Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Velocity Micro Intros AMD FX-9000 Powered Desktop

By - Source: Velocity Micro PR | B 19 comments

On Tuesday Richmond, Virginia-based Velocity Micro launched the Vision M35 desktop powered by AMD's FX-9000 series processors. Configurations start at a meaty $2,799, and are hand-built right here in the USA for gamers, enthusiasts and workstation applications.

"AMD FX Processors have allowed us to reach that 5.0 GHz milestone that seemed so far away just a few years ago," said Randy Copeland, President and CEO of Velocity Micro. "With up to 5.0 GHz Max Turbo frequency, the Vision M35 is an absolute monster and a great representation of the Velocity Micro brand. We’re thrilled to have been a part of AMD’s launch of these amazing processors."

According to the company, the Vision M35 will have two FX-9000 options. The AMD FX-9590 has eight unlocked cores, a base clock speed of 4.7 GHz, a max turbo clock speed of 5 GHz, and 16 MB of L2/L3 cache. The AMD FX-9370 has eight unlocked cores, a base clock speed of 4.4 GHz, a max turbo clock speed of 4.7 GHz, and 16 MB of L2/L3 cache.

As for the GPU options, Velocity Micro provides an insane number between Nvidia and AMD, ranging from three eVGA GeForce GTX 780 3 GB GDDR5 cards to a single AMD Radeon HD 7950 3 GB GDDR5 video card. There are also SLI and CrossFire options adding $710 and more to the base price. Some of the GPU card configurations require a 1200 watt power supply which adds yet another $180.

"This AMD system is designed to offer screaming computer power for both gaming and HD content," the company said. "Built in a solid aluminum chassis using premium components and our trademarked precision and benchmarking for maximum performance and remarkable reliability. A rare combination of muscle and value, perfect for the enthusiast looking to live on the bleeding edge."

This powerhouse desktop features the Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 motherboard, Velocity Micro's LiquidCool 6 fluid cooling system powered by Asetek, between 8 GB and 32 GB of DDR3-1600 memory, optional Creative Labs Sound Blaster Recon3D sound, and an integrated 52-in-1 media card reader. There are two sets of hard drive storage options, two sets of optical drive storage options, two sets of networking options and much, much more.

For more information about the new Vision M35 desktop, head here. Again, pricing starts at $2,799, so don't be shocked by the sticker after loading the rig up with tons of additional features.

Discuss
Display all 19 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 3 Hide
    jimmysmitty , July 17, 2013 2:49 PM
    A few years ago we had Sandy Bridge i5/i7s that hit 4.5GHz on air easily and 5GHz+ under water cooling. Not sure why this is being made a major deal when the TDP of these chips is 2x that of the upcoming i7 4970X and 3x that of a i7/i5 Haswell CPU.

    Still to each their own. I guess AMD has to find a way to be somewhat competitive until Steamroller comes out.
  • 0 Hide
    vmem , July 17, 2013 3:23 PM
    Quote:
    A few years ago we had Sandy Bridge i5/i7s that hit 4.5GHz on air easily and 5GHz+ under water cooling. Not sure why this is being made a major deal when the TDP of these chips is 2x that of the upcoming i7 4970X and 3x that of a i7/i5 Haswell CPU.

    Still to each their own. I guess AMD has to find a way to be somewhat competitive until Steamroller comes out.


    AMD learned how to do MARKETING. instead of actually making an innovative product, they've learned to take a seemingly boring product, and make it sound interesting while secretly spending more time to develop the better products.

    it's how Intel and Nvidia have beating AMD/ATI all these years. not every project under development will be useful, and if you don't market useless products and make money off of it, then your R&D costs go through the roof and your profits plummet. Just look at Desktop versions of Ivy bridge and Haswell, Intel took something that was optimized for Mobil, made a few tweaks, and then marketed it like hell. now they're making profits from BOTH mobil and Desktop markets for a product that was designed only for one of the two
  • 1 Hide
    edwd2 , July 17, 2013 4:07 PM
    well, according to the reviews, this thing performs between a 4770k and 3930k stock. to be honest, i'd spend that $885 pn either a 8350 or 3930k. i'm pretty sure that at 5ghz, it doesnt have much oc potential
  • 0 Hide
    falchard , July 17, 2013 4:29 PM
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    AMD has Hyper Transport. They kinda had it since 2003.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    This was never meant to be an integrated GPU chip, AMDs APU offers a much better GPU on chip.

    Still these things are a monster, a monster at gobbling up power. /nom
    I don't think anyone really cares about the power these things draw since these are just power hungry versions of their other offerings. This is just a stop-gap until AMD starts offering its Steamroller chips which are in the realm of competitiveness with Intel.
  • 2 Hide
    Spooderman , July 17, 2013 6:04 PM
    Everyone's always shitting on AMD but they do a good job with what they have. AMD has a tiny budget compared to Intel and they really do make the most out of it.
  • 0 Hide
    Ovaltripod110 , July 17, 2013 6:51 PM
    you kids seem not to understand that while Intel functions on an economical cloned quad-core running 8 threads on 4 cores really slows things down, not only does the 1600MHz memory controller create a bottleneck but this also limits every pc user forcing them to upgrade their whole rig every time they decide to release a new chip. AMD's AM3+ sockest all support 1866MHz memory controllers and actual 1 core per thread for raw computing plus their chips never take a huge bite from the wallet
  • 1 Hide
    mlopinto2k1 , July 17, 2013 6:53 PM
    Quote:
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    AMD has Hyper Transport. They kinda had it since 2003.
    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    This was never meant to be an integrated GPU chip, AMDs APU offers a much better GPU on chip.

    Still these things are a monster, a monster at gobbling up power. /nom
    I don't think anyone really cares about the power these things draw since these are just power hungry versions of their other offerings. This is just a stop-gap until AMD starts offering its Steamroller chips which are in the realm of competitiveness with Intel.


    Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... he was talking about Hyper THREADING, not TRANSPORT.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport
  • -1 Hide
    mlopinto2k1 , July 17, 2013 6:57 PM
    Quote:
    you kids seem not to understand that while Intel functions on an economical cloned quad-core running 8 threads on 4 cores really slows things down, not only does the 1600MHz memory controller create a bottleneck but this also limits every pc user forcing them to upgrade their whole rig every time they decide to release a new chip. AMD's AM3+ sockest all support 1866MHz memory controllers and actual 1 core per thread for raw computing plus their chips never take a huge bite from the wallet


    This has to be satire. It just has to be. Right?
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 17, 2013 7:06 PM
    Quote:
    AMD won't learn-
    No HT still.
    No GPU still.
    And again that useless amount of l2 cache...Well i7 4770k is still the best deal out there..Well yet again, i7 3770k is better.


    is is threaded. they call it 8 cores, but its realistically 4, they just have more of a core than intels thread solution

    Quote:
    Quote:
    you kids seem not to understand that while Intel functions on an economical cloned quad-core running 8 threads on 4 cores really slows things down, not only does the 1600MHz memory controller create a bottleneck but this also limits every pc user forcing them to upgrade their whole rig every time they decide to release a new chip. AMD's AM3+ sockest all support 1866MHz memory controllers and actual 1 core per thread for raw computing plus their chips never take a huge bite from the wallet


    This has to be satire. It just has to be. Right?


    intel's implementation isn't that good and does have a bottleneck, is also more or less seems like intel required a new motherboard every cpu, while amd its usually just a bios update for a long time.

    the amd thread solution, if it went off without a hitch, would have easily beat the crap out of intel, but it wasn't properly integrated from the start, and many programs are still single core. when a program is made with amd in mind, you see that it can match and in some cases beat out i7's. with amd in every console, more specifically the two next gen ones, you will see a shift to support amd over intel or nvidia there, which may follow in other segments. and you also have a revamp of the bulldozer coming... remember the pentium 4, and how intel buried the threading till they fixed it? amd wasn't able to do that, they don't have the money to bury it and only bring it back out when done.
  • 0 Hide
    stingstang , July 17, 2013 10:34 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    AMD won't learn-
    No HT still.
    No GPU still.
    And again that useless amount of l2 cache...Well i7 4770k is still the best deal out there..Well yet again, i7 3770k is better.


    is is threaded. they call it 8 cores, but its realistically 4, they just have more of a core than intels thread solution


    You should look at the pictures of the amd chips and restate this.

  • 1 Hide
    silverblue , July 18, 2013 12:13 AM
    Quote:
    AMD won't learn-
    No HT still.
    No GPU still.
    And again that useless amount of l2 cache...Well i7 4770k is still the best deal out there..Well yet again, i7 3770k is better.


    The FlexFPU architecture does actually behave like hyper-threading; the logic is that it can handle either one 256-bit instruction at one time, or up to two 128-bit instructions. Therefore, spare capacity is now being exploited when necessary. At least, that's the theory. In practice, even a four-module Piledriver cannot hope to keep up with a desktop i5, despite theoretically offering the same 256-bit AVX performance and double the 128-bit AVX throughput.

    Cache is a wonderful thing and something that AMD have generally done differently to Intel. Having lots of cache is one thing (certainly helps with hit rate), but it still has to be fast as well, something which has blighted AMD as of late. In addition, the L1 cache sizes are horribly small with the current FX series. Having Phenom-sized L1 caches may have made a decent difference... who knows?
  • 0 Hide
    Rome270AD , July 18, 2013 3:13 AM
    Intel should be really worried, AMD have secured all the next gen consoles, with their hardware, tablets, laptops, mobile devices, moving into APU, which are brilliant combos of AMD cpu's and Radeon, they know the PC market is dying, clever move.

    But there will always be us small band of PC gamers. Glad my PC will soon be AMD Radeon optimized for the next gen games.

    Dump your Intel shares and buy AMD.
  • 0 Hide
    Lord_Kitty , July 18, 2013 4:49 AM
    Quote:
    you kids seem not to understand that while Intel functions on an economical cloned quad-core running 8 threads on 4 cores really slows things down, not only does the 1600MHz memory controller create a bottleneck but this also limits every pc user forcing them to upgrade their whole rig every time they decide to release a new chip. AMD's AM3+ sockest all support 1866MHz memory controllers and actual 1 core per thread for raw computing plus their chips never take a huge bite from the wallet


    Every time Intel released a new chipset or socket, the change has been justified.

    1366 moved a few things on the CPU.
    1156 introduced GPU on chip and was a better priced alternative to 1366.
    1155 moved the PCIe controller on the CPU and a few new things.
    1150 moved the VRM on the CPU.

    AMD did introduce FM1 and FM2 for their APU. If their mainstream line had new things every generation like Intel, then the AM3+ would have to be changed.

    EDIT: And current AMD 8 core CPUs are clusters of 2 cores with resources for a single one. It does not have the raw power like a real 8 core or even an Intel 6 core.
  • 0 Hide
    The_Trutherizer , July 18, 2013 5:21 AM
    A few years ago I paid $250 for my CPU. A year or two from now I will pay $250 for my new CPU and get about $100 for my current one.

    That's just the way I roll.
  • 0 Hide
    jimmysmitty , July 18, 2013 9:12 AM
    Quote:
    you kids seem not to understand that while Intel functions on an economical cloned quad-core running 8 threads on 4 cores really slows things down, not only does the 1600MHz memory controller create a bottleneck but this also limits every pc user forcing them to upgrade their whole rig every time they decide to release a new chip. AMD's AM3+ sockest all support 1866MHz memory controllers and actual 1 core per thread for raw computing plus their chips never take a huge bite from the wallet


    First lets discuss memory controllers and their usefulness. Right now, for mainstream such as LGA1155/1150, there is nothing useful in gaming or most mainstream applications about anything above DDR3 1600MHz. Intel knows this, and AMD knows this. At 1600MHz, most higher end Intels push 21GB/s (40-50GB/s on LGA2011) and AMD pushes 18.64GB/s. Games do not know how to use anything that fast. This kind of speed is more useful in servers and workstations but not normal DT. Also, IB-E supports DDR3 1866 and makes sense, as does the FX9K series since both are targeted at either the stupidly rich or workstation users.

    Secondly, you don't think paying $900 for a CPU is taking a huge bite from the wallet? You can buy the FX-9590 on Newegg right now (in combo only) and it costs $900 bucks. With no OC headroom, a massive TDP and $900 bucks I think getting a 3930K is a better bet since you can take that extra cash and put towards a better SSD or GPU.

    Quote:
    Intel should be really worried, AMD have secured all the next gen consoles, with their hardware, tablets, laptops, mobile devices, moving into APU, which are brilliant combos of AMD cpu's and Radeon, they know the PC market is dying, clever move.

    But there will always be us small band of PC gamers. Glad my PC will soon be AMD Radeon optimized for the next gen games.

    Dump your Intel shares and buy AMD.


    Intel isn't worried. They actually have phones and tablets with CPUs in them and have longer than AMD. They also have the resources to push harder there.

    As for "Radeon Optimized", I love my HD7970 Vapor-X but in all honesty until their next GPU (Volcanic Islands) hits, they have nothing competitive and still have work to do on their drivers for CFX. I hope they can at least compete with NVidia but it depends on how the current CEO sees competing.

    And no the desktop PC market will never die. I have a Samsung Galaxy S4 and while its a nice phone, it cannot do nearly the same functions as even a entry level PC. There will always be desktop PCs.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 19, 2013 2:56 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    AMD won't learn-
    No HT still.
    No GPU still.
    And again that useless amount of l2 cache...Well i7 4770k is still the best deal out there..Well yet again, i7 3770k is better.


    is is threaded. they call it 8 cores, but its realistically 4, they just have more of a core than intels thread solution


    You should look at the pictures of the amd chips and restate this.



    I know its threaded..that everyone knows...I said its not Hyper Threaded..
    In case-
    http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-FX-9370


    ok, from my understanding, hyperthreading is what intel calls there 2 threads on 1 core, its not a real standard, its a marketing word.

    intel decided to handle 2 threads more in logic than in cores, amd decided to handle 2 threads with more cores than logic. in theory, amds hyperthreading (i'll use this opposed to threading like i did before) solution beats out intel hands down, but they didn't have the time to shelve it till its ready like intel did.
  • 0 Hide
    Lord_Kitty , July 20, 2013 9:32 AM
    Quote:

    ok, from my understanding, hyperthreading is what intel calls there 2 threads on 1 core, its not a real standard, its a marketing word.

    intel decided to handle 2 threads more in logic than in cores, amd decided to handle 2 threads with more cores than logic. in theory, amds hyperthreading (i'll use this opposed to threading like i did before) solution beats out intel hands down, but they didn't have the time to shelve it till its ready like intel did.



    Actually, Intel's approach requires a very small additional die space for Hyper-Threading. While AMD requires a physical core, and is still less capable than an i7.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 20, 2013 11:39 AM
    Quote:
    Quote:

    ok, from my understanding, hyperthreading is what intel calls there 2 threads on 1 core, its not a real standard, its a marketing word.

    intel decided to handle 2 threads more in logic than in cores, amd decided to handle 2 threads with more cores than logic. in theory, amds hyperthreading (i'll use this opposed to threading like i did before) solution beats out intel hands down, but they didn't have the time to shelve it till its ready like intel did.



    Actually, Intel's approach requires a very small additional die space for Hyper-Threading. While AMD requires a physical core, and is still less capable than an i7.


    im aware, look at the pentium 4 era where hyperthreading was introduced, it was a miserable failure, so they took it out of the cpus till they fixed the problem.

    amd is having that same problem with the solution massively underperforming (though in some cases a 300$ cpu comes close to 500$ cpu in performance) but the thing is, amd is handling this threading in a more core than logic way, once they get a handle on things, it should massively outperform intels threading solution.
  • 0 Hide
    alidan , July 20, 2013 5:18 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Quote:

    ok, from my understanding, hyperthreading is what intel calls there 2 threads on 1 core, its not a real standard, its a marketing word.

    intel decided to handle 2 threads more in logic than in cores, amd decided to handle 2 threads with more cores than logic. in theory, amds hyperthreading (i'll use this opposed to threading like i did before) solution beats out intel hands down, but they didn't have the time to shelve it till its ready like intel did.



    Actually, Intel's approach requires a very small additional die space for Hyper-Threading. While AMD requires a physical core, and is still less capable than an i7.


    im aware, look at the pentium 4 era where hyperthreading was introduced, it was a miserable failure, so they took it out of the cpus till they fixed the problem.

    amd is having that same problem with the solution massively underperforming (though in some cases a 300$ cpu comes close to 500$ cpu in performance) but the thing is, amd is handling this threading in a more core than logic way, once they get a handle on things, it should massively outperform intels threading solution.


    "once they get a handle on things..." will take millions of years...for AMD..LOL


    you are looking at this wrong. remember amd was once beating intel and intel needed to flex a monopoly muscle to keep amd down.

    like i said, they match the intel high end in the right conditions. all they have left is to get single core working right and they should be back. and if i remember correctly they got the designer behind the fx (original) back... it may just be 1 or 2 architecture generations away, and with intel dicking around with 5% gains per iteration... amd wont have to much to catch up to.