Rumor: AMD to end FX CPU lineup with the current 5 GHz FX-9590

In June, AMD made headlines with the launch of its FX-9590 processor. The latest CPU in the FX lineup uses AMD's Piledriver design with eight cores and is also the first to have a clock speed of 5 GHz. Now a new report claims that the FX-9590 will be the final CPU in the FX series.

VR-Zone reports it has obtained AMD in-house documents that show no more FX CPUs will be released beyond the FX-9590. The article suggests that AMD will now concentrate its efforts on its APU chip lineup that combined a CPU with a Radeon GPU in one chip. AMD is already designing similar hardware for both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 consoles.

The same VR-Zone report also claims that the next generation APU from AMD, code named Kaveri, won't begin its full production until December, with a consumer launch planned for spring 2014. AMD had originally told the press at Computex in June the chip would begin shipments by the end of 2013.

AMD has been struggling of late as it continues to deal with a declining PC hardware market. The company announced in April it plans to release an ARM-based processor, but there's no word on when that might happen. In June, Lisa Su, senior vice president and general manager of global business units at AMD, claimed that while it is still "very committed to Windows 8", it also plans to have its processors inside hardware products running on Google's Android and Chrome operating systems.

Source: VR-Zone | Image via AMD

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple launches fifth beta of iOS 7 to developers

Next Story

Facebook tinkers with News Feed again to push up some posts

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Oops, sorry, the XB1 and PS4 will have Jaguar cores in theme, which are not the same as Piledriver, but they are x86, they are 8 cores, and they are made by AMD. I'm sure that will play some role in how games play on 8-core Desktop PC's.

People, AMD is not going under anytime soon, so don't worry about Intel monopolizing the market. AMD is not just sitting on it's heels and recreating the P4 debacle either. They created their own debacle with Bulldozer, but they are by no means sitting back and doing nothing about it. They have already fixed the major problems with their design (with Jim Keller back on the team) and are releasing their Steamroller based parts at the end of this year/beginning of next.

Steamroller will actually be good enough to compete with Haswell as long as AMD creates the right chips, but unfortunately all that AMD has announced for 2014 in terms of Steamroller is a dual module APU called Kavari.

It's unfortunate for the desktop enthusiasts like myself, as we all wanted to see an 8-core Steamroller FX chip announced for 2014, as that would actually put AMD back in contention for the crown of performance as a quad module Steamroller FX would actually outperform the 4770k in many situations, but AMD has not yet released their 2014 Desktop roadmap and therefore, rumors such as this are starting to surface and scare AMD fans. Hopefully AMD does something to crush these rumors soon.

As for AMD sticking with Piledriver for their FX line (FX9590), there is reason for this. AMD's Piledriver architecture, though inefficient compared to Intel and compared to its updated Steamroller architecture, is what is going to be featured in both the PS4 and XBox1, and this is why AMD is sticking with Piledriver instead of offering a new Steamroller based FX chip, so that game developers can code for a single platform, 8 Piledriver cores. No more porting of games from one platform to the next, they will all be the same. So if games that are made for PS4 and XB1 are optimized for 8 PD cores, then anyone with an FX CPU for their PC will have the best setup possible for those games, and since all games will be created for 8 Piledriver cores...now we see why AMD went with increasing the clock on the FX8350 and offering an FX9590 instead of offering a Steamroller based FX chip instead.

Also, their APUs are actually decent in terms of bang for buck; it's the APUs (due to energy efficiency) that are driving Intel nuts (especially in the portable market - notebooks and x86-based netbooks, it's the APUs from AMD, not ARM, that are holding off BayTrail Atom). APUs are a bellyache for BayTrail in another way - they support Hyper-V (BayTrail Atom does not) -desktop-class virtualization in a netbook formfactor - only an AMD APU provides that today.

AMD didn't really fail with the bulldozer design, it was just a problem of using a new approach for x86. Biggest problem was the lack of multithreaded performance on the desktop and the new design of the CPU didn't really help either (Win7 for example needs a patch to properly take advantage of the FX design)
The design is actually quite interesting compared to the 'old' X86 designs, it didn't fail at all and in similar price classes, AMD's recent bulldozers easily outperform Intels .

And the main reason for AMD being so strong on the APU side is not really the CPU technologies, is because of their GPU, with which they are miles ahead of anything Intel has to offer. And they can easily put a much lower powered GPU on the chip.

And their steamroller design CPU's are rumored/scheduled to be released Q1 of 2014, which is almost right after the release of this chip (Q4 2013). If it will be optimized for PD, it will also be optimized for SR since its the same technology but a continuation of it.

I suppose you're speaking about the APU's?
This chip will come to the AM3+ socket, which is CPU only, not system on a chip/APU.

Don't get the reference with the chess computer though, unless you mean AMD is 'cheating' to get these clockspeeds. (pretty much every FX can go up to these GHZ numbers by overclocking)

There's just no real way to be sure yet. Leaked roadmaps have shown that Steamroller isn't planned for the server market at any point in 2013 or 14, but I haven't seen any consumer roadmap for 2014 yet. The only one out there right now is through the end of '13, which shows Steamroller and Jaguar APUs at the very end (all but confirmed to be delayd until '14 now), and Piledriver stretching through for the enthusiast end until at least the end of the year. It'll be really sad if we don't have a new enthusiast chip next year. Steamroller is a pretty major rework of the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture, and I'd really love to see it on AM3+.

Unfortunate news. Probably the right thing for AMD as a business as they are losing a lot of money on their CPU division but bad for consumers as the enthusiast market will essentially have no competition

I wonder if they'll bring the A-series to the AM boards or not? Anyhow, sorry to see this rumor, although it sort of makes sense. I assume they'll keep their Opteron series? And they're working on an ARM based CPU or APU, right?

Shadowzz said,
FM2 sockets are for intergrated graphics like you find in the A series CPU's. AM3+ lacks this, so highly unlikely.

Gotcha. They do have an Athlon II for FM2, though, don't they? No integrated there. Ah well... I'm still amazed at hoe long the FMs have lasted...

FM2 can do CPU's too and not only APU's.
But AM3+ cant do APU's, just CPU's.
Future of AM3+ is unsure though, the future of FM2 is at this time much more stable.

Just bought my FX 8320 and couldnt be happier. Saved money, got a solid product. The only positive side for me having intel processors is a easier to build hackintosh and even with AMD, we are developing a kernel for that

I've used AMD since day 1, never had any problems. My current 8350 (8 core) which I picked up for £150 is still going strong.

1ON said,
I've used AMD since day 1, never had any problems. My current 8350 (8 core) which I picked up for £150 is still going strong.
Im the same. I just bought a A10-6800 and its rock solid. I use it for minor gaming (Sim City, CIvilization 5), and development. It opens large VS projects like a champ.

king_of_hearts said,
Sad news.

Seems they are leaving the enthusiast market entirely.

They weren't selling many processors so it isn't suprising. They could always create FX cores+gpu on the same die, a bit like what is rumoured for the Steambox console.

king_of_hearts said,
Sad news.

Seems they are leaving the enthusiast market entirely.

"News" ? Did you miss the "Rumo(+u)r" part of the article title?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Intel provides more backend stuff like threads and cores, and AMD mainly focuses on clock speed. Sorry if I'm wrong. I don't have much experience with AMD, I've always been an Intel person.

Intel focuses more in single threaded performance while AMD puts its main focus on multi-threaded performance. And they both have their own advantages. AMD counters intels single-threaded performance with beefing up its GHZ, while Intel counters AMD's multi-threaded performance with HT.

AMD is playing the long game and with the Xbox One/PS4 consoles using the same architect which will get devs to make games/engines based on hUMA etc will give AMD the edge later on.

AMD next weapon is hUMA and I cannot wait to get my hands on those silicons, but it now seems we need to wait till 2014 spring.

Intel processors are more efficient (IE they do more work per clock cycle), AMD mainly went for threaded performance and raw number crunching power.

Javik said,
Intel processors are more efficient (IE they do more work per clock cycle), AMD mainly went for threaded performance and raw number crunching power.

Ah I see now. So AMD went for the numbers.

In a way yes, well obviously with this chip they did for sure
AMD always had weaker power per clock cycle, this has been the case as long as I'm aware of it. But this doesn't mean its actually weaker though (just to clear it up).

It is currently greatly dependent on what you want to do with your computer if you currently want to pick either top of the line Intel or top of the line AMD to get the best performance.
For most users that will never max out the i7 or latest FX's, it's more dependent on the money they're willing to spend

mastercoms said,

Ah I see now. So AMD went for the numbers.

They essentially gave up on trying to match the raw per thread performance of the Intel CPUs and instead decided to just make up the deficit by cramming more cores onto the die and increasing the clock speed of the CPU. It worked to a degree, the AMD processors are pretty similar to their Intel equivalents in math heavy applications but Intel are still king in gaming, as their high per thread efficiency gives them a distinct advantage there, as games still don't always fully utilise multi threading brilliantly

Wut, no game will max out an I7 or one of the recent FX's.... Raw CPU power isn't of ANY importance to gaming anymore on the desktop side....
Silly to compare

And AMD didn't just add more cores, should read up onto some of the technologies they have been working on.
And you're acting like Intel is god.... Keep in mind that without AMD your ass would be stuck to a P4-based chip, all Hyper Threading and shared cache for every thread together....

Also keep in mind that if its up to Intel, AMD wouldn't be even allowed to produce any X86 chips.

And it was shown years ago that single threaded performance would hit a dead end due to the raw power per cycle limits. Intel keeps pushing this further and further, while they know they will hit a dead end again sooner or later.

The whole world is shifting to threading and Intel keeps holding us back with their Single threaded performance focus.

The benchmarks say it does make a difference, and I find numbers more accurate than anything else in this game. Also, I stated that the AMD processors were about as good at number crunching, so how about reading my whole post before complaining about it?

Also, I don't know quite what you're talking about but you obviously have no understanding of CPU design, Intel have better per thread (read it... PER THREAD) performance, which means they do more work per clock cycle, which is why they're able to achieve the same performance with lower clock speed and half the amount of cores. Intel CPUs multitask perfectly well.

We need AMD, for the sake of fair prices and innovation. If AMD folds tomorrow, God knows how high Intel will jack up their prices.

Not really. AMD hasn't been putting pressure on Intel in the enthusiast market in a long time. I do think they're focused on the right market for the future though.

Without AMD we would've been stuck with a P4 design. And 20% of the market isn't nothing. Aint huge either. But its plenty to stay relevant.

And for what its worth, the difference in power between Intel and AMD has become absolutely irrelevant for 90+% of the desktop user base. And in my opinion people should look for best-buy-for-your-money then just going with what they think/feel is best. Hopefully driving prices down, giving AMD a bit more marketshare and increasing competition properly.
ARM is by no means competitive with raw power.

The Intel Core series came out in 2006, as I said, AMD hasn't really had a good answer to Intel since then. They may have 20% of some market, but they've fallen behind Samsung and Qualcomm in the overall market.

Shadowzz said,
Without AMD we would've been stuck with a P4 design. And 20% of the market isn't nothing. Aint huge either. But its plenty to stay relevant.

And for what its worth, the difference in power between Intel and AMD has become absolutely irrelevant for 90+% of the desktop user base. And in my opinion people should look for best-buy-for-your-money then just going with what they think/feel is best. Hopefully driving prices down, giving AMD a bit more marketshare and increasing competition properly.
ARM is by no means competitive with raw power.

Have you actually looked at the FX-9590? It costs $900, has a TDP of 220W and is slower than the i7-4770. People ARE going for the best-buy-for-your-money, and they're going with Intel.

AMD's current designs are just like the P4 back in the day, they run hot and they just increasing the clock on older designs instead of designing new, more efficient architectures.

threetonesun said,
The Intel Core series came out in 2006, as I said, AMD hasn't really had a good answer to Intel since then. They may have 20% of some market, but they've fallen behind Samsung and Qualcomm in the overall market.

Get your stuff straight. No one besides VIA, Intel and AMD make traditional CPUs (x86-64) so how can exactly AMD be behind Samsung and Qualcomm?

Secondly, keep hoping they will flop. You will be the first one to cry to pay 400 bucks for a Celeron, I love people like you who cant think straight when it comes to fanboism.

Also this article is way off. Just cause they drop the FX name doesnt mean they will drop the CPU line all together for APUs.

Oh and for the person above me - the 9590 is meant for overclockers not for everyone to go and buy. 8150 is still holding the WR for OC for your info. So this chip is not meant for mainstream.

Sadelwo said,
We need AMD, for the sake of fair prices and innovation. If AMD folds tomorrow, God knows how high Intel will jack up their prices.

Intel hasn't reduced their prices because of AMD anyways, I don't see a point people still buy the i5 more than the FX-6,8 even though the FX has theoretical performance advantage over the lower end i5s/

Also I forgot to mention in the last post why I doubt AMD drops the CPU line.

AMD said publicly that Steamroller (3rd Gen FX) will be on AM3+ and not on a new socket. Kaveri will probably be on FM2+ while still working on FM2 without some new features (higher speed ram and native USB3 support).

VR had an interview with one of AMDs marketing guys (I believe it was, correct me if Im wrong) where they talked about APUs mostly and GPUs and all of the sudden they have in house documents saying that the CPU line will be dead? Meh, give me a break, does that author even know how much scrapping a CPU silicon line cost while CPUs are still selling more for AMD than APUs?

Yeah sure I will buy that..

giantpotato said,

Have you actually looked at the FX-9590? It costs $900, has a TDP of 220W and is slower than the i7-4770. People ARE going for the best-buy-for-your-money, and they're going with Intel.

AMD's current designs are just like the P4 back in the day, they run hot and they just increasing the clock on older designs instead of designing new, more efficient architectures.


Wut, the latest bulldozer designs aren't hugely behind Intel's i7's.
And the only reason they are so "far" behind is because people measure single threaded performance mainly. If you start throwing in multithreaded performance in to the benchmarks, and AMD suddenly stands much stronger against Intel.
AMD has always had a different approach to CPU design than Intel, and IMO a much better one. They have the consoles in their pocket, which will be focused on multithreading designed games/applications. And because AMD betted on the multithreading horse years ago already (against Intel's single threaded horse) AMD has a strong change of being ahead of Intel within a few years.
Especially since the consoles might finally push developers towards multi-core designs and stop being lazy and code single-threaded applications/games.


And US pricing has no base here in the EU, AMD prices their CPU's really low compared to other parts in the world as I notice. No clue what this chip will be priced at here.
But I can buy a FX-8350 for less than an I5-4670. And I for one would much, much rather go with the FX that's for sure. And according to benchmarks the 8350 strongly outperforms the 4670

And since you're claiming that AMD has not been developing new chipsets (Read the article, its not like FX is an ancient design now is it?). And AMD has the successor of the current FX generation lined up just 1 quarter after the release of this 9590 chip.
They actually developed a whole new way for the X86_64 to get performance out of it, instead of Intel, which is still pushing forward on the ancient P3 design.
Sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about mate.

No AMD and enjoy your P4 styled Hyper Threading. No AMD and enjoy your IA64 instead of X86_64. No AMD and you'd still be stuck with shared CPU caches for all the cores.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Oh and for the person above me - the 9590 is meant for overclockers not for everyone to go and buy. 8150 is still holding the WR for OC for your info. So this chip is not meant for mainstream.

Why would an "overclocker" buy a 9590? The 9590 is already factory clocked to be running at the upper limit of the chip's capabilities. You'll be lucky to get a 6% stable overclock on it. Every system I've built so far has been an AMD setup. I'm looking to upgrade and AMD simply has nothing to offer on the high-end. Even the FX-9370 is more expensive, and slower than the i7. I have no choice but to go with Intel.

AMD's latest offerings are not price-competitive, they're slower than the competition, they run hotter, and if the article is true they offer no upgrade path. AMD's best chipset is the 990FX, which was released in 2011, so even their motherboards have made no progress in 2 years.

Can you objectively give me a good reason to stick with AMD?

Can you objectively give me a good reason to stick with AMD?

FM2 is a safe bet if you want an upgrade path. It currently has a very solid feature to be supported for many years to come.
Also if you are not in much of a hurry with upgrading completely. The new steamroller design seems promising. AMD catched up a lot in with FX from when it started with the first bulldozer designs. But not to get anyones hopes up to high should wait for the first few benchmarks on it.
Their multithreading approach seems promising and with 2 consoles using their design, I personally think software/games will get more optimized for multi-threaded performance instead of single threaded, which has been the 'preferred' way for now.

But the same as years ago, it still is really dependent on what you want to do with your system. If you want single threaded performance, go with Intel. If you want multithreaded performance, AMD and Intel are not far apart in their top of the line CPU's and I think it matters more on what you're willing to spend.

You say that like there's no multi-core Intel processors out there...

Even in applications that are multithreaded, any k-series Intel will be around the same performance as its FX counterpart, while using less power and being easier to overclock. Single threaded (which most applications are), the Intel will walk all over the FX.

So, the FX is cheaper, in theory, although if you're using it heavily over the course of two years, your electric bill might even out the cost.

Intel overclocks easier than AMD? lol
Don't even need to buy a separate (more expensive) version of a CPU just to be able to overclock it.
I have a 4100 and from 3.6 easily overclock it to 4.5 with a standard cooling and no modifications. These increments are impossible with K series without a special CPU, a motherboard designed for it and extra cooling outside a lowsy basic CPU fan and cooling block.

And with AMD's flexible clocking, if you want low power use, the CPU will downclock and barely use any power at all (same as Intels). So it depends on the usage pattern if you drag power usage into the equation.

giantpotato said,

Why would an "overclocker" buy a 9590? The 9590 is already factory clocked to be running at the upper limit of the chip's capabilities. You'll be lucky to get a 6% stable overclock on it. Every system I've built so far has been an AMD setup. I'm looking to upgrade and AMD simply has nothing to offer on the high-end. Even the FX-9370 is more expensive, and slower than the i7. I have no choice but to go with Intel.

AMD's latest offerings are not price-competitive, they're slower than the competition, they run hotter, and if the article is true they offer no upgrade path. AMD's best chipset is the 990FX, which was released in 2011, so even their motherboards have made no progress in 2 years.

Can you objectively give me a good reason to stick with AMD?

You do know that OC WRs are not after stable limits right? All that what you wrote and I just need to say that. 8150 went from 3.6 to 8.something, thats hardly 6%. Out of the top 10 about 7 are AMD CPUs in the list, all which are the newer generation Bulldozer or Piledriver, that says a lot about their overclocking ability against Intel already.

All multi threaded benchmarks show AMD advatange over Intel besides Cinebench but we all know why..well almost all of us, some just dont want to admit it.