Report: AMD Readying FX-8770 and FX-9000 CPUs

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.



Man I can just imagine it now, an FX 9000 and quad SLI GTX 480's, thats over 2 kilowatts of heat at full tilt right there, and you would need more than a 2KW power supply just to run the whole thing. Oh it'd be so horrible and so amazing all at the same time lol.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-480,2585-15.html
 
Can a Sabertooth 990FX AM3+ provide that power without cooking ?
I have the PSU to push that much, but I am not sure the mobo will take it.
I hope the heatsink is included.
The house has new AC as well 🙂
 

Whether or not use the IGP does not really matter since most of the die area used by IGP would still be required to fit all the BGA balls needed to connect the die to the LGA substrate. The lower-end IGPs are designed to fit in that otherwise wasted space without adding much (if any) actual extra die area.
 
I am pretty sure this is simply not true. I remember when the 140w 9950 came out and a lot of boards could not support it because they were designed for only 125W. I doubt many boards will be able to handle the power draw this will require, hell even the 16core opterons running at nearly 3Ghz only require 125w.
 


im sitting here looking at a 6 core intel or a 4 core amd... hard to really tell which one i should get when the times comes.
 
I was thinking with haswells dismal increase in performance it be perfect time for amd to do a little catching up.. but dam at the cost of 220watts
 

There was a point during the P4 days before concerns about power-efficiency started materializing where Intel was seriously contemplating 200W desktop chips if they could find a way to soak that much heat out of a ~150sqmm die.

Also keep in mind that Power7/7+ is a HUGE die: 567sqmm which is 3-4X Haswell's size depending on model. That brings Power7's power density down to 35W/sqcm which is 30% less than Ivy Bridge or Haswell's 47-48W/sqcm so Power7 should be technically easier to cool - certainly much easier than the ~100W/sqcm a 220W FX9000 would imply.
 
One thing I don't get is the numbering scheme. Should it not be FX 8377 and FX 8399 (if these are Piledriver) or something silly like that or is AMD planning on abandoning the FX nomenclature starting of with new Steamroller socket? Might as well call it 'Waxall 9000'. :)
 
Until I see an official announcement from AMD, I call BS. Raising the TDP and boosting the speed of a chip will only do so much. Don't get me wrong, I love my OC'd pc, but this sounds like Sweclockers fishing for an audience. We'll find out soon enough...
 
As much as I can see a point of taking the burden off having to overclock, at 220W you're going to need bloody good power delivery as well as cooling. Add to that the fact that a 20% IPC boost over the 8350 isn't anywhere near good enough in single threaded applications and it has all the hallmarks of an act of desperation. The only saving grace is multithreaded grunt, meaning the CPU can return to idle quicker, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's using less power than the 8350.
Hell, Steamroller will probably be nearly that much faster at single threading than the 8350 anyway, AND its CMT implementation has been fixed so it'd outperform even the 9000 at stock for half the power. Just get Steamroller out now and stop faffing about with Extreme Editions, AMD.
 
A 220 watt TDP is beyond most of the current sealed/ all in one liquid cooling systems.
Especially with AMD listing the max operating temperature as 71C

You would need a giant air cooler, thick 240mm radiator just to keep it under 71C at load on stock settings.
 
You guys realise this is just a rumour, right? It's a false rumour, just due to the fact that there are no motherboards that can handle that TDP on a consumer basis. Also - FX-8350@4.8GHz doesn't even go that far, so why would a tuned up next-gen processor at the same clock use more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.