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
radrok
by: techtard
Back in the day when AMD used to sell their $999 dollar chips, some people spent the megabucks on AMD rigs.
Lovely Athlon 64 FX days :toast:

Would love to see AMD leading the pack again sometimes.

We'd all benefit from it.
Posted on Reply
#2
suraswami
by: radrok
Lovely Athlon 64 FX days :toast:

Would love to see AMD leading the pack again sometimes.

We'd all benefit from it.
Nah, let AMD be the underdogs, I am perfectly happy with the current FX pricing (except 9*** series). Let the Intel FBs pay that extra to gain few secs in their life :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#3
flash.flood
by: seronx
It appears the only mobos that can actually handle the FX-9370 and FX-9590 is:

ASRock 990FX Extreme9 (Retail/Beta BIOS)
ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Professional (Beta BIOS)
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 Rev 3.0 (Retail BIOS)
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 Rev 3.0 (Beta BIOS)

Every other motherboard doesn't support the FX-9590. The latest BIOS probably means retail and the only board to have a retail BIOS for Centurion is the UD7 and Extreme9.
I contacted AsRock on 8/1/13 about my Fatal1ty 990FX and they said it does not support the FX 9590 or 9370. Apparently that updated CPU code in the latest beta BIOS is not for these processors. I'm not going to risk it until I can get confirmation. If I have to change motherboards again it will be the last AsRock I buy.

Both the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX support the new processors as well. Newegg offers them in bundles at this time.

:toast:
Posted on Reply
#4
oNyX
by: suraswami
Let the Intel FBs pay that extra to gain few secs in their life :laugh:
:toast:

The FX-9590 is kinda like the Lexus LFA. Any other supercar is faster than it and cheaper. But the difference is that it's a Lexus. Faster performance doesn't buy better enjoyment.
Posted on Reply
#5
d1nky
by: flash.flood
I contacted AsRock on 8/1/13 about my Fatal1ty 990FX and they said it does not support the FX 9590 or 9370. Apparently that updated CPU code in the latest beta BIOS is not for these processors. I'm not going to risk it until I can get confirmation. If I have to change motherboards again it will be the last AsRock I buy.

Both the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX support the new processors as well. Newegg offers them in bundles at this time.

:toast:
i believe this, i got the same mobo and it hardly handles a 8350 @ 5ghz

im always tripping the board out.
Posted on Reply
#6
flash.flood
by: d1nky
i believe this, i got the same mobo and it hardly handles a 8350 @ 5ghz

im always tripping the board out.
Interesting. I'm still running my old Antec Truepower Quattro 1000W PS and have absolutely no issues with the FX-8350 at 5ghz when using the fatal1ty. In fact, when I was running the 8150 before that, I found the Fatality to be the only board I could get the 8150 processor to 5ghz and still see a desktop (Not much stability other than web browsing). I tried the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX before buying the AsRock and had poor stability beyond 4.5ghz with the 8150. I always thought the V12 + 2 Power Phase was what made the Fatil1ty.

The thing is, there is no real advantage to running the FX-9370. The passmark benchmarks between the two are 9100 range(FX-8350) to 9500 range(FX-9370) respectively. That's not much of a jump considering the the FX-8150 benched around 7700 with the exact same tests. For as much power as it takes I am disappointed with AMD and their antiquated technology. It may be time to go back to Intel since I will need to buy a new motherboard anyway (Thanks AsRock).


by: suraswami
Let the Intel FBs pay that extra to gain few secs in their life
The Intel Core i7-4770K is cheaper and much faster than the FX-9370 while having a Max TDP of 84 W compared to 220 w. You could probably buy another 4770k after a year of using the 9370. Way too much energy if you're the one paying for it. Even the 3770K beats it with a TDP of 77 w.

AMD better start pricing their GPU's and CPU's much lower or AMD is going to stand for Another Manufacturer Dies. Nobody in their right mind would waste money on the FX-9590.
Posted on Reply
#7
d1nky
by: flash.flood
have absolutely no issues with the FX-8350 at 5ghz when using the fatal1ty
i know this is off subject, but what voltage does that require?!

mine at 5ghz (overclocked FSB, CPUNB, RAM and HT) wants around 1.6v

i did have 5.1ghz stable for about 20mins but tripped OCP.

1.61v is the limit ive found, any more at full load and it trips straight away.

what happens is all lights go off the mobo, screen freezes, the reset button does nothing as the board is dead. i have to drain the power then reboot.
Posted on Reply
#8
Johan45
by: d1nky
i know this is off subject, but what voltage does that require?!

mine at 5ghz (overclocked FSB, CPUNB, RAM and HT) wants around 1.6v

i did have 5.1ghz stable for about 20mins but tripped OCP.

1.61v is the limit ive found, any more at full load and it trips straight away.

what happens is all lights go off the mobo, screen freezes, the reset button does nothing as the board is dead. i have to drain the power then reboot.
Set the bios to ignore cpu voltage it'll be in the monitoring section. That'll let you make all the magic smoke leak out Dinky :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
Just found this thread. Haven't really been hitting the forums for a few months. I wanted to go back to page one and the x264 bench and show my results on my low clock, low noise, couldn't be arsed to tweak anything settings. (I need to break down and clean out my loop. It's been in there since I installed the chip.)

980X@3864
3x2GB @ 1600 7-9-7-28 1T

Not bad for a 3 year old cpu on low clocks.



This AMD chip doesn't look too bad. How well do they clock on water compared to the similar Intel offerings?

EDIT:

Went back into my bios because I realized my ram was set wrong. It's CAS6 ram. So I did a quick run at my old 24/7 settings of 4264Mhz and proper ram timings.

Posted on Reply
#13
Wile E
Power User
by: Johan45
Prettyn sure this is the AMD section
Irrelevant when I'm asking how a clocked 9590 compares.
Posted on Reply
#14
Johan45
Pretty sure it'll compare alot like the 8350 maybe just a bit better V_core
Posted on Reply
#15
flash.flood
by: d1nky
i know this is off subject, but what voltage does that require?!
Stable at 5ghz and 1.55v with an Antec kuhler h2O 920. Idles around 10-15°C and stays under 40°C when stressing all cores for more than 4 hours. I have 5 fans running in an Antec 900 case but they never go beyond 50%.

To be honest I haven't OC'ed it for about 8 months. In the beginning I ran many simulations but anyone that owns an FX8350 knows it does well on it's own. I keep it on auto-clock paired with a GTX-680 and it does it's cool and quiet thing while maxing out every game to date.

I've had it for about a year now. I'm ready for something new and thanks to AsRock, I won't be able to try out the latest from AMD. No bueno!
Posted on Reply
#16
Am*
by: theoneandonlymrk
Most of that's wrong too
Vishera has on die nb and imc it doesn't have a capacity for outputting vga but that would not preclude a compute use gpu (technicaly) in am3+ package or ddr4 as even that can be added via external nb which is exactly what amd needs to focus on next imho , that and its sb but its on it like arm over x86 they're are doing stuff people don't seem to be noticing with there already modularised;) designs
Oh and the ht link as a resource is indispensable and without doubt requires advancement but its going nowhere.

At what point have you been on topic btw
That is complete and utter nonsense. First off, Vishera has no Northbridge on die. Secondly, putting the memory controller on the northbridge is the most idiotic suggestion anyone can make, since
A. it will make the latency skyrocket
B. adds another point of failure to the motherboard, which no sane person would ever want. And HyperTransport needs to either evolve faster to stay relevant or die and get replaced by PCI-E 3.0, which is evolving much faster (doubling every 3-5 years roughly, HyperTransport has barely changed at all in the last 6 years).

And I have been on topic the whole time, since this thread is about a Vishera-based CPU.
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Hypertransport is no different than qpi and both carry similar speeds and bandwidths.
Posted on Reply
#18
TheHunter
by: Wile E


EDIT:

Went back into my bios because I realized my ram was set wrong. It's CAS6 ram. So I did a quick run at my old 24/7 settings of 4264Mhz and proper ram timings.

http://img.techpowerup.org/130806/x264fhd_4264.jpg
Well you can't really compare 12 vs 8 threads, but ok i'll compare too :D this is what i get at 4.6Ghz


Basically the same as you at ~4.3ghz, not bad imo for a 8 threaded cpu and 3x cheaper
Posted on Reply
#19
eidairaman1
You have no earthly Idea how TDP works

by: flash.flood
Interesting. I'm still running my old Antec Truepower Quattro 1000W PS and have absolutely no issues with the FX-8350 at 5ghz when using the fatal1ty. In fact, when I was running the 8150 before that, I found the Fatality to be the only board I could get the 8150 processor to 5ghz and still see a desktop (Not much stability other than web browsing). I tried the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX before buying the AsRock and had poor stability beyond 4.5ghz with the 8150. I always thought the V12 + 2 Power Phase was what made the Fatil1ty.

The thing is, there is no real advantage to running the FX-9370. The passmark benchmarks between the two are 9100 range(FX-8350) to 9500 range(FX-9370) respectively. That's not much of a jump considering the the FX-8150 benched around 7700 with the exact same tests. For as much power as it takes I am disappointed with AMD and their antiquated technology. It may be time to go back to Intel since I will need to buy a new motherboard anyway (Thanks AsRock).




The Intel Core i7-4770K is cheaper and much faster than the FX-9370 while having a Max TDP of 84 W compared to 220 w. You could probably buy another 4770k after a year of using the 9370. Way too much energy if you're the one paying for it. Even the 3770K beats it with a TDP of 77 w.

AMD better start pricing their GPU's and CPU's much lower or AMD is going to stand for Another Manufacturer Dies. Nobody in their right mind would waste money on the FX-9590.
by: Wile E
Just found this thread. Haven't really been hitting the forums for a few months. I wanted to go back to page one and the x264 bench and show my results on my low clock, low noise, couldn't be arsed to tweak anything settings. (I need to break down and clean out my loop. It's been in there since I installed the chip.)

980X@3864
3x2GB @ 1600 7-9-7-28 1T

Not bad for a 3 year old cpu on low clocks.

http://img.techpowerup.org/130806/x264fhd_3864.jpg

This AMD chip doesn't look too bad. How well do they clock on water compared to the similar Intel offerings?

EDIT:

Went back into my bios because I realized my ram was set wrong. It's CAS6 ram. So I did a quick run at my old 24/7 settings of 4264Mhz and proper ram timings.

http://img.techpowerup.org/130806/x264fhd_4264.jpg
dude- 1366 arch was faster in certain tasks than what 1156/55 were even gave 2011 a hardtime
Posted on Reply
#20
Fourstaff
by: eidairaman1

dude- 1366 arch was faster in certain tasks than what 1156/55 were even gave 2011 a hardtime
I thinik 1366 was clock for clock slower than IVB, and IVB can overclock just as high if not higher. The only scenario I can think of is when 1366 comes out tops is using the 6 core chips. Maybe more ramslots and more PCI-E, but that's just it.
Posted on Reply
#21
HumanSmoke
by: Fourstaff
I think 1366 was clock for clock slower than IVB, and IVB can overclock just as high if not higher. The only scenario I can think of is when 1366 comes out tops is using the 6 core chips. Maybe more ramslots and more PCI-E, but that's just it.
Pretty much. The first iteration of mainstream LGA 1155 gave Gulftown a run for its money. Core-for-core and clock-for-clock the difference certainly doesn't favour the Bloomfield CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#22
Wile E
Power User
by: TheHunter
Well you can't really compare 12 vs 8 threads, but ok i'll compare too :D this is what i get at 4.6Ghz


Basically the same as you at ~4.3ghz, not bad imo for a 8 threaded cpu and 3x cheaper
Not too shabby at all.

I never tried for max stable clocks on mine. Just randomly set it there, and it worked, so I left it there. Still have plenty of voltage headroom to play with, I'm just too lazy. lol.
Posted on Reply
#23
radrok
I bet you can reach 4,7 GHz, that's the speed I used to run mine.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment