Rumor: AMD 'Centurion' Will Clock at 5 GHz

[iam2thecrowe]

$795 is rediculously overpriced. you can get a 3930k for less than that which would stomp all over this cpu.

 

[inzone]

I guess that AMD has decided that if Intel can get ridiculous pricing for it's CPUs then why not them. Intel prices the i73960X and 3970X, $500 more then the 3930K and I would like to know what is worth $500. When I was buying a CPU for my re-build I looked at the 3960X and the 3930k and the $500 price difference and tried to figure out what was worth $500.
So now maybe AMD has decided to try the same thing and try to get people to buy an expensive CPU that is just an overclocked variant of a previous chip. If they can pull it off then that's great for them but once the thing is benchmarked and it's not competing with higher Intel processors then there will be a lot of flack to deal with.

In the end I hope it competes with higher Intel processors because in that scenario we all win because there will be competition and when there's competition we end up winning with newer and better CPUs being released.

 

[noob2222]

TWKR reborn

 

[hixbot]

Super FX chip? Can it play Star Fox?

 

[alidan]

I really hate how Tom's forces me to come the reforms just like her applied people, I'm going to say this every time I post until something changes.

Nothing about this rumor makes sense. Even overclocked to 5GHz, the 8350 isn't better than an overclocked i7. Who would pay 800 dollars for a 5GHz FX? Heck, for that money you could get two i7's and pick the best overclocker, or 4 8350s and pick the best overclocker.

Keep in mind that AMD got there chip designer that allow them to beat out Intel back, there's a chance with the upcoming chips that it will be implementing some of his design ideas, the only real place where the current AMD chips fail is single core performance if they figure out a way to get it up to even just the old phenom levels that would also increase their version of hyperthreading which they already beat Intel at

AMD is just taking a lead from Intel who has charged 5x time the price for their "X" series for years, that are normally only clocked slightly higher than something that costs 1/4 the price.

The chipset Intel releases and their extreme additions also have a higher cashe, and are made in limited runs, the actual cost these chips compared to how much this silicon they actually use actually makes the prices they charge for them seem a bit more reasonable, but again that's after you get over the fact that most of these chips almost any application isn't going to benefit from that little bit extra they give. They do have their places just not with normal consumers.

Heh... its kinda funny really. I remember back when AMD was all about showing everyone that all out speed wasn't everything. And touting how their chips could perform so much better per cycle than Intel's chips at the time. And now that they can't seem to get the act together, they're falling back to the GHz wars again.

Probably because when you go to a smaller nanometer and you don't change the architecture you are able to boost up to speed quite a bit without actually going over on keep limitation, if you can go faster why not. Most people are never know the difference between what 3 GHz is or 5 GHz but they are going to believe that 5 GHz is faster

speed is nothing without proper code....they really need to get stuff together

Proper code has nothign to do with it. HT has been out for 10 years, and until the I series chips were released, I always turned it off (except on single core's) because the performance increase was not worth the heat increase.

For what should be obvious legal reason's AMD could not implement an Identical solution, so I would expect it to take at least 5 years after piledrivers release before software starts using it properly.

On topic : No thanks AMD, at that price ill wait for 28nm or smaller.

Intel was able to show their hyperthreading after of Pentium 4 for years wow they developed it in the something that was actually a benefit AMD doesn't have the luxury of just taking out there bulldozer cores. They have to go through growing pains in the spotlight. With that said they already beat Intel in their implementation of threading, the only thing that they did was sacrifice single core performance for though which sadly the software just never of all the really take advantage of threads yet outside of the professional realm, and servers.

If AMD figure out there single core problem were able to fix it and get slightly better than phenom levels, their threading solution probably would also benefit immensely from it to the point where an $800 chip is an unreasonable

In the dire situation that AMD is in, I don't understand why they would mess around with an expensive, elite component the way Nvidia has been teasing the GTX Titan. They are not in the same boat. Even at 5ghz, Vishera will be smashed to bits by $500 Intel chips, and maybe even the i7 still, so why release this at $800? It will only become a talking point to show how further out of touch AMD has become. They should release the chip dirt cheap at $295, cause a ruckus, and use the marketing stunt (cause that's all this really is) to prove to PC users that there is still some soul, some fight, some actual engineering coming out of AMD, and they are still interesting in making value-oriented fast chips. This should be "a taste of things to come", but somehow at 5gHz (with zero architecture improvements) and $800 this has the makings of a last meal instead.

Again AMD down one of their lead designers back, one of the people who is responsible for them beating in town the past. It's possible the fix for the bulldozer was a lot simpler than anyone thought and they were able to put out a fix for fairly soon.

This sounds distressingly like Intel's claim that their NetBurst architecture would clock to 10GHhz, and we all know how well netburst was...

But 5 GHz isn't exactly unheard of today, not like 10 GHz was back then

At this price it would be against i7 3930K (6 cores, 12 threads) (and the Ivybridge/Haswell (LGA2011) that will come after) which cost $250 less... I am curious to see if it can compete against this CPU. But to be honest I don't have high expectations against the i7 3930K. If they would price it around $300 to be against the normal i7 (like i7 3770K), they might have a worthy competitor against Intel...

In a surprise when I looked up that Intel chip, I was surprised this six courtship was under a grand. I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation Intel's at least one launch are going to be significantly more than that six core you mentioned

Maybe it's some 16 core or something?? 795$ is toooo much for a overclocked 8350. Isn't it?

Intel used to charge ~$1000 for their Extreme Edition P4s and AMD used to charge over $600 for their top CPUs back then too... so this wouldn't be the first time AMD has charged a small fortune for a relatively minor performance bump.

They still do charge insane amounts for the highest and chips however they have a fairly high end one for 500 right now now surprised by that when I first seen it

AMD is just taking a lead from Intel who has charged 5x time the price for their "X" series for years, that are normally only clocked slightly higher than something that costs 1/4 the price.

True, but most commenters on this site aren't exactly thrilled with Intel's top offerings either. The value proposition at the extreme high end has always been pretty terrible, but that doesn't mean that knowledgeable consumers should approve of more bad value propositions.

What makes this AMD news even sillier is that its top-tier CPU is way behind Intel's mid-tier offerings (with some few niche-use-case-scenario exceptions). It's as if Intel decided to launch a special edition, high-clocked Core i3 for $600 or $700.

And you're not imagining they figured out there problem with the chip, what made it so poor at single core performance. It's been long enough that we might see an implementation soon of a fix.

 

[slyu9213]

I don't think this will warrant a upgrade for my desktop system. 5GHz with out overclocking sounds good at first, but with that ki nd of price tag I would rather purchase a 6-core i7 or a i7-3770k and a new motherboard.

 

[sarinaide]

IPC and Clockspeed do influence each other, AMD's arch will gain IPC or better yet will mitigate the penalty loss while raising total IPC so at 5GHZ a Vishera 8350 achieves a 30% single thread score boost that is very much in the realms of Intel.

The issue here is price, at $400 this may be a viable or token chip to afford, this is very similar to the Phenom II x 4 Black Edition 42 TWKR parts of 4 years ago which were pure overclocker chips.

 

[tinmann]

I run my i5 2500K at 4.3Ghz without breaking a sweat , so why am I not excited by a chip that's rumored to be a blazing 700Mhz faster and $600 deeper into my pockets.

 

[assasin32]

Hope the price rumor is false I can only see a 5ghz AMD FX going for $800 and be worth it is it were 16core CPU and not require some highly specialized and overpriced mobo. In short it needs something spectacular going on to warrant such a price hike.

 

[Dravilia]

I dont think amd will sell cpu at that price