Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

AMD FX- 9000


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#41 speciealpha

speciealpha

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 131 posts
  • Locationright behind you

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:01 PM

i bet this will actually be a choice cpu for video editors!

 

If you think about it, the operations in video editing are actually pretty simple, but there's a huge amount of them that has to be done.

 

If you were a video editor, you would want whole lot of parallel processing capabilities in your cpu and also a high clock speed. unlike games where multiple operations per clock cycle seems to be more important.

 

The fx-9000 might actually be able to compete with sandy bridge E for video editing at least, because it's high clock speed and 8 cores would give it a huge advantage over intel.


“Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal.”    -Henry Ford

 

Please do BOINC. no matter how small a contribution it can make a difference. 


Login or Create an Account to get rid of this ad! Login or Create an Account to get rid of this ad!

#42 SMURG

SMURG

    CEO at SMURG Enterprises

  • Member
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 11 June 2013 - 02:29 PM

i bet this will actually be a choice cpu for video editors!

 

If you think about it, the operations in video editing are actually pretty simple, but there's a huge amount of them that has to be done.

 

If you were a video editor, you would want whole lot of parallel processing capabilities in your cpu and also a high clock speed. unlike games where multiple operations per clock cycle seems to be more important.

 

The fx-9000 might actually be able to compete with sandy bridge E for video editing at least, because it's high clock speed and 8 cores would give it a huge advantage over intel.

If it can, it'll only be competing with the 3820, which is slower than both the 3770 and 4770 XD



#43 Dodge

Dodge

    Member

  • Member
  • 151 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:35 AM

The first onlineshop is listing the CPUs:

 

FX-9590, $920.31

FX-9370, $576.27

 

The prices will probably decrease a bit, but what a joke. Compared to Haswell, the FX-9590 IMHO is worth maybe 200$.

 


to know the face of Dodge is to know madness

Take a look at what I’ve been watching…


#44 SMURG

SMURG

    CEO at SMURG Enterprises

  • Member
  • 1,096 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:40 AM

The first onlineshop is listing the CPUs:

 

FX-9590, $920.31

FX-9370, $576.27

 

The prices will probably decrease a bit, but what a joke. Compared to Haswell, the FX-9590 IMHO is worth maybe 200$.

Yeah, I could understand those prices if it could compete with the $1000 CPUs from Intel, but it's barely going to compete with the 4770k by the looks of things...



#45 samuel

samuel

  • Member
  • 878 posts
  • LocationRomania

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:41 AM

At stock, the 8350 consumes 71% more than its TDP, which is 125 watts at full load. The current TDP that we know of for the 9000 chip is 220. You apply the 71% to the 9000's TDP, and you get 156.2 watts. 220+156.2=376.2 watts.

Proof pleease!


My PC Specs
               
                                                                                                                                       Sorry for my English....

#46 TechFan@ic

TechFan@ic

    Twitter: @TecFanatic

  • Member
  • 4,732 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 04:43 AM

I don't mind the price personally, seeing how intel always jacks up the prices, let AMD have their fun for once, you can OC 8350s to 5Ghz with a bit of patience and a bit of skill these pre OCed CPUs are for ham-fisted "I have no idea what I'm doing" sort of folk, who'll waste their money on almost anything, I don't mind letting AMD have their money, they need it after all.



#47 Godlygamer23

Godlygamer23

    What's it to ya?

  • Member
  • 8,985 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:11 AM

Proof pleease!

8350's numbers were taken from Anandtech's review. Look up the review and do the math yourself.

#48 Ineko

Ineko

    Potato

  • Member
  • 724 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:16 AM

I don't mind the price personally, seeing how intel always jacks up the prices, let AMD have their fun for once, you can OC 8350s to 5Ghz with a bit of patience and a bit of skill these pre OCed CPUs are for ham-fisted "I have no idea what I'm doing" sort of folk, who'll waste their money on almost anything, I don't mind letting AMD have their money, they need it after all.

 

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. 

 

$900 (although the prices will most likely drop) for an OCed 8350? No thanks, wouldn't even pay $400. If intel tried to sell the 4770k @ 5GHz stock for $500+ everyone would've flipped their shit. Yea AMD needs the money but if these prices are anywhere close to real you'd have to be insane to buy one.

 

Linus even said in his last live-stream, it'll perform like an 8350 @ 5GHz, nothing more. 


PC specs

i5-3570k @ 4.6GHz | Corsair H80 w/ 2x Noctua NF-F12 | ASUS Sabertooth Z77 | Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1886MHz

x2 ASUS GTX 680 DirectCUII TOP 1201MHz | Samsung 830 120GB | WD Caviar Black 4TB | Corsair AX850 | Antec Eleven Hundred


#49 TechFan@ic

TechFan@ic

    Twitter: @TecFanatic

  • Member
  • 4,732 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:25 AM

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard.

$900 (although the prices will most likely drop) for an OCed 8350? No thanks, wouldn't even pay $400. If intel tried to sell the 4770k @ 5GHz stock for $500+ everyone would've flipped their shit. Yea AMD needs the money but if these prices are anywhere close to real you'd have to be insane to buy one.

Linus even said in his last live-stream, it'll perform like an 8350 @ 5GHz, nothing more.

It might sound ludicrous to you but it is true, AMD isn't "trying" to sell these CPUs for those prices, they're already sold out to OEMs, there will be no retail versions.
So even if you (& me) think that these CPUs aren't worth 900$/500$, the OEM system builders clearly disagree.



#50 samuel

samuel

  • Member
  • 878 posts
  • LocationRomania

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:26 AM

8350's numbers were taken from Anandtech's review. Look up the review and do the math yourself.

At stock, the 8350 consumes 71% more than its TDP, which is 125 watts at full load. The current TDP that we know of for the 9000 chip is 220. You apply the 71% to the 9000's TDP, and you get 156.2 watts. 220+156.2=376.2 watts.

Your calculation is wrong. Anandtech wattage is reffering to the whole system. 71% of that wattage maybe(i didn't verify) is the TDP of the cpu, but the rest 29% is the video card and anything else. Add another cpu TDP and the rest of the system won't be the same 29% of the CPU TDP simply because you changed the cpu only. Please don't confuse people!


My PC Specs
               
                                                                                                                                       Sorry for my English....

#51 Godlygamer23

Godlygamer23

    What's it to ya?

  • Member
  • 8,985 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:28 AM

Your calculation is wrong. Anandtech wattage is reffering to the whole system. 71% of that wattage maybe(i didn't verify) is the TDP of the cpu, but the rest 29% is the video card and anything else. Add another cpu TDP and the rest of the system won't be the same 71% because you changed the cpu only. Please don't confuse people!

AFAIK, it's not for the whole system. Do they say they're testing for the entire system?

I looked up the review. Apparently I got my numbers from a different review. Nonetheless, my numbers must be reconsidered.

#52 samuel

samuel

  • Member
  • 878 posts
  • LocationRomania

Posted 17 June 2013 - 06:33 AM

AFAIK, it's not for the whole system. Do they say they're testing for the entire system?

I looked up the review. Apparently I got my numbers from a different review. Nonetheless, my numbers must be reconsidered.

As far as I know, FX 8350 is not a SOC
51142.png
"average" means average value between 195.2W, 195.6W, 194.1 W and so on.


My PC Specs
               
                                                                                                                                       Sorry for my English....

#53 kuddlesworth9419

kuddlesworth9419

    Mr Opinion

  • Member
  • 2,058 posts
  • Location127.0.0.1 England

Posted 17 June 2013 - 07:40 AM

Xeon's cost more than this and doesn't perform as well as the 4770K. I really doubt that the FX 9000 will outperform the 4770K or 3770K. I do think however that the CPU wil be used for a specific purpose which we do not know. Also AMD isn't selling this CPU to the general consumer so in other words if it was more powerful than a 4770K than they would sell it. I could be wrong though.


(\__/)

(='.'=)

(")_(") This is Bunny





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users