboards.

Most importantly the pentium 4 was panned for being a bad processor. Basically everyone that was an enthusiast had a Fx processor back in the day in their signature, not a pentium 4 extreme edition. People still use it as the benchmark for bad power consumption and heat. Yet AMD is knowingly doing the same thing not learning from Intels mistakes.

The power consumption of this fx 9590 makes pentium 4 extreme edition seem like a power sipper.

I don't even see this fx 9590 being for a regular the enthusiast market or bragging rights as Informal puts it. Overclock any of Intel's 220 dollars and up processor to the max and the fx 9590 to the max(under anything short of liquid helium) and the Intel has a good chance to come out on top with their 220 dollar processors and their 300 dollars and up processors for sure come out on top.

Any one that has this processor in their system is basically giving AMD charity money. Paying a crazy amount for inferior performance, monster heat and power consumption and low overclockability under most cooling.

A geforce titan or i7 3970x are for bragging rights because they are simply the fastast out there. I would say the same thing with the hd 7990 or gtx 690.

If I see this processor in anyone signature, it will denote to me that this person is the most hardcore of the hardcore of an AMD fanboy or got the processor for free. What hurts the meaning of this processors is AMD's 200 dollar processors come unlocked AND your getting the same silicon as their 200 dollar processor, back in the day, nothing but a Intel extreme edition(and the upper FX series) had an unlocked multiplier. Your not even paying for the unlocked multiplier with the fx 9590.

Well done comparing the[extremely short lived] 65nm 965 to the Athlon.

http://techreport.com/review/8295/am...-processors/15

Athlon X2 4200+ 193W
Athlon X2 4800+ 201w

Pentium Extreme 840: 313W
Pentium D 840: 293W

and this is was with Process node "parity"

but anyway, these really are novelty SKU's. The ridiulous TDP, and lack of CPU cooler spells that out.


I think You'd be mad to buy the 9950, but the 9370 isn't so ridiculously priced.. albiet it looks like would still be slower than a 4770K most of the time.

AMD's biggest problem pushing these is they no longer have a [on paper] platform advantage over 'mainstream' Intel models..

[i found nemo]

201w for a 4800+? i have a 4200+ (65w stock) @ 3ghz @ 1.425v's ... that probably isn't much more than 175w

edit- i guess u mean where it says in the review system load. and it's 205w.

[cdawall]

201w for a 4800+? i have a 4200+ @ 3ghz @ 1.425v's ... that probably isn't much more than 175w

I imagine that's whole system consumption with an ineffecient ancient PSU.

[tajoh111]

The chipsets themselves were big hogs back in the day.

[Final8ty]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...FQ9eQgodXUQArw

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...FU_ZQgodQxUAVw

Tigerdirect links for purchase. I just ordered the 9370 for myself $354 shipped with taxes. Should be a damn good upgrade for my Phenom II.

That's more like it

[cdawall]

That's more like it

The 9590 is still rediculous price wise.

[cdawall]

That was quick. To bad I am deployed and wont get it until august.

[informal]

Yup, I just checked prices on 9370(4.4-4.7Ghz) and this part is now priced at ~350US dollars on various e-shops. Still maybe a bit high, 300 would be just where it needs to be. Still not bad and this thing probably OCs much better than any 8350 today. ~10-11% higher performance than stock 8350 should put it right in the middle between 3770K and 4770K in typical application workloads today(at ~188-189pts in the chart for apps). In games it would lag behind intel still, but roughly it will perform ~16.6% lower than 3930K at stock (142 vs 165.7) . That's not bad at all especially since hardware.fr uses game test mix that is very CPU bound.

[Final8ty]

The 9590 is still ridiculous price wise.

Yes but less ridiculous, which is about 230 Pound.

[cdawall]

Yup, I just checked prices on 9370(4.4-4.7Ghz) and this part is now priced at ~350US dollars on various e-shops. Still maybe a bit high, 300 would be just where it needs to be. Still not bad and this thing probably OCs much better than any 8350 today. ~10-11% higher performance than stock 8350 should put it right in the middle between 3770K and 4770K in typical application workloads today(at ~188-189pts in the chart for apps). In games it would lag behind intel still, but roughly it will perform ~16.6% lower than 3930K at stock (142 vs 165.7) . That's not bad at all especially since hardware.fr uses game test mix that is very CPU bound.

Its a launch price they should hopefully drop.

[Olivon]

AMD FX-9590 5 GHz Processor Benchmarks Surface - TPU

[Ace123]

super cool

[zir_blazer]

Confirmed same old Vishera Rev. OR-C0. Nothing new to see here.

[cx-ray]

For comparison:
3960X @ 4.6GHz
3770K in a passively cooled HTPC @ stock
965X @ stock

versus AMD FX-9590 @ 5GHz 8.62 Cinebench and 29fps X264



Just the 3960X @ 4.6GHz

[cdawall]

For comparison:
3960X @ 4.6GHz
3770K in a passively cooled HTPC @ stock
965X @ stock

versus AMD FX-9590 @ 5GHz 8.62 Cinebench and 29fps X264

http://s8.postimg.org/469lkyclx/Capture2.png

Just the 3960X @ 4.6GHz

http://s11.postimg.org/6n9862mxv/Capture.png

Why are you so interested in pimping your overclocked chip against this one at stock clocks? Especially when one of the benchmarks is well known to not take advantage of the FX chips.

[cx-ray]

Convey your point of view in an informed manner. I'm not interested in negativity.

In reasonable terms, this AMD chip can't be considered a stock clocked chip. This is a binned to the max ready to go overclocked SKU. For water cooling there won't be much additional headroom. I consider AMD FX to be pretty good for video compression. However, at this price it's just silly considering the competition. It doesn't even qualify as a halo product. FX-9370 at least makes some sense.

[cdawall]

Convey your point of view in an informed manner. I'm not interested in negativity.

In reasonable terms, this AMD chip can't be considered a stock clocked chip. This is a binned to the max ready to go overclocked SKU. For water cooling there won't be much additional headroom. I consider AMD FX to be pretty good for video compression. However, at this price it's just silly considering the competition. It doesn't even qualify as a halo product. FX-9370 at least makes some sense.

I'm not particularly interested in the readily available benchmarks of yours anyone else's intel chip. If I cared what a 39x0 did in benchmark x/y/z I would google it. The dozen posts that this cpu at clocks x does better don't matter. This is a rather dirty batch of benchmarks with little to no background information on the rest of the system. It really paints a bland picture of what the 9590 can do.

Lets be honest its a gimmick chip, but its the "fastest" chip out there. Very few people overclock, but tons buy numbers so who knows even at its ridiculous price it may sell better than anyone expects. It is available from the more elite oems which means anyone can buy a prebuiot with one.

My point is I strongly doubt your post will sway anyone to not buying this chip or buying it or honestly caring what you have to say. Why do you and your kind continue to post crap that everyone already knows? We get it your overclocked whatever is better give up the backroom intel chants. No one sits and s in the intel threads so stop ting in the amd ones.

[/rant]

[Greg83]

it was the same way on these forums, even when amd was king. didn't matter how much better IPC, or Mhz for Mhz the amd did better. cause its always been intel fanboy getaway. was always about, no one just games, ppl video edit etc where HT had an edge.
but naw, it was a niche did that then where intel was king just like a niche does games like that. the intel niche again.

but other then that. $300 for 4.7Ghz one seems awesome. Can't wait for socket FM3 and the ati values. more technology upgrades, knowing that is the direction to more performance.

besides, these are really just modules, in reality its very similar to hyperthreading with addiciton interger cores. next comes the 8 fpu and intergers. with fm3 and beyond

[repman]

In reasonable terms, this AMD chip can't be considered a stock clocked chip. This is a binned to the max ready to go overclocked SKU.

What are "reasonable terms", it's a very vague term. Same applies to the 3960X - it's never at stock clocks since it's only an overclocked an cut down Xeon...even more - you could then consider a stock clocked chip only the lowest end chip within the same architecture.

What would you do if you were AMD and you had a chance to bin a few chips and make some money? You would do the same.
Price isn't an issue since no one is forcing you to buy it.

[cx-ray]

What are "reasonable terms", it's a very vague term. Same applies to the 3960X - it's never at stock clocks since it's only an overclocked an cut down Xeon...even more - you could then consider a stock clocked chip only the lowest end chip within the same architecture.

What would you do if you were AMD and you had a chance to bin a few chips and make some money? You would do the same.
Price isn't an issue since no one is forcing you to buy it.

Reasonable as in what a potential customer like myself may think. Since it doesn't look like Ivy-E is going to be much of an upgrade over SNB-E, I was looking for alternatives.

I didn't comment on the FX-9590 initially. Now that the numbers are out, it's clear this is just a higher clocked version of a product already available from AMD. There's not going to be any area where this chip is magically going to perform better than expected.
A stock clocked comparatively price CPU from Intel would still beat it and is basically assured to have a healthy headroom for more performance through overclocking. This chip doesn't have that either. That's why I won't buy it.

[i found nemo]

In reasonable terms, this AMD chip can't be considered a stock clocked chip. This is a binned to the max ready to go overclocked SKU.

i've heard some ppl say the same thing about anything over ddr3 1333. even if it's the case, so what. the clock is stable yes? if i ever get enough money i'd buy a 9590/9370. and you know the first thing i'd do with it? try for 5.5ghz. binned or not binned, long as it's stable at stock.

A stock clocked comparatively price CPU from Intel would still beat it and is basically assured to have a healthy headroom for more performance through overclocking. This chip doesn't have that either. That's why I won't buy it.

isn't intel stuck more at like 4.6ghz with the newest revision limiting o/c even more? but, it is true that ipc went up.. what people seem to forget is that amd never said it had a new revision capable of 5ghz. they just said they were coming out with higher clocked cpus, so why would the chip magically get more cache or better ipc just because it is clocked higher?

[cdawall]

My FX showed up back home (along with a new chip for my laptop)

[felix_w]

Waiting for results...