The FX9590 @ 5GHz is generally slower than a stock 4770K, costs nearly as much as a 3970X, and needs serious cooling.
Are you confused?
The review you linked compared the 9590 to an OVERCLOCKED to 4.4ghz 3960x, and the 9590 mostly was within 1-2 fps. Often lower average fps by 1-2 points but higher minimum by a similar amount. It boggles my mind why they didn't compare it with a stock intel CPU, but if it's basically equal to a 4.4ghz overclock than I think it's safe to say it's generally faster than a stock 4770 which turbos 500mhz slower at best.
Given the 1600p and high settings at questionable fps with non cpu intensive games with a 670 it's unlikely it would have made any difference.
Are you confused?
The review you linked compared the 9590 to an OVERCLOCKED to 4.4ghz 3960x, and the 9590 mostly was within 1-2 fps. Often lower average fps by 1-2 points but higher minimum by a similar amount. It boggles my mind why they didn't compare it with a stock intel CPU, but if it's basically equal to a 4.4ghz overclock than I think it's safe to say it's generally faster than a stock 4770 which turbos 500mhz slower at best.
Was anyone expecting anything other than another bulldozer?
Their cinebench score is lower than my on air i5-4670k gets at 5ghz.
The FX9590 @ 5GHz is generally slower than a stock 4770K, costs nearly as much as a 3970X, and needs serious cooling.
This is sad.
Link: http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/
Performance is not too bad, but no thanks to the power consumption. Review really needs to show the power for the 4.4ghz 3960k.
The results are pretty much as expected based on OC'ing reviews of the 8350 combined with the added expectation that AMD would be binning these as superior chips in terms of power-consumption and shmoo plot results.
I really don't understand the negativity surrounding AMD's decision to launch this product.
Its like being an orange lover but deciding it isn't good enough to just find great oranges to eat and leave everyone else to themselves, instead you also insist on loathing pear eaters and seeking out pear eaters to point out how much their pears taste nothing like your oranges. A pear is never going to taste like an orange, accept it and move on.
The results are pretty much as expected based on OC'ing reviews of the 8350 combined with the added expectation that AMD would be binning these as superior chips in terms of power-consumption and shmoo plot results.
I really don't understand the negativity surrounding AMD's decision to launch this product.
Its like being an orange lover but deciding it isn't good enough to just find great oranges to eat and leave everyone else to themselves, instead you also insist on loathing pear eaters and seeking out pear eaters to point out how much their pears taste nothing like your oranges. A pear is never going to taste like an orange, accept it and move on.
Are you confused?
The review you linked compared the 9590 to an OVERCLOCKED to 4.4ghz 3960x, and the 9590 mostly was within 1-2 fps. Often lower average fps by 1-2 points but higher minimum by a similar amount. It boggles my mind why they didn't compare it with a stock intel CPU, but if it's basically equal to a 4.4ghz overclock than I think it's safe to say it's generally faster than a stock 4770 which turbos 500mhz slower at best.
Priced at more than double the price of the 4770k.
Consumes double the amount of power of a 4.5GHz 4770k.
Is actually slower than the 4770k.
There is absolutely nothing positive about this product. The only time this processor looks decent in this specific review is in the gaming results but that's only because those are GPU bound situations.
THIS PRODUCT SHOULD NOT EXIST.
ps: Excellent post Dac7nco.
Ouch!Sure, we could say that fanatical AMD overclockers will love the FX9590, but unless you have money to burn we can think of better ways to spend that £700. When up against the Core i7 4770k or 3930k/3960x it is seriously outgunned. This is probably why AMD arent sampling the part directly to the press, aiming it at system builders. Again, we cant imagine a system builder will want to cool this monster long term, while offering a warranty. There is only a 1 year warranty on the FX9590 too, so that is worth bearing in mind.
An interesting release from AMD to target system builders, but we cant help but feel it is a little like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
IDC, I'd like a competitive CPU from AMD. No more, no less. Intel and AMD both make oranges. I'd like my oranges to be a 4 for a dollar, sweet, a little tart, and as big as a woman's fist.
I don't want my oranges huge, with lots of tasteless juice, at two for a dollar (AMD).
I don't want my oranges seperated into mixed bags of flavor slices, where you can buy either sweet, or tart, at equal prices... or buy the flavor I like for double (Intel).
If this thing was $300, it'd be competitive with the 4770 in lots of things, but it's also saddled with an ageing chipset.
Allow me my disappointment, bud, I'm not sixteen, and I don't make arbitrary blind decisions to buy Intel... I find no other alternative.
Daimon
Good points, IDC, but imho manufacturers like Intel and AMD should not be encouraged to dabble in overclocking. Look at the specs of that system. All AMD did was raise the stock multiplier and voltage on a few select chips and spec'ed the rest of the components including cooling to handle the thermals. This is absolutely the wrong way for any manufacturer to do business. Enthusiasts are rightly frowning on this idea, lest it becomes popular in the near future. Hint, hint.Snip
And they said Haswell was the disappointment...