FX-8350 OC 5Ghz vs. FX-9590 Stock Speed Turbo (5 Ghz)

[skimmer001]

Which one is better?

[Suika]

Theoretically, they're the same thing, but I don't recommend either.

[Liam-McShane]

8350 @5GHz since it doesn't have to boost to reach 5GHz. The 9590 won't always boost to 5GHz.

[nickpc]

same I think

[ZetZet]

Same clock same performance.

[Jogostar]

they're the same.

get a 8120

[Analog]

They are both exactly the same chip. The differences is that the 9590 is binned higher and comes with the 5GHz frequency from the factory, while the 8350 is not and one doesn't guarantee that it will be able to achieve that speed. 

[Toxic Tom]

8350 cos it's cheaper

[Flyguygamer]

The 9590 is an oc 8350 so they are the same clock for clock.

[wng_kingsley7]

clock for clock they are the same however the architecture might be different you should really investigate yourself as not everyone is a super smart about every micro processor out there

[MrSuperb]

No guarantee, that you can even oc a 8350 to 5Ghz

[kinkywink]

they're the same.

get a 8120

Wouldnt recommend this because the 8350s are the better chip, 9590s and 9370s are the cherry picked cpus

But yes you are right an 8120 is the exactly the same as every other 8000 and 9000 series cpus.

On a side note, 8350 would be my choice or the 8320.

If your chosing for your build, i recommend 8350 if your rendering and streaming becausw the extra cores help, in gaming the 4670k usually takes the cake

[Ryan Leech]

I would buy the 9590 if you want to overclock past 5GHz

[KaareKanin]

9xxx's are cherrypicked, so they will most likely have more potential than the 8xxx's. The way I look at it, the 8xxx's are cheaper, but a gamble, as they don't have the guaranteed performance, like the more expensive 9xxx's have

[Suika]

Before you consider buying either, read up on the topic on the 8350's competitiveness. Even the 9590 is weak since an i3 beats it in single threaded use.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/111882-the-4670k-or-3570k-vs-8350-aggregate-comparison/page-1

[Opcode]

They are the same exact chip, both should do up to 5.0 GHz. The only major difference is the 9590 chips are binned. Meaning they have a higher overhead than typical 8350's. Which also means you're likely to maintain a higher overclock on a 9590 than a 8350. Tho the 9590 will set you back $329 ($269 Newegg w/ Rebate), while the 8350 only costs $199. You are better off buying a FX-8320 for only $159 and trying to crank that up to 5.0 GHz. Otherwise I would just buy a i7-4770k for the $329 and have the all around better chip.

[bamerx98]

8350 @5GHz since it doesn't have to boost to reach 5GHz. The 9590 won't always boost to 5GHz.

Yes but the 9590 is a much higher binned chip were with a 8350 there is no guaranty that your going to get 5Ghz Stable, as well as the 9590 could be set to 5Ghz and its guaranteed to run stable 

[ForsakenLive]

Before you consider buying either, read up on the topic on the 8350's competitiveness. Even the 9590 is weak since an i3 beats it in single threaded use.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/111882-the-4670k-or-3570k-vs-8350-aggregate-comparison/page-1

not much things are single-threaded these days, and there are a lot of software applications where 5ghz can be quite handy.

[rainbrodash666]

Wouldnt recommend this because the 8350s are the better chip, 9590s and 9370s are the cherry picked cpus

But yes you are right an 8120 is the exactly the same as every other 8000 and 9000 series cpus.

On a side note, 8350 would be my choice or the 8320.

If your chosing for your build, i recommend 8350 if your rendering and streaming becausw the extra cores help, in gaming the 4670k usually takes the cake

not really, there is a small architecture change from 8100 to 8300 series, 8100 is bulldozer, and 8300 is piledriver.

[Priller]

Yes but the 9590 is a much higher binned chip were with a 8350 there is no guaranty that your going to get 5Ghz Stable, as well as the 9590 could be set to 5Ghz and its guaranteed to run stable 

 

This.

 

After AMD started binning for the 9370 and 9590 you start running into a much smaller chance of reaching 5Ghz at anything close to decent voltage.

 

I have seen 8350s that refuse to run above 4.7Ghz with 1.536 volts(stock 9370-9590 voltage) after they started binning. I have seen 9590s run 5.2 Ghz on rediculously low voltage tho. 

 

If you are taking in shear performance then there is no different is performance at a specific clock. But the voltage required to get there will determine how high that clock is. If you are going for as high as you can go then you simply have no other choice then to grab a 9590 or a known good clocker of an 8350 before the binning process started for the 9000 series.

[kinkywink]

not really, there is a small architecture change from 8100 to 8300 series, 8100 is bulldozer, and 8300 is piledriver.

my bad, i havnt heard much of 81xx series.. but either way, cherry picked 9xxx>83xx>81xx

 

Before you consider buying either, read up on the topic on the 8350's competitiveness. Even the 9590 is weak since an i3 beats it in single threaded use.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/111882-the-4670k-or-3570k-vs-8350-aggregate-comparison/page-1

we all know the intel cpus beat amd in single threaded performance. they could have a single core processor and win.. if games and programs were completely optimized then amd would be the choice hands down.. just dont forget that the 83xx architecture is quite old now, released like what? 4 or 5 years ago? taking that into consideration, the 8350 is cheaper then 4670k and is equal and sometimes better or worse in multi threaded applications.

[flyerglenn]

i really don't recommend over clocking. if you go outside the specs of the CPU it will not last as long and either CPU is not cheep.

[Faa]

we all know the intel cpus beat amd in single threaded performance. they could have a single core processor and win.. if games and programs were completely optimized then amd would be the choice hands down.. just dont forget that the 83xx architecture is quite old now, released like what? 4 or 5 years ago? taking that into consideration, the 8350 is cheaper then 4670k and is equal and sometimes better or worse in multi threaded applications.

Multithreading means that each task can have its own thread, doesnt have anything to do with splitting that task to multiple cores which is impossible. You just make for example 5 tasks instead of 1 so you have 5 threads that can be used on 5 cores. All games are multithreaded.. Aslong as your process contains more than 1 thread it's multithreaded.

If you're reading a book, jumping to another page and someone interrupts you asking you to read a different book then you'd put that book down and read the suggest book instead. Same thing with CPU's if you know that a single instruction can only be executed on 1 core (if you want a picture of this, DL Superpi and check your core loads only 1 core can be at 100% at a time). Basically developers have to find a way to pump more performance out by making better use of the extra cores and thats something they all are lacking.

This is why CPU load means nothing, your cpu can bottleneck at 25% or 50% or 75% whatsoever, so your only cpu bottleneck indicator would be the gpu load.

What a CPU usually does in a game is handling the UI, calculating stuff like Bullet tracking, physics, audio, positions of enemies etc and in the end it tells the gpu how a frame should look like and the gpu renders it. In a multiplayer game the cpu is being overloaded and therefore making the GPU wait more resulting in a cpu bottleneck.

And no Intel won't outperform AMD with a single core cpu atm. You might have seen Intel outperforming AMD by 100% in a game that doesnt take advantage of more than 2 cores so basically the performance might be the same there if Intel had a single core cpu but consider the OS background processes so AMD would still win.

Just to add an i5 is still better than a 8350 for BF4/BF4 & streaming -> youtube.com/watch?v=26UKz42uQ1Y @ 17:03

i really don't recommend over clocking. if you go outside the specs of the CPU it will not last as long and either CPU is not cheep.

Same thing as gaming not being healthy so you won't live longer. Predicting is really pointless

[ViruZ_HUN]

If you get a FX i recommend you to get Fx9590. That 5 ghz on stock...

 

You cant always reach the fancy 5 ghz with a 8350... you need to win the lottery

[Rei Hino]

Motherboard I'm using is Sabertooth 990FX/GEN3 R2.0 Power supply Corsair AX1200i witch should be well then enough power G.SKILL Trident X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB x 2 for 32GB) and set to manual settings @ 1866 and it's 8,9,9,24 timing and 1.6 v and 2 dual GTX 680's in sli. with a H80I corsair water cooler

I can turn Turbo in Bios to Auto or enabled it will show it is running as 5 ghz witch windows shows when it starts as well but even running windows assessment will cause windows to lock up. And so the question is if the processor on stock can do 5.0 ghz with no need to mess with oc settings why is it not stable? it's running with default voltage of 1.5. Although I also wonder if Turbo is working like it is suppose to IE keep 5.0 ghz untill stress is placed on the processor so all the cores are highly used and down clocking to 4.7 witch is How I thought it was suppose to work. So if anyone can help with this question I would appreciate it, as it okie @ 4.7 it just going to bug me I can't get it to a default 5.0. So for now Turbo is disabled. Any other things that might help with the question on information I did not provide let me know. as this topic seemed approreate to paste in as I also have the 8350 also it can do 4.2 ghz Turbo fine.