• 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.

[WCCF] New AMD Desktop FX-Series Processor is Incoming

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Durp said:
I agree. The 8320 is the real flag ship at $150.The 8350,9370,9590 are just binned and pre-overclocked 8320s. You don't get more cores or more cache or anything else. Paying twice as much just for a better bin is a poor choice IMO.
Click to expand...

This x1000

Yet somehow people still recommend the 8350 or 9xxx on occasion 🙄

Also disappointing release, but not too surprised.
 
crashtech said:
Or even a 4770K, for that matter. I don't know of any task where it can beat a newer i7. I hope I'm wrong, there must be something in which it is the clear victor.
Click to expand...

Here ya go, one thing:

vs i7-4960X Ivy Bridge E 6-core




Shogun2-FT.png
 
Idontcare said:
There is a chance that AMD won't suffer similar disadvantages with their ARM CPU offerings, since the competition in that market are also fabless and don't have a process tech advantage against AMD in that regard.
Click to expand...

Isn't their mandatory foundry partner lagging behind TSMC? Sure, that's still better than Intel vs GLF, but TSMC vs GLF doesn't seem too nice from here.
 
On paper this chip should kick butt outside it's TDP. However; Intel owns the mainstream market.

If you have an app that can use the extra cores, you will profit.

If you have a game that can't you will not notice a real difference.

For those with an AM3+ motherboard, easy swap.

If you are building from scratch, mostly Intel wins today. I am an AMD 955 owner. That chip has worked well for a long time.
 
tential said:
When someone asks "Where is AMD's 4770?" you then proceed to compare this situation to AMD vs Nvidia in the top end GPU market.

Except in the Top End GPU Market, we're talking about $600+ GPU cards.

The 4770k is no where near that price range. The situations are not really parallel at all.
Click to expand...


I think maybe you should reread my post, I don't get your reply to what I said. I didn't compare AMD's CPU business vs. Intel to how their GPU business and how they compete with Nvidia. I said that I think AMD would be happy to get there in regards to their CPU business, where even if they're top piece of silicon isn't as fast in absolute terms as their competition, they're still fairly close and able to sell their part for a good price. Right now most people who want high end CPU performance don't look AMD's way except in specific situations. Where on the other hand someone looking for a high end GPU can consider AMD or Nvidia, both have good options with different pros and cons.
 
SPBHM said:
it's good for a few things, yes it can beat the 4770K in a few bechmarks, but now it's going to compete with the 4790K (500MHz more), and it can be badly beaten by almost anything from Intel for other things,
....
Click to expand...

Ya I know all that, but he asked for just ONE thing, just ONE, where it could beat a 4770k.

There are actually a few things where the FX-9590 can beat an i7-4770, just not very many.
 
shady28 said:
Ya I know all that, but he asked for just ONE thing, just ONE, where it could beat a 4770k.

There are actually a few things where the FX-9590 can beat an i7-4770, just not very many.
Click to expand...
I knew someone would take up the challenge if I threw it down. There has to be a ray of sunshine for poor old AMD, and I'm glad you provided it.

I had a folding farm that was all AMD in the early years of the millennium, they were the best back then! The one Netburst I put into service was the slowest of the bunch. It would be enjoyable to see the tables turn again someday, since competition benefits everyone.
 
shady28 said:
Here ya go, one thing:

vs i7-4960X Ivy Bridge E 6-core

Shogun2-FT.png
Click to expand...

Not really sure how to take that graph. Are we GPU limited? But then why is there an improvement with the 7990? Why is one CPU better? Are we CPU limited? But then why do we see an increase between the two graphics cards?

Unclear data is unclear.
 
thilanliyan said:
If this is another 220w chip, I'm not interested. I've been looking to drop something in place of my FX6100 but not interested in high wattage chips.
Click to expand...

Lucky for you then it comes in at 219W

Just imagine the energy you can save in winter. With AMD's new heat dispersal technology you can do away with your inefficient house heating. More cores = more tabs of porn you can open and stream.

IxoMKQf.jpg


In all seriousness the FX-8320 is the only one you should consider....they've been making them for so long I'd be surprised if you got a badly binned one.
 
The only way AMD can beat or match Intel with CPUs is by cranking up the clocks so high you need water cooling to deal with the heat output from the chip.

You see the same with R9 295X and GTX Titan Z.
Kepler is so more efficient than Hawaii that Titan Z can use standard fan cooling while R9 295X is so inefficient and hot they need water cooling.

Not hating on AMD, but I find it both tragic and funny. 😀
 
Cloudfire777 said:
The only way AMD can beat or match Intel with CPUs is by cranking up the clocks so high you need water cooling to deal with the heat output from the chip.
Click to expand...

Match or beat Intel? Forget water, I dont even think LN2 got a chance unless you cherrypick.

That train left for good. Specially when Intel upped the clock 500Mhz with only 4W higher TDP.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Match or beat Intel? Forget water, I dont even think LN2 got a chance unless you cherrypick.

That train left for good. Specially when Intel upped the clock 500Mhz with only 4W higher TDP.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. I havent looked at CPU benchmarks for a while.
Say they manage to almost match it with this water cooled FX chip then.
Still tragic but I guess they got to play their hand the best they can. So the attempt is not bad, I just feel a bit sorry for them

I honestly wish AMD got the money Intel was fined with due to unfair practice with OEMs and hardware shops, maybe multiply the amount a couple of times. So that AMD get money to research and make better architectures for CPUs.

They need the money badly
 
Last edited:
Cloudfire777 said:
You are probably right. I havent looked at CPU benchmarks for a while.
Say they manage to almost match it with this water cooled FX chip then.
Still tragic but I guess they got to play their hand the best they can. So the attempt is not bad, I just feel a bit sorry for them

I honestly wish AMD got the money Intel was fined with due to unfair practice with OEMs and hardware shops, maybe multiply the amount a couple of times. So that AMD get money to research and make better architectures for CPUs.

They need the money badly
Click to expand...

AMD got the money they deserved. But you forget AMD delayed an uarch on purpose and delayed 65nm on purpose in the K8 days(Because the arrogance was that Intel could never catch up.). Not to mention one of the dumbest buys in history to 5.5B$ that made sure the company had no cash for anything else and later lost its fabs for the same reason.

AMD have been a misguided company for almost 10 years and this is the result.
 
Cloudfire777 said:
You see the same with R9 295X and GTX Titan Z.
Kepler is so more efficient than Hawaii that Titan Z can use standard fan cooling while R9 295X is so inefficient and hot they need water cooling.
Click to expand...

Power consumption:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_z_review,7.html
Temperatures:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_z_review,8.html

This is not a good comparison. The Titan Z is a failed product for gaming. Even at the same price point with the 295Xx2 it would be a failed product; the r9 gets the crown no matter what. Nvidia themselves are ashamed of it as they aren't sending it to gaming reviewers. The Zee ... , such a big NO NO. Maybe that they justify its existence for the professional graphics market but it is a little hard to prove it since we are talking about a market with a lot less transparency than the gaming one(0 reviews, purchases are made solely based on brand loyalty or features, etc.). Professional graphic cards live in an almost non competitive market place. The real fight takes place in the gaming market.

On the other hand, the FX is AMDs Zee/Big fail, but compared to the Zee, it is at least priced competitively against intel's offerings.

ShintaiDK said:
Not to mention one of the dumbest buys in history to 5.5B$ that made sure the company had no cash for anything else and later lost its fabs for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but right now the ATI branch is the one that is keeping them alive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top