back to article AMD claims record with latest overclock-happy FX Series chips, again

AMD has claimed another overclocking speed record for its latest eight-core CPUs, even as it tries to broaden the market for its chips for gamers and hobbyist customers. The chipmaker said in a press release on Monday that the latest CPUs in its FX Series offer "productivity at superior price points," while also making AMD's …

  1. phil dude
    Thumb Up


    it would be nice to see temperature of the cpu sensors....then an estimation of the cooling efficiency could be determined. It might be useful determining engineering boundaries for more flexible solutions...!

    I wonder when the first fluorinert system will be sold!


    1. Truth4u

      Re: temperature...

      I want to know the cooling solution for the new record? Was it liquid gasses again?

      I want a chip that runs 8ghz on air thank you very much.

      1. phuzz Silver badge

        Re: temperature...

        The 8.7GHz(!) run was using LN2 according to this source:

      2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    2. Tsunamijuan

      Re: temperature...

      the built in cpu' sensor on most of these chips error out once you take them below ambient, and report incorrectly. So it becomes difficult to guess what the true thermal delta values are between core and pot temperatures. I am guessing the stilts pot temp was probably somewhere around -210C .

      As for flourinert systems, there is no reason to sell them or use them for cooling these days. Its generally so expensive that its counter productive. Since water cooling high density systems has become cheaper.

      On additional note, The maximum clock for computation across all cores is probably somewhere in the 7ghz range now. Though its hard to tell as there isn't really any data populated yet on Though it all depends on the chip design. Current record for wprime1024 on the 8150 is 7.2ghz or so.

      Its also worth noting that Stilt Does a good deal of testing and work with AMD. He also has probably more platform knowledge than anyone else.

      if you really want more info about this stuff check thats where the records are posted record, and ranked/checked.

  2. Steven Raith


    An Intel CPU will still be far superior, 'work for watt'.

    Mind you, my heavy lifting these days is mostly VMs rather than anything too tight on single threaded performance, so the AMD stuff is still more sensible for me and my workstation.

    The A8-3870 is still ticking over nicely in this box, but I think I'll wait till we get past the Bulldozer family architecture before replacing it - the current stuff is getting a bit stale these days, and frankly, I want more than eight cores in my next machine - at least sixteen, and 32gb RAM, for proper multi-VM work at near hardware speeds.

    I suspect AMD will allow me that at a substantial saving over what Intel will sell it for, with little real world performance loss.

    Steven R

    1. K
      Thumb Up

      Re: Sadly...

      3 years ago we purchased some Dell R715 servers with the AMD 16 Core Piledriver CPU's, the beasts still give our brand new Intel based servers a run for their money. Can't comment on the power usage though, I tend not to look to much at that ;)

      1. dotslash

        Re: Sadly...

        I claim to be no expert in such matters, but don't these AMD's provide better performance per £ especially in multi-threaded workloads?

        The only reason the intels get a good rap is they are better at single threaded performance and older games can only do single thread?

        1. Steven Raith

          Re: Sadly...

          AFAIK their turbo stepping is far more aggressive, with superior RaceToIdle characteristics - on a general desktop platform, a Core processor will generally be a bit quicker and use a bit less power (thanks to most desktops running single threaded apps, which also helps).

          As I say, I'm glad AMD are around - they fill a certain niche (which is not an unpopular one), and they keep Intel fairly honest. Without AMD, we'd probably still be running Netburst architecture intels on a process shrink...

  3. Mikel

    An 8 core chip for $147?

    Might be time to build me a steambox.

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: An 8 core chip for $147?

      For gaming you're still better off with fewer, faster cores, so Intel is still the way to go for a gaming box.

      I'm still waiting for AMD to be properly competitive again, it'll be good for us consumers to have the old days of AMD vs Intel again.

      Mind you, $150 for 8 cores is great value if you've got a heavily multi-threaded workload, I don't think Intel sell anything with that many threads near that price.

  4. Semtex451


    "remember that each chip requires a different motherboard"

    So where's the socket chart?

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Hey

      Not sure where el reg got that from, the linked press release says they all use AM3+.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    AMD still delivering good performance and value

    AMD's Vishera based CPUs are still an excellent value and they overclock well on air or H2O for enthusiasts looking for fun. I've been running an FX-8350 @ 4.6 GHz. 24/7 for over a year and it will run Prime 95 for 24+ hours without a single error. For $200 it delivers a lot of performance and fun.

    Since Intel has been convicted on three continents for violation of anti-trust laws in an effort to prevent customers from being able to purchase AMD products and Intel has also been convicted multiple times for U.S. tax fraud, I vote with my wallet and that means no Intel products ever again. Supporting an unscrupulous company is just cutting your own throat.

  6. Michael Habel

    Wake me up when they can manage to make a decent Desktop CPU

    Along the lines of the AMD A4-5000 (TDP of only 15W). I for One wouldn't run a 185W+ CPU even if they gave it away to me for free!

    1. kb

      Re: Wake me up when they can manage to make a decent Desktop CPU

      They already have if ULV is your thing, its called the Athlon 5350 socket AM1, a max TDP of just 25w (and actual usage typically below the A4-5000, we're talking 9-12w) and that is WITH a Radeon 8400 GPU built in. Its based on the same core as the A$ BTW, so if you like the A4 you'll love the 5350.

      If you want to make a ULV desktop or even HTPC I highly recommend it, oh and FYI you can get the APU with the board for less than $110 USD.

  7. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

    It isn't eight cores and it's still embarassingly slow

    It's little better than hyperthreading and sometimes not even that. It has four actual cores with two integer execution units in them. Comparing with an Intel Core i5 at the same price the i5 tends to have 30% better single threaded performance. The FX series have 10-30% multithreaded performance advantage in a limited selection of benchmarks.

    The AMD A series are worth buying if you want a fast enough processor with inbuilt graphics fast enough for modern games. Everything else? Don't bother. At the higher end (FX9590 vs i7 4790) the comparison is just embarassing. AMDs fastest chip is slower in almost every benchmark whilst consuming 2x the power, having slower memory speed and usually no USB3.

    AMD need to knock 50 quid off their CPU prices at the low end and 70 at the high end to be even vaguely equal. Even then it's not a convincing win. Roll on the next generation, this one is a lemon.

    1. kb

      Re: It isn't eight cores and it's still embarassingly slow

      I'm afraid those bench scores are less truthful than your average politician, for why see "Intel cripple compiler" or "Cinebench caught rigging" for just two examples.

      There is a REASON why Intel has been busted on three continents for market rigging ya know, its because they have been caught not only paying OEMs not to stock AMD systems but also have been caught rigging both their own compiler as well as outright bribing benchmark companies by giving them VERY lucrative advertising deals) if the scores come out their way.

      So yeah if you let me tie a boat anchor onto the Intel chips so that every math heavy task had to use the old 487 (which hasn't been considered anything but a legacy path since 1999) code paths along with other dirty tricks I'm sure I could produce a bench that shows the Phenom I beating the latest i7...that don't mean its a legitimate measure by any means.

      1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

        Re: It isn't eight cores and it's still embarassingly slow

        Go on then, point me at some decent benchmarks.

        The dirty tricks you refer to relate to some sub optimal tuning in Intel's compilers. Intel were fined by the FTC and had to fix the issues.

        Any non Intel compiler benchmarks I can find show the FX processors' performance to be inconsistent at best. Add in the fact that AMD is second choice for optimising on virtualisation software and the reality is that AMD has to produce a significantly better chip than Intel in all areas, at the same price point to make it worth considering. They managed that years ago, but failed to capitalise on their advantage whilst Intel was still struggling with hot P4s.

        1. kb

          Re: It isn't eight cores and it's still embarassingly slow

          Go to Phoronix and look up "AMD Vishera benchmarks" and see for yourself. By simply using GCC instead of ICC to compile the benchmarks then...gasp!, Shock! you suddenly see the FX8350 trading blows (and in some cases BEATING) the i5s and i7s which cost as much as 300% MORE than the FX8350 does. Isn't that amazing what a simple compiler swap does?

          And I can back up those numbers, having had a 4770K and FX8350 side by side, in actual tests using actual programs like Handbrake? Trading blows with the FX winning on anything multithreaded while the 4770K primarily won the single threaded tasks. Since its rare that I only have a single thing to do? I went and bought the FX8320E and was able to get it AND a nice gaming board AND the RAM for less than the 4770K was selling for by itself!

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: It isn't eight cores and it's still embarassingly slow

      The FX-8320E has an RRP of $146, at that price on NewEgg I can't find ANY i5's, you have to spend $179 to get a i5-4440 which is a quad core, with no Hyperthreading. Even if it's slow and hot, it's still the cheapest eight threaded CPU you can buy right now.

      (And Intel have been pretending for years that HT is as good as second core, so I can't blame AMD for trying the same tactic)

    3. Wommit

      Re: It isn't eight cores and it's still embarassingly slow

      Well, while you're talking about SINGLE THREADED apps, sure. You are correct. Lots of games have a sweet spot at 4 cores (like a lot of intels offerings.) These are OK if you only game, or are happy with only a few open programs.

      Me though, I use a number of sensible programs that use ALL of the available cores. And they fly with my FX9590. I have a large screen real estate and many forground programs and a number of background services too. my kit rarely gets to 40C (about 20C above ambient.) A corsair H110 water cooler sees to that, and I only run at stock clock speed, 4.7GHz.

      I use Intel i7's at work, it is trying to provide the same environment as I use at home. My home workstation is far, far more usable than the i7 setup.

      The total cost of ownership weights heavily in AMDs favour too. AMD based motherboards, CPUs and High end graphics cards are much cheaper than the intel / nvidia products.

      IMHO if you want to play, get intel. If you need to work, get AMD.

  8. airbrush

    Free market

    I've never managed to replicate the benchmarks/overclocks so it does make you wonder, also my super fast i7 locks up all the time when the processor is far below 100%. My guess is theyre using unrealistic set ups and production motherboards etc perform far below what the average consumer buys.

    1. IHateWearingATie

      Re: Free market

      I think it depends on the generation. Intel's Sandybridge was hugely popular with casual overclockers as it was so easy to do - it actually went far better than was thought at the beginning. For example, my i5 2500K runs @ 4.5Ghz on a mid range standard motherboard with a cheap (£25 I think) air cooler. Had it like that for 2 years (possibly more - can't remember when i bought it) without any issues.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020