FX 9590 what will be next to beat this one from AMD 2015?

EagleOne said:
Thank You Understand now.....so when the new apu/cpu come out you wont need video card?
Click to expand...

not necessary to do basic stuff.. just same as any other intel integrated GPU.. they work to daily task, work good as hardware acceleration to some apps etc.. but they are still years behind to be a viable setup for gaming.. those APU generally are enough to 1080P 30FPS at medium/low settings.. or 720p 60FPS at same settings.. which isn't bad at all taking in consideration the price..
 
Last edited:
To make it a little bit easier Eagleone. As soon as the videocard produces something as 300 Watt then the APU would have to match that plus have a CPU part which also requires power, you can imagine this to be a lot.

So if you see an APU 125 Watt you can almost guess what the speed of the GPU will be AMD tends to keep it 60/40 GPU/CPU..
 
APU's as they are right now won't cannibalize discreet GPU's, but in the future, this will change. Guys from Nvidia said discreet GPU's will be dead by 2020 (outside of the professional space), AMD guys have said similar things, Intel has agreed.

When AMD gets access to a good 14/16nm FinFET node, they can make APU's that have more GPU CU's on them which will be fed by ultra-fast, ultra-efficient 2nd-gen HBM memory, that will alleviate the main problem current APU's face: low memory bandwidth. When you can have 8GB of >250GB/s memory bandwidth VRAM, you're golden. And the fact that it consumes less power than GDDR5 is a plus. We won't see that happen 'til 2016 at the earliest. It will make the entire R7 line of dGPU's pointless and probably some of the R9 stuff too. The average gamer wouldn't need to buy a dGPU when they can have one SoC that plays every game at 1080p at very high/ultra settings.

Also the CPU on the current APU's isn't *that* bad. Of course they look bad compared to an overclocked i7 or some shit, but you're comparing apples to oranges then. Current APU CPU's are still enough for most games besides the handful that are easily CPU bottlenecked. They compete with i3's primarily.

Keep in mind that just because a chip is an APU doesn't mean it's destined to be weak in any fashion. Intel's current chips are really only APU's in name only, even Intel doesn't call them that. Intel's chips have mediocre graphics on them because their GPU architecture just isn't that great. They have a lot of weak EU's on there just to compensate. The reason the desktop i-whatever chips have graphics at all is because they were originally chips that were meant for laptops and mobile devices, and those chips are just the rejects that were defective or too leaky, etc. That's why all the x79/x99 stuff has no iGPU's -- they were rebranded server chips. The Intel chips don't support FSA or HSA for that matter. The first FSA chip AMD did was Kaveri, the first true HSA chip is Carrizo.

Anyway, I think just about all of AMD's upcoming stuff will be APU's, which isn't a bad thing. There will be the idiots who cry about having parts of the chip going unused being a "waste of space" even though it doesn't affect them at all, but aside from that, as long as the new x86 uarch is sound, they will be some good performers.
 
anyway you look at the apu on the cpu in future of amd, still I can put my top of the line video card in my pcie slot and bypass the apu in the bios...Yes?
 
NaroonGTX said:
Yep.

10char
Click to expand...

so I will play it cool for now my toy super machine, running very cool and lightning fast, before we get into new DDR4 and which ones the best and go thru all those changes again, I will stick with asus mb, and msi lightning amd cards......at least we have a year or 2 before the big daddys come out with amd cpu's, to make a 9590 look like crap.....thanks for the help my friends

:)
 
How is the 9590 compared to an 8350? Any reason to jump or should I just switch rigs to my 4690K?
Used for single player games and no OC.
 
narsbars said:
How is the 9590 compared to an 8350? Any reason to jump or should I just switch rigs to my 4690K?
Used for single player games and no OC.
Click to expand...

its the same chip, no reason to compare it.. they are the same, just that the 9590 its higher clocked....
 
narsbars said:
How is the 9590 compared to an 8350? Any reason to jump or should I just switch rigs to my 4690K?
Used for single player games and no OC.
Click to expand...

The 9590 is the same chip as the 8350, just comes with a higher stock/turbo clock out of the box.

Your 4690k would still be better for most games since most games aren't heavily threaded anyway.
 
narsbars said:
How is the 9590 compared to an 8350? Any reason to jump or should I just switch rigs to my 4690K?
Used for single player games and no OC.
Click to expand...

Why would you get the 4690K and not overclock it ? Why not just get the 4690 ?
 
Speaking of 9590 I also have 8350, here's my cpu-z 9590 which I run at this speed when I turn on my system for the past 2 years or so, no problems what so ever yet :)

 
EagleOne said:
Thanks 7970 man!
I have a 7970 BE card in my system running also right now waiting for 390X MSI Lightning

I'm -51c phase.changed Freon cooled :)
Click to expand...

I never get excited for new graphics card based on the vendor. They seem to change it up every release on which is the best card to get. The 290x Lighting took entirely to long to make it to market. Sapphire stole the show for the Hawaii Gpu's.

I look forward to seeing what gets released though.

Btw you don't happen to have a kilo-watt meter do you? I'd like to know what sort of power consumption your getting with your FX. I'm running 5ghz@ 1.45 volts on my 8320. I haven't tried to go higher on this board as its been summer. Now that winter has returned I am gonna go back to tweaking to see what it will do. My power consumption is really good considering the clocks right now, when I venture into the 1.5+ volt range that's when things really ramp up in terms of heat/power.
 
ebduncan said:
I never get excited for new graphics card based on the vendor. They seem to change it up every release on which is the best card to get. The 290x Lighting took entirely to long to make it to market. Sapphire stole the show for the Hawaii Gpu's.

I look forward to seeing what gets released though.

Btw you don't happen to have a kilo-watt meter do you? I'd like to know what sort of power consumption your getting with your FX. I'm running 5ghz@ 1.45 volts on my 8320. I haven't tried to go higher on this board as its been summer. Now that winter has returned I am gonna go back to tweaking to see what it will do. My power consumption is really good considering the clocks right now, when I venture into the 1.5+ volt range that's when things really ramp up in terms of heat/power.
Click to expand...


kilo-watt meter ....I will get one now, how much are they roughly?
219 watts I can see on cpuz.....
on AIDA64 Extreme here's the reading right now:
Typical Power 219.8 W
it runs hot man 220 watts i'm cooling this baby down with Phase.change....when you boot up at 5400mhz which I do, I wait for phase.change to get at -40c then I Flip switch to boot

BTW: these PSU cords are brand new in pix...just got the 1600watt EVGA P2 Platinum few weeks ago...so far EXCELLENT PSU

11tuf0j.jpg
 
Last edited:
EagleOne said:
kilo-watt meter ....I will get one now, how much are they roughly?
219 watts I can see on cpuz.....
on AIDA64 Extreme here's the reading right now:
Typical Power 219.8 W
it runs hot man 220 watts i'm cooling this baby down with Phase.change....when you boot up at 5400mhz which I do, I wait for phase.change to get at -40c then I Flip switch to boot

BTW: these PSU cords are brand new in pix...just got the 1600watt EVGA P2 Platinum few weeks ago...so far EXCELLENT PSU
Click to expand...

Both of those are the TDP of your chip, not actual power consumption. Kill-a-watt meters range in price, I picked mine up for like 20$. My entire computer pulls 600 watts from the wall, under cpu and gpu load. Cpu only load pulls around 300 watts.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0122&cm_re=kill_a_watt-_-82-715-001-_-Product
 
ebduncan said:
Both of those are the TDP of your chip, not actual power consumption. Kill-a-watt meters range in price, I picked mine up for like 20$. My entire computer pulls 600 watts from the wall, under cpu and gpu load. Cpu only load pulls around 300 watts.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0122&cm_re=kill_a_watt-_-82-715-001-_-Product
Click to expand...

hey thank you ebduncan, just ordered from newegg, newegg is right down the street from me almost......that is very very cool I have seen them and never thought of it until you reminded me....i'm going to plug in to a strip surge protector so I can have it on my desk, next to my thermometer type-K that I have for my phase.change temps.
my power bill is way up there.....I just have this system and my wifes little computer
good move pal! another toy for me thanks......it was 23$ with tax, free shipping I will have it Tuesday :)

here's another system I had about 10 or so years ago water cooling and phase.change AMD, i'm sure the power company saw the jump in power I was running seti 24 7 for a few weeks....

rw5hcz.jpg
 
ebduncan said:
Both of those are the TDP of your chip, not actual power consumption. Kill-a-watt meters range in price, I picked mine up for like 20$. My entire computer pulls 600 watts from the wall, under cpu and gpu load. Cpu only load pulls around 300 watts.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0122&cm_re=kill_a_watt-_-82-715-001-_-Product
Click to expand...

eb, just wondering on the kill a watt meter is it "white" or off white, i noticed some are white colored and some are more browinesh or so?
and there made by the same co. :confused:
 
EagleOne said:
eb, just wondering on the kill a watt meter is it "white" or off white, i noticed some are white colored and some are more browinesh or so?
and there made by the same co. :confused:
Click to expand...

there are different models, but the color is neither. Its beige. beige like the old school cases/computers.
 
ebduncan said:
there are different models, but the color is neither. Its beige. beige like the old school cases/computers.
Click to expand...

thats the word Beige......off white in some peoples wording thanks Buddy....

lets hope these new GPU 390X comes out soon!!!

:)
 
At bare minimum, I wish they would release a refresh of the current gen FX CPU's on the 28nm process. Surely there are a few tweaks they have learned in the past couple of years in which they could apply to the architecture as well.

I wish they would keep something going for the FX line as it is really long in the tooth..

§
 
Shlunky11 said:
At bare minimum, I wish they would release a refresh of the current gen FX CPU's on the 28nm process. Surely there are a few tweaks they have learned in the past couple of years in which they could apply to the architecture as well.

I wish they would keep something going for the FX line as it is really long in the tooth..

§
Click to expand...

I Agree!
 
Shlunky11 said:
At bare minimum, I wish they would release a refresh of the current gen FX CPU's on the 28nm process. Surely there are a few tweaks they have learned in the past couple of years in which they could apply to the architecture as well.

I wish they would keep something going for the FX line as it is really long in the tooth..
Click to expand...

Perhaps with 28nm bulk silicon (no SIO) the average overclocks were not as high as 32nm SIO making it a lower performer than the current chips.
 
drescherjm said:
Perhaps with 28nm bulk silicon (no SIO) the average overclocks were not as high as 32nm SIO making it a lower performer than the current chips.
Click to expand...


Good point, I hadn't thought about that. I heard GF's 28nm was supposedly really good though. I am definitely not "in the know" on these things, but man I wish they would do something else with the FX line to update.

§
 
the latest FX refreshes do seem to be quite a bit more efficient as far as voltage at certain clocks, although unsure if they reach higher clocks.
 
durquavian said:
the latest FX refreshes do seem to be quite a bit more efficient as far as voltage at certain clocks, although unsure if they reach higher clocks.
Click to expand...

If I was building a new machine, I would go for one of those FX8370's. :) I recently priced out what a 4770K and 4790K and my mouth just hit the floor. :eek: There is no way those quad core processors are worth spending $340 to $350.

Now, the 5820K, on the other hand, would be worth it because it is only 20 or so dollars more. The board and ram do cost more but, the system would last considerably longer. That is the primary reason I am sticking with AMD and my FX 8350 and FX 8320, the other options are not worth the cost of entry and the 5820K is just a bit beyond my budget at the moment. :D

Do not get me wrong, if I had a real need that involved making money, I would get the 5820k today. Since I do not, I have been very happy with the excellent performance that AMD has given me. I am also looking forward to the new architecture from AMD.
 
If you are worried about your board lasting a while why are you considering an AM3+ based board?

The reason we don't get new silicon is because of the socket the FX line uses and AMD isn't going to develop a new board using silicon it's trying to move away from.
 
Trimlock said:
If you are worried about your board lasting a while why are you considering an AM3+ based board?

The reason we don't get new silicon is because of the socket the FX line uses and AMD isn't going to develop a new board using silicon it's trying to move away from.
Click to expand...

If you are speaking to me, I not considering anything, I am already on 2 990FX boards. Going to anything less than an 5820K on the intel side would be a complete waste of money to me. If you are not speaking to me, than carry on. :D
 
Accelerated Processing Unit: is this next from after 9590 AMD? do you think you can OC the Hell out of it.......Just wondering
 
ManofGod said:
If I was building a new machine, I would go for one of those FX8370's. :) I recently priced out what a 4770K and 4790K and my mouth just hit the floor. :eek: There is no way those quad core processors are worth spending $340 to $350.

Now, the 5820K, on the other hand, would be worth it because it is only 20 or so dollars more. The board and ram do cost more but, the system would last considerably longer. That is the primary reason I am sticking with AMD and my FX 8350 and FX 8320, the other options are not worth the cost of entry and the 5820K is just a bit beyond my budget at the moment. :D

Do not get me wrong, if I had a real need that involved making money, I would get the 5820k today. Since I do not, I have been very happy with the excellent performance that AMD has given me. I am also looking forward to the new architecture from AMD.
Click to expand...

You should be comparing with i5 4430 if we are talking about equal performance. No shit i7 is more expensive when it's years ahead of anything ever made by AMD
 
Just as an aside....

My feeling is that AMD will pull a rabbit out of a hat in the next 24 months. I'm pretty long in the tooth as computer enthusiast, and I remember Thunderbird coming out of nowhere and totally destroying the Pentium III. Also the Athlon II x64 chips.

AMD is due... it's just a pregnant pause. And personally I'm hoping for more cores. Threading is slowly becoming invaluable....

:)
 
Michaelius said:
You should be comparing with i5 4430 if we are talking about equal performance. No shit i7 is more expensive when it's years ahead of anything ever made by AMD
Click to expand...

More expensive is fine but the prices they are charging at retail are ridiculous. Only $20 or so difference from that and the 5820k which would be faster than those quad cores? Proper price would be closer to $275, not $350.
 
EagleOne said:
Accelerated Processing Unit: is this next from after 9590 AMD? do you think you can OC the Hell out of it.......Just wondering
Click to expand...

The current APU designs from AMD overclock very well. They scale very well with higher clocked memory. I wouldn't make a system with less than DDR3 2400 if using an AMD APU. Assuming that they make them better next go round, you can have fun overclocking the APU and memory to make the fastest machine possible. :)
 
cageymaru said:
The current APU designs from AMD overclock very well. They scale very well with higher clocked memory. I wouldn't make a system with less than DDR3 2400 if using an AMD APU. Assuming that they make them better next go round, you can have fun overclocking the APU and memory to make the fastest machine possible. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for Good Answer cageymaru !!
 
Michaelius said:
You should be comparing with i5 4430 if we are talking about equal performance. No shit i7 is more expensive when it's years ahead of anything ever made by AMD
Click to expand...

The only problem, well one of them, with statements like this is that core counts do matter. Do you not find it odd that no review/benchmarks show multi-program use. I never recommend a 2 core (with or without HT) for desktop. I don't care how they OC or what their IPC is. 4 Core minimum and even then I would recommend i7 over i5 ( I am a more power man).

Now one can compare the 2 all day running a single program/game but that really tells us jack about it performance to what we do daily.
 
Shlunky11 said:
At bare minimum, I wish they would release a refresh of the current gen FX CPU's on the 28nm process. Surely there are a few tweaks they have learned in the past couple of years in which they could apply to the architecture as well.

I wish they would keep something going for the FX line as it is really long in the tooth..

§
Click to expand...

I don't see how they could entice investors without offering customers a new CPU for a full year.
A die shirk would surely offer higher performance for a stop-gap of one year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top