Thoughts on the AMD FX 9590?

[dave909904]

Save your Intel arguments for a different post.

 

 

Edit: Not gonna buy it. Just curious about what everyone thinks.

[dave909904]

So your going to overclock it a large amount and double its core count?

[Enderman]

It's one of the worst CPUs ever made in all computer history, and should never exist.

I do know a few people who bought one just because of how stupid hot it runs and just to play around with, but the rest of the people that own one are either hardcore AMD fanboys or people that think more cores + higher clocks = better performance.

[The Flying Sloth]

I like the chip, but with technology as it stands today it isn't worth buying. The price/performance is OK at best. Objectively, it is a decent performing CPU but if you take into account the thermals and cost, steer clear

[GDRRiley]

it is a 225W heater.

Grab a r9 295x2 if you want over 500W of heat going into your room and to drive up your power bill 

[TheRandomness]

Just now, dave909904 said:

So your going to overclock it a large amount and double its core count?

 

Also, did you even read?

The 9590 is essentially a waste of money as it requires a huge cooler as well as a non-shit motherboard (one with at least 6 to 8 CPU power phases).

[-rascal-]

No. Not worth it.

Just get a FX-8370 / 8350 / 8320, and overclock it yourself.

There is no real reason why the FX-9000 series should even exist.

 

The FX-9590 is essentially a FX-8350 clocked at 4.7 GHz using 1.47V ~ 1.48V from the factory.

[dave909904]

6 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Huh?

 

IPC is much higher in intel, and there 4 cores smoke the amd 8 and 16 core chips.

Except for this chip, AMD didn't essentially just enable hyper threading, they actually had an 8-core APU.

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

So your going to overclock it a large amount and double its core count?

 

Also, did you even read?

I really hope you realize that cores and clock speed are not all that determines performance....

[Atmos]

Two years ago I considered buying one because the level of multitasking and server operations I perform on a daily routine. However, someone queued me into the xeon 1231v3 which is better in every way, at at the time cost about the same, and without requiring a 100$ water or air cooler.

Didn't matter though, because I got a raise a couple weeks before buying and went all in for the 4790k.

 

So, the 9590 is neat. But that's about it. Its too expensive, there are better products at its price range, its too hot, it too power hungry, and it had terrible ipc.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

So your going to overclock it a large amount and double its core count?

 

Also, did you even read?

I hate the sorts of people that don't read the posts

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, dave909904 said:

Except for this chip, AMD didn't essentially just enable hyper threading, they actually had an 8-core APU.

Its not a APU.

 

Also its not a full 8 cores as some units are shared.

 

Its still gets beaten by a intel quad core.

[Godlygamer23]

8 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

So your going to overclock it a large amount and double its core count?

 

Also, did you even read?

Clock speed and core count do not equate to performance, just as RPMs do not equate to horsepower and torque in an engine.

[Guest]

Just now, Atmos said:

Two years ago I considered buying one because the level of multitasking and server operations I perform on a daily routine. However, someone queued me into the xeon 1231v3 which is better in every way, at at the time cost about the same, and without requiring a 100$ water or air cooler.

Didn't matter though, because I got a raise a couple weeks before buying and went all in for the 4790k.

 

So, the 9590 is neat. But that's about it. Its too expensive, there are better products at its price range, its too hot, it too power hungry, and it had terrible ipc.

Same position, I also got the 1231

[Godlygamer23]

2 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

Except for this chip, AMD didn't essentially just enable hyper threading, they actually had an 8-core APU.

What's your point exactly? And it's not an APU. It's a CPU strictly.

 

APU is a term created by AMD where the CPU and GPU are present on the same die, which Intel has already had for years.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Godlygamer23

[007agentHP]

1 minute ago, dave909904 said:

Except for this chip, AMD didn't essentially just enable hyper threading, they actually had an 8-core APU.

"8 Cores"

 

you mean 4 modules where each module could handle 2 threads?

you mean where there are 2 logic cores and 1 floating point core for each module?

how each core was sharing resources with another core making it basically like a 8 thread cpu but no actual core count?

[dave909904]

1 hour ago, Godlygamer23 said:

What's your point exactly?

Most (all) of AMD's chips have half of the number of advertised cores as they have X "cores" per thing that distributes tasks that I can't remember the name of now.

 

Also, I know im not arguing with how silly the TDP is, so don't yell at me about that.

[-rascal-]

6 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

Except for this chip, AMD didn't essentially just enable hyper threading, they actually had an 8-core APU.

 

I am just going to add this here: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9972768/fs/9750350#

 

My system with two R9-Fury in Crossfire with a FX-8350 @ 4.9 GHz >> 3D Mark Fire Strike Score : 13,651

Here is @DXMember with his two R9-Fury in Crossfire with a i7-5820K @ 4.3 GHz >> 3D Mark Fire Strike Score: 23,945

Nearly double my score.

 

3D Mark is a piece of software that make use of ALL the cores available in a system.

Even if I had a 10-core or 12-core FX chip clocked at 4.9 GHz, I probably won't even make it close -- or if I do, just BARELY break even.

[Treedubz]

2 minutes ago, -rascal- said:

 

I am just going to add this here: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9972768/fs/9750350#

 

My system with two R9-Fury in Crossfire with a FX-8350 @ 4.9 GHz >> 3D Mark Fire Strike Score : 13,651

Here is @DXMember with his two R9-Fury in Crossfire with a i7-5820K @ 4.3 GHz >> 3D Mark Fire Strike Score: 23,945

Nearly double my score.

The i7 5820k is more than double the price tho...

[AresKrieger]

It's a bad cpu, and always has been since when it came out it was 800 bucks, and no where near worth it, now it is just a stupidly hot relic from amd's more recent CPU line failure

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, Treedubz said:

The i7 5820k is more than double the price tho...

Yeah and probably 4x the performance , but seriously those CPUs suck, hopefully zen looks nothing like the fx line

[spartaman64]

52 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

-snip-

what? we dont even know what your posts are saying. it is not an apu as it doesnt have an onboard gpu

[DocSwag]

9 minutes ago, dave909904 said:

Most (all) of AMD's chips have half of the number of advertised cores as they have X "cores" per thing that distributes tasks that I can't remember the name of now.

No not really. They only have 4 FPUs in an 8 core CPU but theoretically that FPU can act like two normal FPUs and in an 8 core CPU there are 8 ALUs and in all piledriver or newer CPUs there are 8 decoders. It's not a 100% 8 core but it definitely isn't anything near a 4 core CPU either. It's more like an 8 core that has to share some resources between cores.

[-rascal-]

7 minutes ago, Treedubz said:

The i7 5820k is more than double the price tho...

True, but I was pointing out that CPU frequency and the number of cores means very little if the Instructions Per Cycle (IPC) is weak.

(again not putting cost into consideration)

 

Mind you, even if I run the benchmark again, but move the two R9-Fury into my i5-4690K build, the 3D Mark score would still be significantly higher.

(4690K is closer in price)

 

What blows my mind, if you look at a results, are the 'Physics Test' and 'Combined Test' results -- which both utilizes the CPU

• 30.00 FPS vs 53.41 FPS >> +78%
• 15.27 FPS vs 40.24 FPS >> +163.4%

[SpaceGhostC2C]

This thread seems to be a gigantic clickbait / hateboy-bait, but I'm going to pretend I don't see that and answer seriously:

 

It's simply an overclock-granted FX chip. It's no different in that respect to buying ram rated higher than the standard speed for DDR3 or DDR4. How much is it worth to someone buying an FX CPU? It depends. Some people will see no value in overclocking without the fun of it. Others will enjoy not playing the silicon lottery and getting their target speeds out of the box.

 

The discussion about motherboards, heat, and coolers is moot once you take it as a factory overclocked CPU, as you would need the same motherboard and cooler to overclock an FX-83XX to the same speeds. So, the value question boils down to whether you would pay more, the same, or less to get the factory overclock in your CPU. Judging by the evolution of its price, obviously not many people would pay much for it, but on average people does pay a little extra for that overclock.