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

[SlowSpyder]

Looking at cinebench single threaded. 3770k is 66% faster, 4770k is 78% faster. The difference in max turbo for the new chip is +19%. Even assuming perfect scaling with clockspeed, it is not even close. There are a lot of other primarily single threaded benchmarks where the 3770k or 4770k are ahead by considerably more than 20%.

Anyone know how Piledriver's IPC compares to Nehalem? Aren't the two pretty close in performance on a clock per clock basis?

 

[Vesku]

Anyone know how Piledriver's IPC compares to Nehalem? Aren't the two pretty close in performance on a clock per clock basis?

No, Piledriver brought IPC up to ~ Phenom II level. A Piledriver SKU is pretty close to comparable Nehalem SKUs though thanks to higher clockspeeds.

 

[jhu]

No, Piledriver brought IPC up to ~ Phenom II level. A Piledriver SKU is pretty close to comparable Nehalem SKUs though thanks to higher clockspeeds.

IPC is actually about the same as Bulldozer. Take a look here. Piledriver is faster mainly due to increased processor speed.

 

[os2wiz]

Valid points, however that doesn't mean the engineering team is always spot on, they mess up sometimes. I just find it hilarious that the company gets defended at all costs by the same individuals and so on...
I'm waiting on the next step, i have faith that Intel will release something that we'll be able to get 4.8ghz out of it regularly. It has a decent IPC boost over IB but let's not pretend that by achieving 4.3ghz on Haswell (matching IB@4.8) is what we all expected. I expected to see Haswell do 4.8ghz and give me a motive to upgrade. Haswell @4.3 is a sidegrade.

As I have stated elsewhere Haswell=Hasbeen. It will barely compete against the coming Steamroller FX release. I know the proof is in the pudding, but the known slated improvements make steamroller a major upgrade over Vishera and close most of the gap in single threaded performance. In multithreaded I expect Steamroller to best I7-4770k without any doubt.

 

[Hitman928]

IPC is actually about the same as Bulldozer. Take a look here. Piledriver is faster mainly due to increased processor speed.

Depends on the workload, an easier way to see the comparison would be here:

http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/434?vs=698

Despite the slower clock speed, the 8320 still beats the 8150. The average of BD vs PD at the same clock is about 8-9 % but games show about 15+% improvement on average. Not bad for a quick fix solution.

 

[SPBHM]

As I have stated elsewhere Haswell=Hasbeen. It will barely compete against the coming Steamroller FX release. I know the proof is in the pudding, but the known slated improvements make steamroller a major upgrade over Vishera and close most of the gap in single threaded performance. In multithreaded I expect Steamroller to best I7-4770k without any doubt.

os2wiz
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7

I'm skeptical, the jump AMD needs for ST performance is HUGE, considering what AMD has done since 2003, I can't see this happening, and there is nothing to suggest it will...

still, if Intel keeps limiting mainstream to 4 cores and low TDPs, AMD will always have an opportunity, to sell bigger dies, with higher power usage with comparable performance (for MT)... like the 9590 vs 4770k

 

[Hitman928]

As I have stated elsewhere Haswell=Hasbeen. It will barely compete against the coming Steamroller FX release. I know the proof is in the pudding, but the known slated improvements make steamroller a major upgrade over Vishera and close most of the gap in single threaded performance. In multithreaded I expect Steamroller to best I7-4770k without any doubt.

But do you know frequencies, power, or how the very few enhancements we know about at a micro level correlate to real performance? What if they pull a +25% ipc gain but also lose 10% max frequency? Would that still best a 4770k? I am hoping AMD can pull something great out with steamroller, but I don't think we know near enough about it to really make firm predictions yet.

 

[Zucker2k]

Yikes.... 220 watts it is!

On Tuesday, AMD introduced its new FX-9000-series processors. The company quoted their peak Turbo speeds (5GHz for the FX-9590, 4.7GHz for the FX-9370) and a rough time frame for availability ("this summer"), but it revealed little else. We were left wondering about base clocks, power envelopes, and potential retail availability.

Well, today, AMD has finally answered our questions. The company told us the base clocks for the FX-9590 and FX-9370 are 4.7GHz and 4.4GHz, respectively. Also, as rumored, thermal envelopes for both offerings are "~220W." That's a substantial increase over the 125W TDP of AMD's current FX-series flagship, the FX-8350.

http://techreport.com/news/24953/amd-reveals-base-clock-power-rating-for-5ghz-cpu

 

[inf64]

IPC is actually about the same as Bulldozer. Take a look here. Piledriver is faster mainly due to increased processor speed.

No, IPC was considerably better on average with PD (vs BD).
Fixed clock, no Turbo, everything else the same:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-6/bulldozer-vs-piledriver-4-ghz.html
Applications saw 7.7% average gain vs BD, games saw even more - a 13.5% gain. That's why in games 8350 often outperforms 8150 by ~20% or so (and 8150 almost always runs at pretty high 3.9Ghz, especially in games where it can reach even 4.2Ghz).

 

[Vesku]

I'll just point out that the Techreport quote you cite, Zucker2k, is separated into AMD confirming model number and base clocks and a rumor of 220W TDP. It's not AMD confirming 220W TDP. Still no official TDP stated afaik.

 

[jpiniero]

I'll just point out that the Techreport quote you cite, Zucker2k, is separated into AMD confirming model number and base clocks and a rumor of 220W TDP. It's not AMD confirming 220W TDP. Still no official TDP stated afaik.

It's 220. The article on AT confirmed it with AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

 

[StinkyPinky]

It's 220. The article on AT confirmed it with AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

AMD have now officially entered the "we're desperate" phase.

 

[lagokc]

os2wiz
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 7

I'm skeptical, the jump AMD needs for ST performance is HUGE, considering what AMD has done since 2003, I can't see this happening, and there is nothing to suggest it will...

still, if Intel keeps limiting mainstream to 4 cores and low TDPs, AMD will always have an opportunity, to sell bigger dies, with higher power usage with comparable performance (for MT)... like the 9590 vs 4770k

Pretty much this. AMD could almost certainly release a faster processor than the 4770k if they released an 8-core Streamroller with crazy high TDP. With the shrinking desktop market I'm not sure how many of those chips they would sell though and gaining more of the laptop market is going to be very difficult for them.

 

[frozentundra123456]

AMD have now officially entered the "we're desperate" phase.

Well, more power to them if they sell it at a reasonable price, say 300.00. Wouldnt be my choice, but I am sure there are enough AMD fans that wouldnt care about power usage.

If it is 800.00 as rumored initially or even 500.00, then it is a joke.


Edit: I could see this as appealing to a gaming computer builder like cyberpower that sells cheaper pre built systems but does not really custom tune them. They could advertise 5 ghz out of the box. I would think real boutique builders would lean more to custom overclocking of i7 or hex core intel.

 

[Phynaz]

The FX9370(4.4GHz base) could be 125W TDP, FX9590(4.7GHz base) could be 135-140W TDP.

Yes, they could be. They aren't, but they could be.

 

[Vesku]

It's 220. The article on AT confirmed it with AMD.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

That is indeed confirmation. Shame, if it had been 140W and ~$200 I might have considered it for a swap out in my 1090T system. And with an odd maneuver like this for AMD it looks likely that there will never be a decent replacement CPU for my AM3+ board.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Hey if you're hungry just slip some popcorn kernels inside the case and you'll be ready for a quick meal.

Maybe they can use that as a marketing slogan? "Buy a PC, get a free oven"

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Intel already deployed a promotional video against it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QkyfGJgcwQ

 

[Centauri]

IPC is actually about the same as Bulldozer. Take a look here. Piledriver is faster mainly due to increased processor speed.

Uh... A 10% increase in clock speed accounts for 15-20% performance jumps how, exactly? Especially when increased clock speed never yields commensurate performance increases.

If you honestly don't think PD was an IPC improvement, you may want to e-mail Anand.

 

[galego]

Looking at cinebench single threaded.

About looking at single threaded benchmarks, the Super Pi page on Wikipedia has something interesting to say:

Super PI is single threaded, so its relevance as a measure of performance in the current era of multi-core processors is diminishing quickly.

But it is still more irrelevant when you select Cinebench: one of those biased tests favouring Intel chips with the Cripple_AMD function.

What is the next? AMD + notebook-HDD vs Intel + SSD?

I think there will not be much overclock headroom in the 9590 at 4.7/5 but it's likely AMD can release a stable chip at those speeds. The real questions will be power needed for vcore and heat output but again there is water cooling to address that. Perhaps "bragging rights" over Intel about having a 5 ghz processor might be a factor ( I know IBM has a 5.2Ghz processor but it's uber expensive).

The TDP of 220W seems to suggest AMD wait relatively higher OC.

Yes IBM had those, but AMD is claiming the crown for x86 market. Moreover the IBM chip was a RISC dual-core design I believe.

 

[inf64]

I have found a link to an interesting post (originally posted on Hexus CPU forum ).

 

[galego]

I'll just point out that the Techreport quote you cite, Zucker2k, is separated into AMD confirming model number and base clocks and a rumor of 220W TDP. It's not AMD confirming 220W TDP. Still no official TDP stated afaik.

It seems you missed this slide from AMD

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35139131&postcount=271

 

[Vesku]

It seems you missed this slide from AMD

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35139131&postcount=271

No I missed where it was shown to be officially from AMD. If that is truly the new FX logo they certainly aren't helping themselves by having an abstract version of a raging fire as the background.

 

[galego]

No I missed where it was shown to be officially from AMD. If that is truly the new FX logo they certainly aren't helping themselves by having an abstract version of a raging fire as the background.

I like the new logo

And the image in my previous post was a slide from AMD presentation at E3. Those are some other slides with further details

 

[SPBHM]

just don't mention the 3930K, $200 X79 boards and Haswell (and power usage)!!