Liquid Cooled AMD FX-Series CPU Teased by AMD Insider

Status
Not open for further replies.

voltagetoe

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2009
63
0
18,630
0
Now this is interesting if it's going to be silent and also low TDP (less than 125W). I'm afraid that the motive for watercooling has been overblown TDP (more than 140W). Rather frustrating if it's all just overoverclocked old chips...
 

voltagetoe

Distinguished
Sep 6, 2009
63
0
18,630
0
Now this is interesting if it's going to be silent and also low TDP (less than 125W). I'm afraid that the motive for watercooling has been overblown TDP (more than 140W). Rather frustrating if it's all just overoverclocked old chips...
 

bemused_fred

Honorable
Feb 18, 2012
519
0
11,010
22
"water cooled versions of the FX-9370 and FX-9590"

Didn't those chips need water-cooling anyway, just because of how hot they were? I mean the FFX 9590 was 220W FFS!
 

Amdlova

Distinguished
Jun 7, 2013
692
4
19,165
51
my last AMD processor Phenom II 965 i can't think on these FX lines. This is expensive and burn To hard. I compare FX line with the Pentium 805D Overclock like hell but Bring Down the temps and power to knees.
 
Now that the *FX* moniker has crossed 'architectures' a water-cooled FX Kaveri Steamroller APU with 512 Radeon cores would be spiffy.

The FX-9xxx Piledrivers will run 4.7GHz at 1.36v at 280w system load. An i7 'Haswell' at the same clocks will blow past 200w, easy ...

 

wiinippongamer

Distinguished
Sep 9, 2009
1,927
0
20,160
125
Now that the *FX* moniker has crossed 'architectures' a water-cooled FX Kaveri Steamroller APU with 512 Radeon cores would be spiffy.

The FX-9xxx Piledrivers will run 4.7GHz at 1.36v at 280w system load. An i7 'Haswell' at the same clocks will blow past 200w, easy ...
and be twice as fast per thread
 

iron8orn

Admirable
May 31, 2014
2,466
0
6,460
243

I could only imagine the raw power of a Steamroller FX with liquid cooling released at 5ghz
 

iron8orn

Admirable
May 31, 2014
2,466
0
6,460
243

I think it means alot.. i mean more performance per ghz with less power consumption.
 

Rookie_MIB

Distinguished
I'm wondering if they're trying to get somewhat of a lock in the high performance department. They released the R9-295X2 with factory watercooling, and it has proven to be extremely fast and very quiet. Match it up with a watercooled FX processor and hopefully get more of the same.

That being said, I'd love to see this applied to (as mentioned) a very highly clocked APU. One of the big problems with the APU's is the heat generated by both the CPU and the GPU tends to drop clocks for BOTH units. So - having a nice watercooler could certainly enable getting some extra thermal headroom for them.
 

Traciatim

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
2,057
0
20,460
310
. . . and yet it will still be unable to best some i3's and most i5's in the majority gaming benchmarks. Come on AMD, if only to get Intel back on the performance pumping CPU launches rather than this wimpy energy efficiency crap of the last few cycles.
 

iron8orn

Admirable
May 31, 2014
2,466
0
6,460
243




It dont think it has anything to do with trying to answer Intel devil's canyon.. you cant even really compare the chips.
It is just AMD doing what they should have done in the first place... give you a decent cooler that can handle a couple extra 100mhz.
 

Deus Gladiorum

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2013
1,434
0
19,960
292
AWESOME! Even though I want to switch to Intel, I'm still pumped that AMD isn't (completely) abandoning their FX series. Also, on the front of the box in the image, right below the picture of the processor itself, there's some really blurred text. But if you look closely, don't the last 3 letters of that text kind of look like the numbers "450"? Either that or it's 4 numbers and it says "4350" -- it's really hard to tell and that means a big difference. That'd either mean a re-release of an FX-4350 (I'd have to ask why) or... a continuation of the FX series with the FX-8450!!!
 

crisan_tiberiu

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2010
1,185
0
19,660
117
i like AMD. Even if their CPUs are a tier lower than Intels, AMD is pumping real good value. I am sure that the FX 9590 @ a lower price (lets say, under the i7 4790k) with this water cooler will be more apreciated than what intel has to offer. I mean, trow anything @ that FX (game/ what ever) and it will run it. Sure 220W TDp sounds "bad", but how much TDP has the flagship i7 @ 5 GHz? anyone made the math?
 

dwatterworth

Honorable
Dec 5, 2012
1,535
0
12,460
341
You can't really compare clock to clock for Intel to AMD. Intel stomps all over AMD clock for clock in pretty much any category. The 83XX or 95XX from AMD are really competing vs the i5 chips.
 

shogunofharlom

Honorable
Oct 19, 2012
98
0
10,660
9
If they give me another overpriced 32nm chip i am going to walk into my nearest computer store and take a dump on that stupid box. If they give me a 28nm 8 core chip I am going to send them back my 8350 in a box filled with it and moldy cheese cause I am tired of the AMD lies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS