Lol! I like your sense of humor.
The conspiracy theorists!
It's really simple, really; if AMD silicon is that much better than Intel's, all you need to look at is the server space. It's funny how all Galego's arguments are restricted to the dedktop, where conspiracies abound. In the server space, where things are much more trandparent, where performance and efficiency are key, AMD is barely treading water. But wait, this could be due to icc, or maybe even the dominant linux os, or even the more expensive intel chips in the server space! Not!
This is a thread about benchmarking a desktop cpu. It is natural to mention what benchmarks are fake and why. The FTC already demonstrated that benchmarks such as sysmark and cinebench are biased pro-intel.
This is a thread about a factory overclocked, power guzzling, outrageously priced (for the performance) cpu that will be embarrassed by a less than half-priced cpu by the competition that also has an igp and uses less than half the power while doing it. All this talk about benchmarking is just you refusing to accept reality; the mainstream Core i7 4770k is a much much better processor than the enthusiast FX 9590. The FX 9590 is not going to be released in a vacuum; and even though it's price and tagging puts it in the "enthusiast" segment, it's real world performance lags well behind the competition's chips in that segment. So let's look at it in the "mainstream" segment, where it really belongs, even with it's bloated price; against the Core i7 4770k:This is a thread about benchmarking a desktop cpu. It is natural to mention what benchmarks are fake and why. The FTC already demonstrated that benchmarks such as sysmark and cinebench are biased pro-intel.
In other threads we could discuss servers, conspiracies, linux, and all what you want.
This is a thread about a factory overclocked, power guzzling, outrageously priced (for the performance) cpu that will be embarrassed by a less than half-priced cpu by the competition that also has an igp and uses less than half the power while doing it. All this talk about benchmarking is just you refusing to accept reality; the mainstream Core i7 4770k is a much much better processor than the enthusiast FX 9590. The FX 9590 is not going to be released in a vacuum; and even though it's price and tagging puts it in the "enthusiast" segment, it's real world performance lags well behind the competition's chips in that segment. So let's look at it in the "mainstream" segment, where it really belongs, even with it's bloated price; against the Core i7 4770k:
1. Core i7 4770k = $340 ; FX 9590 = $800+
2. Core i7 4770k 84 Watts ; FX 9590 220 Watts
3. Core i7 4770k w/HD 4600 gpu ; FX 9590 No GPU (Must buy one)
4. Core i7 4770k w/Stock cooler ; FX 9590 No Cooler (Must buy high end cooler or custom water)
5. Core i7 4770k 400 Watt PSU is enough ; FX 9590 1,200 Watts (AMD recommendation)
6. Core i7 4770k is by far the better value by price, performance, efficiency, and cost of ownership
7. Core i7 4770k has over 1Ghz headroom available to be tapped through effortless, no-exotic-cooling overclocking.
8. Core i7 4770k allows you to do some decent gaming out of the box
9. Core i7 4770k comes with a 3 Year Manufacturer's Warranty
10. The Core i7 4770k will not put much stress on your hardware, the FX 9590 will, out of the box!
Not one for free advertising the i7 4770k.
7. Core i7 4770k has over 1Ghz headroom available to be tapped through effortless, no-exotic-cooling overclocking.
This is a thread about benchmarking a desktop cpu. It is natural to mention what benchmarks are fake and why. The FTC already demonstrated that benchmarks such as sysmark and cinebench are biased pro-intel.
In other threads we could discuss servers, conspiracies, linux, and all what you want.
After you benchmark it, what are you going to compare it to? Both AMD and Intel compare their chips to competitor's don't they? And why are you so against this particular comparison? I guess it really exposes the FX 9590 for what it really is, right?Once again. This is a thread about benchmarking FX-9590. Not one for free advertising the i7 4770k.
After you benchmark it, what are you going to compare it to? Both AMD and Intel compare their chips to competitor's don't they? And why are you so against this particular comparison? I guess it really exposes the FX 9590 for what it really is, right?
We are not talking about software advertised as "optimized for". E.g. there are lots of games optimized for <your favourite brand>. Adobe has just released new software optimized for AMD.
This is/was not the point.
*bangs head on desk*
So when's AMD going to release a chip that performs, instead of making excuses and claiming benchmark bias? I don't remember anyone saying that about the Athlon. I don't remember the conspiracy compiler theories, but I do remember AMD users trolling the P4 users about their higher power consumption and lower performance. So intel's response in kind was not making excuses, but to make a no excuses product (Conroe). It's just too bad that Ruiz sunk the ship by spending more than he could afford, perhaps then AMD would have some cash for R+D. Sadly since they don't, and since AMD doesn't have the cash to fund proper CPU R+D, we get excuses. In the meantime, hopefully a miracle happens - They released a chip that offered no excuses and excellent performance with the Athlon, and they need to do it again. The excuses, conspiracies, and nonsense are just getting old. Nobody cares about that crap. AMD just needs to put up or shut up, period.
Euler3D
This benchmark is not really optimized to run on AMD processors, and I imagine that it was compiled using an older Intel compiler which ignores SSE on AMD chips and instead forces the x87 pathway for the calculations. Still, more cores means faster results.
Hm, going by it every application in which AMD was involved is now a "fake"?
For example Winzip 16.5? Or Crysis 3?
After you benchmark it, what are you going to compare it to? Both AMD and Intel compare their chips to competitor's don't they? And why are you so against this particular comparison? I guess it really exposes the FX 9590 for what it really is, right?
With fraudulous claims...
Fraudulous since it s not garanted by the manufacturer ,
what is guaranted is frequency multiplier being unlokcked.
I don't even care about benchmarks. I care about real world use software, and strangely enough intel wins 99 out of 100 times there. The conspiracy theories are just getting old, this is not an intel problem, it's an AMD architecture problem - obviously the FX series of CPUs have weak single threaded performance and that is just hurting them across the board. Unfortunately software developers are slow in adopting HT and multi core, so it is what it is. AMD has weak single threaded performance, and even their multi core performance is worse than intel's. And that shows in real world use. Just stop with the conspiracy theories, it is beyond old and annoying at this point.
*bangs head on desk*
So when's AMD going to release a chip that performs, instead of making excuses and claiming benchmark bias? I don't remember anyone saying that about the Athlon. I don't remember the conspiracy compiler theories, but I do remember AMD users trolling the P4 users about their higher power consumption and lower performance. So intel's response in kind was not making excuses, but to make a no excuses product (Conroe). It's just too bad that Ruiz sunk the ship by spending more than he could afford, perhaps then AMD would have some cash for R+D. Sadly since they don't, and since AMD doesn't have the cash to fund proper CPU R+D, we get excuses. In the meantime, hopefully a miracle happens - They released a chip that offered no excuses and excellent performance with the Athlon, and they need to do it again. The excuses, conspiracies, and nonsense are just getting old. Nobody cares about that crap. AMD just needs to put up or shut up, period.
what I was trying to say basically was, if the software runs faster with one CPU, at the end of the day is what you get, the user don't care if the Intel compiler is evil or if the devs couldn't care about AMD, that's a problem for other people to solve, mainly AMD, when AMD had a more competitive architecture they looked good in most benchmarks, not only in a few from "openbenchmark.org".
My main point here is that the endless excuses about compilers, cheating, and conspiracies are just so long in the tooth now, please make it end.
Intel cheating, faking, conspiring with software makers to make AMD look bad - very interesting claims. Oh and obviously intel is in bed with every review website out there, am I getting this straight? Is that what you're saying? Definitely not anything attributable to AMD...are you guys for real? ALRIGHTY THEN, I knew clicking this thread was a mistake. /rolls eyes
I would highly suggest you look at what compilers actually do. Compilers have, and will continue to, be an important part of (and most especially in high performance) software development. To ignore what compilers and the role it plays in gauging performance of CPUs should not be overlooked.
what I was trying to say basically was, if the software runs faster with one CPU, at the end of the day is what you get, the user don't care if the Intel compiler is evil or if the devs couldn't care about AMD, that's a problem for other people to solve, mainly AMD, when AMD had a more competitive architecture they looked good in most benchmarks, not only in a few from "openbenchmark.org".
Fanbois, ignorant people, and bribed devs don't care about anti-competitive practices. Any honest person with half a brain does care. Unfortunately, the damage done by such practices has already been done and the compensation AMD accepted was far too little, far too late. This isn't making excuses for AMD, before anyone takes it that way. Their processors are indeed slower than Intels.
From a perf/$ metric the 9590 doesn't compete. There are likely very few chips that can be certified to commercial standards at those clocks. It turns into a supply and demand issue as far as pricing. The benches do show what an O/C'd, AMD 8-core can do. They can be had for $160.
The difference in performance could likely be the difference between pcie2 and pcie3. Not much, anyway.