• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

fx-9590 benchmarks surface

LAiN_OfTheWired said:
Intel considers the 2500K-4670K mid-range. In almost every game made to date and most consumer software, these chips continue to put AMD's top-end offerings to shame. To be technical, Intel even considers the chips with hyperthreading (2600K-4770K) midrange, which makes AMD's best performer look even worse. Can it hold its own in some of the benchmarks everybody runs? Sure, but at a clock speed 20% higher and a power envelope somewhere between 25-45% higher. The fact that it takes that much to be competitive is rather dismaying, and being competitive still only means either coming close to Intel performance and rarely narrowly beating it in select benchmarks.

There seems to be a lot of denial in this thread. I'm glad I sucked up my AMD pride and went from my Phenom II to an i7. As long as AMD can get its shit together and make Steamroller NOT a disappointment I may build a new gaming machine. For now, I'm using a chip 2 generations old that AMD just caught up with and still can't match the efficiency of.
Click to expand...

Intel may consider those chips mid-range but bottom line seems to be price. AMD's mid-range compared to Intel's mid-range is much different in terms of price.

Huge difference in price between my i7 930 and my 1055T. And I consider these two CPU's fairly close to where each company would class them. Granted, there are some other circumstances involved with the prices of each, but none a big enough issue to alter the cost of each to much.

And while I definitely notice a difference between my two machines my 1055T would get the job done for me at less than half the cost of my 930. But, either way I consider my i7 930 a good investment.
 
LAiN_OfTheWired said:
Intel considers the 2500K-4670K mid-range. In almost every game made to date and most consumer software, these chips continue to put AMD's top-end offerings to shame. To be technical, Intel even considers the chips with hyperthreading (2600K-4770K) midrange, which makes AMD's best performer look even worse.
Click to expand...
Both companies can consider their chips to be in whatever range they want. If AMD starts calling the 8350 their PlaySkool chip and marketing it to kids for their first computer, I'll still buy one if it's priced right.

Ferrari has more top-end cars than Kia, but more people still buy Kias for actual use.

Back to the 8150 and 8350... I don't know what it is, Windows patches, software application patches, fixing the whole Intel compiler thing, or what, but it seems like the newer the 8150 or 8350 tests I see, the better numbers they put up. I'd have to do a big review of reviews to be sure of that, but it seems that way.
 
OGOC said:
Both companies can consider their chips to be in whatever range they want. If AMD starts calling the 8350 their PlaySkool chip and marketing it to kids for their first computer, I'll still buy one if it's priced right.

Ferrari has more top-end cars than Kia, but more people still buy Kias for actual use.

Back to the 8150 and 8350... I don't know what it is, Windows patches, software application patches, fixing the whole Intel compiler thing, or what, but it seems like the newer the 8150 or 8350 tests I see, the better numbers they put up. I'd have to do a big review of reviews to be sure of that, but it seems that way.
Click to expand...

I think this is mostly true. IPC hasn't really gotten any better, but benchmarks and apps where the FX chips shouldn't have sucked have gotten better.

I'm also solidly with the "it works just fine" group. Especially for gaming... any game that is going to be getting lower than 60FPS with a high end video card is going to be GPU bound, the FX-8*** will feed it just fine. For the few games that seem CPU bound and the FX chips don't do as well as the Intel counterparts, they are almost always above 60FPS anyways.

Long story short, I heart my FX-8350 :D
 
NaroonGTX said:
Thing is, most benchmarks are worthless. I'd rather choose parts by doing actual live research, such as watching videos of real performance, seeing how the product handles real apps, or even using the product first-hand. The only reason Intel considers those processors "mid-range" is because they know they can get away with selling "high-end" processors for $1000 to morons dumb enough to buy them. There's no real reason Intel can come up with to justify the prices of their actual hexacore processors. Sure, they pump out great performance, but the price you pay is ridiculous. People just bend over and accept it because Intel has been doing it for ages, and people will buy them anyway, so that's how it is.
Click to expand...

It's the best of the best, beats every other CPU in pretty much any application(desktop, not server). AMD charges ~$800 for something that barely even, if even, beats a $300 i7.
 
You're in denial that this product isn't the worst release you've seen in several years.
Click to expand...

This is where you're wrong. I've already posted in this topic and another one here where I denounced this product as pretty much pointless for anyone in the retail market. Anyone would be much better off just buying an FX-8320 and -- provided they had a good enough board and cooling solution -- just overclock it to 4.7~5.0 GHz.

And even though I'm defending AMD a lot here, I'm not "biased" per se. Just really tired of people shitting all over AMD 24/7, usually for dumb reasons.

It's the best of the best, beats every other CPU in pretty much any application(desktop, not server). AMD charges ~$800 for something that barely even, if even, beats a $300 i7.
Click to expand...

It's the best of the best indeed, nothing AMD has on the desktop can really touch the performance of these $1000 CPU's. But the price is still ridiculous. The thing that always got me is how on their ads for those chips, they even call it the ideal chip for gaming... It's like, really? I'd much rather take an i5, even a Sandy Bridge which still puts up great performance to this day, over one of those. I'd say the only practical reason to buy one of those HEDT chips would be for very specific uses, like if you were a professional video editor and for whatever reason you just needed to render as quickly as possible or something.
 
If your an AMD critic, directly from the horse's mouth http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Rory-Reed-2Q-2013-Xbox-PLayStation-Temash,23597.html

AMD has somewhat given up on the competition from Intel, as its a fight that at least with the STAR and Bulldozer architecture isn't achieving the dividends, AMD initially drummed up and promised to their investors and enthusiasts alike. That being said, AMD's lineup is the best out there for those who want to build a new setup with out alot of dough (minus the FX9XXX). The same socket works whether your buying their lowest FX offering or their highest. Its the toyota of CPUs, versus Intel, which is the BMW of the CPUs. Fast performance, but everything's at a price. Plus you only get 2 years with your current system due to MB issues and changes, and whatever intel line you choose (i.e LGA1156 or LGA2011) your stuck to those CPUs only.
 
AMD is focusing on APU's and the mobile market as well as servers, because that's where most of the money is. The only reason they even still make CPU-only parts is because enthusiasts and to not abandon people who already have AM3/AM3+ boards. The desktop market has been declining for ages now, so it makes no sense for AMD to focus heavily on trying to "beat" Intel in terms of desktop CPU performance.

Nice article though, but I had no idea we were getting to the year 2103 so quickly. :p
 
NaroonGTX said:
This is where you're wrong. I've already posted in this topic and another one here where I denounced this product as pretty much pointless for anyone in the retail market. Anyone would be much better off just buying an FX-8320 and -- provided they had a good enough board and cooling solution -- just overclock it to 4.7~5.0 GHz.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this. Its not just your normal 8350 or 8320. Mine will not do 4.7 stable with water cooling. It will run fine at 4.7 and play games and do all the websurfing youtube watching fine. It will not pass Intel burn in test or AMD's overdrive test. It also runs way to hot for my cooler before it even errors out and pulls way more than 220 watts. Now the new cpu may not be worth the money but it is going to run at those speeds with no fuss and run cooler and with a lower wattage. Most people hit 4.5 with these chips. That's totally stable and the heat under control. Some run past that but I bet they are not stable for to long on the torture tests I mentioned.
 
I have seen a lot of people reach the 5Ghz mark with the 8320 and the 8350. Like I said, it's more than your chip, your MOBO and RAM can affect stability as well. It would probably take some extra tweaking, but it's definitely achievable and it's been done many times, and yes they were definitely stable.

It's also possible your chip isn't binned as well as others, who knows. But it's not as magical to hit 5GHz with all eight cores as one would think. Though of course at full load, it's gonna use a crapload of power and generate some serious heat.
 
I've always found it funny how computer enthusiasts seem to leave logic out of some arguments, since logic is the basis for our entire hobby.

Don't like the price of the new cpu? Yeah guess what, no one cares. It's priced like it is for good reason. If they priced it in the range most people have been saying it should have been, it would be asking for bad press. AMD chose to price it this high to prevent people from snatching them up and trying to run them on cheaper components that aren't up to the task of running this cpu. If you take a 8350 and overclock it on a cheap motherboard or psu, then you will eventually hit a limit caused by this well before you get into self destruction territory. You can't say the same for a chip meant to run at these high speeds at default.
 
More don't hit 5 ghz than do. Mine will hit 5ghz. Post and run my email and surf the web. As soon as any load hits it that all she wrote. The heat is crazy. Fact is most people will not hit 5ghz or even 4.8 stable on these chips.My first fx 8120 was the same way..My cooler is no match for a highly overclocked fx. 4.5 is about the safe limit before temps get out of control during stressing. Will fold 24/7 @4.5 though. The new cpu will and let me say again....run at a much lower temp and wattage usage. They are cherry picked for this. Im not bashing the chips. Just saying you shouldn't tell people to just buy a 8320 and overclock it to 5ghz because its the same thing.. It is not.
 
Last edited:
Notice how these chips were meant for the vendors who use their good cooling and apparently special MOBO's for them as well. If your MOBO and cooling isn't that sufficient, you won't reach that cutoff point, obviously. Besides, I don't really know why anyone would OC these chips that high besides bragging rights or trying to set records or something anyway. The 9590 is still only 4.7 stock and only turbos up to 5Ghz. If they're cherry-picked, it's not magnificently so.
 
You can tell they are cherry picked by the wattage stated. WTH don't you get? 4.7/5ghz turbo gets dam hot and takes a lot of power (watts). You said it...Meant for the vendors. They don't use good cooling and special mother boards. Yet they run stock at those speeds and lower temps and 225 watts. They are cherry picked by AMD. My chip @ 4.7 pulls more than the stated 8350 225 watts and that's with a voltage lower than 1.5v.
 
Wasn't there a site (pretty sure it was linked in one of these threads) that claimed the 9590 doesn't even actually generate 225W worth of heat? So if that's true, then these most likely are just using the Piledriver 2.0 cores, which would make sense. I don't think they're actually cherry-picked, they're just using the more efficient Piledriver 2.0 cores like Richland uses. Trinity couldn't OC worth shit mostly, topping out usually at around 4.4Ghz, just 200Mhz over it's stock turbo frequency. People are hitting 5.0Ghz easily as an everyday OC on all four cores stable with Richland, even with the iGPU overclocked as well.

Otherwise, I doubt these are any special besides only going out to the vendors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top