Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Sweclockers] - AMD prepares FX-9000 up to 5.0 GHz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Sweclockers] - AMD prepares FX-9000 up to 5.0 GHz - Page 14

post #131 of 953
Holy.. that TDP eek.gif
Bender
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 Sapphire AMD R9 290X Tri-X (1050/1300mhz)  EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 (How do you OC?) 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOS
8GB 1600Mhz OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD windows 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus MG279Q Logitech G510  Corsair TX750 CM II 690 Advanced 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CM Sentinel Advance  some big corsair one beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 250 Ohm SoundBlaster Z Soundcard 
  hide details  
Reply
Bender
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i5-2500k @ 4.6Ghz Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3 Sapphire AMD R9 290X Tri-X (1050/1300mhz)  EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 (How do you OC?) 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOS
8GB 1600Mhz OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD OCZ Vertex 3 240GB SSD windows 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus MG279Q Logitech G510  Corsair TX750 CM II 690 Advanced 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
CM Sentinel Advance  some big corsair one beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro 250 Ohm SoundBlaster Z Soundcard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #132 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdlvx View Post

There's gonna be some angry Intel kids when this thing drops. We can guess performance based of FX 8350 scores, because FX 9000 is going to be 25% higher clocks. If we are pessimistic and assume a 20% increase in performance, we can already know where this thing is going to sit.


Estimated FX9000: 395.64


Estimated FX 9000: 8.37


Estimated FX 9000: 1.36


Estimated FX 9000: 123.2

This thing is basically going to crush 4770k in multi and trade blows in single thread with lower end IBs.

AMD just trolled Intel hard. Just overclock the crap out of an existing chip to the point where it beats Haswell in a bunch of benchmarks after Haswell releases, so FX 9000 is compared to 4770k, lol.

I can't wait to see how angry this makes people. The amount of people who are going to complain about a 220w TDP CPU in their rigs with 300w graphics cards (sometimes even two or three!) is going to provide me with so many laughs. And the most satisfying thing about this is that I have a feeling most of these vocal, ravenous Intel fanboys are a bunch of kids who haven't even seen AMD do good and have always thought Intel was by far the greatest thing ever. I can't wait to see how some of the biased mods react to this too. You know, the ones who delete catalyst 13.6 beta releases from the news section of the forum because "driver releases don't belong there, they belong in the AMD GPU section" when the post is literally surrounded by Nvdia driver release news.


EDIT: But I do hope these are Piledrivers with RCM tuned to 5ghz, that would just make my day.

Yeah just compare a 4.8ghz piledriver vs a 3.5ghz 4770k. lachen.gif
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
post #133 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

Yeah just compare a 4.8ghz piledriver vs a 3.5ghz 4770k. lachen.gif

Yup, the fx9000 completely obliterated the 4770k at stock, lol
post #134 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

Yeah just compare a 4.8ghz piledriver vs a 3.5ghz 4770k. lachen.gif

Both CPUs are at stock settings, you know.
post #135 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Bad Day View Post

Both CPUs are at stock settings, you know.

Here we go again with the "Well its stock settings" excuses from the amd crowd. The 4770K is unlocked. Comparing them at stock clocks is hilarious. Its like you amd fans make up these excuses in your head to justify buying those pos processors.

Amd Fan : "Ohh my FX9000 smokes a 4770K by 2% but you cant bring up that its clocked 37% higher because its stock clocks"
Intel Fan : What happens when you overclock the 4770K?
Amd fan : DOESNT MATTER MAN.. STOCK CLOCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited by Stay Puft - 6/1/13 at 6:44pm
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Bad Day View Post

Both CPUs are at stock settings, you know.

Except one chip is at a stock frequency/voltage that isn't going to give much overclocking headroom, and the other one has the sky as the limit. And yet they are still close according to his prediction.

See how that can be twisted any way?
post #137 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stay Puft View Post

Here we go again with the "Well its stock settings" excuses from the amd crowd. The 4770K is unlocked. Comparing them at stock clocks is hilarious. Its like you amd fans make up these excuses in your head to justify buying those pos processors

I guess no cpu should be compared at stock setting then.

If this cpu is real, price will determine it's success.$199 and we got a winner. That way it will murder the competition for cheap.
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

I guess no cpu should be compared at stock setting then.

If this cpu is real, price will determine it's success.$199 and we got a winner. That way it will murder the competition for cheap.

If you think this chip would be $199, you have to be crazy. The FX-8350 is averaging $200. AMD with this is trying to establish a higher end. This chip is more likely to be in the $270-320 range, rather than sub $200. They aren't about to reduce the price on their only chip worth a damn in their line.
post #139 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

I guess no cpu should be compared at stock setting then.

If this cpu is real, price will determine it's success.$199 and we got a winner. That way it will murder the competition for cheap.

lachen.gif

199.99? If it beat a 4770K it would be 350 dollars and then you'd all complain about how expensive it was
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
Core I7 5960X
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core I7 5960X ASRock X99 OC Formula MSI GTX 970 Gaming MSI GTX 970 Gaming 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
G. Skill 16GB DDR4 2600 Sandisk Extreme II 240GB SSD Custom 480 Water Setup Windows 10 
PowerCase
AX1500I Corsair 900D 
  hide details  
Reply
post #140 of 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinaesthetic View Post

If you think this chip would be $199, you have to be crazy. The FX-8350 is averaging $200. AMD with this is trying to establish a higher end. This chip is more likely to be in the $270-320 range, rather than sub $200. They aren't about to reduce the price on their only chip worth a damn in their line.

My reason for saying $199 is, that this chip really has nothing going for it.
Who is going to buy it at $270+? It would make sense to buy a 8350 and overclock it.

Also looking at amd's aggressive pricing, I think closer to $200 it is going to be. Seeing as they released a 6800k @ $149.99
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Killer
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 8320 4.4ghz Gigabyte 990fx XFX R9 290 (1100/1250) 8GB DDR3 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
750GB Momentus XT Corsair H80i Windows 8 3x 23" 1080p 
KeyboardPower
Logitech Mk 710 OCZ 1000 watts 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Sweclockers] - AMD prepares FX-9000 up to 5.0 GHz