FX 9590 Underclocked... for now ##HELP?##

[0nRay]

Hi guys, so I wanted to know if I was to buy an FX 9590 and just under clock it to 8350 ish levels would it still have that ridiculous 220W TDP or would the TDP be the same as the FX 8350s TDP of 125W.

 

I have an opportunity to snag one of these for $320 right now which is way better than the original $750 price tag from 8 months back. My goal ultimately is to have this thing at its stock speeds or higher but I need to get a far more robust cooling solution before I can even think about that.

 

So essentially my question is, will this thing run as cool as an FX 8350 if clocked down the 8350 speeds or is it naturally a hotter running chip? Any feedback from an FX 9590 owner would be greatly appreciated and of course any body else can chime in as well.

 

Thanks!!

[Kuzma]

Hi guys, so I wanted to know if I was to buy an FX 9590 and just under clock it to 8350 ish levels would it still have that ridiculous 220W TDP or would the TDP be the same as the FX 8350s TDP of 125W.

 

I have an opportunity to snag one of these for $320 right now which is way better than the original $750 price tag from 8 months back. My goal ultimately is to have this thing at its stock speeds or higher but I need to get a far more robust cooling solution before I can even think about that.

 

So essentially my question is, will this thing run as cool as an FX 8350 if clocked down the 8350 speeds or is it naturally a hotter running chip? Any feedback from an FX 9590 owner would be greatly appreciated and of course any body else can chime in as well.

 

Thanks!!

It would run cooler and use less power due to the superior binning, the 9590 is essentially a super efficient 8350 that overclocks like a beast.

[TheSLSAMG]

$320? You can get an i7 4770K for that, and it's a better overall CPU.

[iNothing]

Y not just buy an 8350?

 

 

Too bad i7s are really expensive in Australia for me

[Kuzma]

$320? You can get an i7 4770K for that, and it's a better overall CPU.

9590 performs close to Intel's 6-cores, I think it's worth getting over a 4770k

[JAKEBAB]

9590 performs close to Intel's 6-cores, I think it's worth getting over a 4770k

lol your joking right?

[rukia_kuchiki]

9590 performs close to Intel's 6-cores, I think it's worth getting over a 4770k

 

Uhhh, Perhaps in only one scenario. That scenario is extremely multi threaded applications and with the 4930k at stock clocks. 

[Kamina]

Ummm... so why not just get an FX 8350? That's pretty what it is, but factory overclocked. It might run cooler if the core voltage is rather low.

[0nRay]

It would run cooler and use less power due to the superior binning, the 9590 is essentially a super efficient 8350 that overclocks like a beast.

That's what I thought I just wanted to make sure, thanks for your help!

[0nRay]

$320? You can get an i7 4770K for that, and it's a better overall CPU.

Although your point has validity, I would need to shell out at least a couple extra hounded dollars to get a good mother board which isn't ideal for me at the moment. I Should mention a 4770K would cost me $380 where I live in Canada so it's still more money than an FX 9590. A 4670K is still $280 so the way I see it is the FX 9590 is my best bang for the buck when it comes to multithreaded performance. To be completely honest, I'm well aware Intel has a more competitive product. That being said I've always preferred AMD chips to Intels offerings, one of the reasons being that I've always been passionate about overclocking and Intel chips, especially the ones as of late lack the overclocking potential due to there small dies. Another reason is that Intels platforms and/or chip sets and sockets have a very short life cycle where as AMD has essentially been using the same socket since 2007 with just a few minor updates. Lastly I use my computer mostly for very multithreaded applications and these new FX processors although core per core are not quite as fast as an Intel they are definitely no slouch either. I have no desire to switch platforms until there's a new standard of Sata, DDR, PCI-E or something else that would be beneficial to me... or if my Sabertooth 990fx R2.0 dies which shouldn't be any time soon.  :rolleyes:

[Faa]

Although your point has validity, I would need to shell out at least a couple extra hounded dollars to get a good mother board which isn't ideal for me at the moment. I Should mention a 4770K would cost me $380 where I live in Canada so it's still more money than an FX 9590. A 4670K is still $280 so the way I see it is the FX 9590 is my best bang for the buck when it comes to multithreaded performance. To be completely honest, I'm well aware Intel has a more competitive product. That being said I've always preferred AMD chips to Intels offerings, one of the reasons being that I've always been passionate about overclocking and Intel chips, especially the ones as of late lack the overclocking potential due to there small dies. Another reason is that Intels platforms and/or chip sets and sockets have a very short life cycle where as AMD has essentially been using the same socket since 2007 with just a few minor updates. Lastly I use my computer mostly for very multithreaded applications and these new FX processors although core per core are not quite as fast as an Intel they are definitely no slouch either. I have no desire to switch platforms until there's a new standard of Sata, DDR, PCI-E or something else that would be beneficial to me... or if my Sabertooth 990fx R2.0 dies which shouldn't be any time soon.  :rolleyes:

How can a 9590 (2008 IPC) be the "best bang for the buck"? People claiming they need multithreading performance is just BS. Lots of things you're doing when multitasking you're still relying heavily on the single core performance. People can only do one thing at a time so we are pretty much the bottleneck.

 

 

lol your joking right?

Dude 8 cores vs 6 cores is going to win. Logan says that a 9590 is much faster than a 4930K. [/sarcasm]

[0nRay]

How can a 9590 (2008 IPC) be the "best bang for the buck"? People claiming they need multithreading performance is just BS. Lots of things you're doing when multitasking you're still relying heavily on the single core performance. People can only do one thing at a time so we are pretty much the bottleneck.

 

 

 

Dude 8 cores vs 6 cores is going to win. Logan says that a 9590 is much faster than a 4930K. [/sarcasm]

Today cpus are overkill for 90% of the situations out there. The bottleneck today lies with your graphics card or your hard drive. Me buying a 4770K would be like someone going out and buying the new Lexus LFA or equivalent and only driving around in town or on the freeway but never tracking it. You seldomly if ever need to use the full potential of a car (processor) like that. The reason so many people buy the latest and greatest form Intel every six months if for shear "e peen" and bragging rights. An FX 9590 fits perfectly within my budget and computing needs. I see no reason to buy a 4770K which I will never use the full potential of. On the flip side a 4670K doesn't have enough threads for me to consider even though the "IPC" is much better than an FX, if I had a a 4670K I'd inevitably hit that thread wall and your precocious "IPC" won't mean shit.

[Faa]

Today cpus are overkill for 90% of the situations out there. The bottleneck today lies with your graphics card or your hard drive. Me buying a 4770K would be like someone going out and buying the new Lexus LFA or equivalent and only driving around in town or on the freeway but never tracking it. You seldomly if ever need to use the full potential of a car (processor) like that. The reason so many people buy the latest and greatest form Intel every six months if for shear "e peen" and bragging rights. An FX 9590 fits perfectly within my budget and computing needs. I see no reason to buy a 4770K which I will never use the full potential of. On the flip side a 4670K doesn't have enough threads for me to consider even though the "IPC" is much better than an FX, if I had a a 4670K I'd inevitably hit that thread wall and your precocious "IPC" won't mean shit.

8350's multithreading performance is 10% better than an i5 so it means shit what it offers. Intel is up to 100% faster in games so stop your sales talk

[0nRay]

8350's multithreading performance is 10% better than an i5 so it means shit what it offers. Intel is up to 100% faster in games so stop your sales talk

Really a whole 100% you say? So your saying that your 4770k is going to get up to twice the frame rates that a 9590 would get? I smell a fan boy... why don't you take your Intel your iPhone and your Dyson and go preach your fan boy nonsense to somebody who cares lol. I was asking for some simple information which apparently you haven't bothered doing and as usual somebody like you has to ruin a perfectly good thread. Why don't you get your facts strait so you have some foundation to stand on.

[Faa]

Really a whole 100% you say? So your saying that your 4770k is going to get up to twice the frame rates that a 9590 would get? I smell a fan boy... why don't you take your Intel your iPhone and your Dyson and go preach your fan boy nonsense to somebody who cares lol. I was asking for some simple information which apparently you haven't bothered doing and as usual somebody like you has to ruin a perfectly good thread. Why don't you get your facts strait so you have some foundation to stand on.

Stop comparing IPC from cpu benchmarks with games -> http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html?ak_action=reject_mobile

I can link you more evidence showing a difference of up to 100% in cpu bound games.

A 9590 is a waste of money, you're way better off with a 4670k. If you're buying a 9590 then you're the one being a fanboy

[Priller]

Stop comparing IPC from cpu benchmarks with games -> http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k-4-8ghz-multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html?ak_action=reject_mobile

I can link you more evidence showing a difference of up to 100% in cpu bound games.

A 9590 is a waste of money, you're way better off with a 4670k. If you're buying a 9590 then you're the one being a fanboy

 

Couple of things:

1) It's old. October 23, 2012 

2) There isn't a 4670k or a 4770K in those tests.

 

Optimization, patches, drivers, etc can change alot of things. Especially in a time frame over a year. 

[Faa]

Couple of things:

1) It's old. October 23, 2012 

2) There isn't a 4670k or a 4770K in those tests.

 

Optimization, patches, drivers, etc can change alot of things. Especially in a time frame over a year. 

It's funny to see you having every attempt no valid arguments. Plenty of different sources showing still a difference going up to 100%. You're not going to fix that slow IPC of them with some drivers or patches, it's just not fixable.

And a 4670k performs the same as a 4770k because none of those games take advantage of HT. BF3 is probs the only one taking advantage of 4 cores.

[0nRay]

It's funny to see you having every attempt no valid arguments. Plenty of different sources showing still a difference going up to 100%. You're not going to fix that slow IPC of them with some drivers or patches, it's just not fixable.

And a 4670k performs the same as a 4770k because none of those games take advantage of HT. BF3 is probs the only one taking advantage of 4 cores.

If I haven't already mentioned clearly, I rarely game with my pc. So your single threaded gaming benchmarks are meaningless to me. As I've already stated I'm well aware that Intels offering are more competitive, unfortunately I can't shell out the kind of coin needed for an 8 thread cpu from intel ie a 4770k. The cheapest option available to me with more than four cores is an FX 8350 or 9590 and since the 9590 isn't leaps and bounds more expensive than an 8350 I figure I may as well get the 9590. Pair a 4770K and a motherboard with similar features and expandability options as mine and it would put me near the $600 mark. What you people fail to realize when suggesting these cpus is it requires a platform change as well, not to mention the headache of re configuring drivers, hardware, bios setting etc. The holy "IPC" grail will likely be in Intels hands for the for foreseeable future if not for ever. However with an FX 8350 I'm still looking at up to a 100% improvement in IPC compared to my 955 BE and there's benchmarks supporting my statement as well if you're interested. :rolleyes: 4770Ks and the likes are so over kill for today's situations it's ridiculous. I'm going to go back to your so called "sales person talk" for a moment so bare with me. There's no point having 1000hp if you never need to unleash it which I don't. I'm not denying that it's possible to max a 4770K out today, you certainly can... but those of you who are maxing them out are likely the ones looking to set new benchmarks on 3D mark and what not. In other words e peen, It's near impossible unless you have two PC's beside each other to notice any perceivable performance difference between an FX 8350 and a 4770k system. Can you honestly say that with todays SSDs, graphics cards, DDR3 ram, and any modern CPU "gee I wish my PC wasn't so slow"? I know I sure can't...  I'm simply after a simple pop it in and go upgrade from my 955 BE to make my system faster than it is, not run a space station.

[Faa]

If I haven't already mentioned clearly, I rarely game with my pc. So your single threaded gaming benchmarks are meaningless to me. As I've already stated I'm well aware that Intels offering are more competitive, unfortunately I can't shell out the kind of coin needed for an 8 thread cpu from intel ie a 4770k. The cheapest option available to me with more than four cores is an FX 8350 or 9590 and since the 9590 isn't leaps and bounds more expensive than an 8350 I figure I may as well get the 9590. Pair a 4770K and a motherboard with similar features and expandability options as mine and it would put me near the $600 mark. What you people fail to realize when suggesting these cpus is it requires a platform change as well, not to mention the headache of re configuring drivers, hardware, bios setting etc. The holy "IPC" grail will likely be in Intels hands for the for foreseeable future if not for ever. However with an FX 8350 I'm still looking at up to a 100% improvement in IPC compared to my 955 BE and there's benchmarks supporting my statement as well if you're interested. :rolleyes: 4770Ks and the likes are so over kill for today's situations it's ridiculous. I'm going to go back to your so called "sales person talk" for a moment so bare with me. There's no point having 1000hp if you never need to unleash it which I don't. I'm not denying that it's possible to max a 4770K out today, you certainly can... but those of you who are maxing them out are likely the ones looking to set new benchmarks on 3D mark and what not. In other words e peen, It's near impossible unless you have two PC's beside each other to notice any perceivable performance difference between an FX 8350 and a 4770k system. Can you honestly say that with todays SSDs, graphics cards, DDR3 ram, and any modern CPU "gee I wish my PC wasn't so slow"? I know I sure can't...  I'm simply after a simple pop it in and go upgrade from my 955 BE to make my system faster than it is, not run a space station.

You're still not wanting to understand that you're still ipc reliant when you are multitasking. And there's no 100% IPC gain with 8350's/9590's over phenom, in fact its lower.

I'm not getting you at all; you're pure going for multithread performance, planning to buy a 9590 and downclocking it, then you're making a weird car analogy saying 1000HP cars are useless and you're not even realizing that 8350's multithreaded performance is only 5-10% better at its best. You'll definitely have a much better experience with an i5 for your multithreading purposes, lots of things you are doing is still singlethreaded. Multithreading isnt even about splitting tasks, it's about having for each task a thread that only can be executed on 1 core this should explain why IPC is still an important factor when you're multitasking.

You're going to need atleast a 80$ cooler for this 9590 and a 150$ board for this 9590 or its just a pure downclock festival so how are you even cheaping out? Their sockets arent any more future proof if they keep bringing cpu's out that aren't worth the upgrade.

[0nRay]

You're still not wanting to understand that you're still ipc reliant when you are multitasking. And there's no 100% IPC gain with 8350's/9590's over phenom, in fact its lower.

I'm not getting you at all; you're pure going for multithread performance, planning to buy a 9590 and downclocking it, then you're making a weird car analogy saying 1000HP cars are useless and you're not even realizing that 8350's multithreaded performance is only 5-10% better at its best. You'll definitely have a much better experience with an i5 for your multithreading purposes, lots of things you are doing is still singlethreaded. Multithreading isnt even about splitting tasks, it's about having for each task a thread that only can be executed on 1 core this should explain why IPC is still an important factor when you're multitasking.

You're going to need atleast a 80$ cooler for this 9590 and a 150$ board for this 9590 or its just a pure downclock festival so how are you even cheaping out? Their sockets arent any more future proof if they keep bringing cpu's out that aren't worth the upgrade.

Here is a list of all the cpus know to man and how they compare in single threaded applications. Look for the 970 BE and the FX 8320 both running at there stock speed of 3.5ghz.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

As you can see at the same frequency, the FX is about 11% faster clock for clock and core for core than its predecessor in single threaded applications. So yes the FXs IPC is higher not lower. I should also point out that a 9590 sits at 4.7ghz stock which if you look at those charts you will find that it's about 26% faster clock for clock in single threaded applications than my current 955 OCed to 3.6ghz. Factor in the fact that a 9590 has twice the core count and yes the IPC with an FX is around 100% higher. What more proof do you need? The downclock is temporary in case you didn't realize by the title of the thread. My weird car analogy makes perfect but let me take the analogy aspect out of it... Most people don't need what high end Intels have to offer. if I had an ATX z87 board with a good feature set just kicking around then sure the 4770k would make sense. But like I said the only CPU I'm after is one capable of processing eight threads and the FX is the less expensive of the two when you factor in all the costs.

 

As far as multi threaded performance goes I'd say this is more and a mere 5-10% improvment...

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-02-Cinebench-11.5,3143.html

 

Lets take the best of the best from the four core phenom II line the 980 BE. Now lets compare it to the weakest eight core FX chip the 8320. The 8320 wipes the floor with the 980, not only that but edges the 4570 which is only 200mhz slower than that 4670K you keep telling me would give me a better multithreaded experience. In fact the 8320 is right up there on that list with some of the big players from Intel which are only a generation old. Please don't think I'm bashing Intel because I'm not so don't be offended. We're all aware here Intel has the faster chips but you cant argue that these AMD FX processors aren't as slow as you keep making them out to be.

 

I have a 990FX r2.0 mobo which fully supports the FX 9590 so no I don't need a mother board upgrade. My next step is an NH-D14 which as I'm sure you know beats out all but the really high end liquid coolers which I have no interest in anyways. That cooler will enable me to run the 9590 at stock speed or if I dare higher. Yes I'm spending $80 on a cooler, oh no! Can you seriously say that you don't have an after market cooler on your Intel? As for now the stock cooler will do just fine for running at 4ghz which will be much quicker than my 955 running OCed at 3.6 anyway. I'm not being a fan boy, I bough my 955 for a great price back in 2010 when they were clearing them out. I switched to my sabertooth R2 because my old mobo died from a power surge... What I'm doing is thinking practically and being environmentally conscious. Why would I break the bank and simultaneously throw out my one year old mobo? All I'd accomplish by doing so is adding to the growing amount of e waste just to have a 4770K which I would never use the full potential of anyway. Whats more I can't have any down time which is why a simple processor swap is ideal. I cannot justify buying 4770k, it's just not practical.

[Umeshwarnath]

9590 performs close to Intel's 6-cores, I think it's worth getting over a 4770k

JOKE?

[Faa]

Here is a list of all the cpus know to man and how they compare in single threaded applications. Look for the 970 BE and the FX 8320 both running at there stock speed of 3.5ghz.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

As you can see at the same frequency, the FX is about 11% faster clock for clock and core for core than its predecessor in single threaded applications. So yes the FXs IPC is higher not lower. I should also point out that a 9590 sits at 4.7ghz stock which if you look at those charts you will find that it's about 26% faster clock for clock in single threaded applications than my current 955 OCed to 3.6ghz. Factor in the fact that a 9590 has twice the core count and yes the IPC with an FX is around 100% higher. What more proof do you need? The downclock is temporary in case you didn't realize by the title of the thread. My weird car analogy makes perfect but let me take the analogy aspect out of it... Most people don't need what high end Intels have to offer. if I had an ATX z87 board with a good feature set just kicking around then sure the 4770k would make sense. But like I said the only CPU I'm after is one capable of processing eight threads and the FX is the less expensive of the two when you factor in all the costs.

 

As far as multi threaded performance goes I'd say this is more and a mere 5-10% improvment...

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2013/-02-Cinebench-11.5,3143.html

 

Lets take the best of the best from the four core phenom II line the 980 BE. Now lets compare it to the weakest eight core FX chip the 8320. The 8320 wipes the floor with the 980, not only that but edges the 4570 which is only 200mhz slower than that 4670K you keep telling me would give me a better multithreaded experience. In fact the 8320 is right up there on that list with some of the big players from Intel which are only a generation old. Please don't think I'm bashing Intel because I'm not so don't be offended. We're all aware here Intel has the faster chips but you cant argue that these AMD FX processors aren't as slow as you keep making them out to be.

 

I have a 990FX r2.0 mobo which fully supports the FX 9590 so no I don't need a mother board upgrade. My next step is an NH-D14 which as I'm sure you know beats out all but the really high end liquid coolers which I have no interest in anyways. That cooler will enable me to run the 9590 at stock speed or if I dare higher. Yes I'm spending $80 on a cooler, oh no! Can you seriously say that you don't have an after market cooler on your Intel? As for now the stock cooler will do just fine for running at 4ghz which will be much quicker than my 955 running OCed at 3.6 anyway. I'm not being a fan boy, I bough my 955 for a great price back in 2010 when they were clearing them out. I switched to my sabertooth R2 because my old mobo died from a power surge... What I'm doing is thinking practically and being environmentally conscious. Why would I break the bank and simultaneously throw out my one year old mobo? All I'd accomplish by doing so is adding to the growing amount of e waste just to have a 4770K which I would never use the full potential of anyway. Whats more I can't have any down time which is why a simple processor swap is ideal. I cannot justify buying 4770k, it's just not practical.

Passmark isn't a valid source. Phenoms IPC is better -> http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

IPC and clock are complety two different things. You can only compare IPC when 2 different cpu's are on the same clock.. 

If you're never actually using the full potential of a 4770k then you shouldn't get a 9590/4770k but rather an i5/8320. You have complety no need for a nh-d14 on a stock i5/8320, the Intel stock cooler is suprisingly quiet, it's even quieter than a liquid coolers pump and the cooling performance is perfectly enough for any kind of real world situations but the problem with AMD stock coolers is that theyre very loud. If the IPC gain isn't worth it; get a 8320 but please do not get the 9590..

[0nRay]

Passmark isn't a valid source. Phenoms IPC is better -> http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/344

IPC and clock are complety two different things. You can only compare IPC when 2 different cpu's are on the same clock.. 

If you're never actually using the full potential of a 4770k then you shouldn't get a 9590/4770k but rather an i5/8320. You have complety no need for a nh-d14 on a stock i5/8320, the Intel stock cooler is suprisingly quiet, it's even quieter than a liquid coolers pump and the cooling performance is perfectly enough for any kind of real world situations but the problem with AMD stock coolers is that theyre very loud. If the IPC gain isn't worth it; get a 8320 but please do not get the 9590..

You're actually correct, two different cpus do need to be at the same speed to compare IPC, thank you for enlightening me. However you're also wrong as IPC isn't single thread reliant, you're comparing the cpu as a whole and well... http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345

 

Looking at the 975 which is equivalent to my OCed 955 at 3.6 and the 8320 the IPC is clearly higher with the FX. I will admit you're right, The new FXs are slower clock for clock in single threaded applications when compared to there predecessor. But when you factor in that an 8350 will clock higher than my 955 will I'm still looking at a slight improvement at single threaded applications. The thing is I'm not bothered by my systems single threaded performance. The only time I notice my computer isn't up to the task is when I'm running very multithreaded programs. An FX 8350 or a 9590 will cure that problem for me and might I add cheaper and better than and i5 will anyway. Please stop bringing up the i5, it performs worse than an 8350 in multithreaded apps and is more expensive for me to get my hands on... the end.

 

I Just like the NH-D14, I've wanted one since they were announced. I can't stand the stock coolers from either AMD or Intel, they're garbage. Yes the Intel cooler is quieter than the AMD one but get real! My brother has an H70 and the thing is dead silent compared to any air cooler I've heard.

 

I may heed your advice on not getting a 9590 cos it still is a bit pricey but I can't say I'd look any lower than an 8350 tbh. Now please lets put this to rest... thank you.

[Priller]

You're actually correct, two different cpus do need to be at the same speed to compare IPC, thank you for enlightening me. However you're also wrong as IPC isn't single thread reliant, you're comparing the cpu as a whole and well... http://anandtech.com/bench/CPU/345

 

Looking at the 975 which is equivalent to my OCed 955 at 3.6 and the 8320 the IPC is clearly higher with the FX. I will admit you're right, The new FXs are slower clock for clock in single threaded applications when compared to there predecessor. But when you factor in that an 8350 will clock higher than my 955 will I'm still looking at a slight improvement at single threaded applications. The thing is I'm not bothered by my systems single threaded performance. The only time I notice my computer isn't up to the task is when I'm running very multithreaded programs. An FX 8350 or a 9590 will cure that problem for me and might I add cheaper and better than and i5 will anyway. Please stop bringing up the i5, it performs worse than an 8350 in multithreaded apps and is more expensive for me to get my hands on... the end.

 

I Just like the NH-D14, I've wanted one since they were announced. I can't stand the stock coolers from either AMD or Intel, they're garbage. Yes the Intel cooler is quieter than the AMD one but get real! My brother has an H70 and the thing is dead silent compared to any air cooler I've heard.

 

I may heed your advice on not getting a 9590 cos it still is a bit pricey but I can't say I'd look any lower than an 8350 tbh. Now please lets put this to rest... thank you.

 

The only thing is that the link you proved for scores uses Cinebench 11.5. By using Cinebench R15 with a better instruction set the margin narrows. Others have found that with 11.5 an 8300 has an IPC of 77% of Haswell, with R15 it has an IPC of 88% of Haswell.  

 

Alot of variables go into it, good instructions and optimization help quite a bit. 

[Faa]

However you're also wrong as IPC isn't single thread reliant, 

What do you mean? You're not interested in how many instructions there are going per cycle but rather about the end result what would be performance so thats why people just use IPC as an abbrevation for single core performance as well. Your beginning point; Start off with a single core giving you a score of 5 so if you'd add 4 more cores you'd have 20 if we exclude any factors you get the picture. With a higher clock you are exactly increasing the single core performance and logically the multithreading performance as well. Now you have more factors like HT or with AMD whenever the 2nd core of a module is being used the performance is slightly lower per core because of its shared L2 or L3 cache whatsoever it was so this scaling analogy doesnt really work. More IPC would mean more performance per clock, so lets say haswell gives 15% more per 100MHz and AMD gives 5%.

 

 

The only thing is that the link you proved for scores uses Cinebench 11.5. By using Cinebench R15 with a better instruction set the margin narrows. Others have found that with 11.5 an 8300 has an IPC of 77% of Haswell, with R15 it has an IPC of 88% of Haswell.  

 

Alot of variables go into it, good instructions and optimization help quite a bit. 

Last time you said something like this as well with the same numbers about the 8350 vs 4770K multithreaded performance in cinebench. As I said above, you can't compare IPC like this.