News
 

Bookmark and Share

(26) 

Advanced Micro Devices on Tuesday confirmed rumours about FX enthusiast-class microprocessors with extreme clock-rates. The new products are the world’s commercially available microprocessors with guaranteed maximum speed of 5.0GHz. AMD FX-9000 series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators, but not to end-users.

“At E3 this week, AMD demonstrated why it is at the core of gaming. The new FX 5GHz 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 5GHz processor,” said Bernd Lienhard, corporate vice president and general manager of client products division at AMD.

There will be two extreme FX microprocessor modules available: FX-9370 clocked at 4.40GHz with 4.70GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency as well as FX-9590 clocked at 4.70GHz with 5.00GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency. The new FX chips will have eight Piledriver cores and will come in AM3+ form-factor. Nonetheless, given the fact that there are currently few mainboards that officially support chips with such high power consumption, the new chips are not drop-in compatible with existing infrastructure.

The rumours about code-named Centurion chips with ultra-high clock-speeds have been floating around for some time now. Originally, it was expected that limited edition FX chips will conquer 5.0GHz clock-speed with all of its eight cores, and will therefore will be competitive against Intel’s Core i7 high-end desktop (HEDT) products in LGA2011 packaging. Moreover, Centurion was supposed to reach the frequency with air cooling and remain stable inside desktop PCs.

In reality, AMD managed to boost default clock-speed of Vishera eight-core processors to 4.70GHz, or by 17.5% compared to the FX-8350, the top-of-the-range chip available for end-users today. 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.

AMD’s current top-of-the-range eight-core FX-8350 microprocessor is clocked at 4.0GHz and in terms of performance is typically behind Intel Core i7-3770K and Core i7-4770K (4 cores with HT, LGA1155) as well as Core i7-3970X (6 cores with HT, LGA2011). While in video games its performance can easily be improved by overclocking, in applications where performance difference equals or exceeds 50%, a 17.5% clock-speed boost will hardly help much.

Several years ago AMD already offered so-called TWKR chips, which were available in quantity of less than 100 units worldwide, but which attracted loads of attention to Phenom II processors in mid-2009. 

Tags: AMD, FX, Vishera, Piledriver, 32nm

Discussion

Comments currently: 26
Discussion started: 06/11/13 07:52:08 AM
Latest comment: 07/07/13 04:13:26 AM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-5]

1. 
surely for AMD fans ...
6 0 [Posted by: mudi1  | Date: 06/11/13 07:52:08 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Sure. This thing will suck up power and still be crappy in terms of performance. The FLOPS/watt ratio stays the same or may even be worse than with the FX-8350, as power consumption increases exponentially with the clock frequency.
It may be a technical prowess to have the first CPU running at 5GHz without OC, but I am still not convinced by AMD.
Mind you, I am equally not impressed by Intel's Haswell iteration of the Core architecture in regards of desktop usage.
Just to say, I am neither an Intel nor an AMD fanboy.
9 1 [Posted by: lgm  | Date: 06/11/13 08:01:08 AM]
Reply
 
It may be a technical prowess to have the first CPU running at 5GHz without OC, but I am still not convinced by AMD.


ANd the 5GHz is just for turbo. The base clock is 4.7GHz
3 2 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 06/11/13 10:02:54 AM]
Reply
 
There are more non-loyal folks that only care about price/performance-- without overclocking-- at whatever price range than fanatics that limit their own choices by the flags they want to wave. Try to be objective and not see things in terms of red or blue.

Like I said in the other article's comments, the real trick is whether it is clocked high enough to make a difference at stock speeds. No one is going to spend mid-way between 3930K and 3970X if it isn't faster than 3930K.
1 0 [Posted by: lehpron  | Date: 06/11/13 09:34:48 AM]
Reply
 
agreed
0 1 [Posted by: mudi1  | Date: 07/07/13 04:11:25 AM]
Reply
 
agreed
0 1 [Posted by: mudi1  | Date: 07/07/13 04:12:08 AM]
Reply
 
agreed
0 1 [Posted by: mudi1  | Date: 07/07/13 04:12:22 AM]
Reply

2. 
Performance difference equals or exceeds 50%? That's pretty biased against AMD to make a bold statement like that without backing it up. Phoronix would like a word with you: http://www.phoronix.com/s...0_visherabdver2&num=1
6 1 [Posted by: mmstick  | Date: 06/11/13 07:54:19 AM]
Reply

3. 
""unleashes 200watt love""
3 3 [Posted by: amdzorz  | Date: 06/11/13 09:16:02 AM]
Reply

4. 
The 220w figure is not TDP, it's total power consumed. They will likely run just fine on highend AM3+ mobos with good VRM circuits.

Intel CPUs are not even remotely close to being 50% faster than AMDs in typical application, so we have another exaggeration and attach on AMD by Anton.

I laugh at the WizDumb expressed about power consumption on these or other FX CPUs. If you were smart enough to actually compare AMD FX CPUs to Intel SB/IB or Asswell running real apps you'd see they use very similar energy because neither CPU functions at 100% load very often. The TDP is when the CPU is under 100% load. AMD's uses 8-cores. Intel uses fewer cores with higher power consumption per core. Thus all of the uninformed carping about AMD CPU power consumptions is laughable and illustrates the ignorance of those whining.
8 7 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 06/11/13 09:33:11 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
220w figure is TDP, google it.
3 2 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 06/11/13 09:46:21 AM]
Reply
 
I've noticed similar ignorance when people forget basic math and science.

For instance, when Bulldozer debuted people were surprised that a 32nm 8-core used more power than a 32nm Intel quad; that should have been a "duh" and not necessarily a failure. Most were citing this first preview as gospel:

http://lab501.ro/procesoa...8150-bulldozer-preview/14

Even the author made the ignorant claim that just because the FX8150 was measured using more power than the TDP bracket, that it was fail. But TDP is more to do with heat dissipation than power consumption, just because they are both measured in Watts in the metric system doesn't make them the same numbers. The difference between heat and power is efficiency, which doesn't mean using less; but most enthusiasts act like they've never taken a course on classic mechanical physics. Many think just because they know how to build their own systems that they are somehow smarter than companies that design and build these things. It is a riot.

For instance, you hardly read about any backlash from an older Core i7-980X review by Anandtech where the 6-core measure 136.8W consumed against the 130W TDP:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/2

Apparently, it is okay for Gulftown to breach perceived ignorant TDP by 6.8W but not okay for Zambezi to breach perceived ignorant TDP by 4.9W. They are both use 32nm process lithography and have around the same number of a billion transistors. They are the ironic closest cousins-- so what that they don't perform anywhere near each other since we're talking about energy consumption and heat dissipation.

I only throw the last part in as some folks change subjects if they think they aren't going to win a debate, and when you fumble in confusion for what on Earth is has anything to do with the discussion, they interpret that as a win and focus only on that thereafter. Forget the entire discussion beforehand with merit...they already know they are right and don't think they have to give evidence as if it were obvious.
9 4 [Posted by: lehpron  | Date: 06/11/13 09:56:58 AM]
Reply
 
agree
1 3 [Posted by: linuxlowdown  | Date: 06/12/13 12:36:04 AM]
Reply

5. 
so no added cores and the same level of cache and you are paying 800 dollars for something you can do with an 8320 and a little liquid cooling that is compatible with any am3+ platform. yeah as much as I like amd this is pointless.
6 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 06/11/13 06:54:37 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I think the point is that it's for branding/ marketing purposes, as the end of the article suggests. I can't imagine that these will be made in any great volume. This is not the product to beat Intel. It's the product to give street cred. Like car companies getting involved with Formula 1 - it has a halo effect on the rest of their products - Honda/ Williams, Renault/ Red Bull, Mercedes, etc.
2 1 [Posted by: linuxlowdown  | Date: 06/11/13 08:09:36 PM]
Reply
 
agreed
0 2 [Posted by: mudi1  | Date: 07/07/13 04:13:05 AM]
Reply
 
agreed
0 2 [Posted by: mudi1  | Date: 07/07/13 04:13:26 AM]
Reply

[1-5]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

8:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

12:22 pm | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

9:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

6:41 pm | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture

Monday, August 25, 2014

6:05 pm | Chinese Inspur to Sell Mission-Critical Servers with AMD Software, Power 8 Processors. IBM to Enter Chinese Big Data Market with the Help from Inspur