KitGuru tested the FX9590... it's pretty bad.

[ShintaiDK]

You can post 20 images on two different posts, 10 each :whiste:

And spam more? Nomatter if 200 was posted you would still reject it.

AMD already using the FX CPUs to showcase its new GPUs.

Nope.

The AMD Radeon HD 7990 graphics card will be available worldwide in two weeks. MSRP is $999 US.
*In tests by AMD as of 28 February, 2013, the AMD Radeon™ HD 7990 showed higher average performance than the NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 690 in the 3DMark® Fire Strike Extreme (FS6407 vs. FS5316) and Crysis 3 (1080p & 1600p at all quality presets). System configuration: Intel® Core™ i7-3960X (3.30 GHz), MSI X79A-GD65, 16GB DDR3-1600 and Windows 8 x64. AMD Radeon™ HD 7990 evaluated with AMD Catalyst™ 13.2 Beta 6. NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 690 evaluated with NVIDIA® ForceWare™ 310.90 WHQL. GRDT-32

FX CPUs are too slow. 5Ghz or not. Perhaps also why this might be AMDs last "performance" CPU release.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Anyone see any reviews of the 9370?

 

[SlowSpyder]

The price is getting better...

 

[AtenRa]

And spam more? Nomatter if 200 was posted you would still reject it..

I know it hurts you that an AMD CPU is faster than the fastest Intel Haswell CPU but thats life, get used to it :whiste:

 

[Chiropteran]

The price is getting better...

$416

Getting close to where I am tempted to pick one up just for historical reasons.

 

[bgt]

I know it hurts you that an AMD CPU is faster than the fastest Intel Haswell CPU but thats life, get used to it :whiste:

You're so right:thumbsup:, and the price is becoming very tempting too.
For 300 euro I would buy 1:biggrin: just having a 5Ghz validated CPU....nice!

 

[SlowSpyder]

$416

Getting close to where I am tempted to pick one up just for historical reasons.

Yea, it's kind of tempting. But, I like to keep my machines for a few years, that's really my big hang up about going AMD this round. I just don't know if I'd get a SR core CPU to replace whatever I used if I bought today which makes AM3+ possibly a dead end. That and being stuck with PCIE 2.0 might be a problem two or three years down the road.

 

[USER8000]

Yea, it's kind of tempting. But, I like to keep my machines for a few years, that's really my big hang up about going AMD this round. I just don't know if I'd get a SR core CPU to replace whatever I used if I bought today which makes AM3+ possibly a dead end. That and being stuck with PCIE 2.0 might be a problem two or three years down the road.

TBH,unless you really need to upgrade your CPU now,its best to see what is coming next year from Intel and AMD anyway.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

How is $416 tempting when you can combo a $190 board with an i5-4670k with a $80 discount?

Or $100 off the same boards with an i7-4770k?

Realistically you're looking at $160 i5's and $240 i7's on newegg, so I have to ask how is $400 remotely temping when a decent i5 will square off with the 9590 in just about everything, has fair and away better perf/w at stock and overclocked, comes with a better chipset, and completely wreaks the 9590 in cpu limited games?

 

[SlowSpyder]

TBH,unless you really need to upgrade your CPU now,its best to see what is coming next year from Intel and AMD anyway.

That's the sucky part! I don't have to upgrade, but the upgrade-itch is becoming unbearable. Five years with one motherboard is just too long, I need to build myself a system to cure this itch! :biggrin:

 

[zebrax2]

I agree with IDC with this one. Bashing AMD for releasing this product doesn't really make sense.

This is not a product meant for the general masses nor will it be produced at large quantities. It is simply meant to satisfy avid fans of the company as well as users that have special uses that may benefit from it and at the same time making news for the company. This is just AMD trying to make do with what they have.

 

[USER8000]

How is $416 tempting when you can combo a $190 board with an i5-4670k with a $80 discount?

Or $100 off the same boards with an i7-4770k?

Realistically you're looking at $160 i5's and $240 i7's on newegg, so I have to ask how is $400 remotely temping when a decent i5 will square off with the 9590 in just about everything, has fair and away better perf/w at stock and overclocked, comes with a better chipset, and completely wreaks the 9590 in cpu limited games?

I think it is more for the novelty of a CPU which can hit 5GHZ under stock conditions,rather than any pretensions of value.

Its no different that OTT RAM and cases,when cheaper examples would do the same job.

That's the sucky part! I don't have to upgrade, but the upgrade-itch is becoming unbearable. Five years with one motherboard is just too long, I need to build myself a system to cure this itch! :biggrin:

I had a 975X based rig for nearly 5 years too,so I know the feeling.

 

[SlowSpyder]

How is $416 tempting when you can combo a $190 board with an i5-4670k with a $80 discount?

Or $100 off the same boards with an i7-4770k?

Realistically you're looking at $160 i5's and $240 i7's on newegg, so I have to ask how is $400 remotely temping when a decent i5 will square off with the 9590 in just about everything, has fair and away better perf/w at stock and overclocked, comes with a better chipset, and completely wreaks the 9590 in cpu limited games?

It is tempting to me because I kind of want one and the price is dropping. See?

 

[SPBHM]

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.

it's not "older games", it's current games, look at all 2013 releases on gamegpu.

even on your beloved Crysis 3 the 9590 (8350@5GHz) is not impressive,

oh and, many "old games" probably are more relevant than some 5 hour newer games, how many still play WOW, CS, TF2, SC2 compared to Crysis 3?

 

[Chiropteran]

How is $416 tempting when you can combo a $190 board with an i5-4670k with a $80 discount?

For historical reasons, it's a very interesting CPU. In 10 years nobody is going to care about some mass-produced Intel i5.

But a very limited production CPU, also the first commercial available (for regular people) 5ghz CPU? It may even be AMD's last "performance" based CPU, as the road-maps seem to indicate a drop down to 4 cores for steamroller.

It's a special CPU for many reasons.

 

[RussianSensation]

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.

15 min overclocking, and a 4.5ghz 4770k would beat the 9590 for $600 less, except at MC the 4770 is $280. I love the comparisons of the 9590 to the 4770, as if the 3930K overclocked doesn't exist. I wouldn't buy the 9590 for $279 since I know the 4770K is still faster overclocked

 

[USER8000]

oh and, many "old games" probably are more relevant than some 5 hour newer games, how many still play WOW, CS, TF2, SC2 compared to Crysis 3?

Many of those games run fine on much older and cheaper CPUs and graphics cards anyway,and their cartoony art style is such that you can turn down settings without a massive visual impact also. This is why tens of millions of people play them. WoW,CS,TF2 and SC2 will all run even on laptops. Blizzard and Valve make games which are as accessible to as many people as possible since they want as many users as possible. Even the Diablo series is making a return to consoles,so Blizzard can get even more sales.

Only on computer forums would an overclocked Core i5,Core i7 or FX8300 series CPU be needed to run them.

 

[Chiropteran]

15 min overclocking, and a 4.5ghz 4770k would beat the 9590 for $600 less,

How is that possible, given the 9590 is $411?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

RS probably wasn't aware the 9590 has dropped 50% of it's valuation in a day or two.

 

[SPBHM]

Many of those games run fine on much older and cheaper CPUs and graphics cards anyway,and their cartoony art style is such is that you can turn down settings without a massive visual impact either. This is why tens of millions of people play them. WoW,CS,TF2 and SC2 will all run even on laptops.

Only on computer forums would an overclocked Core i5,Core i7 or FX8300 series CPU be needed to run them.

oh please, you don't need, but the i5 will run faster, people here buy expensive graphics cards, and you ignore the huge difference a CPU can make on older (and newer) games...

go play most mmos/rts, it's awfully CPU bottlenecked, but hey, you can play at 15-20fps with old hardware, sure, a lot of people do that.

and always keep in mind, these benchmarks are made on quick runs, it's impossible to represent well the entire game, so on the ideal world people will at least test "bad spots" in the game and have a lot of GPU power, but that's not always what happen... a simple example is BF3 vs BF3 MP64...

How is that possible, given the 9590 is $411?

that's impressive, they thought they could get away by selling this thing for $900, a couple of days later and it's half the price!

for $400 it almost makes sense as a CPU, but hey, you only care about gaming benchmarks (rendering, encoding is not "real world" enough for you), so nothing to see here

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, for better or worse I got one from an Amazon third party seller for $368.77.


Off to go motherboard shopping, ram shopping, and most importantly, CPU cooler shopping.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'm glad I can keep feelings and emotions out of my purchase decisions.

 

[pelov]

Has anyone considered that AMD purposely released this joke of a processor to dampen the blow of dumping their big core architecture? because that's pretty much the only hypothetical scenario where this chip makes sense to me

 

[USER8000]

oh and, many "old games" probably are more relevant than some 5 hour newer games, how many still play WOW, CS, TF2, SC2 compared to Crysis 3?

Many of those games run fine on much older and cheaper CPUs and graphics cards anyway,and their cartoony art style is such that you can turn down settings without a massive visual impact also. This is why tens of millions of people play them. WoW,CS,TF2 and SC2 will all run even on laptops. Blizzard and Valve make games which are as accessible to as many people as possible since they want as many users as possible. Even the Diablo series is making a return to consoles,so Blizzard can get even more sales.

Only on computer forums would an overclocked Core i5,Core i7 or FX8300 series CPU be needed to run them.

oh please, you don't need, but the i5 will run faster, people here buy expensive graphics cards, and you ignore the huge difference a CPU can make on older (and newer) games...

go play most mmos/rts, it's awfully CPU bottlenecked, but hey, you can play at 15-20fps with old hardware, sure, a lot of people do that.

and always keep in mind, these benchmarks are made on quick runs, it's impossible to represent well the entire game, so on the ideal world people will at least test "bad spots" in the game and have a lot of GPU power, but that's not always what happen... a simple example is BF3 vs BF3 MP64...

You are also ignoring the fact that millions of players of these games are not having overclocked Core i5,Core i7 or FX8300 series CPUs.

I know loads of people who play these games ,loads and some in reasonable sized clans(the types which also have meet ups in person at times too).

Very few have top end hardware like Core i5,Core i7 or even the best AMD FX8300 CPUs. If all games needed that level of performance than the PC gaming market would dead,for 95% of all players.

Most gamers are not hardware enthusiasts and from my own experience have no issues turning down a few settings anyway. You talk about TF2,I have run that fine on my backup rig wich has Core2 level CPU performance during big battles(Saxton Hale maps) with loads of players crowded into one area,and performance was fine. The best SC2 player I met was running an old Phenom II X4,and was in the Diamond League too.

If anything a reasonable internet connection is what you probably need more in many cases.

Reviews probably overstate the hardware needed in many cases IMHO. You can look at reviews which test things like audio encodes. What they don't tell you is that they first rip the CD to wav and then plonk the wav file on a SSD or in a RAM disk,to remove the biggest bottleneck,ie, the optical drive used. The vast majority of people will just rip a CD on the fly from the optical drive.

Edit to post.

By also overstating the entry cost of gaming on forums,we are pushing more and more people to consoles due to their lower upfront costs,lack of needing to upgrade hardware and long lifespans.

Getting more gamers onboard, even with budget PC hardware, is what we should be doing so we get more PC exclusives rather than modded console releases.

 

[AtenRa]

Has anyone considered that AMD purposely released this joke of a processor to dampen the blow of dumping their big core architecture? because that's pretty much the only hypothetical scenario where this chip makes sense to me

SR is a big core, AMD doesnt damp the big Core architecture anytime soon.