AMD FX-9000 - FX-8770 CPU's.

ivan165 · 5 Jun 2013 at 01:53

yes ,it would have been nice if they could have made a significant improvement/advance rather than just factory overclock an existing chip ....but its still competition which should be good for the consumer surely?

Akagi · 5 Jun 2013 at 02:05

I suppose so. I'm hoping that all this is just to act as a stop gap until they release something fresh.
I like to think that they are actually developing something game changing (no not graphics cards hurr hurr) and all this nonsense is to keep them afloat until it's ready...

ivan165 · 5 Jun 2013 at 02:34

something like a super cool low voltage 8 core, 5ghz APU with onboard 7870 level graphics ?

Or 7ghz 8 core cpu which is cooler than anything else out now but super powerful ? a genuine game changer with ddr5 ram perhaps ?

I'd buy either lols

humbug · 5 Jun 2013 at 02:45

Intel claimed the Pentium 4 would eventually run at 5Ghz, they gave up on it.

I do wonder if this is just a hurrah two fingers at Intel.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 5 Jun 2013 at 02:49

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...FX-9000-8770&p=5191755&viewfull=1#post5191755

humbug · 5 Jun 2013 at 02:53

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...FX-9000-8770&p=5191755&viewfull=1#post5191755

Which post?

Phixsator · 5 Jun 2013 at 05:37

humbug said:
Intel claimed the Pentium 4 would eventually run at 5Ghz, they gave up on it.

I do wonder if this is just a hurrah two fingers at Intel.

Haha, i can see AMD do that. They are like the nerdy kid in school that keeps being beaten to a pulp but always smiles in the process with an evil grin. Its freakky!

Martini1991 · 5 Jun 2013 at 08:20

humbug said:
Intel claimed the Pentium 4 would eventually run at 5Ghz, they gave up on it.

I do wonder if this is just a hurrah two fingers at Intel.

Intel were aiming for 10GHZ.
I can't really see AMD being able to give Intel the 2 fingers over this, I'm pretty sure Intel could do a 5GHZ SB if they cared.

ubersonic · 5 Jun 2013 at 08:51

humbug said:
Intel claimed the Pentium 4 would eventually run at 5Ghz, they gave up on it.

Martini1991 said:
Intel were aiming for 10GHZ.

Your both right

P4 was supposed to hit 5GHz but topped at 3.8GHz with the prototype 4GHz model cancelled in favour of the Pentium D dual core design. The Netburst architecture was supposed to hit 10GHz (before the heat issue became apparent) but never under the P4 moniker (had the heat issue not facilitated Pentium D the 5GHz+ models would likely have been Pentium 5).

humbug said:
I do wonder if this is just a hurrah two fingers at Intel.

Very doubtful, it was the P4 heat issue and abandonment of the MHz wars that gave rise to the Core2/Core-i architectures developed from the Pentium Pro/Pentium M lines, and the shift by Intel towards better IPC over MHz, Hyperthreading and multiple cores.

Right now AMD can't touch Intel in IPC, hell their flagship CPU is clock for clock slower than a Core2 in Cinebench SC, if their trying to stick fingers up at Intel by succeeding where Intel failed yet still being way behind Intel's current success, its pretty retarded.

humbug · 5 Jun 2013 at 13:45

That's not what I mean ^^^

cheesyboy · 5 Jun 2013 at 14:19

In a world where even hardcore desktop enthusiasts have fallen for the "energy-efficiency" PR, we should all be thankful for this sort of crazyness from AMD.

In time, when we are all running 15w TDP SoCs, BGA-fitted to our all-in-one case/motherboard box, this sort of thing will bring a tear to the eye.

In case no-one has realised it yet, we are all relying on AMD to uphold the enthusiast market. Remember - being an enthusiast doesn't mean you have to have the "best" product on the market - it means appreciating the purity of products.

JCX50 · 5 Jun 2013 at 16:10

TOO MANY STOCK GIGAHERTZ

Phixsator · 5 Jun 2013 at 19:55

i want the good old days back of the first i7 with very good performance overall and a pretty strong clock for clock performance, clocked below 3ghz and with the capability to oc 40-50% out the box on air on a quality mobo.

Ninja_Ferret · 5 Jun 2013 at 20:18

Won't the 8770 just be clocked in between the 9000 and the 8350?

sastusbulbas · 5 Jun 2013 at 21:26

Yet another tempting option.

Personally I have waited for months to see how much of an improvement Haswell was going to be, and I am disappointed with what I read.

Poor Tim on the IHS, equating to poor cooling. And a quite varied OC completely dependent on luck.
And not a huge difference compared to Ivy, which was no huge improvement over its previous. Intel CPU's from 2011 are still holding their heads high and competitive.

And still we have integrated graphics too, unless you can splash on Sandy Bridge.

Currently I am wanting to replace Q9550 and E8500 systems, have no interest in integrated graphics, and though I had intended to get an Intel 4770K with a MicroATX or MiniITX set up. I do ponder over AMD's offerings.

humbug · 5 Jun 2013 at 21:37

Ninja_Ferret said:
Won't the 8770 just be clocked in between the 9000 and the 8350?

My guess is 4.4Ghz and 4.6Ghz Turbo.

It all depends on price, if they are a similar cost to the 4670K and overclock to 5.4Hgz / 5.6Ghz then they might be sweet.

d_brennen · 5 Jun 2013 at 23:11

cheesyboy said:
In a world where even hardcore desktop enthusiasts have fallen for the "energy-efficiency" PR, we should all be thankful for this sort of crazyness from AMD.

In time, when we are all running 15w TDP SoCs, BGA-fitted to our all-in-one case/motherboard box, this sort of thing will bring a tear to the eye.

In case no-one has realised it yet, we are all relying on AMD to uphold the enthusiast market. Remember - being an enthusiast doesn't mean you have to have the "best" product on the market - it means appreciating the purity of products.

Well said. I have an intel gaming PC and numerous different machines about but only AMD stuff of late has been interesting to me. Not always from a performance perspective, although their APUs are head and shoulders a better package than SB/IB/HW for most folk.

We are coming to an interesting time in computing - the performance increases from node shrinks are harder fought while at the same time there is competition from below, phones, tablets etc. eating the market for conventional PCs. I think Intel performance increases will slow to a stall while they concentrate on lower power use. AMD, being behind, have more to gain over the next few gens... Assuming the slump in PC/laptop sales doesn't get them first

Apologies for the wall of text and probable spelling mistakes, posted from my iWindowLicker phone

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 6 Jun 2013 at 00:55

AMD seem to be the only people catering to the old school,low budget overclocking now. In retrospect the socket 1156 Core i3 CPUs were the last decent value budget CPUs Intel did,and could be overclocked on cheap motherboards.

In less than two and a half years,Intel has now made overclocking of their CPUs an expensive preposition!

Akagi · 6 Jun 2013 at 01:10

Yeah I love those i3's... My mate has one in his PC... I overclocked it to 3.8GHz for him, it stayed at a safe prime95 temperature with a measly £10 Akasa cooler as well.

Judging by the voltages it was on I recon 4.4GHz wouldn't be too unrealistic with a better cooler...

Now though, all the i3's are multi locked

wozzizname · 6 Jun 2013 at 10:46

Glad I spent my £300 on a Sabertooth and FX8350 rather than waiting for Haswell now - damn good performance for the money, and the potential to upgrade to Steamroller when it comes out. Plus I like to support the underdog as we all benefit from competition in the long run.