AMD FX-9590 spotted 8 core 5.0ghz cpu

[Thor.]

I came across the new Model here, and its looks promising at 5.0ghz without turbo, the turbo clocks have not been mentioned, but i can see it being at least 300mhz.

 

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

Intel better up their game.

 

AMD is back in the race ohh yaaa :biggrin:

Edited June 17, 2013 by Thor.

[Erik005]

You do realise this is a 220 watt processor right?

 

This thing will get hot, I doubt that you can cool that thing with regulair coolers

Edited June 17, 2013 by Erik005

[Thor.]

if its anything like my amd 8350, it should run cool enough. If anything corsair water cooling is what you need.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Thor.

[Phalanx108]

if its anything like my amd 8350, it should run cool enough. If anything corsair water cooling is what you need.

 

It isn't. Your 8350 runs at 125w, the 9590 is 95w higher. That might not sound like much, but it's enough.

Also, the reason you don't know the turbo speed is because 5GHz IS the turbo speed. Actual clock is 4.7GHz.

 

To quote the article: "So we're basically looking at a 76% increase in TDP relative to the FX-8350 to get a 19% increase in maximum clock speed"

Adding into that the immense power draw for just a CPU, and the higher temperature that will almost demand a watercooler just to keep it in line, doesn't look like the 9590 is gonna be worth it.

 

However: I'd definitely like to see what it kicks into motion in the grand scheme of things. Wonder what Intel will come up with to get back on top of the ego war.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Phalanx108

[FMod]

TDP is Thermal Design Power - the minimum dissipation capacity of a cooling solution system builders are recommended to or allowed to install with this chip - rather than rated consumption.

 

E.g., if a company took a Pitcairn XT chip, rated at 175W TDP, figured it only really consumes 144W even in Furmark, made a fanless cooling system that dissipates 150W at 90C T.junction and 40C T.ambient, and tried to market a fanless 7870 video card with these two parts, they wouldn't be allowed to do so.

Wouldn't get the chips, or be allowed to use the 7870 name, or whatever. They'd have to either beef up their cooling solution to do 175W, or clock the chip down to Pitcairn Pro configuration, which is rated at 130W TDP, and sell it as 7850.

 

For decades, TDP was just that, a line in chip datasheets that indicated how big a heatsink you were recommended to put on that chip. Later with the computer industry, when chips became their own brands, it became a requirement.

 

And in the last few years, as websites raised consumer awareness about TDP, brands took to using it as a marketing tool. GK104 consumes 228W, but is rated at 195W TDP; Nvidia is willing to take the risk that some OEM actually puts an only 200W TDP cooler on it (Asus DirectCU II, for instance, can dissipate over 400W) and some user does burn it, so that they can advertise their card as consuming less power.

 

But that's nothing. Intel's outright playing with their TDP figures, underrating and overrating it wildly, and adding new metrics, so they can show how their newer or more expensive chips consume less power than their older or cheaper ones, regardless of whether they actually do.

Even so, 99% of the time TDP is just that, how large a heatsink the maker recommends you install.

 

You know how, when you go to a PC store and buy a $2,000 gaming rig, with i7-4770K and all that jazz, then if you open it, you'll find that your $350 chip on your $350 ROG mobo has that tiny whiny aluminum throwaway on it, because of which it doesn't even go into turbo mode, much less make any use of that "K" letter? Well, that's the small price we pay for TDP marketing.

 

The FX series is not marketed on the premise of low power draw, and FX-9590 is an OEM-only part, aimed at system builders. We know how much FX-8350 consumes at what clock rate, and there's no reason for this value to change significantly. 220W TDP is there to make sure any system builders put a big-ass heatsink on that chip, not an inadequate throwaway.

[Thor.]

I agree standard heatsinks won't cut it. AMD deserves better than that.

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/search.asp?keywords=corsair+heatsinks

[Rennn]

I agree standard heatsinks won't cut it. AMD deserves better than that.

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/search.asp?keywords=corsair+heatsinks

 

I use an AMD cpu, so don't mistake me for an Intel fanboy.

However, an AMD cpu at 4.0ghz is often outdone by a competing Intel i5 at 3.2Ghz, so until I know more about the real-world performance I wouldn't get too excited.

[dave1029]

Is AMD really back? Or will Nvidia and Intel keep kicking their butts? I use AMD mainly because of price, but as the above poster stated, an AMD 4ghz gets beaten by an intel at 3.2Ghz or less.

[Thor.]

Not when AMD has the console market in its pocket, and its ever improving apu's. Also new chips like this is only a sign of its rebounding sign of things to come.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Thor.

[Phalanx108]

Not when AMD has the console market in its pocket, and its ever improving apu's.

 

How will owning the console market help them with PC's?

 

Also, APU's have never been good enough to pay as much as they charge.