AMD Set To Announce New FX Processorsby Brett Howse on August 26, 2014 8:00 AM EST
During the 30 Years of Graphics & Gaming Innovation celebration on the weekend, AMD took the opportunity to announce several new models of FX Processors that will be coming to market soon. The new models announced are the FX-8320E, the FX-8370, and the FX-8370E. The E at the end represents a lower TDP than the normal model.
As this was not a true product launch, details were light, but based on previous releases of the FX processors we should be able to make some assumptions. The turbo clock speed was announced as 4.0 GHz for the FX-8230E which is the same as the older FX-8320 which is 3.5 GHz as a base, so we can assume the base clock will be 3.5 GHz. The FX-8370 and FX-8370E are new to the product lineup however, with an announced boost speed of 4.3 GHz for both. No base clock speed was revealed for these processors though, but the previously announced FX-8350 comes in at a base of 4.0 GHz, so the higher model number should be slightly higher than that.
|AMD FX CPU Comparison|
|Release Date||October 2012||August 2014||October 2012||August 2014||August 2014||June 2013|
|L1 Cache (Code)||256 KB|
|L1 Cache (Data)||128 KB|
|L2 Cache||8 MB|
|L3 Cache||8 MB|
|TDP||125 W||95 W||125 W||125 W||95 W||220 W|
|Base Frequency (MHz)||3500||3200||4000||4000||3300||4700|
|Turbo Frequency (MHz)||4000||4000||4200||4300||4300||5000|
The E designation is slightly interesting. As a tradeoff for a lower TDP of 95 watts versus the 125 watts of the standard CPU,
only the amount of boost time is affected. Base and boost clocks are the exactly the same as non-E chips the base clock is lowered but the Turbo clock remains the same.
The final announcements on the FX side of the presentation were to do with pricing. The FX-9590 will see a “significant” price cut this month, and AMD will now offer CPUs in a six-pack bundle to offer a lesser price per chip when bought in a relatively small volume. Whether the price cut of the FX-9590 affects the rest of the lineup is unclear, but we should know more soon.
AMD has now announced the official clock speeds for the new processors. The table has been updated with the correct info now rather than the estimated info. Unfortunately someone at the AMD had some incorrect information and the base clocks of the E series chips is in fact lower, with the Turbo clocks being the same.
AMD 30 Live
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
JDG1980 - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkI don't like at all that they're failing to specify base clock speeds. Will this become a trend like it has with their newer graphics cards? For CPUs, that's absolutely unacceptable.
I want AMD to succeed, but their marketers really make it hard to like them.
nathanddrews - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkAt least it's not as bad* as the Athlon XP+ days, when they named the processors after the relative performance compared to their older CPUs. "Wait, so the Athlon 3200+ is actually running at 2200MHz?"
*Referring only the the PR campaigns of AMD and Intel, not the actual CPUs themselves.
Beany2013 - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkActually, it was meant to help consumers understand that a 2200mhz Athlon was trading blows (well, certainly not far off) from the 3.2ghz P4s of the day:
Show a consumer a P4 2.4ghz, for example and an Athlon 2.2ghz and they'll go for the 'bigger' number every time, even though the Athlon 2.2ghz would walk all over the 2.4ghz Intel chip - so there was at least a fully justified reason for it.
So they had to compare it to something, or they'd be tanked on the showroom floor. Performance rating helped with that.
I'd like to know the low end power usage, idle figures, frankly. I have a CPU monitor on my taskbar (linux, natch) and the CPU doesn't spin up very often - so total TDP isn't that relevant....
But yeah, not ideal by any stretch, and aside from that, AMD need to GTF away from the Piledriver microarch - it's seriously creaking these days, it's sad to say.
nathanddrews - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkContrary to myth, the performance ratings of the AMD CPUs were not created for comparison to Intel CPUs. There were many people that assumed that to be the case, but the product training that AMD supplied to retail employees (CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.) specifically called out comparisons to AMD's own CPUs when addressing the PR, not Intel's. If I had kept that old literature from my retail days, I would scan it for you to see, but you'll just have to take my word for it. :|
Flunk - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkYes, that was what AMD claimed to avoid being sued.
bigboxes - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkWhat Flunk said. You were told that lie to keep AMD from being sued. Everyone knew it was a comparison between the performance of the AMD processors and the rated speed of the Intel chips.
I sure miss being able to build an affordable high end rig. Yes, my main rig is an i7 and is a monster. That's pretty much what us enthusiasts have had to do. I just retired my first dual-core (Athlon 64 X2 4400) due to a failing mobo. Makes me sad.
Samus - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkYep, but now Intel needs a processor rating system since AMD is the one pushing ridiculous clock speeds with diminishing returns. 220w for 5GHz?
An 88w Intel 4790K @ 4GHz stock is faster. And although it costs more, there is more performance headroom in overclocking (4.6GHz+ isn't uncommon) and the fact is runs on nearly 1/3rd the power at full load indicates a lower electric bill and lower cooling costs.
I also question the longterm reliability of motherboard VRM's when pumping out 220w of juice...
just4U - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - linkWhy would Intel need a rating? They have proven that it doesn't matter if they have the better CPU in regards to and. Their still going to sell boatloads more. Since they took back the performance lead we get slot of side ways jumps but nothing like the jump that was seen with the core & athlon before it.
just4U - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - linkBah tablet typing.. sorry.
piroroadkill - Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - linkSo it's still crap, but at least it won't be as hot. This wasn't as exciting as it should have been.