AMD Offers Stock Watercooling for FX-9370, FX-9590 CPUs

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
The price of the 9370, relative to the 8000 series, is a little pricey, but not terrible relative to a comparable Intel offering. But the 9590 is certainly priced far too high. And dissipating that heat could certainly prove a challenge, to the point I wonder what the specs on their water cooling option is and if it can handle the job.
 
iam2thecrowe

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Jul 4, 2010
10,591
21
44,965
AMD have a lot on their plate right now. They really should just drop this until they can bring those cpu's under 150w and bring the price down, or just leave the 8350 as their flagship and wait till next gen to get a higher performing CPU. Another "what the hell were they thinking" moment. AMD are racking them up quicker than anyone else.
 
1991ATServerTower

1991ATServerTower

Distinguished
May 6, 2013
141
4
18,715
"Another "what the hell were they thinking" moment. AMD are racking them up quicker than anyone else."

While I very much appreciate AMD, I have to agree with this sentiment.

I think a better use of their time would have been to release an FM2 APU that has 6 cores, 6 MB L3 cache, and 128 shaders. Basically, an FX-6300 for the FM2/FM2+ platform. THAT is worthy of their time.

Even without the L3 cache, a 6 core APU would be a nice upgrade for anyone who is using a discrete video card. But, I think they could cram at least 2MB of L3 cache onto one.
 
jimmysmitty

jimmysmitty

Champion
Oct 5, 2007
21,605
599
59,140


Considering that the FX 9590 is barley able to keep up with and only beat a i7 4770K in some workloads at a much higher clock and about 3x TDP, what is the Comparable offering from Intel for the FX 9370?

Both are just stock overclocked cherry picked FX 8000 cores that AMD threw in as a stall until Steamroller arrives and hoping to make money.

The 9370 was $600 on release which meant it should have been able to keep up with and beat in some cases a i7 3930K, which even with the large frequency advantage it was not.

They are not worth it at any price due to the fact that their TDP is maxing the core out. Buy a FX 8350 for less than $200 and a much better H100i or Noctua cooling solution and overclock to the same speeds and you still have money over for a SSD or better memory.
 
T

Tristimulus

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2008
3
0
18,510
Buying so inefficient CPU doesn't make any. sense.
220W - 84 W for comparable Intel = 135W. If it is used 8 hours per day it will be 1080W per day more power then Intel. 365 days * 1.080W * $0.1 per kWh = $36.5 per year AMD will cost more to operate.
 
T

Tristimulus

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2008
3
0
18,510
Buying so inefficient CPU doesn't make any. sense.
220W - 84 W for comparable Intel = 135W. If it is used 8 hours per day it will be 1080W per day more power then Intel. 365 days * 1.080W * $0.1 per kWh = $36.5 per year AMD will cost more to operate.
 
iam2thecrowe

iam2thecrowe

Glorious
Jul 4, 2010
10,591
21
44,965


are you running your cpu at 100% load 8 hours per day? I probably have my PC turned on average 5 hrs per day, the cpu is probably at its peak useage when gaming, which is probably 1 hour every other day, and that wouldn't be 100% useage. The rest of the time its idle, downloading stuff, or my wife is using it for facebook...... But still, yes 220w is still stupid.
 
S

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
when you perpetuate a market where on company has 70%+ of the marketshare and the competition opperates on as much money as Intel pays its workforce then you can actually say that with the limited resources AMD has to work with they still offer competitive and consumer conscious products.

In the early part of the millenium the divide between Intel and AMD was less, since people have basically flooded intel pockets for 10+ years even when AMD had the better chips have meant that that divide is insurmountable, Intel can release substandard and you have little choice in the matter AMD on the other hand have to release a God chip and even then will not be able to arrest market share because at the end of the day Intel will not let that happen they did that before.
 
R

Rob Z

Honorable
Sep 23, 2013
5
0
10,510
its so funny as of late to AMD... I can remember when the roles with Intel were reversed, when the pentium line was so inefficient and AMD were (relatively) efficient in design, and it was AMD touting that they can do more with less power than intel chips. Fast foward nwo the roles are reversed, Intel chips are streamed line efficiently and AMD only cares about (as it seems) to push out the fast chip possible and screw what kind of power it takes to run it. At 220w to just run the processor figure (technically speaking) 1/4 of a 1000w power supply is running the processor itself. They need to drop these processors and rethink how to get greater performance with less power.
 
JD88

JD88

Honorable
Feb 25, 2013
1,424
0
11,660
No one cares about the desktop space anymore because they know everything is moving to the cloud in the next 5 years. Intel and AMD both know this.

The 9000 series CPUs were just AMD throwing the enthusiast a bone for PR purposes.

There aren't going to be any more major advances in consumer desktop CPUs, just minimal ones as we have seen from Intel and AMD. There's just no money in it for them. AMD is refocusing where they should be (servers and low power) and is getting more competitive in those areas.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever have to upgrade my 2500K before the complete cloud based changeover comes.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I really doubt there is a big difference between Intel and Amd running on 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a good move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I really doubt there is a big difference between the power used of Intel vs Amd running at 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a super move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I really doubt there is a big difference between Intel and Amd running on 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a good move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.
 
JD88

JD88

Honorable
Feb 25, 2013
1,424
0
11,660


The AMD chip at 5Ghz fails against a stock clocked 4770K in most benchmarks and gets utterly destroyed by anything with 6 cores from Sandy Bridge E. This isn't even mentioning what happens when you overclock those Intel chips to around 4.5.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/10/

In short, a $300 Intel chip with a mild overclock matches or beats a $900 AMD chip with relative ease and uses a lot less power doing it. It's pretty clear this was just AMD trying to throw the enthusiast community a bone because after that they are backing out of the high end, and possibly even mid range market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom