So this is essentially a pre-overclocked chip?
So it will only boost up to those speeds, not actually run at those speeds?
Just ordered an FX-8350, still happy I ordered the right part.
It's sad that this 5GHz chip from AMD will still be slower than a 3.4GHz Haswell… We need you back in the game AMD! Intel domination is bad for all us consumers.
Also 220W TDP is just silly. I thought the whole Resonant Clock Mesh thing was meant to allow these frequencies without masses of heat…?
bob36
It's sad that this 5GHz chip from AMD will still be slower than a 3.4GHz Haswell… We need you back in the game AMD! Intel domination is bad for all us consumers.
Well yes, but really that's a 3.8Ghz Haswell, let's compare like with like.
I wonder what the core speed of the 9590 will be.
I bet it'll still be a third of the price of the equivilent Intel chip though.
Clock speed between microarchitectures is essentially irrelevant now, assuming that's what you mean?
Nevertheless, if the TDP is true this is no mainstream part. Still, the hysteria over the TDP is somewhat misplaced IMO - while it would be nice to get super high bins for the price, even 220W is not especially high compared to overclocked chips anyway. It's likely not terribly good value if it's essentially just a pre-overclocked/certified standard bin though.
Umm I doubt it, the FX-8350 is £150 and this is going to be significantly more exclusive than that.
I really don't think that AMD is going to beat Intel at the CPU game in the next 3 years because AMD is so focused on raw power and cheap ass cores, while Intel is using efficiency to obtain true power. Holy crap, 255W TDP? Intel has nothing to worry about.
The people who buy this wont care about the TDP, just getting the fastest chip they can clever move by AMD I think, cant compete at stock so go for the insane, people who want the fastest but dont want to overclock i.e Alienware customers ect will love this.
Good Marketing as well.
220W TDP!!!!!
Man thats gonna be 1 hot chip.
Will the chip come with a frying pan accessory? It'd make good bacon'n'eggs :)
I'm not believing the 220W TDP stuff.
The way I read it, it can boost to 5.0GHz, up from the 4.2 in the current rather cheap 8350.
That's only a 20% boost, and if it is on one module only then I don't see why that can't be done in the 140W limit of most high end motherboards. I would have thought that by now the usual gradual process improvements should be knocking down the actual power usage of the 8350, it has been out for a while now.
Hardware_Elite
I really don't think that AMD is going to beat Intel at the CPU game in the next 3 years because AMD is so focused on raw power and cheap ass cores, while Intel is using efficiency to obtain true power. Holy crap, 255W TDP? Intel has nothing to worry about.
Don't fall for the PR. What true desktop enthusiast gives a about efficiency?
Frankly, we should be encouraging AMD to do this sort of thing. We, as enthusiasts, will be regretting it if we don't - when we're stuck with no-upgradeable laptop-grade parts in our gaming rigs
cheesyboy
Don't fall for the PR. What true desktop enthusiast gives a about efficiency?
Frankly, we should be encouraging AMD to do this sort of thing. We, as enthusiasts, will be regretting it if we don't - when we're stuck with no-upgradeable laptop-grade parts in our gaming rigs
Very true. Ive got a few hundred quids worth of water cooling and a 1100 watt PSU that cost me a fortune that I would mind getting my moneys worth out of.
I doubt any current motherboards could sustain a 220w tdp cpu for long.
Even heavily overlocked chips dont run that hot. Would have to be decent water cooling, air wouldn't cut the mustard.
As for the overboost speed hope it is 4 cores, as a single core only at 5ghz is about the speed of a 2.5ghz haswell if not slower.
What has happened to there naming convention, is this a 9 core chip, as that's what there previous guide would of suggested.
8350
8 = 8 core
3 = bulldozer
50 = speed
From the leaks I thought someone at amd was wanting intel to bring forward the ivy-e release!
The second digit as 3 = Piledriver, 1 was Bulldozer.
Again, clockspeed is a useless metric for comparison.
And even if the 220W TDP is true (as DanceswithUnix said, something doesn't sit right about it), then (also) again, you may be surprised by how much overclocked CPUs do use - it's not linear with clock speed, and there's a reason you can't OC very far with a stock heatsink, which is usually designed for roughly the TDP of the chip.
part I don't like is it's 5ghz at turbo .. does anyone use that ? it's the first thing you turn off for overclocking ..bet it can't do more than my 8350 stable which will go to 5.4 but like to keep it at 5 and under 1.45v
keithwalton
I doubt any current motherboards could sustain a 220w tdp cpu for long.
Even heavily overlocked chips dont run that hot. Would have to be decent water cooling, air wouldn't cut the mustard.
Unfortunately all the CPU power calculators online seem to be down at the moment, but I disagree. Power consumption rapidly rises with volts and clock speeds (I think my i7 920 was estimated at >300W at one point) and 220W is certainly achievable with decent air cooling.
TBH it's generally possible to get some CPUs to draw over their TDP even at stock, with certain loads.
watercooled
The second digit as 3 = Piledriver, 1 was Bulldozer.
Again, clockspeed is a useless metric for comparison.
And even if the 220W TDP is true (as DanceswithUnix said, something doesn't sit right about it), then (also) again, you may be surprised by how much overclocked CPUs do use - it's not linear with clock speed, and there's a reason you can't OC very far with a stock heatsink, which is usually designed for roughly the TDP of the chip.
My bad on mixing up bulldozer and piledriver codes, does seem though that a naming convention lasted 2 generation before they've thrown it away.
Power consumption is linear with clockspeed, and square of voltage. (so a 10% voltage increase is equiv to 21% clockspeed gain)
Which suggests they've had to significantly turn up the vcore to achieve the turbo speed.
I have a Q6600 (hot running chip by intel's standards at 130w) which has been overclocked by 33% from day one. But I run stock vcore
so tdp comes out at around 175w it's watercooled in series with my gpu with a substantial radiator that's external to my house which keeps it cool and quiet.
I suppose amd now have experience in designing chips with such a high tdp as just look at the current crop of graphics cards, they're 200w+ monsters but they run extremely hot.
No, it's not even as simple as that. You seem to be referring to an *approximate* calculation (it only truly applies to a simplistic model) (and, unless I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, a 10% voltage increase does not guarantee you'll be able to increase clock by 21%) which may give ballpark figures but is usually miles off nowadays. It gets far more complex when you consider granular power gating of modern CPUs, leakage, etc.
But let me rephrase/clarify my original statement to stand up to pedants: power consumption is not linear with clock speed, or accurately predictable, when considering the fact voltage often also requires increasing to ensure stability at the higher clock. My point being, you must expect a fair jump in power consumption when overclocking a CPU, more so than a simple linear estimation based on clock speed. 220W, if it's even true, is nothing unusual in the world of overclocking.
CPUs cannot be compared to GPUs - they're vastly different, made using different lithography processes, and it's generally acceptable for GPUs to run far hotter than CPUs, 100C load isn't unheard of especially for older models *cough*fermi*cough*.
I wonder how hot those two chips will run. My i5 3570K @4.4 runs at 47 degrees Celsius with custom loop when it is fully,100%, stressed. It's time they keep on improving their CPUs to catch up to Intel.
hero1
I wonder how hot those two chips will run. My i5 3570K @4.4 runs at 47 degrees Celsius with custom loop when it is fully,100%, stressed. It's time they keep on improving their CPUs to catch up to Intel.
What's the weather like on Pluto these days anyway?
Got that earlier calculation wrong didn't I, from basing it on 8350.
Richland can do 4.4GHz in a 100W envelope, with some of that used by graphics.
So, that's a 14% boost over Richland, with at least 40W (40%) thermal budget to do it and stay within the 140W AM3 limit.
The thing is, it doesn't matter whether AMD can manage a massive TDP in a CPU. They couldn't get motherboard companies to make proper Bulldozer socket motherboards, they had to cut it back into AM3+ losing access to the PCIe lanes built into the CPU. If they can't get boards made for features they need, what chance have they got to get big VRM changes made to boards that are going to sell very few?
So, if there is an increased TDP, then I am guessing they went to ASUS and Gigabyte and asked what their top of the range motherboards are actually capable of, and tuned for that. Then you have at least two qualified motherboards right off the bat. But then what happens if you plug it into a 95W capable uATX board? Because some muppet will try it.
The more I think about it, the more I think people are just guessing.
hero1
I wonder how hot those two chips will run. My i5 3570K @4.4 runs at 47 degrees Celsius with custom loop when it is fully,100%, stressed. It's time they keep on improving their CPUs to catch up to Intel.
and my 8350 only does 44-46c @5ghz with 1000rpm fans whats your point ? its down to cooling
flearider
and my 8350 only does 44-46c @5ghz with 1000rpm fans whats your point ? its down to cooling
Yeah 47 on water does sound a bit high doesn't it, but I find it is usually best not to reply to such posts.
You certainly don't want to point out to such people that their CPU is running the AMD64 instruction set ;)
AMD showed off the chip at E3. Looks like they may package it with a water cooler as they did some of the previous chips… (skip to around 2 minutes if you don't want to see the laptops)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCyfk4y50akI am not familiar with water cooling (air cooling guy myself) but could anyone identify the pump/block? If it's bespoke, it might be what comes along later. It looks to have some kind of chromed piping which is unique AFAIK for any AIO solution. Can't see the rad setup as well but I suspect it will probably be a single thick 120 for compatibility. However this IS an enthusiast chip, so more extreme solutions (eg. 240) could still be on the table.
What's the point of having 5 GHz when its slower then intel in most of the stuff? also not to forget such high TDP? won't be a good overclocker.
Captmario
What's the point of having 5 GHz when its slower then intel in most of the stuff? also not to forget such high TDP? won't be a good overclocker.
Because there are still loads of people out there who are still living in 2004 who think Ghz equals speed. I was reading the comments on a couple of tech sites and I was surprised by just how many people simply don't have a clue.
Eg:
Either AMD just threw a knock out punch to Intel, Or this is the beginning of round 2. Looks like it might be time to upgrade :D
They do this every now and then. The AMD K6/III and AMD64 kinda caught Intel with their pants down. AMD then decided to do an Intel and hike the prices, Intel released the Core series and stomped AMD back into second place again.
If this is another AMD blinder being pulled, I'd suggest grab it now before they hike the prices and give Intel some wiggle room to stomp on them again.
BIGGER NUMBERS!!! I WANT 6 OF THEM!!!
It's the megapixel thing all over again ;)
Stop it AMD, just stop it, the Gigaherz Era is over, I am your fan, I buy your products, but it is silly to release a 5Ghz procesor when you can find something cooler, quieter, and much powerefficient than this and also runs faster.
If it runs at 5GHz reliably, then why the hell not?
There will be people who can justify it for their needs, there may even be the opportunity to use them as underclocked and undervolted parts as I bet they will be the crème de la crème of binned units.
That's a good point actually, I wonder if we'll see many (any) reviewers testing them vs existing CPUs at comparable clocks?
Actually, this chips are better than IB or Haswell on the same price in many things. All you have to do is determine what the main objective … Buy a FX-8350 which is the same price of a i5 3350P can be an advantage or disadvantage, depends on what you intend. With this new FX-9590 will be the same and certainly will be cheaper than any i7.
And maybe exceed 6 ghz in OC and 6 ghz over 8 cores could be faster and cheaper than the i7 4770K ~ 4.5GHz and not all care about power consumption.
There is no way any of these chips are going to be 6ghz on 8 cores, not without exotic cooling anyway.
The 5ghz is a turbo frequency that more than likely doesn't affect all cores and is already dependent on having high end cooling.
The equivalent Intel chip would be a 3470 based on price.
People seem to be forgetting that this is what Bulldozer was originally intended for.
AMD lack the engineering resources to get it right first time, but they seem to be getting there.
Comparing it to the Pentium 4 is daft, that was an awful CPU that was killed off because the design overall didn't make sense.
DEC Alpha was the fastest CPU of its time, with a high clocking design. IBM Power is a high clocking design (they had 4.7GHz on air years ago on a 65nm process), and IMHO the best CPU currently available.
I shall watch with great interest to see how the next part pans out. If nothing else, as an engineer I find what AMD are doing much more interesting than Intel's quest for the most expensive laptop possible.
Not sure if serious?
Hopefully AMD concentrates on IPC rather than clockspeed for Steamroller… they are well behind the times and throwing watts at it is such a blunt instrument.
Don't be rude to other members, staff or otherwise –Steve.
Interesting how he says despite AMD's bravado, the 8 core 5GHz FX-9590 cpu is still no match for i7-4770K.
Interesting that when back when there was the GHz war between Intel and AMD, Intel was winning, but AMD had much better processors. Now that AMD has higher GHz than Intel, Intel has better processors. See a pattern here?
freakzilla172
Interesting that when back when there was the GHz war between Intel and AMD, Intel was winning, but AMD had much better processors. Now that AMD has higher GHz than Intel, Intel has better processors. See a pattern here?
Honestly, no. You have cherry picked two moments in x86 in the decades of computing history that you feel make your point, and ignored all other architectures and times.
By that measure the 2.5GHz max Itanium should be the best achitecture ever, yet it is quite rightly ridiculed.
A good architecture is, like so much in life, about balance. In CPU design it is formalised as “Ahmdahl's law”. Haswell is a descendant of the Pentium Pro, so lots of time for balance to be perfected. I don't think the Pentium 4 could have ever managed the kind of sweet spot that Haswell is at now if they had kept on the Netburst roadmap, so thankfully they killed it off.
The balance isn't right in the current AMD design, but that doesn't mean it is unfixable.
and AMD have said its OEM only
I am gonna be keeping an eye on this cpu to see how it compare to 8350 and intel.
Comes in at $920, a bit more expensive than the 8350 then!