That FX tease AMD put out looks to be just a 9590 with an AIO liquid cooler.
i guess AMD told Hardware Canucks that the included liquid cooler allows the 9590 to reach the 5Ghz boost more often, and will be $360
i'm just trying to figure out who would buy this, i mean, isn't the 9590 just an overclocked 8350? if so, couldn't you you can get an 8350 for $170 and something like an H100i for $100 ($270 total) then overclock it yourself and save $90?
Its mostly amd trying to throw a bone to a market they have badly neglected. Problem is that its not really something of merit to speak of. A well built 8350 platform can do the same thing. Hands in air?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18tkClXeDPETDRFdHdsRzY0QVE/edit?usp=sharing
Please read it!!!
My guess is they dumped too much into R & D for the new consoles and are trying to extend the life of their current CPU's. GPU's still chug along nicely, still not sure if bitcoin hurt or helped AMD with sales.
i don't know about that lol regardless, 12million consoles have already been sold, and it has only been 7 months (8mil/PS4, 4mil/XB1)
hmm... i assume bitcoin helped AMD. they sold a LOT. but overall, it probably hurt the consumer. paying higher prices for mining cards, just to find out that now that GPU mining isn't really viable. at least Bitcoin, not sure of the status on the other currencies.
AMD's problem is that the whole Bulldozer thing didn't work out. Not because it's a bad architecture, because it's not, but because efficiently using it requires different optimization techniques. AMD can't direct the software ecosystem like Intel can, so they basically have to continuously lose to Intel at Intel's game, where Intel makes (and changes) all the rules. It's sadly in AMD's favor to not innovate too far from what Intel is doing, and that's the problem with Bulldozer. And that's why there has been no enthusiast AMD CPU for years.
Hopefully their new 2016 architecture is more of a hit.
i'm pretty sure that now anyone buying an FX-8350 won't be able to overclock it that high because they're cherry picking them for the 9590 models. So the ones that bought those early 8350 chips got lucky.
i disagree, innovation is what kept AMD afloat. Other companies like VIA, IBM, and other microprocessor manufacturers had suffered because they were following Intel and not bringing anything to the table.
What i believe is that AMD needs to really evaluate what Intel has on the table and try to leapfrog their designs. It's already cheap to do so because they can use the R&D that Intel has put in and try to work on an iteration of their architecture with a more efficient design. They have the multi-threaded workflow down, but they need to improve their IPC vastly (I'd say 25-30% improvement). Also by fixing that fetch and call backs would be a step in the right direction. It's a matter of adopting and evolving. Innovation is all nice and dandy, but if the market doesn't adopt it, that innovation will be unnoticed...just like Bulldozer. Now Vishera i think they were really close to getting it right, they had a good 10-15% improvement and a much better fetch flow. That's a good sign, so their architecture is quite promising. Especially now with APU's and next-gen consoles. Things are looking good for AMD, they just have to show what kind of balls they have and i believe they can do it. Even if it's an FM2+ 8-core non igpu chip. I would be fine with that, but we need an enthusiast market chip. That's the area that drives competition. Intel atm doesn't have a good iGPU and the APU is miles ahead in the overall performance department....that's good; but many of us don't care about iGPU and care more about raw performance. The 9590 would be great if it were 120w TDP or with independent modules where each core has their own cache and can work 2 cores as 1 if needed. Having a strong parallelism within processors is what's going to save the bulldozer architecture. If they can united the cores and let them work as one real well, then i think they will be able to dominate in IPC. Their cores work completely independent and that's bad because each module has to split to each core and that means diminished cache, diminished fetch, and diminished returns because even though the work is divided, each core isn't directly connected to each other in the manner to work as one.
"...most advanced outdated technology..."
Now that is comedy gold.
Stay blazing hot, contains up to 8 weak cores!
Ya, true.they have all the good 8350 cherry picked by now. Well said.
we should test that theory and see if anyone who is building an 8350 system can post their overclock,
but still, would thosw .2Ghz be worth it? for the same price, you can get an 8350 + H100i and have $100 left over to go towards a GPU. just seems silly to me.
Well my system push button overclocks to somewhere between 4.6 and 4.7 on my saber. Still have head room for further. Thats on air. I personally dont overclock past that point of diminishing returns . Which is basically what i get with a push button overclock. I do happen to have a h100 i am not using for anything. Many here do it now? Its not really a theory.
i'd like to see if that's true, well next guy to build we'll have to ask them. I won the silicon lottery with mine, i purchased a launch FX-8350 so mine overclocks to 4.5Ghz without even adjusting voltage(1.375v). I'm pretty sure i can get 5Ghz @ about 1.45v. Though i won't do that because the performance increase to 5ghz is useless. 4.5ghz im fine with, plus 4.6-4.7ghz won't make much of a difference.
Ya, 4.5 with no voltage change. Its golden! Mine almost does a 4.4 . You have very nice one. Well crap i will have to put that noisy thing back in my case and do some benching.
AMD said that their might be a new line of consoles... and bitcoin hurt amd in that it flooded the market with gpu's. it was retailers like newegg that inflated the prices ridiculously.
Also AMD seems to be pushing for their APU tech more than anything, i dont expect to see any FX line of processors this year.
It's not an overclocked 8350. They may have the same architecture, but these are in fact better/higher-binned parts. Simply overclocking an 8350 to 4.7-5GHz is not the same thing.
That being said, IMO it's overpriced, under-performing and power-hungry. Unless you run specific apps that actually benefit/run faster with this, it's completely unnecessary.
i guess that may be true now. However, back when the 8350 was the flagship, all the premium binned chips went into the 8350s. so i am sure that there are a bunch of 'pre-9590' 8350s that preform just as good as 8350s. One would assume, anyways.
i do agree about the 9590 being overpriced. i mean, the 8350 is beast, but if you were wanting to spend $330 on a CPU, wouldn't you just go with a 4790k? the i7 and the 9590 are the same price (well, on newegg, the 4790k IS $10 more :P) and the 4790k seems to be much better overall. i just don't see where the 9590 fits in, let alone spending more time/money on bundling it with a water cooler (i believe it is the Cooler Master Seidon 120. could be wrong though)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDVcpAhegWs
Good point. The 9590 alone is about $320 and the Seidon 120 alone is about $40-50. So for $340+/- you're getting a bit of a deal. (It is in fact a CM Seidon 120 BTW ;) ).
But why on earth would anyone choose this over the 4790K which out-performs the 9590 in just about everything for about the same price, uses less than half the power and doesn't require a beefy cooler? lol
AMD - stop farting around with the current FX lineup and concentrate on creating brand new parts with some serious improvements. Please.
if you are considering cost you must factor in platform cost as well as most intel boards are much more expensive.
