No love for the Black Edition 9000 Series?

[Woomack]

Over a year ago. I was benching it for most time and moved to daily rig when I got 5820K ( I already had 3 5820K ). It's actually better than most of 4770K/4670K/4690K which I had even for 2 core benchmarks as I could run it up to 5.7GHz on ss/dice. New 5820K is beating everything I had and I will probably use it for all benchmarks in next weeks/months.

 

[chrisjames61]

However your personal feelings are not related to the question about no love for FX-9xxx processors and why AMD would even release such a processor. AMD is in the money making business and the majority of their sales are not to the likely less than 2% of overclockers in the world. We that practice and no a little about overclocking don't love FX-9xxx processors but the world is more generous in takers of those processors.
RGone...ster.

EDIT:
Just about everything we do now days is a form of turbo since there is not real need of running full on every hour the computer is turned on. I am typing this at 1.6Ghz and if I open a for real app like my video editting software, my speed will ramp up to 4.6Ghz. That is a pretty hefty turbo up. Yes I admit that it is using all the cores but the idea of ramping up under load is a thing for now and a thing I had overlooked for far too long.
END EDIT.

I consider turbo mode with half the cores active and cool & quiet with all the cores ready to ramp up two distinctly different things.

 

[EarthDog]

Turbo is just clock speed I thought? All cores are active..

 

[webdevour]

I always went with AMD like Womack said mainly due to the budget price, and when it came to the applications that I used I never saw performance decreases or slowdowns. I built a few Intel systems and did definitely notice certain programs open a lot quicker, but when it came to overall performance for gaming or 3d modeling I feel like the AMD came out on top... but we're talking about the Athlon 64 X2s and Pentium 4s, nothing like today's tech. Sounds like not much has changed between the two companies though.

 

[Dr. McCoy]

Had thought about getting one of the 9xxx CPUs as of late and may still do it BUT I"ll have to consider the 8xxx chips too.
Not worried about what I have being able to run or cool them, all is up to task here for those chips. It's more of a thing about having something different to mess around with for me.

I can say Intel has never had the need to release a 5.0 stock chip, what they have been making has kept them ahead. They could if they wanted to but why bother if what you have now is getting the job done - And has anyone noted the last few "Tick-Tocks" from Intel haven't been much improvement over the previous ones?

They're not pushing it for the same reasons stated above - They simply don't have to and folks are upgrading to these chips, paying the same if not more with each chip upgrade for not much of a performance percentage increase from what they upgraded from.
Must be nice to almost have an virtual monopoly.

 

[Mandrake4565]

They're not pushing it for the same reasons stated above - They simply don't have to and folks are upgrading to these chips, paying the same if not more with each chip upgrade for not much of a performance percentage increase from what they upgraded from.
Must be nice to almost have an virtual monopoly.

QFT!

 

[Woomack]

Intel is improving cache, memory controller and additional CPU instructions while AMD is almost only raising CPU clock ( and wattage ). Intel was going that way when they introduced NetBurst and it was total fail. Now AMD is making kinda "multi-core netburst" in their FX series and it's simply a dead end.

Every new Intel generation since they moved to Conroe is about 10-20% faster on the same clock. Hard to say that about AMD.
Last time when AMD was better than Intel, was A64 vs P4 era. Since then AMD made Phenoms and FX, nothing else as every other series are based on these 2 generations ... all that in ~10 years ? Nah, there is also Kabini but AMD released it 2 years ago and made nothing to make it good chip for mobile devices.

If not ATI then we wouldn't see AMD on the market anymore as their shares on CPU market are constantly dropping and they are almost not counting on server and mobile market anymore. Office computers are almost the highest % of computer sales each year and for business all want Intel. What left for AMD is home entertainment and even there most users see that better is to move to Intel.

There is no pressure on Intel so they can delay every new series. We actually see that every new Intel CPU is delayed by 6-8 months. What is worse, Intel is not spending this time on improvements or fixing issues. Both X79 and X99 chipsets had SATA/SAS issues ( and still have ) so we got worse chipsets than it was planned. P67 chipset issues ( B2 stepping ) or 8 chipset/haswell series and USB issues are also well known. Intel simply knows that no matter what they release, it will sell better than AMD and with already much higher performance they simply can cut some features which are not working ( and introduce them later or replace with something else ).

I already said it couple of times but AMD for me is right now only benching toy ... maybe except Kabini which is working nice in my NAS

 

[webdevour]

Intel is improving cache, memory controller and additional CPU instructions while AMD is almost only raising CPU clock ( and wattage ). Intel was going that way when they introduced NetBurst and it was total fail. Now AMD is making kinda "multi-core netburst" in their FX series and it's simply a dead end.

Every new Intel generation since they moved to Conroe is about 10-20% faster on the same clock. Hard to say that about AMD.
Last time when AMD was better than Intel, was A64 vs P4 era. Since then AMD made Phenoms and FX, nothing else as every other series are based on these 2 generations ... all that in ~10 years ? Nah, there is also Kabini but AMD released it 2 years ago and made nothing to make it good chip for mobile devices.

If not ATI then we wouldn't see AMD on the market anymore as their shares on CPU market are constantly dropping and they are almost not counting on server and mobile market anymore. Office computers are almost the highest % of computer sales each year and for business all want Intel. What left for AMD is home entertainment and even there most users see that better is to move to Intel.

There is no pressure on Intel so they can delay every new series. We actually see that every new Intel CPU is delayed by 6-8 months. What is worse, Intel is not spending this time on improvements or fixing issues. Both X79 and X99 chipsets had SATA/SAS issues ( and still have ) so we got worse chipsets than it was planned. P67 chipset issues ( B2 stepping ) or 8 chipset/haswell series and USB issues are also well known. Intel simply knows that no matter what they release, it will sell better than AMD and with already much higher performance they simply can cut some features which are not working ( and introduce them later or replace with something else ).

I already said it couple of times but AMD for me is right now only benching toy ... maybe except Kabini which is working nice in my NAS

I think a major reason why AMD hasn't moved on much from the Phenoms/FX chips for their heavy-duty desktop users is like you said because they have been focusing on chips that work better for the HTPC users, the lower wattage chips with GPUs built in, I still haven't done much research on these, I believe they are APUs? IMO that's a pretty innovative technology and it seems like they are being very widely used in a lot of manufacturer laptops and all-in-one systems I'm seeing today so they must be doing something right with their tech.

 

[Woomack]

There is nothing really special in APUs if you look from the users point of view. Slow CPU and slow GPU packed in one chip. GPU is faster than most users need for HTPC while CPU is kinda slow but enough for daily work. For gaming, GPU is still too slow so no matter if it beats Intel IGP in every game, it's still nothing special. Wattage of AMD APUs is about twice as high as Intel CPUs with IGP at similar price point. You have to also check GPU specs as each lower chip has worse graphics performance to the point they're worse than Intel's IGP as Intel is not lowering performance of their IGP so much with each lower CPU. In real it looks like to play newer games even in lower screen resolution you have to buy higher APU which is still kinda slow but costs too much and better is to look for a cheaper discrete graphics card and lower series CPU or APU. Marketing makes a lot of work here.
AMD based laptops are really low % of all laptops lately. Their graphics cards are common but APUs are only in the cheapest series. Part of my job is to offer and sell hardware for business. Believe me, none of my customers want AMD and it's 3rd company where I work with similar experience.

FX was already like 2 years back after Intel when they released them and nothing has changed. It's even worse as FX stuck in the same place for over 2 years while Intel made IB, Haswell and soon will be Skylake. Nothing from AMD is in the plans for close future.
AMD knows that FX series CPUs are a fail but they are not improving them except raising clock. They said that all new series will be more mobile and they move to SoC. So far we've seen Kabini and similar low wattage chips and nothing else. As I said, Jaguar platform is already on the market since the middle of 2013 so we supposed to see newer, better CPUs/APUs from this family. Officially there is nothing in plans for next months. Recently Jaguar APUs were added also to PS4 and XBOX. I don't have to mention how low performance have these consoles. I bet AMD convinced console manufacturers with low price and now game developers have to lower specs for console games. Couple of generations ago you could buy any console and have fun. Since last generation ( X360, PS3 ) you could see lags in console games ... it just shouldn't happen and I don't believe it won't happen on current gen consoles. The main problem is that many games are designed in the first place for consoles and later with improved textures we see them on PC. Simply we can expect that lowering specs on consoles may also lower PC gamers experience while playing new titles.

 

[RGone]

Woomack makes some very good points in entirety...

...but this one right here should be adhered to and then users would not be complaining about slow games so much.

better is to look for a cheaper discrete graphics card and lower series CPU or APU. Marketing makes a lot of work here.

But generally the most looked at unit of design is price and then the unrealized expectations can begin.

There is another thing that comes to mind and that is the AMD APU for desktops is in no way cool running. You push it just a little and HEAT rears its' ugly head just like in the FX series which after all most APUs use the cpu section of a Vishera FX or the unreleased Steamroller for desktop.

AMD reverse engineered and got lucky once, maybe twice, and other than that they have not been a performance cpu manufacturer. Now Intel does not have to do much of anything to keep bringing in the money from desktop type users.

I will admit this because I am not blind to what is what about AMD. I am quite happy with my FX-8350 idling at 1.65Ghz and doing work at 4.6Ghz. The key to my being at least 90% satisfied is that I did not underspec cooling or motherboard. Did that 'then' make my outlay about as expensive as Intel? Probably but human nature being what it is, I said to self...look at you saving on the cpu. Hehehe. Good ole human nature 101.
RGone...ster.