fx-9590 benchmarks surface

limitedaccess said:
That has been offered for free on Skyrim's DLC page since the game came out.

Also third party texture packs by now should have surpassed it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think the official high-res textures were a little lack-luster or hit and miss when they were released. User-made ones will look a lot better, but they also tend to be enormous textures, so it can impact performance quite a bit.
 
The reasons to get that board are IOMMU and ECC support. It does not have the best VRM setup and I believe it's been known to throttle with OC'd bulldozers.

So it's a nice board for those features but it's not one I'd really recommend for overclocking.
 
-Dragon- said:
This whole FX-9xxx ploy is so retarded that for the same money you could probably build two whole FX-8350 systems and, assuming your workload could run across multiple machines, get a setup that was almost 2x faster than the single FX-9xxx system for the same price
Click to expand...
Well you are missing the point that these chips are more or less parts which have been good and people like overclockers expect to push them even further.

.
I don't care if people buy AMD but FFS buy a FX-8350, I find it horrifying that people here are actually falling for this 5GHz crap (esp since that's not even the normally advertised base speed but a turbo speed!)
Click to expand...

It is a selling trick just like $99.99 is not one hundred dollars.

I said it before these chips are not for everyone.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Well you are missing the point that these chips are more or less parts which have been good and people like overclockers expect to push them even further.

.

It is a selling trick just like $99.99 is not one hundred dollars.

I said it before these chips are not for everyone.
Click to expand...

I think for $400, they could sell a ton of these to die hard AMD fans, especially ones that are on older AM3+ cpus but have decent 990FX boards..I have friend locally that went through a 4 chip lottery of 8350's to try to find a 5Ghz stable 24/7, and NONE of them could do higher then 4.8-4.9Ghz, with Vcore of 1.55V..

If AMD were to offer these as cherry picked, 5Ghz @ under 1.5V load cpu's, then people would buy them, and they would make a higher margin for the extra money..
 
Which rev. of the Gigabyte motherboard, 1.x or 3.x? I see your point but I would have definitely used the top of the line UD7 for a review with that expensive of a chip.
Click to expand...

That's fine and I get that but people stated that it isn't listed or supported when they clearly state that it is.

Then people stated about the quality of the review but the 3960x at least in the UK is same price so they compared the equivalent priced chips. I only linked the bit-tec one for gaming as others also asked on the FB post by kitguru and that was the quickest link I could find with some overview.

I also don't think it washes that it isn't the top Mobo cause we have seen time and again on haswell already that the Mobo in the mid tier and even M-ITX/M-ATX have had the same ability as their bigger brothers CPU wise and it is just GPU slots and other peripherals that make the difference.

Edit: Also if you are saying the premium board makes the difference for the AMD and as stated it really doesn't for i5/i7 chips then the cost increases further for the AMD to try and play catch-up in the benchmarks so AMD are still no better of really.
 
Face it, AMD using the same architecture as Bulldozer by increasing the clock speeds will never beat Intel's high end offerings, and what is worse this CPU is close to a grand and can't even keep up with a $300 CPU is both sad and a joke. Better luck next time AMD.
 
John Vuong said:
Face it, AMD using the same architecture as Bulldozer by increasing the clock speeds will never beat Intel's high end offerings, and what is worse this CPU is close to a grand and can't even keep up with a $300 CPU is both sad and a joke. Better luck next time AMD.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that you don't know what you are talking about. It is very nice of you to miss the point completely.

You do realize that with the coming of consoles this year coding for more cores will finally get some extra attention this would mean that with every step in the Bulldozer architecture AMD will gain a lot more.

But if you want to hold onto old benchmarks and just state the obvious like so many of you guys do in the AMD forum section now is the time, next year this time around it might not be that big of a leap anymore.
 
I'm sure that you don't know what you are talking about. It is very nice of you to miss the point completely.

You do realize that with the coming of consoles this year coding for more cores will finally get some extra attention this would mean that with every step in the Bulldozer architecture AMD will gain a lot more.

But if you want to hold onto old benchmarks and just state the obvious like so many of you guys do in the AMD forum section now is the time, next year this time around it might not be that big of a leap anymore.
Click to expand...

That is all well and good to suggest that Bulldozer architecture will gain due to multi core coding but looking at real world applications already (albeit CAD & Video editing) and you can see what Intel is capable of when multi cores are utilised. AMD still have a way to go.

We are also comparing current performance at this price point at this time so suggestion how it may be a year down the line is rather redundant at the moment. All the chips may be sold, the price could change etc.

Why are people assuming Intel aren't working on anything that would maintain their advantage over AMD either.

You also have to take into consideration that the review showed an i7 3960x clocked at 4.4GHz, well that clock generally is pretty tame since most 3960x can be clocked to 4.7GHz and some samples pushing past the 5.0GHz as well.
 
limitedaccess said:
That has been offered for free on Skyrim's DLC page since the game came out.

Also third party texture packs by now should have surpassed it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but not everyone was aware of this, like me for instance. :D I went ahead and just installed it since I do not want to mess around with other texture packs and just want to play the game.

So far, so good with my FX 8350. Now, just bring on Steamroller! (The 9590 is too far out of my price range and the 9370 is not needed for me.)
 
Overpriced, terrible power and heat performance parameters and mediocre performance. Good luck.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
You do realize that with the coming of consoles this year coding for more cores will finally get some extra attention this would mean that with every step in the Bulldozer architecture AMD will gain a lot more.
Click to expand...

do not forget that the actual consoles are multi-threaded processors, the xbox 360 Xeon its 3 core with a "HT" like capable of 2 threads by core for a total of 6 threads, the cell chip from ps3 its 8 threads capable but have one disabled, so a total of 7 threads..

so stop the dream of AMD actual architecture will be competitive in the next year. the actual chip its not more than a FX8350 OC'd to 5GHZ. they need a new architecture not rise the prices in their products to think they will compete with actual intel 4 cores chip, with the FX8350 at a pretty low price they was competing with intel(in the gaming market) offering a good performance ingames.

the people should start to forget that idea of 8 cores in consoles will give to AMD an advantage with their actual chips over intel..
 
Araxie said:
the people should start to forget that idea of 8 cores in consoles will give to AMD an advantage with their actual chips over intel..
Click to expand...

Well the xbox360 cpu had a dedicated scheduler.
No one says anything about advantage I'm saying it will narrow the gap.

Intel prolly have better power usage. You know the difference in budget right and the difference in market share. AMD does well considering these things.
 
The gigabyte 990fxa ud5 will throttle if apm is on with things like Intel burn in tester. folding@home it does not. turn off apm and manually clock it (you wont have turbo boost) to what you want. The cpu is what it is. Its a factory overclocked cooler running and wattage than mine. My cpu will not hit 5ghz. Stock to stock compared to Intel this cpu is ok. It needs to overclock to 5.8+ to give the overclocked Intels a run. If prices come to 350 or so ill grab one.
 
Hardware Canucks reviews the FX-9590

Pretty unbiased review, I'm actually surprised the reviewer didn't put down the chip more. Canadians are just so friendly.

Still, very rarely does it surpass the Sandy Bridge-E, and quite a few times is still being passed by the 3770k and 4770k...

*shrug*, I guess AMD is hoping to sell a few of these... and that's it
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Yeah and what were you thinking exactly? AMD would ship billions of CPU that were rated 220Watt?
Click to expand...

Dude, you need to bring down the hostility somewhat. Just because many of us aren't impressed with the chips doesn't mean your sarcasm is necessary.

BTW, these are available at Newegg now, and can only be purchased in a combo.

FX-9590
FX-9370
 
Those prices are absolutely insane. I was holding out that this chip would not only be a good performer, but do what AMD used to do best - provide great performance at well below Intel prices. If you're going to sell it at $900, then they've priced themselves right out of competition, as Intel is going to have too many competitors that are too close in price.

Those who buy a 3960X and overclock it will have significant performance above this processor, for only a few dollars more. An OCed 3930K will likely also come in at better performance and actually turn out cheaper! Even dropping down to the i7-4770 OCed, I'm guessing that the performance will be much closer to the AMD chip and at a fraction of the price! Hell, I'm curious if a "normal" OCed AMD 8350 BE could come reasonably close to the performance if given proper cooling; and again, at a MUCH lower price.

If they were selling this chip for ~$300, I'd say they'd have a great competitor, putting them in a place where enthusiasts would consider purchase. However, if someone is willing to spend $900+ on a chip, they are going to want the best of the best for that price, and this just doesn't appear to compete. AMD's strength used to be providing 15% less performance than the top end Intel offering, for hundreds and hundreds of dollars less. If they want to compete at the ultra high $ arena, they need to at least compete if not outright best others on performance; AMD hasn't been able to do that, so usually they compete on price/performance ratio. I'm not sure the point of pricing this chip as such.
 
Citizen86 said:
Dude, you need to bring down the hostility somewhat. Just because many of us aren't impressed with the chips doesn't mean your sarcasm is necessary.
Click to expand...

Wait you are not impressed? It is a Piledriver cpu at 4.7 ghz and turbo for 5GHZ. That is all there is, there is no impressed segment or anything else special about it.

If that does not appeal to you or many of the people jumping on the AMD forum to state it takes to much power or it loses in useless benchmark X or Y or it does not run starcraft fast enough.

Guess what nothing new there. It is the same chip as the FX-8350.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Wait you are not impressed? It is a Piledriver cpu at 4.7 ghz and turbo for 5GHZ. That is all there is, there is no impressed segment or anything else special about it.

If that does not appeal to you or many of the people jumping on the AMD forum to state it takes to much power or it loses in useless benchmark X or Y or it does not run starcraft fast enough.

Guess what nothing new there. It is the same chip as the FX-8350.
Click to expand...

Alright.... I agree there are a lot of people jumping in just to say crap, don't get me wrong. But you really don't need to get on every person that does it. At least I was posting a review in my comment.

Anyways... since this is a forum, let's get back to the actual discussion?
 
Oh hey, AMD's new EXTREME TOP OF THE LINE processor! Wonder how well it'll perf--

*benchmarks comparable to 4770K*

...oh. Well, okay, so with AMD's architecture maybe it'll use le--

*220W TDP*

Good lord. Alright, so it'll be in the neighbourhood of $200 or so, becau--

*$900*

Fuck this.
 
Xaeos said:
Those prices are absolutely insane. I was holding out that this chip would not only be a good performer, but do what AMD used to do best - provide great performance at well below Intel prices. If you're going to sell it at $900, then they've priced themselves right out of competition, as Intel is going to have too many competitors that are too close in price.

Those who buy a 3960X and overclock it will have significant performance above this processor, for only a few dollars more. An OCed 3930K will likely also come in at better performance and actually turn out cheaper! Even dropping down to the i7-4770 OCed, I'm guessing that the performance will be much closer to the AMD chip and at a fraction of the price! Hell, I'm curious if a "normal" OCed AMD 8350 BE could come reasonably close to the performance if given proper cooling; and again, at a MUCH lower price.

If they were selling this chip for ~$300, I'd say they'd have a great competitor, putting them in a place where enthusiasts would consider purchase. However, if someone is willing to spend $900+ on a chip, they are going to want the best of the best for that price, and this just doesn't appear to compete. AMD's strength used to be providing 15% less performance than the top end Intel offering, for hundreds and hundreds of dollars less. If they want to compete at the ultra high $ arena, they need to at least compete if not outright best others on performance; AMD hasn't been able to do that, so usually they compete on price/performance ratio. I'm not sure the point of pricing this chip as such.
Click to expand...

Just buy an FX-8320 for $149 and overclock it. Mine ran 4.9ghz, on a budget fx 990 board. I really doubt your going to miss the extra 100mhz, though my 8320 used a lot more then 220watts to do so...
 
AntiSocialMunky said:
HW Canucks has a review up with low res gaming:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the review. That was pretty good. If AMD had released this chip at a $$399-$499 price tag I think it would be impressive with its price/performance (as has always been the case) but at its current price along with the price of high end components needed it is just not worth it. I am waiting to see what the Kavari(sp?) APU chips do before I upgrade my 965BE rig...
 
-Dragon- said:
In the gaming benchmarks they're comparing intel chips with 7870's to the 9590 with a 7990... it's not exactly a good review.
Click to expand...

Your not kidding! And they had their Richland 6800K at load only up to 33C...cripes I can't get mine to even Idle that low with with either TT water cooling or a CM Hyper212+! Of course I see they are using one hell of a cooler... :(
 
Yeah I'm not really sure why they used a 7990 there as opposed to the others running the other card. I was very interested in all the CPU only benchmarks though
 
Which benchmarks exactly are you seeing the FX-9590 doing better on that site than on others? Everything looks pretty consistent with the other reviews.
 
Red Machine D said:
Oh hey, AMD's new EXTREME TOP OF THE LINE processor! Wonder how well it'll perf--

*benchmarks comparable to 4770K*

...oh. Well, okay, so with AMD's architecture maybe it'll use le--

*220W TDP*

Good lord. Alright, so it'll be in the neighbourhood of $200 or so, becau--

*$900*

Fuck this.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. And yet there will be a few blind fanboys who will overlook these facts and buy it.
 
AMD is the only reason that intel processors perform as well as they do, you guys trashing AMD need to get some perspective on shit.

AMD did a shit ton for computer performance, even if it was intel winning the benchmark race.

taking a shit on them is pretty fucking stupid.
 
stealthy123 said:
AMD is the only reason that intel processors perform as well as they do, you guys trashing AMD need to get some perspective on shit.

AMD did a shit ton for computer performance, even if it was intel winning the benchmark race.

taking a shit on them is pretty fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with a few things you just said, I don't understand the anger.... AMD is not coming on these forums and crying itself to sleep tonight because of the mean things these guys are saying.... Nor is it getting a nicely priced CPU out with these 9 series chips. We will see what Steamroller brings
 
stealthy123 said:
AMD is the only reason that intel processors perform as well as they do, you guys trashing AMD need to get some perspective on shit.

AMD did a shit ton for computer performance, even if it was intel winning the benchmark race.

taking a shit on them is pretty fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

perfect post
I think I just found my new sig lol
 
price price price. I'd rather have a 3930k, a board, and a fancy cooler than this, oh wait I do
 
Citizen86 said:
Although I agree with a few things you just said, I don't understand the anger.... AMD is not coming on these forums and crying itself to sleep tonight because of the mean things these guys are saying.... Nor is it getting a nicely priced CPU out with these 9 series chips. We will see what Steamroller brings
Click to expand...

I am not remotely angry, it's just stupid how much people speak ill of amd, they are the underdog that beat Goliath. They woke the giant and made modern processing power possible.

They deserve credit, not disdain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top