Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Offers Stock Watercooling for FX-9370, FX-9590 CPUs

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 11:51:12 AM

At the price they are (over)charging for these things, the cooler should be included.
Score
19
October 2, 2013 12:24:53 PM

The price of the 9370, relative to the 8000 series, is a little pricey, but not terrible relative to a comparable Intel offering. But the 9590 is certainly priced far too high. And dissipating that heat could certainly prove a challenge, to the point I wonder what the specs on their water cooling option is and if it can handle the job.
Score
-4
Related resources
October 2, 2013 12:46:35 PM

Typo:

"... processors, the FX-8370 .."

Should be FX-9370

Score
2
a c 896 à CPUs
a c 357 À AMD
October 2, 2013 1:08:32 PM

Still over priced.
Score
7
October 2, 2013 1:10:42 PM

Im an AMD fan and I dont understand why they offer these CPUs.. At that price id rather go with an i5.

CPUS should not run at 220W stock. Thats crazy.
Score
9
a b à CPUs
October 2, 2013 1:57:44 PM

from that site, AMD FX-9590 8C AM3+ 16MB 220W 5.0G Wof Unlocked *Only* $870.82
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 2, 2013 2:06:21 PM

AMD have a lot on their plate right now. They really should just drop this until they can bring those cpu's under 150w and bring the price down, or just leave the 8350 as their flagship and wait till next gen to get a higher performing CPU. Another "what the hell were they thinking" moment. AMD are racking them up quicker than anyone else.
Score
3
October 2, 2013 2:31:30 PM

"Another "what the hell were they thinking" moment. AMD are racking them up quicker than anyone else."

While I very much appreciate AMD, I have to agree with this sentiment.

I think a better use of their time would have been to release an FM2 APU that has 6 cores, 6 MB L3 cache, and 128 shaders. Basically, an FX-6300 for the FM2/FM2+ platform. THAT is worthy of their time.

Even without the L3 cache, a 6 core APU would be a nice upgrade for anyone who is using a discrete video card. But, I think they could cram at least 2MB of L3 cache onto one.
Score
1
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 2, 2013 6:01:41 PM

DRosencraft said:
The price of the 9370, relative to the 8000 series, is a little pricey, but not terrible relative to a comparable Intel offering. But the 9590 is certainly priced far too high. And dissipating that heat could certainly prove a challenge, to the point I wonder what the specs on their water cooling option is and if it can handle the job.


Considering that the FX 9590 is barley able to keep up with and only beat a i7 4770K in some workloads at a much higher clock and about 3x TDP, what is the Comparable offering from Intel for the FX 9370?

Both are just stock overclocked cherry picked FX 8000 cores that AMD threw in as a stall until Steamroller arrives and hoping to make money.

The 9370 was $600 on release which meant it should have been able to keep up with and beat in some cases a i7 3930K, which even with the large frequency advantage it was not.

They are not worth it at any price due to the fact that their TDP is maxing the core out. Buy a FX 8350 for less than $200 and a much better H100i or Noctua cooling solution and overclock to the same speeds and you still have money over for a SSD or better memory.
Score
2
October 2, 2013 7:52:51 PM

Buying so inefficient CPU doesn't make any. sense.
220W - 84 W for comparable Intel = 135W. If it is used 8 hours per day it will be 1080W per day more power then Intel. 365 days * 1.080W * $0.1 per kWh = $36.5 per year AMD will cost more to operate.
Score
0
October 2, 2013 7:53:37 PM

Buying so inefficient CPU doesn't make any. sense.
220W - 84 W for comparable Intel = 135W. If it is used 8 hours per day it will be 1080W per day more power then Intel. 365 days * 1.080W * $0.1 per kWh = $36.5 per year AMD will cost more to operate.
Score
0
October 2, 2013 10:13:36 PM

just to clarify Tristimulus it should be 1.080kW right? cause when I run those numbers I get $39.42
Score
0
October 2, 2013 10:35:51 PM

No surprise here, these FX CPUs overheat, should have come with good CPU cooling (air or liquid) since the beginning.
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 2, 2013 11:59:33 PM

Tristimulus said:
Buying so inefficient CPU doesn't make any. sense.
220W - 84 W for comparable Intel = 135W. If it is used 8 hours per day it will be 1080W per day more power then Intel. 365 days * 1.080W * $0.1 per kWh = $36.5 per year AMD will cost more to operate.


are you running your cpu at 100% load 8 hours per day? I probably have my PC turned on average 5 hrs per day, the cpu is probably at its peak useage when gaming, which is probably 1 hour every other day, and that wouldn't be 100% useage. The rest of the time its idle, downloading stuff, or my wife is using it for facebook...... But still, yes 220w is still stupid.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2013 1:23:04 AM

Such a shame AMD cant get it right in the CPU department... seems like since that, Intel also dosent improve his CPUs much... why would they? they still got the lead.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2013 3:08:15 AM

when you perpetuate a market where on company has 70%+ of the marketshare and the competition opperates on as much money as Intel pays its workforce then you can actually say that with the limited resources AMD has to work with they still offer competitive and consumer conscious products.

In the early part of the millenium the divide between Intel and AMD was less, since people have basically flooded intel pockets for 10+ years even when AMD had the better chips have meant that that divide is insurmountable, Intel can release substandard and you have little choice in the matter AMD on the other hand have to release a God chip and even then will not be able to arrest market share because at the end of the day Intel will not let that happen they did that before.
Score
-1
October 3, 2013 4:53:49 AM

its so funny as of late to AMD... I can remember when the roles with Intel were reversed, when the pentium line was so inefficient and AMD were (relatively) efficient in design, and it was AMD touting that they can do more with less power than intel chips. Fast foward nwo the roles are reversed, Intel chips are streamed line efficiently and AMD only cares about (as it seems) to push out the fast chip possible and screw what kind of power it takes to run it. At 220w to just run the processor figure (technically speaking) 1/4 of a 1000w power supply is running the processor itself. They need to drop these processors and rethink how to get greater performance with less power.
Score
1
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2013 7:18:14 AM

No one cares about the desktop space anymore because they know everything is moving to the cloud in the next 5 years. Intel and AMD both know this.

The 9000 series CPUs were just AMD throwing the enthusiast a bone for PR purposes.

There aren't going to be any more major advances in consumer desktop CPUs, just minimal ones as we have seen from Intel and AMD. There's just no money in it for them. AMD is refocusing where they should be (servers and low power) and is getting more competitive in those areas.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever have to upgrade my 2500K before the complete cloud based changeover comes.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 4, 2013 4:00:56 PM

I really doubt there is a big difference between Intel and Amd running on 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a good move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 4, 2013 4:02:44 PM

I really doubt there is a big difference between the power used of Intel vs Amd running at 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a super move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 4, 2013 4:03:57 PM

I really doubt there is a big difference between Intel and Amd running on 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a good move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2013 6:51:50 PM

Anonymous said:
I really doubt there is a big difference between Intel and Amd running on 5Ghz. 135W vs 220W are you sure? Anways I am curious can we still overclock it to 6Ghz or higher? Then I think AMD made a good move. To high priced to be attracted for me though.


The AMD chip at 5Ghz fails against a stock clocked 4770K in most benchmarks and gets utterly destroyed by anything with 6 cores from Sandy Bridge E. This isn't even mentioning what happens when you overclock those Intel chips to around 4.5.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590...

In short, a $300 Intel chip with a mild overclock matches or beats a $900 AMD chip with relative ease and uses a lot less power doing it. It's pretty clear this was just AMD trying to throw the enthusiast community a bone because after that they are backing out of the high end, and possibly even mid range market.
Score
1
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 4, 2013 9:36:57 PM

JD88 said:
No one cares about the desktop space anymore because they know everything is moving to the cloud in the next 5 years. Intel and AMD both know this.

The 9000 series CPUs were just AMD throwing the enthusiast a bone for PR purposes.

There aren't going to be any more major advances in consumer desktop CPUs, just minimal ones as we have seen from Intel and AMD. There's just no money in it for them. AMD is refocusing where they should be (servers and low power) and is getting more competitive in those areas.

I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever have to upgrade my 2500K before the complete cloud based changeover comes.


I live in Australia and I doubt we will have fast enough internet over the next 5 years to go 100% cloud. Many other countries would struggle with this also, not to mention regional areas. And also i don't, and never will trust cloud anything, and i will keep my desktop until i die.
Score
0
October 11, 2013 3:47:15 AM

if one were to purchase an AMD FX9370 Vishera CPU, 8GB memory, 1GB Graphics card. What would be the minimum wattage power supply??? Thank you very much for your time.
Score
0
October 17, 2013 8:36:29 PM

So I have gone to overclock net and see the amd fanboys having a field day blabbering that their FX 8350 is easy to slam to 4500 and 5000 ghz, but now we have this 220 watt "hand picked" "low voltage" SAME THING amd cpu and bygolly220 watts is not a lot...

My question of course is how many housefires and skyrocketed electric bills have the AMD FX oc fanboys been blowing up over the past months ?

Are they achieving 250 watts, 300 watts, more ? After all their AMD powerhog is not a cherry picked overclocker...

R O F L - AMD you are truly embarrassing even to your own fanboys, of which I duly note there are many.
Score
0
December 17, 2013 3:15:27 PM

The thing would probably melt without a cooler.
Score
0
!