AMD Shows Off New FX-Series Processor With Water Cooling

Over the weekend, AMD Corporate Vice President Global Channel Sales Roy Taylor showed off what appears to be an AMD FX-Series Processor that comes bundled with a liquid cooling system. Could this be AMD’s response to the Intel Devil’s Canyon processor series that was recently announced?  Taylor mentioned that “something new is coming,” so we can only assume that AMD will be releasing a high-end processor that is likely fully unlocked. This is great news for fans of Team Red and the processor will be the successor to the AMD FX-9590 that was released last year.  The AMD FX-9590 32nm Vishera 8-Core processor was the world’s first 5GHz processor and got some notoriety because of that. The AMD FX-9000 series is also pretty toasty with a 220W TDP, so with a thermal envelope like that you can image that bundling a closed-loop liquid cooler is ideal. The Intel Core i7-4790K Devil’s Canyon processor has an 88W TDP.

There isn’t much else to say as Mr. Taylor didn’t divulge any additional information and none have leaked our about the processor when he made the Twitter post.  Here is a look at the packaging for the upcoming AMD FX-Series Processor:


AMD FX Processor

  • roadapathy

    Good gawd, AMD is really out of touch with 220watts. They have, for years now, been stuck on the 32nm fabrication process. They’re only in the running because these CPUs are much cheaper than Intel. That’s the only reason. They are wrecking my electric bill. These are absolutely not green-friendly CPUs. I love the FX series but good lord, AMD leaders… can we recognize that it is 2014 and not 2012? 😉

  • Coach

    Well word is out, it is just a “rebranding” of the FX-9590 packaged with a CoolerMaster Seidon 120. You save at least $20 on the Seidon in the package. The binning may be better now that time has passed for selection. Otherwise, not that big of an anouncement. However, AMD has not forgotten about enthusiasts–that’s a plus.

    • Joe Joejoe

      At the wattages these chips run, over its lifetime it will be less cost effective than a faster initially pricier intel chip.

      Not to mention you need a good board, which are in short supply these days. 5 years ago you could buy a 140w AM3+ board for $40. Now the minimum you’re going to pay for anything 8XXX and above, is going to be about $100 to get a good enough board….and that still doesn’t guarantee no problems. over 30% of ALL AM3+ boards in the $80 range, fail within a year. This is because they can’t handle the extreme power requirements of these AMD cpu’s over a protracted period of time.

      By the time you buy a 9XXX, cooler included or not, along with a motherboard good enough for it, you’ve already spent more than an intel that is still faster than it.

      And newegg actually had a 9590 with a water cooling combo, months ago.

      this rebrand is already using 3-4 year old architecture. It’s a slap in the face that AMD just keeps trying to stuff rebranded and factory overclocked 8XXX chips down our throat. They’ve forgotten about enthusiasts, but they haven’t forgotten about suckers.

      The vischera architecture is ill designed for pretty much every task it’s supposed to be good for. CAD? Nope, that relies heavily on FPU performance, and they only have 4 FPU’s, 1 per 2 cores. Gaming? Nope, the weaker cores limit it in games that don’t use all the threads….it’s a 4 year old architecture…If we were going to see games adopting that many threads, we would have already seen it by now. the simple truth is, multi threading is not as simple taking advantage of more cores. So here you are with an 8 core CPU, running a game no better than a quad core would. Money well spent.

      Even for general multi tasking, it’s pointless. When you have programs open that you aren’t using, that relies more on memory amount than CPU speed. I’m not going to be for example, working in photoshop, watching a movie, and browsing with 6 tabs at the same exact time now am I? We can only interact with a PC soo fast, so it really doesn’t speed up much of anything, but rather sits idle most of the time because those types of tasks just aren’t that demanding even for older CPU’s.

      • Coach

        I agree with some of what you said Joejoe, except that AM3+ boards do hold up well from my experience and others that I know, even with overclocking. I have the following boards: MSI 890FX gd-65 that is now 3.5 years old and overclocked for periods of time, an Asus M3A78-em (budget board) for 4 yrs, a Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 almost 2 years old, an Asrock 990FX Extreme 4– 6 mos., a Foxconn A7DA-S 5 yrs old (AM2+), and an (AM2) Asus M2N4-SLI that is 7.5 years old and still running strong with an ole dual core Windsor 6000+ in it. 🙂 The only budget board for less than $50 was the m3a board and it has held up great-quality Asus parts. The other boards were about $100 at the their time (I always find deals).

  • vision33r

    Efficiency is the key. AMD cores have never been efficient, it requires them running 8 cores in parallel to stay close to Intel’s quad core performance in some tests and even some Intel Dual Cores are more efficient and quicker. The only apps that really need more core is virtualization and video rendering where the render can run additional process threads in parallel but processor efficiency can still trump having more cores.

    When’s the last time you see AMD actually win a performance test against Intel at the same clock speeds?

    5GHZ is meaningless when Intel at lower clocks to running circles around AMD.

    Video rendering should be offloaded to GPU which are better suited for the task.

  • Coach

    There was talk online some time ago about them using more cores, like the “Warsaw” chip (Opteron) with 12 or 16 cores on the Steamroller design. Maybe it is a 12 core chip running at 5ghz, (9590 speeds).
    There was talk of another FX but then they said there would be no more…the speculation and such is part of the fun. Can’t wait to see what they’ve got!

  • basroil

    That thing better be 5GH stock and 12 core to actually justify liquid cooling…

    • Ronnie

      it’s either quad-core or hexa-core at best, and nobody needs more than 6 core at consumer level desktop(and these are very very a few who actually need 6 core in consumer desktop), everyone else who asks 6+ cores in consumer computer have no clue how processors work and just have the common diseases asking for too many cores without realizing their need.

      • BDK

        Consumers render videos, shoot gameplay videos, do image work, game etc. The more cores the better. With Mantle in the mix it’s getting beyond better.

        So your comment is meh.

        • Ronnie

          your response is neither true or accurate, the consumers who want to render/shoot gameplay videos/edit photo & video they do purchase Xeon CPUs which they are specifically made for these type of tasks and as you may already know about, Xeons have more cores and more stable than consumer grade CPUs which make them much better fit for anyone who deals with workstation-grade tasks/applications(which certainly includes photo/video editing/rendering/capturing gameplay, CPU mining, servers, etc) ssssoooo… if you are doing photo editing/rendering then you are looking it in a wrong place, in other words… if you are looking for 6+ cores in consumer grade segment to do rendering/editing/workstation-like tasks you either looking in wrong place or you aren’t professional and better look elsewhere, and if you aren’t doing it in professional manner then any 4 & 6 core consumer grade CPU will be more than fine for you, soo… I hope this clarifies my point and point of view.

        • Chris

          Problem you have there is the high entry cost to the Xeon market. So you most certainly will find low level video editors ie non pros who want that capability but not at the price of Xeons. They will go for the best consumer CPU for the task. At least I can tell you that that is what I do anyway…

        • Ronnie

          well, then… I think here comes the matter of how we define the word “pro”, seems like we’ve different definitions for this word, in my book if you are “pro” then you make decent money, and for one like that buying a Xeon cpu shouldn’t be an issue.

        • Coach

          Xeon’s are too expensive and they are not fast enough for the serious gamer. We all know that to even think about competing with an Intel hexacore product, AMD must use 12, to match the # of threads and be anywhere close to that type of data throughput. Even 8 cores don’t match up to the 8-threaded quads from Intel. Being an AMD fanboy, I would personally invest in a DC 4790K right now that would satisfy the needs of rendering, editing, and gaming unless AMD offered something comparable at a comparable price.
          I believe there is a niche in this market for such a chip that does a little of everything, and does it quite well. This is likely aiming at that market.

        • daltjohns

          How were you able to placed Xeon in this conversation bro?
          I thought we were discussing AMD FX CPU.

        • Ronnie

          yeah we were lol it just kind of we ended up on Xeon since somebody said we need more cores to render and stuff so I said for that you’d better get Xeon.

        • Vladimir Tess

          I’ll tell you something… some time ago 2Gigs of RAM was ridiculous so, let it go, we need it, I am sure.

        • Ronnie

          lol the problem is that you think more cores are only advantage… have you ever thought about disadvantages of more cores? CPU is BRUTALLY WAYYY MOREE complicated to manufacture and implement than RAM… more cores mean higher TDP, slower IPS, slower core-to-core comparison, bad software optimization and quite some more. you’d want more core CPUs when we hit to 14nm architecture, but not on correct ones.

        • Alexvrb

          Xeons to capture gameplay footage? Lots of youtubers and streamers are NOT professionals – they play and record using pedestrian CPUs. The extra threads can definitely help – whether it’s CMT (AMD modules) or SMT (Intel hyperthreading).

          Now, if you don’t do significant multitasking with your machine, or play games without the added overhead of recording… then 4 (or even 2 in many cases) threads is fine for now. But keep in mind that modern games can utilize 4 threads by themselves, and will be using more as games are written to take advantage of the latest (8 thread) consoles. Modern APIs are also multithreaded, with lower level ones like Mantle and the upcoming DX and OGL updates placing even more emphasis on this.

          Either way, you’re very unlikely to need/want a Xeon unless you do rendering for a living. 😛

        • Ronnie

          Man… it really takes lots of energy and patience from me to break down some things so you’d see how it goes, but unfortunately I’m not enough enthusiastic to break down how wrong you are about “the mores cores are better” a “consumer” would be enough with quad-core and hexa-core(INTEL)… this statement would be true as long as we talking about AMD cpus since we know it sucks at IPS and core-to-core performance, in this case asking 10+ cores would be legitimate requirement.

      • basroil

        I personally use 8 threads (i.e. 8 AMD cores) all the time, and if I were to get back into video editing I would love to have a 12core 24thread xeon.

        But you missed the point, which is that CPUs should NOT be running above 100W unless they are fast and have a large number of cores, and NEVER above 200W (where water cooling finally makes sense) unless you have many high speed cores. Intel runs circles around AMD with their 80W chips, so unless AMD justifies a higher power with a dozen very fast cores it’s entirely pointless.

        And most closed loop 120mm water cooling systems can cool 340W and still remain under 90C at the CPU, good 240mm (and great 120mm ones) can stay under 60C even with fans at at low power!