AMD FX 9590.

[harrynowl]

Very true. I hope the Athlon X4 860K I'm getting is worth the $70 or whatever it costs.

I quite like the quad core FM2(+) chips. I think I'd buy them over the G3258 which i believe is around the same price in USD, unless I knew I had solid plans to get an i5 or better later on. They overclock well, FM2(+) has a similar feature set to latest Intel platforms and the decent boards are generally cheaper.

[Prysin]

It's good, but other things do it better for cheaper. It is a worthless piece of tech to be 100% blunt.

 

Then get a Xeon. It's cheaper, it's faster, it uses less power, it runs cooler, etc. etc. etc.

 

A Xeon E3 1231v3 will do it better, because things like that are what they're made for; support ECC RAM, can be put on cheaper motherboards, and still perform worlds better in gaming. The 9XXX AMD processors are a joke for the price.

If you want an 8 module processor from AMD get an 8XXX series and overclock it. The 9XXX doesn't make sense.

 

Bulldozer was originally a server CPU architecture so believe it or not, but FX supports ECC Ram too. You just gotta dig around to find any place actually confirming it.... not sure about the chipsets though.

[Delusional Phil]

thats what i thought people just see 4.7 GHZ and 8 cores and think it must be the best 

It's actually 8 Modules ... It's a different developement path and AMD failed at predicting which way the developement of programs will go ... Also 28nm and lower IPC ( I think ) is the reason the performance is lower ... 

[Prysin]

It's actually 8 Modules ... It's a different developement path and AMD failed at predicting which way the developement of programs will go ... Also 28nm and lower IPC ( I think ) is the reason the performance is lower ... 

the nm of a product has less to do with raw performance and more to do with power consumption.

 

Lower node = less energy spent

 

IPC is how many times per clock an CPU can execute a instruction. FX is really bad here, or rather BULLDOZER AND PILEDRIVER, which is what FX is based on, is really bad here. You can offset IPC, or the lack there of, by increasing the speed of the processor. Steamroller, which is based upon bulldozer and piledriver took a different route. It went for higher IPC but lower clock speed. Excavator is the final iteration of bulldozer, and that is MILES ahead of the others, both in IPC and power efficiency. Unfortunately, AMD decided to ONLY use excavator in their laptop APUs, and not in desktop APUs. So unfortunately, the best AMD have atm is Phenom X4/X6 and Athlon x4 750k/860k. Everything else is too meh in IPC, and clock for clock, worse.

[Dabombinable]

It's actually 8 Modules ... It's a different developement path and AMD failed at predicting which way the developement of programs will go ... Also 28nm and lower IPC ( I think ) is the reason the performance is lower ... 

4 Modules, 8 ALU/integer core

[Delusional Phil]

4 Modules, 8 ALU/integer core

 

 

the nm of a product has less to do with raw performance and more to do with power consumption.

 

Lower node = less energy spent

 

IPC is how many times per clock an CPU can execute a instruction. FX is really bad here, or rather BULLDOZER AND PILEDRIVER, which is what FX is based on, is really bad here. You can offset IPC, or the lack there of, by increasing the speed of the processor. Steamroller, which is based upon bulldozer and piledriver took a different route. It went for higher IPC but lower clock speed. Excavator is the final iteration of bulldozer, and that is MILES ahead of the others, both in IPC and power efficiency. Unfortunately, AMD decided to ONLY use excavator in their laptop APUs, and not in desktop APUs. So unfortunately, the best AMD have atm is Phenom X4/X6 and Athlon x4 750k/860k. Everything else is too meh in IPC, and clock for clock, worse.

Thank you for correcting me . 

 

And even with the X4 860K , AMD is still lagging behind a bit compare to an i3 if I remember correctly ... ( Or it is the G3258 ? )

[Prysin]

Thank you for correcting me . 

 

And even with the X4 860K , AMD is still lagging behind a bit compare to an i3 if I remember correctly ... ( Or it is the G3258 ? )

in pure IPC the 860k is 25% slower then an Haswell i3. However in gaming, they genrally stay within 10FPS of eachother. The 860k being slower.

 

The 860k loses to G3258 in single core, but in situations where a program uses more then two threads, it is a much smoother experience. The G3258 can achieve higher framerates (when OCd, and this only applies to a heavily OCd G3258, stock settings its really bad), but it fluctuates.

In GTA5, the G3258 hits peaks close to an i5, but it lags and stutters a lot due to lacking hyperthreading and or more cores.

 

In general, if looking for a budget system, you should never get a G3258, that CPU is a toy for overclockers to have fun with. Even if looking at a system you are going to upgrade to an i5 later, if you aint upgrading to an i5 within 6-12 months, you are better off buying a Athlon x4 860k, OR a APU such as the A10 7850k simply because prices of parts always drops, so by the time you hit the "designated time for upgrading", things have usually gotten notably cheaper (atleast were i live, prices usually drop like 1-2 USD every 2-3 weeks).

 

An APU can save you like 200 USD in expenses right away, if you are in a tight budget. Not having to buy a GPU right away can sometimes be a boon.

 

My general rule of thumb, following a few reviews lately, is that one shouldnt ever purchase any product below a Athlon X4 860k / A10 7850k or Intel i3 4130. These are my personal minimums. The reason for this is that while Intel leads the way in IPC by a large margin, actual gaming performance in the mid to high (not speaking enthusiast levels here) is generall a tossup. for 60FPS at 1080p, both AMD and intel will do the job just fine, and with the exception of a few specific titles, neither would or should struggle with getting 60FPS +. Most games these days are GPU bottlenecked rather then CPU....

[flibberdipper]

I quite like the quad core FM2(+) chips. I think I'd buy them over the G3258 which i believe is around the same price in USD, unless I knew I had solid plans to get an i5 or better later on. They I overclock well, FM2(+) has a similar feature set to latest Intel platforms and the decent boards are generally cheaper.

I actually considered throwing the 860K and stuff in my main rig since the motherboard is beefcake looking, but I don't have time for drivers, don't have enough data left to reinstall everything, and the 860K is basically the highest end processor for FM2+, which leaves me without a Xeon later on.

[Sintezza]

Bulldozer was originally a server CPU architecture so believe it or not, but FX supports ECC Ram too. You just gotta dig around to find any place actually confirming it.... not sure about the chipsets though.

 

970 and 990FX chipsets both support ECC memory, atleast on Asus boards.

 

@FLUFFYJELLO Virtualization does not realy run better on a Xeon E3.

Also if you want to take the advantage of the Xeon E3's ECC ram support, you will need a very expensive server grade C-series chipset board FYI.

[Dabombinable]

in pure IPC the 860k is 25% slower then an Haswell i3. However in gaming, they genrally stay within 10FPS of eachother. The 860k being slower.

 

The 860k loses to G3258 in single core, but in situations where a program uses more then two threads, it is a much smoother experience. The G3258 can achieve higher framerates (when OCd, and this only applies to a heavily OCd G3258, stock settings its really bad), but it fluctuates.

In GTA5, the G3258 hits peaks close to an i5, but it lags and stutters a lot due to lacking hyperthreading and or more cores.

 

In general, if looking for a budget system, you should never get a G3258, that CPU is a toy for overclockers to have fun with. Even if looking at a system you are going to upgrade to an i5 later, if you aint upgrading to an i5 within 6-12 months, you are better off buying a Athlon x4 860k, OR a APU such as the A10 7850k simply because prices of parts always drops, so by the time you hit the "designated time for upgrading", things have usually gotten notably cheaper (atleast were i live, prices usually drop like 1-2 USD every 2-3 weeks).

 

An APU can save you like 200 USD in expenses right away, if you are in a tight budget. Not having to buy a GPU right away can sometimes be a boon.

 

My general rule of thumb, following a few reviews lately, is that one shouldnt ever purchase any product below a Athlon X4 860k / A10 7850k or Intel i3 4130. These are my personal minimums. The reason for this is that while Intel leads the way in IPC by a large margin, actual gaming performance in the mid to high (not speaking enthusiast levels here) is generall a tossup. for 60FPS at 1080p, both AMD and intel will do the job just fine, and with the exception of a few specific titles, neither would or should struggle with getting 60FPS +. Most games these days are GPU bottlenecked rather then CPU....

That's exactly the way it was with the Phenom II X4 vs the first Gen i3, though they beat the i3 at multi threaded tasks because of the 4 true cores in stead of 2 cores 2 hyperthreads, and lost out to the i3 in single threaded performance (clock for clock however the Phenom X4 wasn't too far behind).

[-rascal-]

ahah i was joking what scenarios do you think its good in

I agree the FX-9590 is a complete waste of money, and the more logical choice would be the FX-8350 / 8320.

Use case scenarios (this is coming from a Electrical Engineer...with a FX-8350).

- MATLAB

-Chip / microprocessor design (I.e. with VHDL and programs that uses multi-threaded)

- File compression

- Working with large high-resolution photos and videos (my family travels a lot)

[MarvinKMooney]

By all means its not a "bad" cpu but it is amds TOP cpu granted a good 8350 will easly beat it.

[Zoomv]

By all means its not a "bad" cpu but it is amds TOP cpu granted a good 8350 will easly beat it.

This is amd's flagship cpu back in 2012? so yeah at that time it was considered a good cpu... now it's imo a wast of money the i5 4690k wrecks the 9590... but i can understand that it's cool to have a pc with 8 cores running at 5.0 or more...

[FlanK3r]

FX-9590 is good for hard multithread (render, video encoding x264, 4K, multitakjsin combination of several videos encoding in same time). Second reason for 9590 is people, who want best AMD CPU, but they do not understand overclocking much.

And last one, for enthusiast for home OC, you cna reach 5500+ MHz for some test, so it is fun But of course you need some OC skill and good PSU, motherboard at least.

[Sintezza]

FX-9590 is good for hard multithread (render, video encoding x264, 4K, multitakjsin combination of several videos encoding in same time). Second reason for 9590 is people, who want best AMD CPU, but they do not understand overclocking much.

And last one, for enthusiast for home OC, you cna reach 5500+ MHz for some test, so it is fun But of course you need some OC skill and good PSU, motherboard at least.

 

Yes and virtualization. .

The only reason for me to upgrade from my FX8350 to intel would be X99.

Because for my kind of workloads, intels MS platform, would not be an significant upgrade.

[tomas710]

No it isn't. You're paying just under £90 for an overclock -- the 8320 costs £108.

It's like when Intel released the devil's canyon if they had charged a huge premium. Basically a way for AMD to throw something in the market to hide the obvious fact they havent released a new arquitecture in 5 years...

[LiamApex]

It's like when Intel released the devil's canyon if they had charged a huge premium. Basically a way for AMD to throw something in the market to hide the obvious fact they havent released a new arquitecture in 5 years...

it didnt ide it thow it made it more obvious 

[tomas710]

it didnt ide it thow it made it more obvious 

I got a 4790K and i love it, all i mean is, it wasnt 100 bucks more than a 4770K, the naming scheme wasn't confusing in order to make people think it was a new chip, it was a refresh, and the PC community as far as i've seen likes the concept and the fact that they made a better chip by simply correcting their mistakes. With AMD, when the 9590 was released it was costing 800 bucks at many places, for an overclocked 200 bucks chip, it was an exercice of stupidity by AMD and they better pull their shit together with Zen, I'm tired of the Intel monopoly...

[othertomperson]

It's like when Intel released the devil's canyon if they had charged a huge premium. Basically a way for AMD to throw something in the market to hide the obvious fact they havent released a new arquitecture in 5 years...

 

Actually, doesn't the first number in the FX range normally refer to the number of cores? So the 4000s have 4 cores, 6000 have six and the various versions of the 8320 all have 8... apart from the 9590 which most definitely does not have 9 cores.

[Dabombinable]

Actually, doesn't the first number in the FX range normally refer to the number of cores? So the 4000s have 4 cores, 6000 have six and the various versions of the 8320 all have 8... apart from the 9590 which most definitely does not have 9 cores.

It refers to the integer cores - don't forget what CMT is.

[othertomperson]

It refers to the integer cores - don't forget what CMT is.

 

It's irrelevant to this discussion whether the cores have their own cache or not -- the point is the naming convention is implying that this CPU has nine cores, when it clearly doesn't.

[tomas710]

Actually, doesn't the first number in the FX range normally refer to the number of cores? So the 4000s have 4 cores, 6000 have six and the various versions of the 8320 all have 8... apart from the 9590 which most definitely does not have 9 cores.

Again, another tell of how pointless the 9000 series was, even when they did change the arquitecture they went from 8150 to 8350, then they did nothing, they factory overclocked some cherry picked 8350s and thats the 9590. I wouldn't go as far as say the tried to imply it had 9 cores, but i think it's reasonable to say they tried to market it as something new when it was the exact same chip as the 8350. What i hate about this particular CPU is that AMD pretended they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, finally releasing an enthutiast class chip, and the pricing matched the publicity hype, but it was nothing, just a very highly overclocked (If i may say, maybe too high, if you are gonna release a chip that requiers high end cooling make it worth it) 8350 that many people technically already have, since the 8350 was a good overclocker anyway. 

[othertomperson]

Again, another tell of how pointless the 9000 series was, even when they did change the arquitecture they went from 8150 to 8350, then they did nothing, they factory overclocked some cherry picked 8350s and thats the 9590. I wouldn't go as far as say the tried to imply it had 9 cores, but i think it's reasonable to say they tried to market it as something new when it was the exact same chip as the 8350. What i hate about this particular CPU is that AMD pretended they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, finally releasing an enthutiast class chip, and the pricing matched the publicity hype, but it was nothing, just a very highly overclocked (If i may say, maybe too high, if you are gonna release a chip that requiers high end cooling make it worth it) 8350 that many people technically already have, since the 8350 was a good overclocker anyway. 

 

I'm not saying they're claiming it has 9 cores, but I am saying that it's confusing because that's what the first digit normally means.

[TheMissxu]

I would settle for Skylake (new architecture, 14nm...) Then wait for the Intel 10nm/Zen Gen 2 showdown for your next upgrade.

 

Waiting for Zen is to risky ATM. They flunked Bulldozer, which was their first generation "module" CPUs. Thus they have a small history with underdelivering new products. If it turns out to be decent or a powerhouse, you'll already have had Skylake for at least half a year, so it won't be a big deal. Additionally, new buyers will fund AMD's Zen Gen 2 (Your potential upgrade).