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

By Tarun Iyer
published

Both processors to get an officially supported upgrade in cooling.

AMD has quietly launched a new retail SKU for two of its octa-core Piledriver processors, the FX-9370 and FX-9590, which include a liquid cooling kit to provide adequate cooling for the CPU's rather imposing TDP of 220 W.

As you might recall, both processors were initially only available in liquid-cooling equipped OEM PCs or in retail "WOF" SKUs that required the user to equip an aftermarket cooler to operate. 

The new boxed SKUs are distinguished with a "WOF" on the end of the SKU number. Though we don't have any official information on the liquid cooler's technical specifications, it is currently available for pre-order at U.S. retailer Provantage.com with a $50 and $60 premium over the standard FX-9370 and FX-9590 SKUs, respectively.

Topics
AMD
Cooling
CPUs
28 Comments Comment from the forums
  • JD88
    At the price they are (over)charging for these things, the cooler should be included.
    Reply
  • DRosencraft
    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.
    Reply
  • 1991ATServerTower
    Typo:

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

    Should be FX-9370

    Reply
  • rolli59
    Still over priced.
    Reply
  • firefoxx04
    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.
    Reply
  • clonazepam
    from that site, AMD FX-9590 8C AM3+ 16MB 220W 5.0G Wof Unlocked *Only* $870.82
    Reply
  • iam2thecrowe
    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.
    Reply
  • 1991ATServerTower
    "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.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    11642345 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.
    Reply
  • Tristimulus
    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.
    Reply