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
theoneandonlymrk
In some cases the TDP has been underestimated such that in real applications (typically strenuous, such as video encoding or games) the CPU has exceeded the TDP. In this case, the CPU will either cause a system failure (a "therm-trip") or throttle its speed down.[1]*Most modern CPUs will only cause a therm-trip on a catastrophic cooling failure such as a stuck fan or a loose
heatsink.

Taken from wiki

QUOTE=jihadjoe;2937232]Welcome to the space heater era! :laugh:[/quote]Indeed but given they are ment for overclocking that shouldn't matter

I think some have misunderstood why the tdp is high

On a 125watt tdp part from amd they have designed in a hard bios theoretical limit via tdp that is thermally monitored and can throttle or shutdown the cpu.

By setting a 220 tdp top end they have opened up that limit meaning not that more heat can be delt with before the processor calls time out just the processor isn't holding itself back when hitting a safety limit it has hard coded in.

End result hopefully some crazey world records and some good pr but given intel fanboys tend to be too thick to actually know thermal dynamics or power principles and jump on the 220 watt tdp as negative instead of a MASSIVE help to oc teams ah well ,,,,, still all Pr is good isn't it .
Posted on Reply
#2
itsakjt
Its a bad chip. 5 GHz on 220W TDP is pretty bad when 2nd gen Core i7s at 95W TDP perform better than that at stock. And moreover a core i7 easily gets to 5 GHz within 220W TDP. That being said I think it will be a super flop. And I don't care about any architectural and instruction set differences. AMD FX series have all the instruction sets that the Intels have and even more like the XOP and FMA. So talking about optimizations, it is not possible.
Posted on Reply
#3
ensabrenoir
:roll:....actually I think AMD has been under valueng itself for quite a while. The bottom line is that they are a business and thy're in business to make a profit. Their strategy so far of selling cheap chips in mass quantity hasnt yeilded their desired returns so a change is in order. And we all.... 95% of us know what the true purpose of this chip is for. The kicker is that if Intel charges you a grand for something.... it RULES. Amd is justified to do the same....as long as it takes the performance crown.....so sub zero overclocking better be beyound awesome on this chip. Only some one doing extreme overclocking would value this thing.
Posted on Reply
#4
Dent1
by: itsakjt
Its a bad chip. 5 GHz on 220W TDP is pretty bad when 2nd gen Core i7s at 95W TDP perform better than that at stock. And moreover a core i7 easily gets to 5 GHz within 220W TDP.
If what you're saying is correct than it's pretty good TDP wise, considering the i7 is only a quad core. AMD have packed 4 extra cores into it's octocore and has maintained the same TDP as the i7 @ 5GHz according to you.

Was you really expecting a 8 core to output less energy than 4 core?
Posted on Reply
#5
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: TheinsanegamerN
no....just no. overclocking the motherboard-and by that, i mean overclocking the northbridge-has nothing to do with it. it's based on how much power the vrms on the motherboard can support. the current 12 phase motherboards have 140 watt support. you would need enough to run a 220 watt tdp. that kind of board would be very expensive (just like this processor...) and would sell very few total boards. I doubt any company will take a gamble on this thing when making a 3rd party board.
The good 8+2 phase boards support the chip just fine. Asus CHVF(-z), GB 990FX-UD5/7 and Asrock Fatality/extreme 9 are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. MSI may release a BIOS for their boards, but I hardly trust them with a 140w chip. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
drdeathx
Intel extreme chips smack the snot out of AMD. Why the thread? 15Mb L3 Cache and Intel beats AMD in singlethreaded apps easily. All I have to say is WTF! Hahahahaha

by: Dent1
If what you're saying is correct than it's pretty good TDP wise, considering the i7 is only a quad core. AMD have packed 4 extra cores into it's octocore and has maintained the same TDP as the i7 @ 5GHz according to you.

Was you really expecting a 8 core to output less energy than 4 core?
Extreme chips are not 4 core and ever hear of Hypethreading? AMD 's chips are not TRUE cores... But none the less, I do like AMD's new architecture.
Posted on Reply
#7
PopcornMachine
Missing poll option.

Never spending more than $300 on a CPU.
Posted on Reply
#8
drdeathx
by: PopcornMachine
Missing poll option.

Never spending more than $300 on a CPU.
Overclock a 8350 to 5GHz and save $800:D
Posted on Reply
#9
theoneandonlymrk
by: drdeathx
Overclock a 8350 to 5GHz and save $800:D
Best plan for most of us

You should try and figure in the process node advantage intel have , amd are pushing boundaries on 32nm now well soon 28nm and not so far away 20 nm there also pushing max clocks and an excellent feature set unrestricted across the whole fx line with new tech , instructions sets and open standards all over the show ,,,

Name another company that rolls like that plus they sometimes make freak shows for the rich and frosty few.
Posted on Reply
#10
drdeathx
by: theoneandonlymrk
Best plan for most of us

You should try and figure in the process node advantage intel have , amd are pushing boundaries on 32nm now well soon 28nm and not so far away 20 nm there also pushing max clocks and an excellent feature set unrestricted across the whole fx line with new tech , instructions sets and open standards all over the show ,,,

Name another company that rolls like that plus they sometimes make freak shows for the rich and frosty few.
Read my above reply. This AMD CPU is all hype. Intel Exreme processors kick the snot out of AMD.
Posted on Reply
#11
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
by: drdeathx
Read my above reply. This AMD CPU is all hype. Intel Exreme processors kick the snot out of AMD.
I don't see how being the first to sell a 5ghz processor being all hype.. nor do i consider winning in a synthetic benchmark kicking the snot out of AMD. Real world performance there's not a big difference. Plus, this is still cheaper than an Extreme chip. ;) :toast:
Posted on Reply
#12
HumanSmoke
by: Mindweaver
I don't see how being the first to sell a 5ghz processor being all hype..
It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series). As for desktop, you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose? It's a PR stunt pure and simple.
by: Mindweaver
Plus, this is still cheaper than an Extreme chip. ;) :toast:
But ~ 60% more expensive than a 3930K :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#13
drdeathx
by: HumanSmoke
It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series). As for desktop, you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose? It's a PR stunt pure and simple.

But ~ 60% more expensive than a 3930K :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Intel chips run too hot to do this. Most users would be forced to use water.....:slap:
Posted on Reply
#14
theoneandonlymrk
by: drdeathx
Intel chips run too hot to do this. Most users would be forced to use water.....:slap:
Wow trolls trollin trolls now ,, crak on :p
Posted on Reply
#15
drdeathx
by: theoneandonlymrk
Wow trolls trollin trolls now ,, crak on :p
Umm, not trolling, stating a fact. read TOS pal. Crank off :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#16
theoneandonlymrk
by: drdeathx
Umm, not trolling, stating a fact. read TOS pal. Crank off :nutkick:
Yes the same fact s add naseum :p
I7 smash it move along we've heard
Posted on Reply
#17
HumanSmoke
by: drdeathx
Intel chips run too hot to do this. Most users would be forced to use water.....:slap:
Ah, OK. Must be why I'm on water at 4.8...and here I was foolishly thinking my chip was an anomaly :rolleyes:

Considering Intel already supply an Asetek rebrand AIO, you'd think that even a bog standard 570LX wouldn't run too much added cost to the final package. EDIT: Oh shit, that wouldn't work- there's no way someone buying an expensive binned chip would have a chassis capable of mounting a 240mm rad - WTF was I thinking!!
Then again, they could have offered the CPU as OEM/tray with a basic one year warranty, though you're probably right in thinking that people who buy high binned chips would also covet the stock HSF- awesome piece of kit that it is.
Posted on Reply
#18
drdeathx
by: HumanSmoke
Ah, OK. Must be why I'm on water at 4.8...and here I was foolishly thinking my chip was an anomaly :rolleyes:

Considering Intel already supply an Asetek rebrand AIO, you'd think that even a bog standard 570LX wouldn't run too much added cost to the final package. EDIT: Oh shit, that wouldn't work- there's no way someone buying an expensive binned chip would have a chassis capable of mounting a 240mm rad - WTF was I thinking!!
Then again, they could have offered the CPU as OEM/tray with a basic one year warranty, though you're probably right in thinking that people who buy high binned chips would also covet the stock HSF- awesome piece of kit that it is.
I am not disagreeing with the Asetek add on but 2600K and 2700K are dead plus AMD did not do that 2 years ago........ Haswell does not have the lid soldered... Ohh shit and Intel uses cheap TIM. Sorry Asetek would probably not work on Haswell plus most have not achieved 5GHz on current retail 4770K's....... so we have not seen too many binned chips out there as of yet... Do we need to go futher?


Another side bar, charge a premium for an Intel chip and add another $200 for cooling puts the price up there over a 3930K so what's the point?
Posted on Reply
#19
HumanSmoke
by: drdeathx
I am not disagreeing with the Asetek add on but 2600K and 2700K are dead plus AMD did not do that 2 years ago
Which was why I said:
by: HumanSmoke
As for desktop, you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose? It's a PR stunt pure and simple.
So, if 5GHz was some all-important must-have bullet point, Intel had ample opportunity to capitalize two years ago. They didn't.
Are you proposing that Intel's marketing department didn't think of it (and out-thought by AMD marketing), or that Intel was unable to bin SB chips for 5GHz operation?
Personally, I think that if Intel felt the need to push the PR in that direction they would have offered a limited run of binned chips to OEMs like Puget and drip-fed chips to wholesale as tray only processors. They didn't likely because they 1. Didn't need to (SB wasn't exactly a slow seller), 2. Why offer another reason not to buy Gulftown, and 3. Binning cost/ platform (mobo) validation costs.
Posted on Reply
#20
Mindweaver
Moderato®™
by: HumanSmoke
It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series).
I don't understand why you compare a power6 (RISC) processor with AMD's or Intel's offerings. :confused:

by: HumanSmoke
you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose?
I don't have to they didn't, because it would cannibalize sales on there Extreme chips. If it was up to Intel we would still be using 933mhz PIII's.. If it wasn't for Thunderbird that's where we would be... ;)

by: HumanSmoke
But ~ 60% more expensive than a 3930K :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I suggest you stop "trolling/Flaming", and add to the tread or move along. ;) Intel does not need your PR, and definitely not in this AMD thread.
Posted on Reply
#21
eidairaman1
by: Mindweaver
I don't understand why you compare a power6 (RISC) processor with AMD's or Intel's offerings. :confused:



I don't have to they didn't, because it would cannibalize sales on there Extreme chips. If it was up to Intel we would still be using 933mhz PIII's.. If it wasn't for Thunderbird that's where we would be... ;)


I suggest you stop "trolling/Flaming", and add to the tread or move along. ;) Intel does not need your PR, and definitely not in this AMD thread.
about time someone threw him against the wall
Posted on Reply
#22
drdeathx
by: eidairaman1
about time someone threw him against the wall
I think the word bitch slap may be in order?:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#23
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: HumanSmoke
It's actually fairly easy to understand. Your original statement:

...makes no mention of architecture. "First to sell a 5ghz processor" is incorrect...unless you don't consider Power6 to be a processor

Really? You know this for a fact? By that line of reasoning, Intel released Bloomfield, Gulftown, Lynnfield, and Sandy Bridge because of the competition from......K10 ?!? :rolleyes:

Because I took issue with your (insufficiently concise) worded assertion of "First to sell a 5ghz processor" ? or (IMO) the debatable value of the 5GHz number? or that AMD have never had money to write their own compiler ?

In the words of one of our moderators...
Then go buy a power6 chip. No one cares what other anti-amd pro-intel banter you have to say.
Posted on Reply
#24
d1nky
by: cdawall
Then go buy a power6 chip. No one cares what other anti-amd pro-intel banter you have to say.
its quite sad tbh.
Posted on Reply
#25
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
by: HumanSmoke
It's actually fairly easy to understand. Your original statement:

...makes no mention of architecture. "First to sell a 5ghz processor" is incorrect...unless you don't consider Power6 to be a processor

was it a general retail product? I ask because I thought it was an IBM OEM server CPU, were they widely available retail?
Really? You know this for a fact? By that line of reasoning, Intel released Bloomfield, Gulftown, Lynnfield, and Sandy Bridge because of the competition from......K10 ?!? :rolleyes:

Cute is cute.... rarely but sometimes, you know what he meant, simply competition 6 or 7 years ago has bred accelerated architectural advancements.

Because I took issue with your (insufficiently concise) worded assertion of "First to sell a 5ghz processor" ? or (IMO) the debatable value of the 5GHz number? or that AMD have never had money to write their own compiler ?

Answered above.... again

In the words of one of our moderators...
Intelligent argument/debate is good but you in this case are wearing intel shaded sunglasses :D
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment