AMD FX-8770 and 9000 - 220W TDP, 5 GHz

[Sheep221]

It is not chic, so there is no market for them.

My OC'ed QX6700 @ 4GHz (vapophase cooling) consumed around 270W. The chip cost me $1.5k and the cooler cost me $1k.

Not a lot of volume at that pricepoint. Why would Intel or AMD go after it? The vaporphase cooler guys all went out of business because the demand for that kind of cooling was so low.

That said, the GPU products show us you don't need vaporphase cooling to keep a 300W product functioning. The CPU platform though is the problem, we need a reconfiguration of today's mobo and case layout so the heat from the CPU HSF is directly ejected outside the case.

Only then would it make sense.

Sometimes I think there should be cases with double insulation, which would act like big heatsink on its exterior side and prevent the dissipated heat to return inside the case and cause reheating components. With some bracket which alongside having a regular fan, would connect the CPU to the case walls via heatpipes to the case walls so more heat could be dissipated from the CPU and GPU, however I'm not sure if the case would be safe to touch due to high amounts of heat being transfered on its outer construction.

 

[Chiropteran]

I wonder how much a 220W "TDP" certified AM3+ mobo is going to cost.

Doesn't the 8150 already draw that much, or more, when heavily overclocked? Seems like the better boards are already capable of it, just need to slap a sticker on them and make it official.

 

[guskline]

I notice after reading the article that ram support on the cpu was listed as ddr 2400! Is it possible that this chip is more than just a golden 8350? Sounds like there was more done to it. The numbers don't shock me. I'm running my 8350 at 4.6Ghz (21 x 219). The 9590 is listed at 4.7 base and turbo at 5ghz so if the fsb is 200 the clock will be 23.5 to 25. Most likely only 2 modules (4 cores) will turbo to 5 Ghz. Also I bet the vcore was ramped up AND the memory controller tweeked. Since it is only OEM, I bet AMD has very specific requirements on motherboards and cooling.

 

[guskline]

Doesn't the 8150 already draw that much, or more, when heavily overclocked? Seems like the better boards are already capable of it, just need to slap a sticker on them and make it official.

I'm sure it is more than that. Heat dissipation will be critical. I remember OCing my 8150 to 4.6 Ghz and it was a real furnace. I used an Asus Sabertooth 990FX rev1 mb with a Corsair H100 cooler. The 8350 has a higher base and is improved on power usage. However, it also will crank up the heat when OCs climb above @4.6-4.7Ghz. The 9590 at 4.7-5.0Ghz will need proper cooling all around to be solid.

 

[sushiwarrior]

CPU isn't strictly an 8350 with a clockspeed bump, they had to do work with the FP unit in order to achieve good yields for the clockspeeds they want. Which is 4.7, not 4.8 (5.0 with boost).

 

[USER8000]

This article supposedly has reproduced part of the official AMD documents for the CPUs:

http://translate.google.com/transla...p://diit.cz/clanek/amd-fx-9000-5-ghz-tdp-220w

The coolers recommended are the Corsair H80i and Antec Kuhler H20 920,which don't seem too bad,as many people use them for existing overclocked AMD and Intel systems.

The recommended motherboards are meant to use the 990FX chipset,however even some motherboards like the Asus M5A97 EVO can handle upto 275W:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/M5A97_EVO/13.html

It seems any AMD motherboard which can handle an overclocked FX8320 or FX8350 should be fine in theory.

 

[inf64]

It's on AMD's website now.

 

[podspi]

You have to give them credit, they are trying.

I wonder how well these models will OC, or whether they are already at their limit. Imagine if these things can reliably get into the low 5ghz range...

Assuming they can maintain the clockspeeds they are with Piledriver for Steamroller, they might actually catch up in performance after all... (though likely not perf/watt, at least on the high end).

 

[inf64]

Looks to be OEM only deal, for now. Maybe later they will offer these in retail channel, who knows. Power draw will be high but it will outperform 8T i7 in many instances. Hopefully they won't ask an arm and a leg if/when it hits retail (has to be cheaper than 3770K/4770K).

 

[NTMBK]

Seems like a prestige thing, frankly. Try to retake the performance crown from the 4770k, even when using 2.5X the power.

 

[ViRGE]

You have to give them credit, they are trying.

This is true. What they're doing is completely nuts (in a bad way) and I can't believe we're going this route, but at least they're not sitting around accepting their fate.

In any case, since it's OEM-only I'd expect we'll see boutique builders pick this one up. The Falcon NWs and Origins of the world who can hook it up to massive air coolers and water cooling loops.

220W CPUs... I like powerful CPUs, but this is getting absurd.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I imagine it's more than 220w at full load, probably closer to 300w.

 

[sushiwarrior]

You have to give them credit, they are trying.

I wonder how well these models will OC, or whether they are already at their limit. Imagine if these things can reliably get into the low 5ghz range...

Assuming they can maintain the clockspeeds they are with Piledriver for Steamroller, they might actually catch up in performance after all... (though likely not perf/watt, at least on the high end).

They should go higher than 8350 parts due to a reduction in the FP unit somehow (wasn't clear what the reduction was). I'm hoping for some 5.5-5.6GHz OC's!

I imagine it's more than 220w at full load, probably closer to 300w.

Heh, yes of course 300w for the CPU. Thanks, why don't you go eyeball some random figures somewhere else. That's sadly ignorant guesswork.

 

[NTMBK]

They should go higher than 8350 parts due to a reduction in the FP unit somehow (wasn't clear what the reduction was). I'm hoping for some 5.5-5.6GHz OC's!

I saw you post this in the other thread- is there a source for this rumour at all? I was under the impression that this was just the same silicon at higher clocks.

 

[sushiwarrior]

I saw you post this in the other thread- is there a source for this rumour at all? I was under the impression that this was just the same silicon at higher clocks.

Just wait till a full review rolls around, or a whitepaper or something. It may be the same silicon, just with changed FP unit clocks or something along those lines.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's on AMD's website now.

I can see they are creative in the PR department again.

Its max turbo clocks, not base. I wonder with how many cores.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Heh, yes of course 300w for the CPU. Thanks, why don't you go eyeball some random figures somewhere else. That's sadly ignorant guesswork.

"Closer to 300 than 220"

And yes that would be my guess towards an unreleased product based on other similar products at lower clocks with even higher consumption.

I'm sure your feeling and emotion based projections are much closer, however you haven't given them so I went ahead without your expert knowledge to guide me.

 

[NTMBK]

Just wait till a full review rolls around, or a whitepaper or something. It may be the same silicon, just with changed FP unit clocks or something along those lines.

They can't alter the FPU clocks separately from the clocks of the rest of the core without doing some fairly serious reworking of the chip. What on earth makes you think that they've tweaked the FPUs specifically?

 

[sushiwarrior]

"Closer to 300 than 220"

And yes that would be my guess towards an unreleased product based on other similar products at lower clocks with even higher consumption.

I'm sure your feeling and emotion based projections are much closer, however you haven't given them so I went ahead without your expert knowledge to guide me.

No, my actual numbers and figures that I didn't pull out of my ass say 220w

100w delta for a 4.8 overclock. And before you say "but it's 5GHz turbo!" it only uses turbo when only a few cores are being used, so this is the max consumption.

So it uses less than 100w above an 8350, which is 120w TDP.

They can't alter the FPU clocks separately from the clocks of the rest of the core without doing some fairly serious reworking of the chip. What on earth makes you think that they've tweaked the FPUs specifically?

Obviously they aren't just changing the clocks of the FP unit! I meant in a timing sense. I'm not 100% clear on how they could alter the FPU exactly, perhaps they closed pipelines.

 

[guskline]

This is true. What they're doing is completely nuts (in a bad way) and I can't believe we're going this route, but at least they're not sitting around accepting their fate.

In any case, since it's OEM-only I'd expect we'll see boutique builders pick this one up. The Falcon NWs and Origins of the world who can hook it up to massive air coolers and water cooling loops.

220W CPUs... I like powerful CPUs, but this is getting absurd.

Agreed but there is a market. I bought a P3 Kill O Watt just to do a rough measurement of wattage when overclocking. I used it when overclocking my 8150 and I used it when overclocking my 8350. I've used it with my 2500k and 3770k.

No doubt these new cpus will use more power. I'll be interested in the vcore setting and the true measurement of power usage.

What I find interesting is the absolute silence from AMD on the SteanRoller core. Has that been shelved?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

No, my actual numbers and figures that I didn't pull out of my ass say 220w

100w delta for a 4.8 overclock. And before you say "but it's 5GHz turbo!" it only uses turbo when only a few cores are being used, so this is the max consumption.

So it uses less than 100w above an 8350, which is 120w TDP.

You mean the 220w figure that you feel ViRGE pulled from his nether reigns?

Which uses "100w Delta" over a product that already draws over 120w is still probably closer to 300 than 220. :thumbsup:

I'm sure AMD will bin them, but they'll also require more voltage than a reviewer for the same clocks because they need to validate the processor in a large range of workloads and warranty it at that voltage given electron migration over the period of it's warranty.

I'll stick with my original thought, closer to 300 than 220.

 

[inf64]

I saw you post this in the other thread- is there a source for this rumour at all? I was under the impression that this was just the same silicon at higher clocks.

I seriously doubt they changed anything in the core itself (so no reduced functionality in any sense when it comes to FP unit).

I can see they are creative in the PR department again.

Its max turbo clocks, not base. I wonder with how many cores.

4.7Ghz is the base for that top model. 5Ghz is single core turbo. So lowest "guaranteed" clock for full load is 4.7Ghz while highest is probably 4.8Ghz or so. 5Ghz might happen if only two modules are fully loaded though.

@ Balla

8350 draws somewhat more than specced 125W (from the socket) only in certain workloads (like power virus ones or very fp intensive). These parts will draw roughly like AT got (~100W more than stock 8350 ) or maybe even less since these are binned parts Vs AT's crude OCing attempt with wild sample they got.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Certainly possible, and everyone should be entitled to their own guesses without getting attacked and swore at for them.

I thought the top chip would run 4.8GHz with 3 or more modules loaded and 5GHz with 2 or less, but I could be wrong of course.

Really it's going to depend on how well AMD can bin the chips, voltage will be the deciding factor really and given the huge clock and the validation requirements as well as the required overvoltage for warranty duration.

I imagine they'll ship around 1.45v, crazy as that sounds.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Just seen this, AMD FX-9590 first 5Ghz chip

 

[guskline]

Based on personal experience with my 8350 on the Asus Sabertooth 990fx Rev 1, I was able to boot into windows 8 at 5Ghz but had to set the vcore to 1.52v. When I ran any test the heat and power draw shot up. I didn't want to damage the cpu so I backed down. To run a chip at 4.7 Ghz all 4 modules/ 8 cores with stability the vcore will be bumped up. I'm sure the 5 Ghz is the "Turbo" where the chip shuts down some cores ( my guess 2 module/4 cores). As far as OCing I "guess" there might be room but in the famous line of Peanuts "Good grief Charlie Brown" !

BTW, this Uber chip will most likely beat a 4770k Haswell STOCK. However, a reasonable OC will put the Haswell right up there with it if not exceed it. It will be fun to see how much improvement can be had from a 9590.