AMD prepping Centurion FX processor to take on Intel Core i7 Extreme CPUs?

AMD prepping Centurion FX processor to take on Intel Core i7 Extreme CPUs?

Summary: The new eight-core chip will reportedly run at 5GHz and cost $795.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Processors, PCs
28

PC sales may be reaching a critical point of decline, if recent reports are to be believed. Nonetheless, there are legions of fans of performance desktops that will not abandon the format, and it's over those buyers that AMD and Intel continue to battle with their high-end processors.

amd-fx-desktop-processor-cpu-logo_220
(Image: AMD)

AMD had all but ceded the highest of high ends to its rival, and its $1,000 Core i7 Extreme Edition processors. But rumors are afloat that it's going to take a shot at competing against those chips with a new FX series CPU.

According to tech site Hexus.net, the company is preparing a "Centurion" edition FX processor that boosts its eight "Vishera" cores to 5GHz — without any need for liquid cooling.

In comparison, Intel's top-of-the-line Core i7-3970X starts at 3.5GHz and has a Turbo mode of 4GHz (before overclocking). Of course, pure gigahertz numbers don't equate to actual performance, but this is certainly the type of eye-popping spec AMD would need to compete with the Extreme Edition. 

Here's the other one: if the Hexus source is correct, AMD will be pricing the Centurion at $795, or roughly $200 less than the i7-3970X. That opens up a slightly larger market than the $1,000 price point at which Intel has sold all Extreme Edition processors, if not chipping away at Intel's sales.

That "if", however, will be predicated on the Centurion chip performing well enough that overclocking fans would be willing to abandon the Extreme Edition chips. Unfortunately, the FX series has generally been bested by Intel's Ivy Bridge line-up, though devotees will defend the recent AMD processors on price and performance grounds.

In the case of the Centurion, AMD will really need to boost that performance part of the equation. Would it be up to the task if the rumors turn out to be true? Stay tuned and we'll see if the Centurion ever sees the light of day.

(Via Hexus.net)

Topics: Processors, PCs

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

28 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • AMD

    You get considerably more bang for your buck with AMD processor/graphics! All of my computers have AMD processors. I avoided all the Intel powered laptops because GMA graphics when I got my new laptop. For an example, a intel laptop can cost like $499, but you can get a amd laptop with much better graphics for $399!
    Pulet Fou 51
  • FX CPUs...

    AMD will need to get down to 20nm in order to compete with Intel in performance, but I'd always go with AMD. I'm not giving my money to Intel.
    Grayson Peddie
  • I'm alwasy all AMD

    I never buy non-AMD cpu's in any of my computers. The benchmark performance numbers in many cases have been better for a while now with Intel processors, this much is true. However, AMD provides a level of performance performance that exceeds my needs and wants, and is less expensive.

    There is more to the story though, and I think that this one question and its context is worth considering:

    What would CPUs cost, and what would the performance be today, had AMD not challenged Intel's dominance back in the days when Intel refused to develop a 64 bit processor?

    AMD did find success for a few years in the server market with the Opterons. In fact, I built five servers, purchasing the components from the mainboard, to the SCSI controllers, to the racks and rails, the whole enchilada. These were built around dual dual-core AMD Opterons. These servers are still in production (2013), and provide all the power needed for MAS 200, purchasing software, other network applications, as domain controllers, Exchange server, file services, etc.

    I enjoy buying what was cutting edge one or two generations ago, saving a ton, letting those that need or want the most expensive and cutting edge buy it first.
    Raid60
  • they need to focus on power efficiency

    not power level. mobile is taking over the marketplace, and while intel is far worse for power efficiency than ARM, they make AMD look like a joke.
    theoilman
    • I do agree..

      however, I also think a high end chip to rival intel is long overdue in itself. Don't get me wrong; I don't actually know many people who need and i7 whatsoever, and thus it is a stunted market. You are also quite correct that not only reduced power, but reduced heat production is key for home units of the future; As an i3 exceeds most people's needs on the home market, it stands to reason to use technological advantages to reduce package size, energy use, etc.

      there is however user and market pereption. AMD has been offering unbelievable value perfomrance for quite some time. however they have lagged behind intel in terms of chip production technology, thus producing far less efficient chips, and have lacked a market leader. They do very well in the sub i5 catagory; ripping i3's to pieces at similar price points. however by the time you get to performance i5's AMD's current line up max's out. This creates a leader and follower perception that harms business. Just by having chips that compete with the top chips from their competition, AMD increase their brand image.

      an example; whilst I see a lot of comments here saying that they'd never buy intel, those are loyalists. I have also hear home builders say you get more choice with intel... if you build a board with an i3 chip, in a years time you can stick an i5 or i7 in it. you can also use nvidea graphics cards. AMD are on the money with the integration between CPU chipset and the discrete graphics card, they just need to push it.

      Of course what I think is really behind this is the new foundry from GF. since seperating from AMD, GF have had massive investment and their US based plant is due to open this year pushing below 20NM. they have claimed to be able to best TSMC and intel with this tech. That we don't know, but if it pays off, the technological advantage should help AMD to produce those more efficient chips we were discussing. It could be that an i7 competitor is to come out first increasing the potency and standing of the AMD brand before releasing the super effieicnt chips the market needs.
      MarknWill
      • Also...

        Since I've tried other graphics processors and found them extremely lacking, I am dedicated to AMD GPUs and have never had luck with anything Intel or Nvidia for my needs, they are not only substandard but don't even have the same capability in Dolby 5.1 sound let alone 7.1. I still look at the competitors, but every time I try them I get burned and end up going back to ATI(AMD). So after that experience, I have to ask myself why I really need an i7 when my graphics is already AMD, and I figure I might as well have AMD all across the board and get it over with. Especially on price points.
        JCitizen
      • Also...

        Since I've tried other graphics processors and found them extremely lacking, I am dedicated to AMD GPUs and have never had luck with anything Intel or Nvidia for my needs, they are not only substandard but don't even have the same capability in Dolby 5.1 sound let alone 7.1. I still look at the competitors, but every time I try them I get burned and end up going back to ATI(AMD). So after that experience, I have to ask myself why I really need an i7 when my graphics is already AMD, and I figure I might as well have AMD all across the board and get it over with. Especially on price points.
        JCitizen
    • Intel needs to work on the GPU in their SoC

      Pretty sure even you won't disagree that an A10 has much better graphics than the corresponding i5. While mobile is getting to be bigger, people are wanting everything they can on these small units. If I was building a new system today future-proof and general purpose, I think one of the A-series would be my pick, especially looking at cost/benefit. My wife is an interior designer and wants an AIO with touch. I'm making sure I'm not relying on Intel for graphics. Ideally, OEMs will make something with the A-series that fits our needs since the discrete NVIDIA ones are all on the highest of end models for the looks of it.
      ikissfutebol
    • Intel

      is worse on power effiency than AMD. AMD uses power close to its TDP, Intel power is quite above TDP. AMD APU laptops have long battery life while offering superior all around power.
      Jimster480
  • Sorry AMD Fanboys....

    Intel outperforms AMD 99% of the time, "without overclocking".

    I overclock my intels too, it's just that they will perform as advertised without doing so and most AMD's will not. Even though they are appropriately priced to compensate for this, that just rubs me the wrong way.

    There's nothing wrong with their chips, it's their false performance claims that I don't care for.
    Sqrly
    • 99%?

      You're saying that at essentially all price points an Intel CPU will outperform an identically priced AMD CPU? A $75 CPU from Intel outperforms a $75 CPU from AMD? And same at $100, $150, $300, etc.?

      Not sure I'm buying that one, especially when I browse similarly priced CPUs at Newegg.
      KTLA
  • Like the latest i7

    I recently upgraded from a core2duo laptop to a
    i7-3770 desktop (3.40GHz turbo boost to 3.9GHz). Wow what a difference.

    It's so much faster doing everything and video
    compression is noticeably faster. Even with all that power it still runs cool. I'm sure I could be happy with this for 10 years.
    SunFire23
  • Fan of AMD processors

    This is a welcome news, I use AMD processors on all my self-assembled PC's because they offer more bang for the buck.
    Owllll1net
  • Hz?

    Why is this written like frequency (Hz) is somehow a speed rating? just because they hit 5GHz doesn't mean the processor is going to actually get work done faster than a completely different processor design.
    doh123
    • Re: completely different processor design

      Did you happen to know, that current Intel CPU design was in fact invented by AMD and later licensed by Intel.

      The architectural differences are minimal, mostly different optimisations.

      It's ironic, that apparently AMD are better at CPU architecture design than Intel, but so far, Intel have been better with fabs than AMD. What the future holds, we don't yet know.
      danbi
      • Re: completely different processor design

        danbi, I'm not trying to mean but I'm not sure you fully understand. Intel's current CPU design was NOT invented by AMD. You are probably referring to Intel's use of AMD64 in their chips. This is an instruction set and not a chip design, although they do have to factor that in when designing their chips. Yes, it is also called a chip architecture but that doesn't equate to the whole chip design by any means. Their overall chip designs are wildly different right now. The reason AMD64 won out over IA64 was because IA64 is not backwards compatible. AMD64 was a big deal because it was able to do both 32 bit and 64 bit processing.

        I wouldn't go so far as to say AMD are better at CPU architecture well...That's extrapolating pretty far. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD products but there is simply no way they would be in the position they are in if they were as good as you make them sound. AMD doesn't even own any fabs outright so it's kind of hard to compare them on that front but if you compare who AMD uses, TSMC and GloFo, they are every bit as capable as Intel for fabs.
        Patches O'Hoolihan
        • Actually

          Most of the tech found inside of Intel chips is AMD invented. Despite the x86-64, the Virtualization tech, AVX, and QPI aswell as On-die memory controllers are all AMD technologies... The physical chip design is not AMD, but the technologies and concepts are.
          Jimster480
  • I used to like AMD

    Got fed up with poor life cycle support for both GPUs and CPU/chipsets. Always intel and nvidia now.
    Alan Smithie
    • Poor life cycle support?

      AMD supports their chipsets for long periods of time... They have the same CPU's out for a long period of time also and make use of old sockets whenever necessary. Unlike Intel that has like 50 sockets now and u always need a new chipset...
      Jimster480
  • AMD is the synonym for deceptive technology

    I'm pretty confident that this future behemoth will either show weak performance compared to i7 CPUs or it will consume unbelievable amounts of energy (probably beyond all specs and therefore requiring certain tricks to make it work).
    AMD has totally lost its mojo which is not surprising considering the huge amount of $ Intel can spend for R&D.
    EnticingHavoc