AMD Making a 5 GHz 8-Core Processor At 220 Watts 271
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."
2013 AMD has a message for 2005 AMD (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This post should be deleted. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
"Performance should closely match" (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
basically, the 8-core AMD was slower performance-wise the 4-core Intel with the AMD running a few MHz faster
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
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.