AMD announces FX-9590 5 GHz processor

Two months ago, rumors hit the Internet that AMD was going to launch a CPU with a top clock speed of 5 GHz. Today, AMD confirmed those rumors with the announcement of the FX-9590 processor.

AMD's press release states that the new chip has eight cores and is using the Piledriver design. It also says that the processor will be unlocked, which should allow for hardware enthusiasts to overclock the chip and push it to even higher speeds. AMD will also release the FX-9370 chip, which has its speed set at "just" 4.7 Ghz.

Both the FX-9590 and the FX-9370 chips will start showing up later this summer, but will be limited at first to PC OEMs who will sell systems with those chips inside. One of those PC companies is Maingear, which has already announced plans to put those new AMD CPUs inside their Shift line of PC desktops.

While it used to be that clock speed was the best way to determine a CPU's performance, that has changed thanks to the new era of multi-core processors. It's interesting that AMD has now started up the "clock wars" once again with this new 5 GHz CPU.

Source: AMD | Image via AMD

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

VLC for Windows 8 development taking longer than expected

Next Story

Old school MapQuest app available for Windows Phone 8

39 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Sweet. AMD has always been so far ahead of everyone else.
Always was a fan but for some stupid reason I haven't been too picky in the last few years, and settled with Intel processors in a few devices.

LOL, it is absolutely hilarious seeing Intel pimps scream and whine about how wonderful Intel is and how awful AMD is.

"AMD sucks and Intel rocks. I'm bought and paid for by Intel. they'd probably sell their first born for Intel."

Geez people, competition is about choice too. I don't see myself spending $1,000 for the top tier CPU when it will be obsolete before the end of the year in most cases.

Is the AMD a true 8 core, i have one on my server2012 and it says 4 cores and 4 of something else (sorry at work). I know Intel have HT with there 4/6 cores.

THE_OBSERVER said,
Is the AMD a true 8 core, i have one on my server2012 and it says 4 cores and 4 of something else (sorry at work). I know Intel have HT with there 4/6 cores.

Yes, 4 modules with two cores/module, making 8 cores.

There's no clock "wars", Intel doesn't give two ****s what AMD does, they're going to keep making the processors that they were planning on making. They're barely in the same market any more, AMD get consoles and other places where APUs are appropriate, Intel gets everything else.

Unless AMD comes out with a 5ghz processor that doesn't require a small nuclear reactor to run, what AMD does won't affect Intel much.

I remember spark had 100MHz CPUs that outperformed Athlon XPs in every department. That's when Intel said, ok we're abandoning this Hz BS, go for transistors and instruction sets. haha

i_was_here said,
Call when its 5GHz at stock AND has a TDP under 150W.

Pretty sure it's still a 125w part, and using the same stepping Richland is using which improved a lot their top (binned) speeds while also lowering their power envelope.

gonchuki said,

Pretty sure it's still a 125w part, and using the same stepping Richland is using which improved a lot their top (binned) speeds while also lowering their power envelope.
lol its 220 Watt

I've heard that the 220 watt number is speculation; it's not a number released by AMD. Most people are saying on Slashdot that it doesn't sound realistic, probably gunna be higher but in the 150-180 watt range.

I'd love to go AMD again on my next build, my current 3770k is great, but competition keeps things fresh, I haven't had AMD in my machines since dual core Intels came out. I welcome all improvements.

I'd rather have double the instructions per clock cycle then have double the clock... (running a 2.5GHz I series right now)

I don't think anyone is trying to start up clock wars. Intel has "abandoned" that with the Netburst architecture. Intel is actually focusing on performance - don't know what the hell AMD is producing, but it just doesn't compete with Intel on performance. AMD is only good for performance per price.

bviktor said,
"AMD is only good for performance per price. "

As a paying customer, what else do you need?

Personally, I want raw performance plus lower power usage.

Pluto is a Planet said,

So John Callaham made the same news you posted, front page news

Yeah....I really don't get why some people get so upset over little things like this...

It would be interesting to see how this performs compared to Intel's line up. I'm not going to make assertions until I see the benchmarks.

It strikes me that AMD are doing what Intel were doing when they were behind with the Pentium 4, namely trying to grab headlines with processors that run at a high clock speed.

xendrome said,
5Ghz with the performance of a 3.0Ghz Intel?

Oh go and fanboy somewher else. Hopefully AMD stops CPU's altogether so in a couple of years you'll pay 300-400 for a Celeron type of CPU, aint so funny then.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Oh go and fanboy somewher else. Hopefully AMD stops CPU's altogether so in a couple of years you'll pay 300-400 for a Celeron type of CPU, aint so funny then.

My i7 cost me £268 and when I brought it, it was the fastest quad core CPU on the market, I call that a pretty reasonable deal given that the "extreme" quads from the previous Intel lineup cost in excess of £700

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Oh go and fanboy somewher else. Hopefully AMD stops CPU's altogether so in a couple of years you'll pay 300-400 for a Celeron type of CPU, aint so funny then.

I'm asking a serious question, no need to throw out the "fanboy" insults right off the bat.

Javik said,

My i7 cost me £268 and when I brought it, it was the fastest quad core CPU on the market, I call that a pretty reasonable deal given that the "extreme" quads from the previous Intel lineup cost in excess of £700

That's exactly his point.. when there is no competition, prices skyrocket.. There is no competition for the i7 extremes and that is why they are around $1000... if amd bows out completely then i5 level CPUs would probably go up to about $300 and i7s to ~$500

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Oh go and fanboy somewher else. Hopefully AMD stops CPU's altogether so in a couple of years you'll pay 300-400 for a Celeron type of CPU, aint so funny then.

A celeron at 500usd? That is absolutely not true! This will be the price of the Atom processor

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Oh go and fanboy somewher else. Hopefully AMD stops CPU's altogether so in a couple of years you'll pay 300-400 for a Celeron type of CPU, aint so funny then.

A celeron at 500usd? That is absolutely not true! This will be the price of the Atom processor

Lachlan said,

That's exactly his point.. when there is no competition, prices skyrocket.. There is no competition for the i7 extremes and that is why they are around $1000... if amd bows out completely then i5 level CPUs would probably go up to about $300 and i7s to ~$500

For the simpleminded who don't agree with alwaysonacoffeebreak, read this ^

xendrome said,

I'm asking a serious question, no need to throw out the "fanboy" insults right off the bat.

He raises a good point, despite the overzealous insult

Besides, 5ghz is nothing to sneeze at. This is VERY demanding on the electronics and the design.

There is so much involved in creating a processor at 5ghz it is ridiculous. It will be interesting to see the new architecture and concerns that they overcame to make a chip like this reliable enough to be used in production.

xendrome said,

I'm asking a serious question, no need to throw out the "fanboy" insults right off the bat.

It looks more like a statement than a question, I would assume fanboy from your post too.