FX 9590, Surprisingly Efficient at 5Ghz.

[GPUXPert]

AMD's new 5Ghz claim to fame the FX 9590 turned out to be surprisingly efficient, consuming 100W less power than intel's overclocked 6 core extreme edition 3960X while providing the same gaming performance.

 

 

 

 

 

[imghttp://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/max-payne-3.png

 

 

[Woodypc]

Yeh not as bad as some had thought. Hell I do NOT want to know what mine pulls.

[joelthezombie15]

Hmm, it looks like its less of a joke then it seemed. 

 

Good job AMD. 

[s3ns3]

come on...

[I'm Batman]

finally AMD coming up with a CPU that can be compared with Intel Extreme CPU's

 

but the mobo's for AMD is just not good enough... -_-

[911^NEmeSis]

This is becoming good stuff. As long as they aren't massivly expensive I recon they'll be a big hit.

[Lyons]

And yet the 4770k beats it in most tests for 1/3 of the price, uses 1/2 of the power OC'd, and doesn't need a water cooling loop to keep temperatures at a reasonable level. The 3770k is still probably better than the 9590 too, and that's even cheaper than the 4770k, plus the Z77 motherboards are so cheap now! From Kitguru:

 

'After spending the last week with this system we can make an educated guess that AMD simply wanted to be first to release a 5ghz processor. There seems to be no logical reason why the release of the FX9590 processor makes any sense in today’s market.'

 

'Sadly, back in the real world the FX9590 is frequently beaten by the Core i7 4770k and this is before we even look at the higher cost 3930k and 3960x/3970x models.'

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/26/

 

I love AMD, but the 9590 is just a joke.

 

Also, you should link your source.

[MattDaemontools]

And yet the 4770k beats it in most tests for 1/3 of the price and and uses 1/2 of the power. From Kitguru:

 

I love AMD, but the 9590 is just a joke.

Well in that case the 3960X is a joke as well, since it consumes significantly more power and barely puts out more performance in games.

You can argue all you want, extreme CPUs from Intel & AMD aren't about value, it's funny how people just criticize AMD but completely ignore intel.

[Lyons]

Well in that case the 3960X is a joke as well, since it consumes significantly more power and barely competes in games.

 

Yep, in practical terms it is a joke, however the 2011 socket CPU's contain features that the 1155/1150 don't, and have 12 threads, and really aren't even designed for games. 

[s3ns3]

you leave out the games man 

 

here what productivity you have with an intel xtreme at 4.8. 

 

games he says. put an i5 there at 4.5 and it will get more fps then both.

 

[CarlosRex]

you leave out the games man 

 

here what productivity you have with an intel xtreme at 4.8. 

 

games he says. put an i5 there at 4.5 and it will get more fps then both.

This is not a productivity benchmark, it's completely synthetic not only that but the cinebench code is optimized for the intel libraries, so it doesn't reflect real world performance and it isn't a fair test all together.

If you're a gamer the 9590 is a better CPU than the 3960X that's a fact, it consumes SIGNIFICANTLY less power, it's 200$ less expensive and it's just as fast.

Not to mention the AMD CPU optimizations that will carry over from the xbox one and the ps4.

[s3ns3]

Well in that case the 3960X is a joke as well, since it consumes significantly more power and barely puts out more performance in games.

what does games have to do with the 3960X man ?its oc`ed 1.5 jigahertz more than stock ffs. do that with the fx 9590. but the productivity is so much more with the intel one,i mean it uses more juice at that kind of oc(1.5 ghz more lol) but it does the job in half the time .

[Immort]

WOW ok, this is seriously impressing, FX 9590 is a solid chip.

[D3MON]

finally AMD coming up with a CPU that can be compared with Intel Extreme CPU's

 

but the mobo's for AMD is just not good enough... -_-

whats wrong with them ive never understood this, so youd rather have 4xsata 2 ports and 2xsata 3 that will inevitably die?

I love AMD boards compared to intels, the chipset naming scheme is easy to understand, processors are for the most part cross compatible backwards and forwards, heatsinks are easily swapped, boards range from £40 with a 4+1 power phase up to £180 with a 12+1+1 power phase which is less than intels flagship boards (from thier various partners)..

I came down to see the AMD "durr thats still more than an intel chip of the same speed" bashing, seems people are beginning to wise and and arnt soundign like fanboys anymore.

still wish i could have an 8320 but atleast its something my friend who likes to burn money can buy, considering this is binned to high hell i wonder what it would undervolt like?...(yeah I went there).

[M-ursu]

finally AMD coming up with a CPU that can be compared with Intel Extreme CPU's

 

but the mobo's for AMD is just not good enough... -_-

Crosshair V formula-z can handle it, becouse it can handle my 8350 @5.3Ghz.

[D3MON]

what does games have to do with the 3960X man ?its oc`ed 1.5 jigahertz more than stock ffs. do that with the fx 9590. but the productivity is so much more with the intel one,i mean it uses more juice at that kind of oc(1.5 ghz more lol) but it does the job in half the time .

let me guess, you had a pentium 4 cus it was clocked higher than the equivilant athlon64, cus clock speed is what matters right?

overclocking headroom is nice but doesnt matter, performance is performance.

if graphics card A performs the same as graphics card B once overclocked to say within 10% of thier maximum i would say they're equal, if graphics card A is cheaper thats the one I would buy and most other people too.

the base model fx8 is clocked at 3.5 so it already is overclcoked by 1.5ghz, just because intel wittingly factory underclocks thier chips to make them seem like super efficient awesome overclockers doesnt mean it matters.

[MdX MaxX]

This is not a productivity benchmark, it's completely synthetic not only that but the cinebench code is optimized for the intel libraries, so it doesn't reflect real world performance and it isn't a fair test all together.

If you're a gamer the 9590 is a better CPU than the 3960X that's a fact, it consumes SIGNIFICANTLY less power, it's 200$ less expensive and it's just as fast.

Not to mention the AMD CPU optimizations that will carry over from the xbox one and the ps4.

Anyone who buys a 3960X or FX-9590 to play games is a moron.  (Or has thousands of dollars burning holes in his pocket.)  Anything higher than a 4670K is superfluous.  So the notion that it's a better choice for gamers is totally irrelevant.

 

For someone who actually needs processing power for productivity reasons, the FX-9590 is a joke.  Even a 3930K will decimate it.

 

The FX-9590 isn't the optimal choice for anyone.  Totally useless product.  It exists solely so AMD can say it won the race to 5GHz.

 

 

whats wrong with them ive never understood this, so youd rather have 4xsata 2 ports and 2xsata 3 that will inevitably die?

What?  Intel fixed that a LONG time ago.  Essentially any Z68 motherboard that wasn't bought on launch day has the B3 chipset that fixes that issue.  And anyone with the faulty chipset got a free replacement.

[I'm Batman]

Crosshair V formula-z can handle it, becouse it can handle my 8350 @5.3Ghz.

but there are no good looking mobo's for AMD :(

[Lyons]

Anyone who buys a 3960X or FX-9590 to play games is a moron.  (Or has thousands of dollars burning holes in his pocket.)  Anything higher than a 4670K is superfluous.  So the notion that it's a better choice for gamers is totally irrelevant.

 

For someone who actually needs processing power for productivity reasons, the FX-9590 is a joke.  Even a 3930K will decimate it.

 

The FX-9590 isn't the optimal choice for anyone.  Totally useless product.  It exists solely so AMD can say it won the race to 5GHz.

 

 

What?  Intel fixed that a LONG time ago.  Essentially any Z68 motherboard that wasn't bought on launch day has the B3 chipset that fixes that issue.  And anyone with the faulty chipset got a free replacement.

 

All of this. It was a one man race too.

[s3ns3]

D3MON, on 16 Jul 2013 - 4:42 PM, said:

cus clock speed is what matters right?

nope. the arhitecture.the intel one is superior. thats the question i would ask to someone who falls for this marketing stuff.now the 5 ghz stuff and first the first 8 core . what a joke. that kind of fps in games you can have with a fx 8350 or an i5 at a much lower price.so what ? games aren`t the factor with these cpu`s dude. you don`t get it,do you. talk gpu if you wanna talk games. stock/stock the 500$ dollar cheaper intel i7 beats it in both efficiency/raw power and everything.

what u gonna do ?

damn man,this marketing stuff works.

[D3MON]

but there are no good looking mobo's for AMD :(

gigabyte ud7, id have 1 if it wasnt a gigabyte (sorry but theyre 3rd on my list)

[Lyons]

nope. the arhitecture.the intel one is superior. thats the question i would ask to someone who falls for this marketing stuff.now the 5 ghz stuff and first the first 8 core . what a joke. that kind of fps in games you can have with a fx 8350 or an i5 at a much lower price.so what ? games aren`t the factor with these cpu`s dude. you don`t get it,do you. talk gpu if you wanna talk games. stock/stock the 500$ dollar cheaper intel i7 beats it in both efficiency/raw power and everything.

what u gonna do ?

damn man,this marketing stuff works.

 

I think that was a sarcastic/rhetorical statement.

[EmmaLong]

nope. the arhitecture.the intel one is superior. 

That's very debatable, it's more efficient that part is true, but only because current intel CPUs are manufactured on the 22nm process, while AMD relies on Global Foundries' 32nm, as far as performance goes highly-threaded workloads clearly favor AMD's architecture and games are getting more and more multi-thread reliant, that part is not debatable.

 

games aren`t the factor with these cpu`s dude. you don`t get it,do you. talk gpu if you wanna talk games.

Games are absolutely a factor, if it wasn't all graphics review sites would not be using extreme edition CPUs.

 

 

stock/stock the 500$ dollar cheaper intel i7 beats it in both efficiency/raw power and everything.

No one would buy an extreme edition CPU to run it at stock that's idiotic, I'm even surprised kitguru didn't try to overclock the 9590.

 

damn man,this marketing stuff works.

Since when are independent benchmarks marketing ? the figures are there and they're in favor of AMD for once, people should be happy AMD is back in the game.

 

[D3MON]

nope. the arhitecture.the intel one is superior. thats the question i would ask to someone who falls for this marketing stuff.now the 5 ghz stuff and first the first 8 core . what a joke. that kind of fps in games you can have with a fx 8350 or an i5 at a much lower price.so what ? games aren`t the factor with these cpu`s dude. you don`t get it,do you. talk gpu if you wanna talk games. stock/stock the 500$ dollar cheaper intel i7 beats it in both efficiency/raw power and everything.

what u gonna do ?

damn man,this marketing stuff works.

"games aren`t the factor with these cpu`s dude."-the above posts are showing graphs of gaming, what part did you miss?

let me simplify this for you because you seem to miss the idea of this (which no AMD fan is illuded to)

1) 8 integer cores does have a benefit in hard tasks which is why they often match the hyperthreaded intel equivilants....

2) the performance difference between a fx8 and a price equivilant intel chip is meanial (theres a linus video on it)

3) other companies make overpriced products in the knowledge people will buy halo parts, why isnt amd allowed to do this?

4) no sensible amd fan worth his salt is going to actually care about this, because they know this^ is the case.

may I also point out that throughout your post you are seem to be assuming that I am an AMD fan who is brainwashed by marketing when you actually know NOTHING about me and this is the wrong forum if you want to spew fanboyish remarks saying thinks like ""stock/stock the 500$ dollar cheaper intel i7 beats it in both efficiency/raw power and everything." we are talking about this chip, if you like it say so, if you don't, don't buy it and ignore the thread.

[MetEishYa]

It almost comparable to a 4770k in 3D rendering

With CyberLink MediaEspresso 6

 

"Sadly, back in the real world the FX9590 is frequently beaten by the Core i7 4770k and this is before we even look at the higher cost 3930k and 3960x/3970x models"

 

"Sure, we could say that fanatical AMD overclockers will love the FX9590, but unless you have money to burn we can think of better ways to spend that £700. When up against the Core i7 4770k or 3930k/3960x it is seriously outgunned. This is probably why AMD aren’t sampling the part directly to the press, aiming it at system builders. Again, we can’t imagine a system builder will want to cool this monster long term, while offering a warranty. There is only a 1 year warranty on the FX9590 too, so that is worth bearing in mind"

 

"The AMD FX9590 is a solid processor for 3D rendering, but Intel have made a lot of strides in the last couple of generations, and we found that even the Core i7 4770k is a much more effective design on a core per core basis, even with four less physical cores. The 3960X/3970X is still the mainstream flagship for this task, but in fairness we can’t imagine too many people will complain with a FX9590 @ 5ghz rendering their scenes"

 

All from http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/26/

 

 

 

I've got nothing against AMD but personally i'm not impressed by the fx9590 at its price point. Its just a binned 8350, meaning chances of getting a 8350 that can do 5Ghz+ are even smaller now. To me the 8350 is still the king at AMD, its cheap, awesome in games. Extremely good at 3D rendering and audio encoding and $100 cheaper than a 4770k. If i was going to spend $800 on a CPU it will probably be the 3930k even the 3960x/3970x are not work the extra money.