AMD Refreshes FX CPU Lineup, Drops Prices On Older Models

AMD Refreshes FX CPU Lineup, Drops Prices On Older Models

AMD FX CPU 2 310x

The flagship FX-9590 is getting an $86 price drop.

Intel isn't the only chip manufacturer with new hardware for the gaming masses, as AMD is bringing three new chips to the marker this week.

The FX-8370, FX-8370E, and FX-8320E complete the new trio, with the 8370 coming in just above the 8350 and 8320. All three chips are eight-core, Vishera-based chips, and all have operating frequencies of 4 GHz-plus. The FX-8370E and FX-8320E are interesting additions, as both have a TDP of 95W. Most of the FX family sits at 125W or higher, so these two lower-power chips should be right at home in boxes not equipped with a flux capacitor.

As for pricing, the new chips will launch at $199 (FX-8370, FX-8370E), and $147 (FX-8320E).

The new trio is a welcome sight, as is the news of the other members of the FX family getting price drops. The flagship FX chip (FX-9590) is dropping by $86, and that applies to both the standalone chip, and the model packaged with a liquid cooler.

image

Source: AMD PR

Permalink

I believe I'm usinsg the 8320, and to anyone wondering it's been more than adequate for gaming.

Got an Phenom II X4 955 from 2009 (wow, time sure flies) and it still pulls most.

OK, GPU is a Radeon HD 7950 and ddr3 is in to the max what the main-board can handle.

Not surprising, Intel still dominate the market despite the price to performance being in AMDs favour and Intel are really beginning to step things up with their latest Haswell refresh and new chipsets. AMD had to have some kind of answer to all the coverage Intel have been getting the last couple of weeks.

Price to performance, nothing can hold a candle to AMD. But the X99 platform will eat all of these for breakfast. Too bad Intel's hardware is always so overpriced. But they don't really have a competitor now. None of these CPUs compete with what's available for the X99 chipset.

Good. I will always support AMD until there is literally no feasible product left from them that I can buy, after the BS that Intel has pulled for the past decade someone needs to take a stand or there will only be one company left in this two horse race.

Source for my ravings:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-09-235_en.htm?locale=en
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/us-intel-court-eu-idUSKBN0EN0M120140612

Hyper Threading which is why AMD CPU's can't hold a candle to Intel's

Adam Jensen:
Price to performance, nothing can hold a candle to AMD. But the X99 platform will eat all of these for breakfast. Too bad Intel's hardware is always so overpriced. But they don't really have a competitor now. None of these CPUs compete with what's available for the X99 chipset.

That's actually untrue, until this price cut Intel was beating out AMD on price/performance across the board.

The high-end Extreme Edition processors are completely out of this league, the 4770k is much more powerful than the most expensive FX-series processor. The FX 9590 is about on par with a i5-4690k at stock speeds (multithreaded only, the i5 is significantly faster single-threaded), but if you're overclocking the i5 is faster and even if you're not it's a 88W TDP vs 220W on the 9590.

Now that the 9590 is a little cheaper than 4690K at $226 vs $250, so there is a point to it existing. I still wouldn't buy one because I'm going to overclock it and the i5 overclocks better and runs much cooler but at least the pricing isn't insane. If you already have a compatible AM3 board this could be a good upgrade, although I would probably get an 8350 because the TDP isn't so insane.

Flunk:
That's actually untrue, until this price cut Intel was beating out AMD on price/performance across the board.

You need to take motherboards into consideration as well. And AMD's motherboards tend to be about 30% cheaper. AMD is really for tight budget builds where every dollar counts towards a better GPU if you're a gamer. And if you're not a gamer but you still want an octocore, then you want one for a reason.

Adam Jensen:

Flunk:
That's actually untrue, until this price cut Intel was beating out AMD on price/performance across the board.

You need to take motherboards into consideration as well. And AMD's motherboards tend to be about 30% cheaper.

I dunno about that. Anymore, you can find Intel motherboards for the same ~$40 price of the AMDs for an 1150 socket.

I thought AMD swore no new FX chips this year. I wonder if these will be based on Steamroller.

Wikipedia:
In November 2013, AMD confirmed it will not update the FX series in 2014, neither its current Socket AM3+ version, nor will it receive a Steamroller version with a new socket.

Sigh, I really wish AMD would instead try to invest into research in making better architecture and higher IPC count. maybe then they could actually provide competition to intel cards and intel wont have a "im a monopoly so i can slack off".

Adam Jensen:

Flunk:
That's actually untrue, until this price cut Intel was beating out AMD on price/performance across the board.

You need to take motherboards into consideration as well. And AMD's motherboards tend to be about 30% cheaper. AMD is really for tight budget builds where every dollar counts towards a better GPU if you're a gamer. And if you're not a gamer but you still want an octocore, then you want one for a reason.

except that even on synthetic tests i3 is on equal footing to an AMD octocore due to high IPC ratio in intel cards.

also when talking about price/performance most people ignore power consumtion. Yes, you may buy a AMD CPU cheaper and overclock it to be somewhat close to stock Intel CPU. but then your consuming 80-90W extra power and this will hit your power bill hard. So in the end AMD looses due to high power consumtion and heat where you need more power to get that out as well. On the plus side you may save up on heating in the winter.

Clowndoe:
I believe I'm usinsg the 8320, and to anyone wondering it's been more than adequate for gaming.

Yes it is. Thats because gaming is not CPU intensive. not for the past 5 years anyway. GPUs are the bottleneck in gaming nowadays and any mid-range CPU will do just fine in gaming.

Strazdas:
except that even on synthetic tests i3 is on equal footing to an AMD octocore due to high IPC ratio in intel cards.

Synthetic tests are never a better indicator than real world benchmarks. And in real benchmarks the octocore preforms really well in multithreaded tasks. As for gaming, in the coming years it will prove as one of the better deals because even the new consoles are using an AMD octocore. Most games will be coded to support more cores. So it may not be faster than a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Intel CPUs, but it could be more a better bang for the buck in the long run.

GPU is the most important thing in the PC anyway, even you acknowledge that. So you can get away with a cheaper, slower CPU if that means you can get a better GPU. That's how budget builds are made. Enthusiasts will always go for Intel, of course.

Strazdas:
also when talking about price/performance most people ignore power consumtion. Yes, you may buy a AMD CPU cheaper and overclock it to be somewhat close to stock Intel CPU. but then your consuming 80-90W extra power and this will hit your power bill hard.

That depends on how expensive electricity is where you live. Usually the bill will be around $30 more per year on an AMD chip. That's not a lot on a monthly basis.

Adam Jensen:

Synthetic tests are never a better indicator than real world benchmarks. And in real benchmarks the octocore preforms really well in multithreaded tasks. As for gaming, in the coming years it will prove as one of the better deals because even the new consoles are using an AMD octocore. Most games will be coded to support more cores. So it may not be faster than a lot of 3rd and 4th generation Intel CPUs, but it could be more a better bang for the buck in the long run.

erm, no. synthetic tests is where AMD performance is arguably comparable while real world benchmarks show it lagging behind due to real world not being perfectly scalable to as many caores as you want.

For gaming, CPU is irrelevant nowadays. its almost never a bottleneck. And no, games wont be coded to support more CPU cores, because:
1. even by using as few as 2-4 cores they are already hitting power limits of the console GPU power which means there is no point in scaling upwards as you wont be able to run it anyway.
2. Developers hate parallel programming. they hate it so much as to move from CPU centrick to GPU centric programming, moving things like Physics to GPU and the like. thats because GPU is still for the most part singlecore. and they had a very big struggle going dualcore (Sli, Crossfire) with games not supporting it ect. SO if there is any way, the developers will go for as little cores as possible. ANd there is a way - the Intel way of higher IPC.

Like i stated previuosly, AMD compartments get worse in the long run due to power consumtion difference when to have at least similar performance AMD CPUs consume TWICE the power, which makes your power bill soar.

GPU is the most important thing in the PC anyway, even you acknowledge that. So you can get away with a cheaper, slower CPU if that means you can get a better GPU. That's how budget builds are made. Enthusiasts will always go for Intel, of course.

Yep, for gaming you certainly can. Gaming isnt the only industry that needs CPUs though just so you know. and even for gaming AMD is a worse choice due to game developer industry having very poor hyperthreading ability, so fewer, higher IPC cores are preferable.

That depends on how expensive electricity is where you live. Usually the bill will be around $30 more per year on an AMD chip. That's not a lot on a monthly basis.

Well if you got free electricity, sure.

Lets do some math.

Lets take i5-3570K that costs 230 dollars on newegg. Its full load power consumption is 77W.
Lets take FX-8350 that Costs 180 dolalrs on newegg. Overclocking it to match the chosen i5 power, it should consume around 150W on full load.

Thats power difference of 73W and price difference of 50 dollars.

Now, lets say you are running your computer for a regular 8 hour per day job, so 8 hours of consumtion. ALso you game on weekends so lets assume weekends also have 8 hour consumption for simplicity. Obviuosly these will differ for each person.

73*8=584Wh per day.
584*365=213160Wh per year. That is 213.16 KWh. Now, i dont know how costly electricity is at your home, but here it costs around 50 cents per KWh (rounding for simplicitly). This would total to 106,58 per year. Remmeber, our price difference was 50 dollars, which means that the AMD CPU will be more expensive as soon as +6 months in!

Now, that will of course differ based on usage and electricity price, but i think you can grasp the concept now.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here