Hardwarecanucks tested one:
Temperature is another thing AMD cant get right....
Absolutely zero OC headroom as well:
Temperature is another thing AMD cant get right....
Absolutely zero OC headroom as well:
The FX-9590 is a hot running processor and we don’t mean hot in any conventional meaning of the word either. This thing is like having a miniature nuclear reactor strapped to your motherboard; it will thoroughly overwhelm mid-tier heatsinks and AIO water coolers alike. Since it doesn’t come with an included heatsink we’re told that retailers will endeavor to bundle the FX-9590 with high end Corsair, Cooler Master or NZXT water cooling units in an effort to ensure customers won’t damage their new processors with sub-par cooling solutions.
With the potential for astronomical temperatures, one would hope for an adequate way to measure temperatures. That just didn’t happen. RealTemp and CoreTemp routinely showed overly low readings and even AMD’s vaunted Overdrive utility was completely out to lunch. It claimed the chip idled at 19°C (ambient temperature was 23°) while load temperatures supposedly hit 46.7°C under load even though our Noctua heatsink was hot to the touch.
Only ASUS’ AI Suite II (which takes its temperature readings directly from the BIOS) was somewhat accurate with its reading of 65°C under load but we had reasons to doubt this too since, as you see in the screenshot above, our FX-9590 began throttling some cores down to the 4.515GHz mark after 20 minutes or so of continual full-load testing. Another possibility is that AMD has set Turbo Core 3.0 to begin throttling downwards when core temperature hits that 65°C mark in an effort to cap thermals and power consumption.
The lack of accurate temperature logging software poses a large problem for anyone with one of these 220W TDP chips: they have no way of knowing how hot (or cool) their processor is running. Not only will this play havoc when trying to dial in overclocks but it makes trouble-shooting stock issues all that much harder.
No, just no....
At default speeds, the FX9590 is faster than Core i7 4770K in most of the applications and it can match or be faster than 6-core Core i7 3930K/3960X.
pears taste nothing like your oranges
AMD (NYSE: AMD) today unveiled its most powerful member of the legendary AMD FX family of CPUs, the worlds first commercially available 5 GHz CPU processor, the AMD FX-9590. These 8-core CPUs deliver new levels of gaming and multimedia performance for desktop enthusiasts. AMD FX-9000 Series CPUs will be available initially in PCs through system integrators.
for a gamer the core i5 4770K would be far better, for the rest a 3930K would normally be better... if you want the best you need to buy the 3970x, if you want the latest and greatest you should buy Haswell, if you want the most efficient you should buy Haswell
if you want "8 cores" and some good value from AMD the 8320/8350 is far better,
this CPU is only great if you don't have access to information and want 5ghz or if you are an AMD fan and don't care about money I guess...
AMD:
Okay let's see:
i7 4770k vs FX 9590 Modern Game Titles: Courtesy Hardware Canucks.
For older games the i5 is the better choice because older games ignore about a half of a 8-core cpu, but for future games the 8350 has been selected as best gaming cpu by the people who is making the games. The 9590 is faster than the 8350.
Enthusiasts would go for the 9590 whereas the rest would be happy with the 8350.
We can find benchmarks telling a different history.
where the old 8350 or even a cheap 4350 competes with the 4770k... A 2% difference is nothing.
It depends on settings and other hardware details. The point is that, unlike Haswell, which can give performance regressions, the 9590 is faster than the 8350 in gaming
or otherwise
that is a dangerous line there galego, I am not even sure that is true...any regressions would probably be due to turbo acting up...
Hardware Canucks said:
Only ASUS’ AI Suite II (which takes its temperature readings directly from the BIOS) was somewhat accurate with its reading of 65°C under load but we had reasons to doubt this too since, as you see in the screenshot above, our FX-9590 began throttling some cores down to the 4.515GHz mark after 20 minutes or so of continual full-load testing. Another possibility is that AMD has set Turbo Core 3.0 to begin throttling downwards when core temperature hits that 65°C mark in an effort to cap thermals and power consumption.
Hardware Canucks said:With Turbo Core disabled and a bit more voltage, we were able to achieve a constant frequency of 5.016GHz on ALL cores, regardless of the situation. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get this 300MHz to a point that we would consider 24/7 stable due to the elevated temperatures it caused but it was more than capable of running a few benchmarks.
So the FX9590 runs at between 4.7GHZ to 5GHZ and still appears reasonably close(upto 15% behind) to a Core i7 4770K in many of the games tested?
So if you could get a cheap FX8320 and overclock it to around 4.5GHZ,that would essentially have most of the performance of the Core i7 4770K and FX9590 for a fraction of the price???
for future games the 8350 has been selected as best gaming cpu by the people who is making the games.
The idea that only "enthusiast" will buy is, to me questionable.
Without being disrespectful, most of these chips will be sold to manufacturers who will build "custom" rigs for people who have the $$ or lack the know how to build a rig. Have any system builders advertised these yet? I'd LOVE to see the price markup!
Perhaps you forgot your statement:
Most doesnt mean a minority.
Im sure you will dismiss all of them
At default speeds, the FX9590 is faster than Core i7 4770K in most of the applications and it can match or be faster than 6-core Core i7 3930K/3960X.
And you know for every cherry picked benchmark you find in some application that scales well. I can find many more that doesnt.
OK, I have posted 9-10 benchmarks where FX9590 is faster than Core i7 4770K. Show us more than 9-10 benchmarks that 4770K is faster. :whiste:
ps: If 9-10 benchmarks are cherry picked, then im expecting you to show us at least 20 benchmarks where the 4770K is faster.
You should know you can only post 10 images.
But you can find them all here for example: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
The Failure Xtreme 9590 is simply the worst CPU release I have ever seen.
Easily beaten by a CPU that cost a fraction, uses a fraction of the power, performs better and dont need exotic expensive cooling. :awe:
And isnt it you who likes overclocking? It got no overclocking headroom at all.
Do you think AMD will start using the FX 9590 to show off new GPUs? Or do you think they stick with Intel CPUs like they use today to not give their own GPU line a disadvantage with the FX series, when an advantage with the Core series exist?
Even AMD picks Intel....
There are more than just one variety of oranges as well.
The way you describe things you must not see any reason for the variety in cigars or top-shelf alcohol or various luxury brand vehicles.
Its all about getting from point A to point B for as little money as possible, right? Can't possibly be any good reason to enjoy the ride in the meantime.
As the price alone would seemingly make self-evident, the FX-9590 is clearly not priced for consideration by your typical mainstream "price/performance" budget conscious individual.
And if this were 2006 and we were talking about the then just released QX-6700 we'd be having the exact same discussion.
But the product is clearly intended to appeal to an extremely small volume of end-users who (1) have the right kind of disposable income, (2) are interested in spending it on an AMD FX-9590, and (3) probably buy equally expensive things for themselves just because they can.
AMD isn't trying to sell millions of these, they priced it exactly where they want to be in the supply/demand curve.
If there is no demand for the product then you can bet AMD would move the price point downwards. If there is demand for the product then that alone justifies AMD creating the product.
But all the negativity is simply weird. I can understand people liking a product and becoming a fan of it, that psychology is reasonable to me, but I can't grasp the psychology of why someone would waste their time despising a product (unless it is particularly destructive of people, such as drugs, cigarettes or misused firearms).
Unless "bash on AMD products" is in your top-10 list of "fun things I want to do with my day today" then why on earth would you spend time bashing on an AMD CPU at the expense of using that time to do any one of those other ten things you have on your top-10 fun things to do list?
You should know you can only post 10 images.
But you can find them all here for example: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
And isnt it you who likes overclocking? It got no overclocking headroom at all.
Would I buy an FX9590 ?? not in a million years, Im not their target audience.
Do you think AMD will start using the FX 9590 to show off new GPUs?
AMD Eyefinity Technology data was collected on the second set of systems listed below.
But then you would also overclock the i5-4670K and i7-4770K. 8320 @ 4.5ghz still cannot beat i7 2500k / i7 2600K overclocked in many titles. Lots of benchmarks out there. Even if it could match those CPUs, Intel's platform has superior SATA 3 and USB 3.0 performance, and way lower power consumption.
Look at games that are CPU limited and are not heavily multithreaded - i7-4770K is leading by more than 40%.
Your best case scenario with FX8000 series is matching or slightly beating an i7 but in the worst case you get 40-50% lower FPS, 50-100% lower minimum framerates, plus worse SATA3, USB 3.0 performance and higher power consumption. In all of those cases an i5-4670K is superior for gaming than any AMD CPU out now and easily in the foreseeable future.