FX-9590 $179.99 still no takers, how the mighty have fallen

[TheMissxu]

Thanks for the info. Do you know any sites with more trustworthy gaming benchmarks comparing the FX-9590 to other CPUs, hopefully using a board that can handle the CPU?

 

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

 

179.99 isn't that bad of a deal considering it fairs well against a $300-400 CPU in gaming and productivity.

 

Please ignore the 720p benchmarks and DX9 benchmarks... That only leaves a few DX11 benchmarks and a wide comparison to the 4770k. In those benchmarks, the 9590 does exceptionally well for 179.99.

[ZetZet]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

 

179.99 isn't that bad of a deal considering it fairs well against a $300-400 CPU in gaming and productivity.

 

Please ignore the 720p benchmarks and DX9 benchmarks... That only leaves a few DX11 benchmarks and a wide comparison to the 4770k. In those benchmarks, the 9590 does exceptionally well for 179.99.

no it doesn't it poops itself in skyrim and metro (games which are actually limited by cpu quite a bit) and it has lower fps than 4460/4590, while being more expensive and a space heater.

[Dinkleberg]

Oh come on people who're saying they wouldn't buy it for 40$, it's a damn good CPU for a workstation and if it ever goes down to 40$ it will sell like hot cakes, similarly to how the X5650 is a great buy for like 80 bucks.

no it doesn't it poops itself in skyrim and metro (games which are actually limited by cpu quite a bit) and it has lower fps than 4460/4590, while being more expensive and a space heater.

>Skyrim and Metro

>limited by CPU

ARMA and Total War would like to have a word with you.

[ZetZet]

Oh come on people who're saying they wouldn't buy it for 40$, it's a damn good CPU for a workstation and if it ever goes down to 40$ it will sell like hot cakes, similarly to how the X5650 is a great buy for like 80 bucks.

>Skyrim and Metro

>limited by CPU

ARMA and Total War would like to have a word with you.

yes, arma doesn't run for shit on amd cpu's it's like 30fps and done, can't go over it. 

[PDArm]

 

Oh come on people who're saying they wouldn't buy it for 40$, it's a damn good CPU for a workstation and if it ever goes down to 40$ it will sell like hot cakes, similarly to how the X5650 is a great buy for like 80 bucks.

>Skyrim and Metro
>limited by CPU
ARMA and Total War would like to have a word with you.

Problem is, people quote benchmarks time and time again, yet when you look at benchmarks compared to how it actually equates to fps, in-game a lot of the time it doesn't add up. Mainly because of the way different games utilise different aspects of each cpu with other hardware installed. So benchmarks in a lot of aspects is just a, 'look how far i can piss', kind of thing. Some games will perform better, some worse.

Even Jayztwocentz has been saying after owning the 8350 and the i7-3770k, he saw only a few fps in in-game performance.

I wanted something I could use for both gaming and as a general workstation, rendering, vms.... So even though the 8 cores in the fx9590 are currently useless in terms of gaming, they come in handy as a workstation. While at the same time, the overall performance of the fx9590 gives me decent in-game fps. Aswell as giving stable overclocks.

For those who go on about the heating issues, clearly you have no clue about utilising proper airflow and cooling. My 9590 has never gone over 60c under full load overclocked. 

So yeah, in a yr or two, come skylake in a couple of days and all the rest, the fx series will probably be a relic. Yet for now, it is a perfectly decent option for someone who wants all round performance at a reasonable cost. 

[NeatSquidYT]

 

all round performance at a reasonable cost. 

 

Yeah, no.

[PDArm]

Yeah, no.

Real mature.

[Dinkleberg]

Problem is, people quote benchmarks time and time again, yet when you look at benchmarks compared to how it actually equates to fps, in-game a lot of the time it doesn't add up. Mainly because of the way different games utilise different aspects of each cpu with other hardware installed. So benchmarks in a lot of aspects is just a, 'look how far i can piss', kind of thing. Some games will perform better, some worse.

Even Jayztwocentz has been saying after owning the 8350 and the i7-3770k, he saw only a few fps in in-game performance.

I wanted something I could use for both gaming and as a general workstation, rendering, vms.... So even though the 8 cores in the fx9590 are currently useless in terms of gaming, they come in handy as a workstation. While at the same time, the overall performance of the fx9590 gives me decent in-game fps. Aswell as giving stable overclocks.

For those who go on about the heating issues, clearly you have no clue about utilising proper airflow and cooling. My 9590 has never gone over 60c under full load overclocked. 

So yeah, in a yr or two, come skylake in a couple of days and all the rest, the fx series will probably be a relic. Yet for now, it is a perfectly decent option for someone who wants all round performance at a reasonable cost.

In CPU-intensive games, like ARMA and TW, AMD CPUs do take a beating, although it's not wholly the fault of the processor, the Warscape engine only uses the first core at 100%, meanwhile most current games are GPU-intensive but even in these game, PCs with AMD CPUs tend to have lower minimums and more dips.

[NeatSquidYT]

Real mature.

Immature for pointing out a fallacy?

 

[PDArm]

Immature for pointing out a fallacy?

 

'Yeah, no'. great deconstruction of said fallacy. 

 

In CPU-intensive games, like ARMA and TW, AMD CPUs do take a beating, although it's not wholly the fault of the processor, the Warscape engine only uses the first core at 100%, meanwhile most current games are GPU-intensive but even in these game, PCs with AMD CPUs tend to have lower minimums and more dips.

Oh I don't disagree, as I say, different games utilise cpu's differently as you pointed out. As for lower minimums and dips, again I don't disagree. Though to some lengths it'd also be dependant on your GPU. Though if you compare like for like, say a 8350 and a 4770k both overclocked respectively, although the 4770k may lead in terms of benchmarks, in a lot of games, the 4770k may only give a slight boost in FPS.  You can pick up the 8350 for the half the price. 

No ones ever going to be saying AMD cpus are better. Intel for the moment will always beat AMD and with skylake being released oh so very very soon, unless AMD pulls something magic out of the bag, it's going to stay that way. Though if you want something close to the i7 series for a fraction of the price, the AMD 9590 isn't a bad choice.  

I like intel, i like AMD. I don't have a hardon for either. If it does the business, that's all I care about.

 

 

[Mattrixx]

honestly I wouldnt buy it for $40

I would at that price honestly. Could chuck it in a budget system, where it won't hurt a low-end card too much.

[Sir Asvald]

Even if it given to me for Free I wouldn't take it.