Sunday, July 7th 2013

AMD FX-9590 5 GHz Processor Benchmarks Surface, Great Performance At A Price

Eagerly waiting to see how the so-called 5 GHz processor from camp AMD performs in the real world? Well, some lucky user over at VR-Zone forums got a chance to get this hands dirty with the yet-to-be on sale AMD FX-9590 processor, and decided to post his benchmark scores with all of us (much to our joy).

While the performance of AMD's fastest and hottest babe till date is no-doubt good, it comes at the price of an exorbitantly high 220W TDP, and of course a near $1000 price tag (if reports turn out to be 100% true). The CPU vCore is running at a high 1.5v, but then again we've always seen AMD chips operate at higher voltages than their Intel counterparts. No doubt, despite all this, system builders are going to have a gala time going ape over the 5 GHz FX-9590.



More results follow.

Source: VR-Zone Forums
Add your own comment

258 Comments on AMD FX-9590 5 GHz Processor Benchmarks Surface, Great Performance At A Price

#1
Dj-ElectriC
I smell a serious war coming... welp.

If i had 1000$ for a CPU, and it's just my opinion, i would kinda rather have the 3970X. But that's only my opinion and i'm sure many will choose the AMD FX chip. I think.
Posted on Reply
#2
Over_Lord
News Editor
I'd like one of those 12 core 24 threaded chips from Intel. I guess they're coming next year with Haswell EP
Posted on Reply
#3
Fatal
I wouldn't spend $1000 for any CPU looks good though.
Posted on Reply
#4
madness777
Why is it slower than my 2600k at 5GHz?


My chip scored 10.62 at 5.5GHz too
Take that :nutkick: AMD
Posted on Reply
#5
buggalugs
Just looking at the AIDA memory benchmarks, my 3770K@ 4.5Ghz has much better memory throughput and latency.

Other benchmarks, 3D mark 11 for AMD is ~7900, I get over 10,000 and that's with a 77W CPU!! and similar graphics card....

Its good AMD is trying but they need to do better if they want to be taken seriously. 220W is just frightening.....but I'm sure someone will buy it because it has 5 Gigalertzzzzz!!!
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
I wish they would have overclocked it that is what I really want to see how does it clock. Some decent ram would have been nice as well.

by: madness777
Why is it slower than my 2600k at 5GHz?
http://shrani.si/f/2x/zT/2ERz3W1a/cinebench-5ghz.jpg

My chip scored 10.62 at 5.5GHz too
Take that :nutkick: AMD
Do a little more research into the code path that cinebench uses on an Intel vs AMD. :laugh:

x264 is a better benchmark and notice its scores

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-07-07/AMDFX-95905GHzbenchmarks11.jpg
Posted on Reply
#7
Renald
220W :eek:

It reminds me 500 series of nVidia which were ovens...
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Renald
220W :eek:

It reminds me 500 series of nVidia which were ovens...
I'm still curious of actual results not the rated number. Your also thinking first gen fermi cards which were the 4x0 series.
Posted on Reply
#9
razaron
This is meant for breaking OC records, not making energy efficient high end PCs. If you don't have LN and don't spend large amounts of money on OCing because reasons, buy something else and stop complaining.
Posted on Reply
#10
tigger
I'm the only one
I'd like to see how close it was to the 220w TDP while running these benchies, were's the power usage figures?
Posted on Reply
#11
madness777
by: cdawall
I wish they would have overclocked it that is what I really want to see how does it clock. Some decent ram would have been nice as well.



Do a little more research into the code path that cinebench uses on an Intel vs AMD. :laugh:

x264 is a better benchmark and notice its scores

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-07-07/AMDFX-95905GHzbenchmarks11.jpg
Scores 27.6 at 5GHz, yep the AMD is faster here.
Posted on Reply
#12
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
wow, even the news editor thinks this is a mainstream chip :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#13
Dj-ElectriC
by: de.das.dude
wow, even the news editor thinks this is a mainstream chip :shadedshu
It is all a matter of perspective. Fome some, this is a meanstream chip, for other's it could be the CPU of their dreams.
Posted on Reply
#14
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
but its not. its a limited edition fancy chip for getting high Ghz only.
Posted on Reply
#15
BigMack70
In other words, it's exactly what was expected... a chip that gets :slap: by the 3930k which is ~2/3rds the price.

Good job AMD. :shadedshu

This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.
Posted on Reply
#16
Over_Lord
News Editor
by: BigMack70

This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.
I guess that was their intention from the start
Posted on Reply
#17
theoneandonlymrk
by: BigMack70
In other words, it's exactly what was expected... a chip that gets :slap: by the 3930k which is ~2/3rds the price.

Good job AMD. :shadedshu

This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.
How is it bad that amd are selling this made for
Ln2 chip yet ok for intel to sell extremes xeons etc it is what it is NOT FOR YOU, or me for that matter
Posted on Reply
#18
acerace
Some stupid fanboy wars. Move along people.
Posted on Reply
#19
BigMack70
by: theoneandonlymrk
How is it bad that amd are selling this made for
Ln2 chip yet ok for intel to sell extremes xeons etc it is what it is NOT FOR YOU, or me for that matter
Because there is as yet no proof that it's worth the price premium for LN2 and it's absolutely not worth the price for anything else?

Sorry but I don't understand the AMD apologists on this one. Intel's uber expensive stuff doesn't get beaten by chips that cost 1/2 to 2/3rds as much.
Posted on Reply
#20
theoneandonlymrk
by: BigMack70
Because there is as yet no proof that it's worth the price premium for LN2 and it's absolutely not worth the price for anything else?

Sorry but I don't understand the AMD apologists on this one. Intel's uber expensive stuff doesn't get beaten by chips that cost 1/2 to 2/3rds as much.
Not in the one metric that counts with these chips , intel are a ways off 9ghz on any of there platform's but I do agree ln2 results dont really matter that much and is a pure competitive pr show much like any world record attempt is , the fact you and I think they are wacky and overpriced is completely irrelevant , intel on the other hand charge a premium for most chips and top end consumer chips are way overpriced for the performance increase yet these arent special cases , intel universally slaps ass on price And feature killing But thats ok I ssuppose because they are technically (with intel compilers anyway) quicker.
Posted on Reply
#22
Makaveli
by: TheHunter
I get 30fps @ 4.5Ghz,
http://i.imgur.com/XleBO8X.png
encoded 2500 frames, 30.20 fps, 22397.57 kb/s


x264 [info]: ended at Sun Jul 07 10:44:06 2013

x264 [info]: encoding duration 0:01:23

i7 970 @ 4.2 Ghz
Posted on Reply
#23
Dent1
by: BigMack70
Because there is as yet no proof that it's worth the price premium for LN2 and it's absolutely not worth the price for anything else?

Sorry but I don't understand the AMD apologists on this one. Intel's uber expensive stuff doesn't get beaten by chips that cost 1/2 to 2/3rds as much.
Urrrm. I remember Pentium 4 and Pentium D Extreme Edition getting beat out by Sempron's 1/10th the price.

You have a short and selective memory.


by: BigMack70
In other words, it's exactly what was expected... a chip that gets :slap: by the 3930k which is ~2/3rds the price.

Good job AMD. :shadedshu

This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.
Why else would you buy this CPU? If you bought it for performance alone the jokes on you.
Posted on Reply
#24
boulard83
Loll, junk result ... my 4770k pull much better numbers at lower clocks ... fail AMD !
Posted on Reply
#25
natr0n
All these news editors now crawling out the woodwork.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment