• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD unleashes first ever commercial “5GHz” CPU, the FX-9590

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
tcsenter said:
Most likely 140W. I think the 220W figure floating around was total system power consumption. Are there any benchmarks or reviews around of a lesser model with the same core/arch overclocked to 5GHz which should hold reasonably true for these paper parts??
Click to expand...

I was thinking this also but then I saw some quoted numbers for a 8350 at 5 Ghz and that was pulling around 200 or just over so it seems about right to me. We will still have to wait for an official review though
 
SlowSpyder said:
I'm glad they're releasing these! If the price is right, I'd buy one.
Click to expand...

The link in the OP says the price is $800 for the 9590 and $400 for the 9370

I certainly would not pay that, and I doubt there are very many people who would.
 
Rory Read must have been high as a mofo the day he signed these into existence. However, to charge $800 for this piece of hotpile is just insane!
 
Why is it insane? It's a product that will have required minimal engineering effort to bring to market, and however many/few of these AMD does wind up selling will have enormous profit margins for the company.
 
Centauri said:
Why is it insane? It's a product that will have required minimal engineering effort to bring to market, and however many/few of these AMD does wind up selling will have enormous profit margins for the company.
Click to expand...

Will they? OEMs will have to design MB specific for them, and surely they won't bear the risk alone. And cooling. This processor will require some kind of non-standard cooling, which is rather expensive.
 
mrmt said:
Will they? OEMs will have to design MB specific for them, and surely they won't bear the risk alone. And cooling. This processor will require some kind of non-standard cooling, which is rather expensive.
Click to expand...

What of that has to do with AMD's margins on an $800 CPU that is based off of a $200 CPU? 😕
 
Anyways, I suspect from AMD's 9xxx monikers for these CPUs that Steamroller will bring a new naming convention, because they just tossed the current one up in the air.
 
It makes sense that a motherboard should be able to supply this kind of power, because this is exactly how much power a real APU should draw. Too bad the sockets arent the same... they really should all be FM2 at this point.
 
Just checked some reviews, and I can actually believe in 220W TDP figures

51144.png


Also no way it can be faster than even cheaper i7-3930K

51145.png
 
Way to go and pick one benchmark. How about you take all charts and multiply the times (if time is measured) by ~0.84x and points (if "points" are measured) by 1.18x. Then you will see how it will perform at 4.7/5Ghz clock and that it WILL beat 3770K in many workloads.
 
Centauri said:
What of that has to do with AMD's margins on an $800 CPU that is based off of a $200 CPU? 😕
Click to expand...

Who's going to pay $800 on an FX processor? Pricing should be way less than that if they want to move meaningful quantities of this SKU, because this price goes deep into LGA2011 territory, which offers far more performance than FX can muster for $594.

Pricing around $400 isn't too far fetched, but I assume they will have some kind of exotic cooling that will eat their margins.

Ed: Ok, [redacted], and a few others here would pay, but who else would?

No callouts
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
inf64 said:
Way to go and pick one benchmark. How about you take all charts and multiply the times (if time is measured) by ~0.84x and points (if "points" are measured) by 1.18x. Then you will see how it will perform at 4.7/5Ghz clock and that it WILL beat 3770K in many workloads.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it will use 3-4 times more power.
 
khon said:
The link in the OP says the price is $800 for the 9590 and $400 for the 9370

I certainly would not pay that, and I doubt there are very many people who would.
Click to expand...


Waaaaay too much money for these CPU's. I thought the 9590 would be an excellent chip... at $350. 🙂
 
inf64 said:
Way to go and pick one benchmark. How about you take all charts and multiply the times (if time is measured) by ~0.84x and points (if "points" are measured) by 1.18x. Then you will see how it will perform at 4.7/5Ghz clock and that it WILL beat 3770K in many workloads.
Click to expand...

Now abwx needs to pipe in. An 8350 at truly insane clocks is, in fact, generally slower than a stock 3930K.
 
I can't blame AMD for bringing this chip to market. Power efficient? Of course not. Powerful? sure. At 4.7 stock and 5 Ghz OC'd it will beat a stock 3770k and perhaps a 4770k but mostlikely NOT a 3930k. The price at $800 is too high but people will probably pay it.
 
Last edited:
I guess AMD saw the temperature and power consumption on highly overclocked Haswell and felt they had to reclaim the high temperature and power consumption crowns 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top