Report: AMD FX-9590 Last Breed of AMD FX CPU?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jk_ventolero

Honorable
Mar 4, 2013
127
0
10,710
23
The FX-series processors weren't really that bad. While they didn't really compete with the very high-end spectrum, they at least were able to compete with Intel at their respective price points. But if a shift of focus would allow AMD to compete even better with Intel and drive prices down, then I'm all for it.
 

sarinaide

Splendid
Jul 14, 2011
3,820
0
22,960
74
FX 9590 is a great chip for those with LN2 pots ready to stretch its legs, since Toms and other online review sites are not focused on "overclocking" they would not know these things that said soon enough you will see full core records being smashed.
 
I think AMD and the FX series is/was a victim of their own hype. Because Bulldozer was so late to launch the fanboys hyped it to amazing levels. It was beyond wishful thinking, I remember reading how BD was an Intel killer, etc. AMD should have tried harder to curb it as much as possible.

I give credit to AMD for an interesting approach in the architecture and it is getting better. Price/Performance is pretty good for the most part. The top end is still all Intel.

I think that moving away from the FX moniker is a good idea as the shadow of unmet performance for what was hyped from BD is likely hurting sales and still influencing some peoples advise. Plus, they need a better CPU naming scheme. It works for GPUs but the CPU scheme filled up fast.
 

rmpumper

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
459
0
18,810
22
Does that mean that 6-12 core Steamroller CPU will not be named FX-xxxx or that there won't be any 6-12 Steamroller CPUs? Don't mess this up AMD.
 
G

Guest

Guest
If Steamroller is indeed better, it is likely that AMD's sales/marketing thought it better to distance itself from the marred FX brand. In the end, I don't care if it called FX or Pink Elephant, as long as it delivers something better compared the previous CPU gen and its competition.
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
0
The FX moniker is supposed to be for an ultra-high end product. Consigning it to history following the Bulldozer series' inability to compete at such a lofty level is probably wise. Strangely though, it seems most at home for the 9590 than any other recent CPU.

There have been rumours for a while that AMD would limit all desktop CPUs to APUs and dispense with the FX family, though I'm more inclined to believe they'd just change the naming convention for now. Still, there aren't any plans for a replacement socket for AM3+ as far as I know.
 

ta152h

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
1,207
2
19,285
0
Every time I think humans are at least somewhat rational, there's always a reminder it's not so.

I remember everyone whining about Celeron name going away (it didn't), or Pentium, or ATI, or whatever.

It's a friggin name. Who cares?

AMD can't make a gaming processor anyway, so maybe they decided the FX name was for gaming, which they know they can't really do from the CPU end, and may want something to focus more on what it can do.

Or maybe they will continue to make them, but it wasn't on a particular piece of paper.

The reality is, it doesn't matter. Show me someone who bought an FX-8350 for gaming, and I'll show you an idiot. Intel destroys AMD in gaming. Not close. It's embarrassing.

Some apps AMD does OK in, and maybe they'll try to find a better way of conveying it. FX probably has an association as gaming processor, and one for the kiddies, and this dog won't hunt there.

The one thing is, if they're releasing these 9590 processors, which clearly suck and aren't useful at much, they'll continue releasing flagship products that aren't particularly useful, but do represent the best performance they can get.

Maybe they'll call it FX, maybe they won't. It just doesn't matter.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15

There will be...called Opterons :p

OTOH if you're talking about that obviously fake rumor then no, that doesn't exist.

Bad language removed. - G
 

yobobjm

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2012
87
0
18,630
0
I think this is a good opportunity for them to change their chip architecture and get some more power per core.
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37
So, Toms posts an article about the death of a CPU series...using a completely unrelated article as a source. The source used for this article, is a rumor fabricated by VR-Zone about Kaveri being delayed.
 

xroe

Honorable
Jan 11, 2013
591
0
11,360
100
Honestly, I think this rumor (and I hope it is for competition sake) got started mainly due to the fact that there is little choice of 4 digit numbers after 9590, and if that is the case that is a bull chit reason to go say that it may be the end of a product line. Look at the Radeon series of GPUs, all they did was add the HD to the name and they could start from scratch with their numbering system.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Well it may be sensible if AMD do not produce CPU without GPU part. They lost the battle with Intell in that, so they may consentrate their efford to APU prosessors, but that would be something that they do not have said, so I think that this rumour is a hoax.
AMD don't have production capasity to make everything so at this moment the Jaguar is the main tool (PS4 and Xbox One + mobile devices) and Kaveri may be the second. And after that we may see steam roller in pure CPU format, much much later. So this may indicate that there will no be new FX prosessors for a while and that is in par with what we have seen and hear before.
 

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15

There won't be, Chris A. said he didn't see a point to it (overpriced, sparse availability, high power consumption, not much improvement in performance, etc.). Afaik even other major sites like Tech Report or AnandTech haven't reviewed them. I did read one review that was hardly favourable.


You do realise that all 8 cores are unlikely to be used for the game? You should also remember that Jaguar isn't based on Bulldozer/Piledriver, but on Bobcat. So whatever runs well on 4 Jaguar cores would run far better on Intel's stuff, and maybe even AMD's bigger cores.


Kaveri's delay is confirmed. I've heard this from AMD first hand. Further talk in western media has pretty much confirmed this too. 2H 2014.


I agree. Though i haven't seen any roadmaps talking about any future FX processor...things seem to indicate Kaveri will be the way forward from next year onwards. I hope i'm wrong, and we get the FX-10350 or whatever.
 

JefferyD90

Honorable
Jun 1, 2012
842
0
11,160
57
I just don't believe this at all. I have been thinking they will call their next set of CPUs FX's all the way to Excavator, at which point they will dump all dedicated CPUs in favor of a all APU line-up. (The APUs as is now are just slightly power starved FX CPUs) Anyways, I am not disappointed at all by the FX lineup and I fully expect AMD to continue to build on that profile.
 

xroe

Honorable
Jan 11, 2013
591
0
11,360
100
What do you mean jpnpower, while you can compare the FX series to the core series you cannot do the same with the A series. It is more in competition with the celeron and if it still exist the pentium line, either one being blown out of the water by the A series. I suppose you could compare an i3 with an A10 but power usage aside I would pick the A10 over a skimpy i3 any day.
 

antilycus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
933
0
18,990
1
Both my FX processors (8100 and 8150) C R U S H E D the workstation (And some server) competition on both my Linux servers and Linux workstations. The processor is fantastic, but windows thread processing sucks. However, running windows under a KVM that's on top of linux fixes that :)
 

kirilmatthew

Honorable
Jul 24, 2013
1,377
1
11,660
194
Rumors that AMD is axing FX and "big cores" have been around for a long time now. The older ones were all false and I see no reason to believe this. Its quite easy for them to make FX chips because they have the same core design as APUs and Opterons. It seems like a no-brainer to me.
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
2,052
7
19,815
15
AMD would have done a lot better if they made an 8 core phenom 2 CPU even the fx8350 fails to reach the IPC of the phenom 2 x6 1090t, and requires a significant overclock to reach the same single threaded performance.

Remember that many applications still will not make much use of multiple threads.
 

spearhead

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2008
120
0
18,680
0
It could be the end to AM3+ as a socket indeed but who says its the end of the performance core. AMD is known to keep there roadmaps secretive , they might went with a different approach and even a all APU line-up woulnd mean they cannot make performance cpu's when HSA reaches adoption and 8 core APU designs like the ones in PS4 and XBOX1 hit the ground in the desktop market who knows were they will end up performance wise. HSA looks promissing no matter how we look at it its a lot faster then traditional x86 core calculations. Still i look forward to a traditional steamroller cpu however it would be nice if AM3+ wasnt just compleetly forgotten.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY