Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

First 5Ghz stock CPU achieved: AMD FX-9590

Options
  • 13-06-2013 5:26am
    #1
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,314 ✭✭✭✭


    http://gizmodo.com/heres-the-first-5-0-ghz-cpu-you-can-actually-buy-512581741

    Based on the existing Piledriver architecture, this is the first commercially available CPU that hits 5Ghz (in Turbo) without any overclocking, tweaking, or modding required.

    It's not the fastest clock speed ever achieved, but AMD holds that record too. The FX-8350 Holds the record @ 8.67Ghz. No doubt this will be beaten by the end of the year.

    And common "knowledge" would have you think Intel's are faster. Hmph!


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Overheal wrote: »

    And common "knowledge" would have you think Intel's are faster. Hmph!

    There's a lot more to the performance of a processor (its real speed) than just the clock speed. A 3Ghz Core i3 will wipe the floor with a 3Ghz Pentium D from however many years back despite them being the same clock speed.


  • Options
    #3
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,314 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Truth. But I enjoy AMD making publicity for itself in a world where my customers walk in and immediately perceive any product with an AMD logo on it as having herpes.


  • Options
    #4
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Overheal wrote: »
    Truth. But I enjoy AMD making publicity for itself in a world where my customers walk in and immediately perceive any product with an AMD logo on it as having herpes.

    I think around 2004 the AMD dual core processors were fairly competitive against Intel. But amongst the common man they were treated as herpes based cpus ..Doubt it'll change any time soon.


  • Options
    #5
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I think around 2004 the AMD dual core processors were fairly competitive against Intel. But amongst the common man they were treated as herpes based cpus ..Doubt it'll change any time soon.

    In all honesty you are assigning alot of care to the "common man"

    The common man doesn't know jack about which processor is which, they only want to know if its fast and the overall product is cheap. They don't really care of its Intel, AMD or anything else.


  • Options
    #6
    Khannie
    Registered Users Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    I think around 2004 the AMD dual core processors were fairly competitive against Intel.

    In fact they were a fair bit better on a price : performance basis at the time and AMD still enjoy that crown at the moment. If you're building a box purely for computing, AMD's where it's at.

    http://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,617 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    There's a lot more to the performance of a processor (its real speed) than just the clock speed. A 3Ghz Core i3 will wipe the floor with a 3Ghz Pentium D from however many years back despite them being the same clock speed.
    i recently retired a 3GHz P4 machine which scored 320 on the CPU benchmark on the passmark testing program.
    the new machine is 3.4GHz, so about 11% 'faster', and scores 9600.


  • Options
    #8
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Cabaal wrote: »
    In all honesty you are assigning alot of care to the "common man"

    The common man doesn't know jack about which processor is which, they only want to know if its fast and the overall product is cheap. They don't really care of its Intel, AMD or anything else.

    That was my general point, probably wasn't clear enough on that. :D I'd actually suspect that the average consumer would generally veer towards an Intel CPU over AMD all the time. While those who build machines or have some knowledge will research benchmarks etc and will end up getting the best value for money, be it Intel or AMD, minus those who go the overkill route on a machine that they don't need. Shouldn't have said 'common man'......


Advertisement