9590 & 9370 retail box editions hit the egg - $389/289

[SPBHM]

And what does the FX9xxx look like with a 53% overclock?

the 9590 is kind of like an 83xx OC with 50% OC, but with warranty and proper cooling included, and with the revised price it's not bad at doing that I think.
Power usage and requirements is more like from a highly OCed CPU (already 125 without the OC, so, yes..) for sure, still while it's obvious it's bad in terms of perf per watt, if you can still be happy with a 4ghz nehalem power usage, it shouldn't be a problem, it's ugly but...

 

[AtenRa]

Citation?

Does that include MSI?

How about this board that can't even support an 8350, would a 9370 run in it?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2285799
http://www.msi.com/product/mb/970A-G46.html#/?div=Basic

Im talking about all the 9xx mobos that can handle properly 125W or greater CPUs.
There are some boards that even throttle with 125W FX cpus at default settings, those are not deserve to be called motherboards at all. :whiste:

 

[AtenRa]

Not true at all Just because it runs fine with a 8350 @4.6GHz doesn't mean a 9370 would work. If the manufacture didn't release a BIOs update to add support for it its not going to work most likely. I have M5A97 Evo with a FX 8350 @5.1GHz that runs fine but it wouldn't boot with a 9370 due to incompatibility :\

Yes im aware of this, but from a technically point the FX9370 is just a higher frequency FX Vishera. BIOS availability is only artificial in order to push for certain Motherboard models.
I have the ASUS Corsair V Formula and there is NO BIOS update to support the new FX9370 and FX9590, but Corsair V Formula-Z supports them, dodnt tell me the Corsair V Formula cant support more than 125W

 

[AtenRa]

No thanks. Regardless of performance, I just don't want a 220w room heater especially in the summer... AMD's problem is not performance/$ it's performance/watt.



Which is fine for a 2008-era 45nm chip. The thing is, it's 2013 and they've kinda gone out of fashion...

I play BF4 Beta with an FX8350 @ 4.6GHz and GTX480(Highest consuming single GPU ever) consuming 380W at the wall. Your concern about 220W room heater for the FX9370 is laughable.

Edit: 380W

 

[Durvelle27]

Yes im aware of this, but from a technically point the FX9370 is just a higher frequency FX Vishera. BIOS availability is only artificial in order to push for certain Motherboard models.
I have the ASUS Corsair V Formula and there is NO BIOS update to support the new FX9370 and FX9590, but Corsair V Formula-Z supports them, dodnt tell me the Corsair V Formula cant support more than 125W

I'm pretty sure it could run a 9370 just fine but its likely a 5% chance that the 9370 will run on it without a new BIOs

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I play BF4 Beta with an FX8350 @ 4.6GHz and GTX480(Highest consuming single GPU ever) consuming 380W at the wall. Your concern about 220W room heater for the FX9370 is laughable.

Edit: 380W

380W is still pretty high considering the 480 is a sub 250w card.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And what does the FX9xxx look like with a 53% overclock?

2.8GHz to 4GHz is a 53% oc?


What would an FX8320 with a 53% overclock look like? It would probably use power like an i7 930 with a 53% overclock.


In my opinion the FX9xxx CPU's are basically nothing more than validated factory overclocked FX8xxx parts. RaistlinZ bought a CPU that was not validated for 4GHz, but got it there anyway. AMD just provided specs for their factory overclocked FX8xxx FX9xxx parts. If Intel offered a factory overclocked i7 930 it would have a high TDP too... there just aren't specs from Intel, but his CPU is in the same TDP range.

 

[AtenRa]

380W is still pretty high considering the 480 is a sub 250w card.

Even if the GTX480 alone is contributing 220W(i believe its higher than that but anyway) then the FX at 4.6GHz is less than 150W playing BF4 BETA.

 

[Phynaz]

Im talking about all the 9xx mobos that can handle properly 125W or greater CPUs.
There are some boards that even throttle with 125W FX cpus at default settings, those are not deserve to be called motherboards at all. :whiste:

So not any motherboard 9xx as you said.
Got it.

Although frankly I still think you are wrong. You are saying that a motherboard that can handle a 125w CPU can handle a 220w+ CPU.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Even if the GTX480 alone is contributing 220W(i believe its higher than that but anyway) then the FX at 4.6GHz is less than 150W playing BF4 BETA.

Which would be less than 6/8ths total usage, are you using vsync or are you running the card at full usage?

 

[AtenRa]

Which would be less than 6/8ths total usage, are you using vsync or are you running the card at full usage?

no vsync, it cant even get 60fps at 1080p. I will install my HD7950 tomorrow anyway.

 

[AtenRa]

You are saying that a motherboard that can handle a 125w CPU can handle a 220w+ CPU.

No, im saying that FX9370 is not using 220W

 

[Gikaseixas]

No, im saying that FX9370 is not using 220W

Can you further elaborate on that? How come if AMD rated it @220w ???

 

[BallaTheFeared]

no vsync, it cant even get 60fps at 1080p. I will install my HD7950 tomorrow anyway.

So sub 60 fps 380w with a ~240w card? I think 240w would be a screamer, meaning a leaky first few run GF100s, the "newer" cards seemed to address a lot of the leakage problems.

Is yours a stinker or a decent 480? If it's decent I'd drop it to 220w~.

So sub 60 on a ~240w card, that leaves ~140w for your 8350 and system which isn't even getting pushed.

I don't see how you can make the jump from those results to say the 9370 isn't drawing close to 220w at peak usage.

For simple comparison my i5 @ 4.8GHz is completely maxed out producing almost 100 FPS on avg with two 7950s at 1100/1550 power dances around 400-450w at the wall, that's 20-70w more than your single 480 system, and while I think my 7950s are pretty efficient, at 1100 and 1.168/1.2v they aren't exactly sipping the proverbial power.

 

[AtenRa]

So sub 60 fps 380w with a ~240w card? I think 240w would be a screamer, meaning a leaky first few run GF100s, the "newer" cards seemed to address a lot of the leakage problems.

Is yours a stinker or a decent 480? If it's decent I'd drop it to 220w~.

So sub 60 on a ~240w card, that leaves ~140w for your 8350 and system which isn't even getting pushed.

I don't see how you can make the jump from those results to say the 9370 isn't drawing close to 220w at peak usage.

For simple comparison my i5 @ 4.8GHz is completely maxed out producing almost 100 FPS on avg with two 7950s at 1100/1550 power dances around 400-450w at the wall, that's 20-70w more than your single 480 system, and while I think my 7950s are pretty efficient, at 1100 and 1.168/1.2v they aren't exactly sipping the proverbial power.

Ill tell you the power usage and performance with the HD7950 tomorrow.
Also, dont forget that FX9360 is at 4.4GHz and maybe with lower Voltage than my FX8350 at 4.6GHz. And once again, TDP is not power usage.

 

[AtenRa]

Can you further elaborate on that? How come if AMD rated it @220w ???

Well, TDP is not power usage. Also, FX9590 that is at 4.7GHz is also rated at 220W TDP. That doesnt mean that both FX9370 and FX9590 use the same power.

 

[Phynaz]

Well, TDP is not power usage. Also, FX9590 that is at 4.7GHz is also rated at 220W TDP. That doesnt mean that both FX9370 and FX9590 use the same power.

It also doesn't mean the don't use the same amount of power (due to binning).

Remember, this is AMD, who has been caught under reporting the power consumption of their CPU's in the past.

 

[AtenRa]

So sub 60 fps 380w with a ~240w card? I think 240w would be a screamer, meaning a leaky first few run GF100s, the "newer" cards seemed to address a lot of the leakage problems.

Is yours a stinker or a decent 480? If it's decent I'd drop it to 220w~.

So sub 60 on a ~240w card, that leaves ~140w for your 8350 and system which isn't even getting pushed.

I don't see how you can make the jump from those results to say the 9370 isn't drawing close to 220w at peak usage.

For simple comparison my i5 @ 4.8GHz is completely maxed out producing almost 100 FPS on avg with two 7950s at 1100/1550 power dances around 400-450w at the wall, that's 20-70w more than your single 480 system, and while I think my 7950s are pretty efficient, at 1100 and 1.168/1.2v they aren't exactly sipping the proverbial power.

Ill tell you the power usage and performance with the HD7950 tomorrow.

OK here we go,
I have lowered the OC to 4.4GHz to simulate the FX9370, Turbo = Off.

FX8350 @ 4.4GHz
GTX480 @ 701MHz , Det 331,40beta
HD7950 @ 1GHz , Cat 13.11beta

Win 8 64bit

Maximum Power usage at the Wall
GTX480 = 380W
HD7950 = 340W

Custom Settings

GTX480 vs HD7950 1G

High vs Custom Settings on the HD7950

 

[hans030390]

The GTX 480's framerate, while on average lower than the HD7950, is surprisingly smooth and consistent in comparison to the HD7950.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Pretty sure he's bottlenecking his 7950, probably why the 480 looks more consistent it can't push as high even if it's not cpu limited.

My system, single 7950 @ 1000/1250 1.119v ; i5 @4.8/4.4 1.245v

"Custom settings"

250w at the wall...

The 4.4GHz 8350 is using almost 100w more power and delivering less frames, I didn't except that in BF4 at all.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Nice price for those two, you get 4.4GHz and 4.7GHz, 3 years Warranty and WC kit.

FX9370 is $89.00 higher than FX8350 but it also has a 10% higher base Frequency and Water Cooling Kit. I can recommend this one right now.

I can't. $89.00 higher and apparently requires one of three motherboards, the cheapest of which is an ASRock 990FX Extreme9 @ $169

Going Intel we can go with a less expensive motherboard and bump up to a 4770K and not have to compromise. Sure, we miss out on the nice cooler, but then we don't really need it as much.

The niche in which BD/PD can make sense is just too narrow to accept these outlying products, as fairly priced as they might be, its just too expensive for what it can deliver. I'd still recommend an 8320 over these.

9590 is very fast in the applications that benefit it. Its a beast in BF3 and BF4, that's for sure.

finally somewhat competitive is not what I'd describe as beastly...unless you're talking about the job DICE has been doing with game production/design with their brilliant engines, etc.

 

[AtenRa]

I can't. $89.00 higher and apparently requires one of three motherboards, the cheapest of which is an ASRock 990FX Extreme9 @ $169

Going Intel we can go with a less expensive motherboard and bump up to a 4770K and not have to compromise. Sure, we miss out on the nice cooler, but then we don't really need it as much.

The niche in which BD/PD can make sense is just too narrow to accept these outlying products, as fairly priced as they might be, its just too expensive for what it can deliver. I'd still recommend an 8320 over these.

finally somewhat competitive is not what I'd describe as beastly...unless you're talking about the job DICE has been doing with game production/design with their brilliant engines, etc.

Im sure you can go cheaper but this CPU is not for everyone. This CPU is for people than want to exploit everything the FX CPUs can give using AIR/WC (or more exotic).
Also, those three motherboards comes with loads of features and OC capabilities. You dont recommend Core i7 to everyone, same here.