News
 

Bookmark and Share

(31) 

While the FX-9000-series central processing units from Advanced Micro Devices has not really become popular, they demonstrated AMD’s desire to compete for the high-end of the desktop market. On Friday the company reaffirmed this and said that it would release a new AMD FX central processing unit, possibly, to offer an alternative to Intel Corp.’s new chips code-named Devil’s Canyon.

Roy Taylor, vice president of global channel sales at AMD, on Friday published a teaser on his Twitter. The post contains a picture of an FX processor packaging, which is vastly different from packages that AMD currently uses for its FX product line. The label on the box says that it contains an “FX-series processor with liquid cooling technology.” The teaser is entitled with the phrase “something new is coming.”

Since AMD calls the new product a “processor”, the chip is clearly not an accelerated processing unit (APU) and therefore is a “classic” central processing unit (CPU) with no integrated graphics engine. A source close to AMD confirmed that the new FX chip for desktops is indeed a new multi-core CPU aimed at high-end desktops. The new FX microprocessor is fully unlocked and comes with a closed-loop liquid-cooling solution, which means that it is aimed at enthusiasts and overclockers.

Since AMD’s roadmaps do not contain any multi-core CPUs for servers or desktops based on the Steamroller architecture (which powers the code-named Kaveri APUs), it is highly likely that the new FX chips will be based on the Vishera design and the Piledriver micro-architecture.

Last year, in an attempt to respond to the launch of Intel’s code-named Haswell microprocessor, AMD released two “extreme” FX-class central processing units code-named “Centurion”: the FX-9370 (eight cores, 4.40/4.70GHz, 8MB L2 cache, 8MB L3 cache, 200W thermal design power) and the FX-9590 (eight cores, 4.70/5.0GHz, 8MB L2 cache, 8MB L3 cache, 220W thermal design power). The CPUs are compatible with advanced AM3+ mainboards and require sophisticated cooling systems.

AMD’s FX-9000-series microprocessors could offer decent performance in numerous applications, but the chips were slower compared to the unlocked Haswell chips – the Core i7-4770K and the Core i5-4670K – in many other programs. The CPUs did not manage to offer a true alternative to their competitors partly because of lower performance, but mostly because of extreme thermal design power.

As it appears, AMD decided to offer an even faster FX processor (or, maybe, processors) in order to fight the new code-named “Devil’s Canyon” central processing units from Intel. While exact specifications are to be confirmed, it is logical to assume that AMD is preparing something with default clock-rate(s) of 5GHz or higher (the source close to AMD could not confirm the target frequency) since the clock-rate is the main trump that AMD has against the Haswell micro-architecture.

What remains to be seen is how competitive will AMD FX “Vishera” at 5.0GHz+ be against Intel Core i7-4790K at 4.0GHz.

Tags: 32nm, AMD, FX, amd fx, Centurion, Centurion 2014, Core i7, Devil’s Canyon, FX 2014, Globalfoundries, Intel, news, Piledriver, SOI, Steamroller, Vishera, x86

Discussion

Comments currently: 31
Discussion started: 06/22/14 02:11:15 AM
Latest comment: 07/20/14 01:18:09 AM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-14]

1. 
well it would be pointless to make these extreme versions apu's anyhow considering they are aimed towards overclocking enthusiasts who will never use the gpu on the apu. I would love for intel to do that and make a core i5 or core i7 with no apu at all and replace it will more cache instead, but that won't ever happen considering they want you to pay a high premium with the extreme edition for that luxury.
0 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 06/22/14 02:11:15 AM]
Reply

2. 
AMD i want this is based on steamroller 28nm with power consumption only 125 wat at 5GHz if u can manage this, u are throwing your money away...
2 1 [Posted by: Ryuzaki Raiga  | Date: 06/22/14 10:43:15 AM]
Reply

3. 
Hopefully a 8 core steamroller/28nm at 4.5ghz with 5ghz turbo would be smaller then the haswell parts but still competitive... if it's a 32nm vishera refresh then just don't launch it... seriously amd you would just make a mockery out of it...
0 0 [Posted by: tcube  | Date: 06/22/14 06:00:54 PM]
Reply

4. 
Bundling water cooling to make Vishera run at something like 5.3 GHz , 150 W instead of 5 GHz, 125W while competing against 4.4 GHz Haswell which does >30% more in clock cycle, while consiming something like 88 watts.

I don't see why anybody would want to buy this chip.


What they need is to get a decent performance-optimized manufacturing process instead of the "this cheaper process allows us to put more gpu cores which are idle because of lack of memory bandwidth" process they use in Kaveri, and get clock speeds up with low voltage, reasonable power comsumption ,without overclocking-style tricks, and leave overclocking to those users who are not bothered from the power usage.


1 0 [Posted by: hkultala  | Date: 06/23/14 02:33:56 AM]
Reply

5. 
One Argument in your article is simply wrong. Just because it's called "processor" dosen't mean that it has to be a CPU. An APU is a processor as well ("Accelerated Processing Unit" ) and even a GPU is a processor. So this point isn't a pro Vishera/AM3+ Argument at all.
1 1 [Posted by: LoRDxRaVeN  | Date: 06/23/14 04:44:16 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The box clearly shows FX, there are no APU's with the FX name for desktops.
0 1 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/23/14 05:37:08 AM]
Reply
 
Actually the notebook version of Kaveri was a mobile FX APU http://www.tomshardware.c...600p-kaveri-apu,3842.html
0 2 [Posted by: Bigego  | Date: 06/23/14 11:39:40 AM]
Reply
 
FX by name only!
a quote from the same review you linked > "In truth, this is simply a new top-tier sub-class for AMD's notebook-oriented hardware."
So hardly a top tier high performance CPU.
0 0 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/23/14 09:11:10 PM]
Reply
 
You want water cooling in a laptop? Have fun with the increased weight!
1 0 [Posted by: basroil  | Date: 06/25/14 03:25:05 AM]
Reply

6. 
Hmmm.. I am suggesting AMD just throw every possible numbers of cores inside the FX within same die or slightly larger than APU. Perhaps 24 cores of 2.8GHz of Pile Driver or Newer architecture.

Customer will know its as a non Critical processor as opposed as server processors but I think it makes sense as people that using consumer processor are seeking for another options. But most consumers that are doing CG related processing don't really care it is a CPU or APU as long it gives dominant results.

If AMD can put in 30 cores in one CPU at once at 2.5GHz.. I think it would be a game changer.
0 0 [Posted by: Norman Mohamad  | Date: 06/23/14 05:20:27 AM]
Reply

7. 
An Extreme Product doesn't have to be an overclocking friendly only. Anything can do as long it having something rather extreme from the any other similar product. Same goes to VIA.. or any others.. If they can put in 50 cores in one die at once and result is insane, perhaps this can make things even interesting.

FX or Extremes doesn't really matters if it doesn't work.
1 0 [Posted by: Norman Mohamad  | Date: 06/23/14 05:27:00 AM]
Reply

8. 
show the post
0 3 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/23/14 05:34:27 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Wasn't for ivy bridge, it was for Sandy Bridge - E (150W chips), and they had an earlier version for 1366 socket chips too
1 1 [Posted by: basroil  | Date: 06/25/14 03:26:49 AM]
Reply
 
You gave me a thumbs down for that?
I use one on my Ivy Bridge Processor, made for that model!
So you have only proven me right that Intel already had them, for ordinary Processors.
0 2 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/25/14 06:15:30 AM]
Reply
 
No, I only responded. Now I gave you a thumbs down for being pointlessly concerned with voting
1 1 [Posted by: basroil  | Date: 06/27/14 12:51:37 AM]
Reply

9. 
Heat and power factor? Why almost all power supply increased their power output.. now at 1500 watts.. maybe 2015 they might increased 2500 watts.. This somehow really don't collate with how CPU or APU vision... extreme CPU should be different from their under performance ultra low voltage and mobile counterparts.

We are talking and discussing about ultimate performance here... which one really up to their names.. now its all dominated by intel.

For AMD, i think its a wasteful efforts to include water cooling if it only came 2nd or even the last in the arena.

I know it will take times.. but at least something that is unusual.
0 0 [Posted by: Norman Mohamad  | Date: 06/23/14 05:51:20 AM]
Reply

10. 
show the post
0 3 [Posted by: Tristan  | Date: 06/23/14 07:59:34 AM]
Reply

11. 
Finally I can add to my 300 HP Car a 300 TDP Processor.
I like the number 300 so I hope the new FX will be like that
0 2 [Posted by: Rollora  | Date: 06/23/14 08:01:39 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Your's only has 300HP?
*laughs*
0 2 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/23/14 09:14:44 PM]
Reply

12. 
There are a lot of dumb arguments here as usual. The current best bang for the buck AMD product is the FX-8350 which will often OC to 4.6+ GHz. or higher and run just fine. The FX-9xxx series is intended for those who want the same performance as my OC'd FX-8350 without having to adjust the BIOS settings to get it.

The FX-8350 delivers excellent performance at a reasonable price. It also gives consumers an opportunity to purchase goods from a reputable company instead of InHell who has been convicted on three continents for violation of anti-trust laws as they try to stop AMD from delivering better products at lower prices.

Those who want a free market and quality PC products can vote with their wallet by buying AMD products. Those who like being raped can buy InHell products. The choice is yours. Without AMD there would be no choice and you'd be stuck supporting a unscrupulous company who violates law for profit -- all at YOUR expense.
7 4 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 06/23/14 09:13:21 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
You are forgetting electricity prices form your bang/buck equation.

And you are comparing overclocked AMD to non-overclocked intel. Overclock also intel to get more fair comparison, or don't overclock either.

And there is nothing excellent about single-thread performance of FX-8350, it's just easily beaten by some mid-level core i5, and single-thread perfomance is what matter most.

4 2 [Posted by: hkultala  | Date: 06/23/14 11:21:59 AM]
Reply
 
I'm not forgetting anything. Single thread performance accounts for less and less everyday so I don't lose sleep over advertising hype.

Often when people run PCs side by side without knowing what is powering the two PCs, the majority of people end up preferring the AMD powered PCs which speaks volumes about real world performance vs. hype.

Even if Intel had a huge performance advantage no scrupulous person would support their illegal behavior and extortionist prices unless they are fools.
3 2 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 06/23/14 12:22:10 PM]
Reply
 
What is your sample base for "majority of people"?
0 0 [Posted by: KeyBoardG  | Date: 06/23/14 02:40:54 PM]
Reply
 
You are forgetting electricity prices... just a 5W idle difference results in about $8 per year in increased prices. These chips draw about 50W more in idle, so that's $80 a year. Over just three years the chip is 50% more expensive than a 4770k!
1 0 [Posted by: basroil  | Date: 06/25/14 03:29:28 AM]
Reply
 
True.
In fact, the latest Pentium G3258 Processor has been tested and designed to run stably at 4.2GHz overclock, it has been safely run at 4.8GHz.
That beats most FX Processors.
1 2 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/23/14 09:18:46 PM]
Reply
 
Again some idiot gives me a thumbs down for stating a fact!
Can't handle the truth?
0 1 [Posted by: caring1  | Date: 06/25/14 06:17:26 AM]
Reply
 
You still live in the past about the violations. Yes, AMD got screwed by Intel's tactics, but AMD screwed themselves of not persuading companies that their K7 and K8 processors were the best during those times. DIYers only know that the K7 and K8 processors were better during those times. Unfortunately, DIY community only counts 1% of the total computer buyers. What is done is done. Get over it.

The FX processors does not have a good performance vs power consumption ratio to make it a good buying decision. People have to worry about electricity cost, so FX becomes just as expensive as Intel i7 processors.
3 0 [Posted by: tecknurd  | Date: 06/26/14 02:13:38 AM]
Reply
 
Unlike most computer enthusiast who focuses on gaming, I do x264 encoding 24/7/365. Electricity cost is a big concern to me because I'm stressing CPU all day long.

I may be saving money from FX CPU right away, but I'll be losing money on the long run. In my case 1 year is all I need to break even on an i7.

Setting aside cost, i7 has a lead on FX in video encoding. In my case the gap is huge because I do 1-pass CRF encoding at 10-bit. Any extra fps I can squeeze out of i7 saves me several hours per video. Most x264 benchmark out there is 8-bit 2-pass ABR which is very easy overall on CPU.

And yeah, it is tiring to hear people defend AMD because of Intel's past violation. Some people just couldn't let go and move forward.
0 0 [Posted by: trumpet-205  | Date: 07/19/14 01:23:16 PM]
Reply

13. 
Paving the way for a 300 W CPU.
1 0 [Posted by: Harry Lloyd  | Date: 06/27/14 09:15:43 AM]
Reply

14. 
After a review of AMD FX Processors being inferior to intel, I chimed in and had something to say. I am sharing that post here. It's just that you people seem to think you know so much but most of your criticisms are more due to being biased and narrow minded. I know the difference on my Digital Audio Workstation gave me my answer. AMD was the better system for my needs. All you that talk about smaller die and electric bills probably do not have any technical background worth talking about. Most people with subjective views like I read here are not showing any character and clearly closed minded due to lack of ability to know when something has the potential of being a good thing.

The test I responded to between intel and amd:

I find that the testing was very isolated and and does not show how broad and versatile the options are when enthusiasts want to take a shot at a high end machine using the FX architecture. In fact, most people are easily mislead to think FX CPUs are not as capable as intel series CPUs because articles like this project a rather narrow and sometimes closed mindset. And the occasional comment to boast something positive about the FX processors just to make it seem like they are totally objective.

I use a 95W AMD FX8300. When overclocked to 5GHz, I am not seeing much increase in the power consumption at all. I have to say, objectively speaking, that intel has a very strong edge with the latest i5 and i7 series CPUs, out of the box. But not everyone uses the same hardware configuration. That's why we have some who are very knowledgeable enthusiasts who have experimented with a wide array of hardware configurations with many hours of testing with different settings. It takes alot more to convince someone like me so I have read so many reports and reviews over the past 15 years just to get as much data as possible when i make a decision to buy something. And finally, I bought my first FX CPU in October 2013.

One thing that I noticed about a good comparison with games and comparing FPS. When someone uses a high end video card setup, maybe Crossfire or SLI, it takes the load off the CPU. So all the FPS scores in this review are pointless. Because the video configration in this setup was lacking if you want to build a good high end gaming machine. Like I said, I have an FX8300 95W processor. I witnessed this CPU at work while running 2 video cards in Crossfire with the FX8300 overclocked to 5GHZ. The total system wattage only increased slightly and when you do the math the conclusion was the CPU never even exceeded 125W. Well, I was so impressed by this system's performance I had to get an FX8300. Not only was it doing well as far as power consumption but the i7 4700k system it was being compared to was running at stock clocks with the same crossfire setup and only 2 out of 7 games did the 4700k rival the FX8300 in FPS. The guy who was doing this test told me not to place any emphasis on the FPS test because he said any enthusiast who knows how to build a rig should know that the GPU takes the brunt. Now, he said he can squeeze more frames out of the 4700k by overclocking it. SO I wanted to see. In order to beat the FX8300, he was causing the 4700k to consume alot more power. And in the end what we had were 2 high end systems that performed near equal, and power consumption with both CPUs was pretty comparable. Any differences were not worth mentioning. So basically if you do not look at the WHOLE picture when configuring a system, or doing a review, you are only going to convince those who do not know that much

All enthusiasts who have broad knowledge of system hardware integration are keen on some important details when building a rig. It's said that if you want to equal the performance of the i7 4700k with the comparable FX CPU, you have to overclock the FX CPU about 600mhz over top of the intel CPUs current clock rate. When it comes to overclocking, AMD seems to have the edge. Because some people have taken FX8350 to 5.2Ghz or more while using commonly used high end cooling products. In order to get your i7 4700K within 600mhz of this overclock, it would need to go to at least 4.6 GHz. Well that about squeezes what most 4700K CPUs have in them because they are known for being limited overclockers. Intel insists on using paste for the transference of heat between IHS and the die. If you want to risk damaging your CPU, you can remove it and solder the heat shield to the die or be smart and pay an experienced person to do it for you. This will add another $100 to the cost of your CPU, give or take.

In fact, so many people selling i7 4700K CPUs on EBAY as "NEW OTHER" because of how inconsistent these processors are. Enthusiasts buy the 4700K new, try to overclock it only to find out they got weak cores that do not overclock well. Alot of 4700K CPUs can't even exceed 4.2GHz without massive heat problems and system lock ups. And that should also be something to consider if you want to build a high end system with a nice overclock. Some people have gone through 4 or 5 4700K CPUs just to get 1 that overclocks to 4.4 to 4.6 GHz. Honestly I may not even consider trying a second time if it did not work the first time. And I won't settle for a limited processor. Making such a statement that AMD is out of the high end PC market is such a narrow minded way of looking at things . If you think about how consistently well FX CPUs can be overclocked, many will consider it best to chance an FX CPU and get to 4.8 or 5GHz or even higher instead of risking the chance of getting one of the many 4700K Dudds that are out there.

I am in no way trying to compare the processors in the same way this review compared them. These things I am mentioning were all factors that were important to enthusiasts when deciding which platform was best and this is something that is equally important to me.

At the end of the day, nobody has to run an FX processor at clock rates so high to get performance that will be more than adequate to handle any game or program you throw at it. When someone wants to show one platform is better than the other, that is just is the agenda they have. If a system with a 4700k will give me 100 FPS while running a high end game, using total system wattage of 250W I am going to be happy. If I have to run my FX8300 at stock clocks or restrict my overclock some in order to keep my system wattage comparable, it will not make my system inferior. Even if my system only gave me 85 FPS in this scenario, I do not know one person who will complain with 85 FPS with a high end game running at a high resolution. You just cannot claim a benchmark makes a CPU better when so many other things can be done to make both platforms more competitive. And in the end, there will be several scenarios to make both winners in many tests. It's is the versatility that won my vote. Intel required too much effort and money to make it versatile for overclocking. Not to mention to risk of getting one of the Dudds.

So, keep the reviews coming, because there are still some "wanna be enthusiasts" that will be easily swayed by a benchmark. But once all are on board, and more and more programs are designed around multicore architecture, the benchmarks programs will have to follow suit and then we may see that an 8 core FX CPU was never worst than an Intel i7 CPU. Perhaps FX CPUs are ahead of their time. Real world performance has always been more than fast enough and even FX Quad core has managed to integrate with other good hardware with the end result being a system that can handle ANYTHING you throw at it. People try to make them seem like they are not even competitive and that is the mindset of those who are biased. Do not ever discount an AMD FX Series Processor. Instead, learn more about ways to take advantage of how versatile and powerful it really is. And never worry about getting a Dudd
1 0 [Posted by: tteksystems  | Date: 07/20/14 01:18:09 AM]
Reply

[1-14]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

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

Sunday, August 24, 2014

6:12 pm | Former X-Bit Labs Editor Aims to Wed Tabletop Games with Mobile Platforms. Game Master Wants to Become a New World of Warcraft