Forgot your password?
AMD Hardware

AMD Making a 5 GHz 8-Core Processor At 220 Watts 271

Posted by Soulskill
from the numbers-getting-bigger dept.
Vigile writes "It looks like the rumors were true; AMD is going to be selling an FX-9590 processor this month that will hit frequencies as high as 5 GHz. Though originally thought to be an 8-module/16-core part, it turns out that the new CPU will have the same 4-module/8-core design that is found on the current lineup of FX-series processors including the FX-8350. But, with an increase of the maximum Turbo Core speed from 4.2 GHz to 5.0 GHz, the new parts will draw quite a bit more power. You can expect the the FX-9590 to need 220 watts or so to run at those speeds and a pretty hefty cooling solution as well. Performance should closely match the recently released Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell processor so AMD users that can handle the 2.5x increase in power consumption can finally claim performance parity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Making a 5 GHz 8-Core Processor At 220 Watts

Comments Filter:
  • by CajunArson (465943) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @04:27PM (#43977953) Journal

    The message is: You got the Megahertz myth wrong! The only myth is that Megahertz isn't important!

    Oh, and all that performance-per-watt stuff? You might want to walk that back. Oh and, pull those Youtube videos where you accuse Nvidia users of being fake-pot farmers because their cards pull so much power. Sure it was funny at the time, but we'd rather not have to live that one down now.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @04:30PM (#43978013)

    There is no way this cpu has a 220w TDP. I can't believe a website as reputable as slashdot would post such utter nonsense. That figure is probably total system comsumption, which won't be anywhere near 2.5x more.

  • by somarilnos (2532726) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @04:39PM (#43978133)

    The summary suggests that the "performance should closely match the recently released Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell processor", but nothing in the article, or anything released about this chip so far, supports that. It's all just guesswork until we see some actual benchmarks from the chip.

    I don't honestly expect we're going to be seeing performance parity from this chip (although I'd love it to be true). But that hasn't been AMD's selling point for me for a long time. Chances are, we're going to see a chip that breaks the 5.0 GHz barrier, under-performs relative to Intel's top end chip, but costs about half as much. That's been their game for a long time now, and I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that this chip is changing that.

  • AMD slower / MHz (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SpaceManFlip (2720507) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @04:45PM (#43978235)
    you're probably right - I was slightly shocked recently when I compared the performance benchmarks of an 8-core AMD to a 4-core Intel. I saw the 8-core on sale for about $179 and thought "wow!" but then I was more like "wow...." after seeing the benches.

    basically, the 8-core AMD was slower performance-wise the 4-core Intel with the AMD running a few MHz faster

  • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gma i l . com> on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @05:03PM (#43978491) Journal

    I would urge those that wonder WTF AMD is doing copying all the old mistakes Intel did with netburst to read this post by a former employee [] who lays out exactly why this is happening, the former CEO did the usual Wall street move of slash and burn, get a stock bounce, and cash out.

    They are stuck with the Netburst that is Bulldozer/Piledriver/Suckavator or whatever other names they want to give it because the former CEO FIRED everybody that knew how to make a chip over there and replaced them with computer layouts which as you can see blow through power like shit through a goose while giving worse performance on a per watt basis than the previous Stars arch.

    This isn't coming from some Intel fanboy, I own and sell nothing but AMD at the shop, but when I can no longer get Stars and Liano chips I'm gonna have to seriously look at Intel because these new designs just suuuuck. There is a good reason why you don't see Thuban chips in most benchmarks against the new chips, its because if you matched clock for clock the Thubans and Denebs will win. That is pretty damned sad, when your old chips are actually better while using less power but the CEO they had closed down production of all the Stars cores (again to get a stock bounce and cash out) so there really is no plan B here.

    I just hope the game console chips can give them enough operating capital to keep them afloat while hopefully the new chip designer they hired, the same one that did the Athlon64 and the Apple A6, can come up with a new design to make AMD at least kinda competitive. Until then I'll hang onto to AM3+ and Stars as long as I can and then start looking at the i3s and i5s.

  • Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tough Love (215404) on Tuesday June 11, 2013 @05:26PM (#43978751)

    You got that one wrong. Netburst was about deepening the pipeline to ridiculous extremes in order to ramp the clock. The new AMD story is pure clock ramp via process technology and power management. Big difference there.

"If you want to eat hippopatomus, you've got to pay the freight." -- attributed to an IBM guy, about why IBM software uses so much memory