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
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: BigMack70
So this CPU is even more fail than it looked like on paper. Doesn't overclock hardly at all on air, can't keep up with stock Haswell i7s in gaming, and at its very *best* keeps up with stock SB-E chips from Intel in a couple synthetics.

This chip is so bad it makes Bulldozer look like God's gift to CPUs.
Hardwaee canucks chip is acting like it throttled back under load... looks like both from heat and wattage. AMD does spec a pretty high speed fan when using the H80 with a stock chip let alone oc'd. Lower end sabertooth board is used along with a simple air cooler...I would like to see at least an H100 used and a top teir board.
Posted on Reply
#2
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: cdawall
Hardwaee canucks chip is acting like it throttled back under load... looks like both from heat and wattage. AMD does spec a pretty high speed fan when using the H80 with a stock chip let alone oc'd. Lower end sabertooth board is used along with a simple air cooler...I would like to see at least an H100 used and a top teir board.
Yep, agree 100%. But then, AMD said they weren't giving out review samples for these chips, and you can see that [H]ardOCP posted as much on their front page, too, so to me there's obvious anti-AMD bias going on there, and using such a cooler was rather foolish.

Oh well. There's more value in that review than first meets the eye, and none of that has to do with AMD.:D


And yes, I am on AMD's list of media sites, and they do send me CPU samples. But these chips aren't really meant for "off-the-shelf" purchases, so AMD sees no need for reviews.
Posted on Reply
#3
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: cadaveca
Yep, agree 100%. But then, AMD said they weren't giving out review samples for these chips, and you can see that [H]ardOCP posted as much on their front page, too, so to me there's obvious anti-AMD bias going on there, and using such a cooler was rather foolish.

Oh well. There's more value in that review than first meets the eye, and none of that has to do with AMD.:D


And yes, I am on AMD's list of media sites, and they do send me CPU samples. But these chips aren't really meant for "off-the-shelf" purchases, so AMD sees no need for reviews.
I guess I will get to see how the lesser model does personally. With a better cooler and better board. I am hoping for well over 5.2ghz...
Posted on Reply
#4
theoneandonlymrk
by: cdawall
I guess I will get to see how the lesser model does personally.
Can't you pull a sicky some peeps be eager for some oc news.;p
Posted on Reply
#5
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: theoneandonlymrk
Can't you pull a sicky some peeps be eager for some oc news.;p
I wish I am roughly a 22 hour flight from the states and another several hour flight to home were the CPU is. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
theoneandonlymrk
by: cdawall
I wish I am roughly a 22 hour flight from the states and another several hour flight to home were the CPU is. :laugh:
Break a leg?? You would be forced to sit at home ,, damn;p
Posted on Reply
#7
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: cdawall
I guess I will get to see how the lesser model does personally. With a better cooler and better board. I am hoping for well over 5.2ghz...
My crystal ball tells me .... 1.570v for 5.2 and it just goes higher from there..

I hope you have alot of dice on reserve ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
Am*
by: Fluffmeister
Hardware Canucks Review:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html
Good God, this 9590 is so much worse than I thought. In gaming, even at 5GHz, it can't even keep up with a 2.5 year old 2500K. To add insult to injury, even in single threaded synthetic benchmarks, it barely keeps up with a 4+ year old Deneb, which is and has always been the best CPU AMD have had in the past 6 years, closely followed by Thuban. It won't be long until this turd hits the sub-£400 market.
Posted on Reply
#9
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Am*
Good God, this 9590 is so much worse than I thought. In gaming, even at 5GHz, it can't even keep up with a 2.5 year old 2500K. To add insult to injury, even in single threaded synthetic benchmarks, it barely keeps up with a 4+ year old Deneb, which is and has always been the best CPU AMD have had in the past 6 years, closely followed by Thuban. It won't be long until this turd hits the sub-£400 market.
Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.
Posted on Reply
#10
d1nky
by: cdawall
Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.
thats what im starting to think with all these reviews, seems the better performing/overclocking ones used a better board, but still wasnt enough!

i hope this plays well on Ln2, that would be good to see!
Posted on Reply
#11
itsakjt
I still don't know why people would need a 5GHz CPU that has very low IPC. It is all about IPC and that's why, new gen CPUs perform better even at low clocks than higher clocked older ones. I think its time to underclock this 9590 to a 8350 speed and check difference in performance. If I am not very wrong, they should be close.
Posted on Reply
#12
Am*
by: cdawall
Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.
Out of curiosity, can you post a link proving this?


Also even if that is the case, it wouldn't affect the benches that I was looking at, namely single threaded Cinebench & 720p gaming benches (where it gets raped by a stock 2500k and very closely followed by a £60 stock clocked Deneb), since it wouldn't use more than 4 cores tops. It still doesn't change the fact that this processor is more than useless for pretty much any task and this has happened with almost every Bulldozer/Piledriver review -- AMD's old dogs like Deneb & Thuban come away as bang-for-buck AND performance kings, same goes for even their current APUs, which put up a good fight. AMD should've just die shrunk their K10-based Thubans & Denebs, released an 8 core K10 variant and put Zambezi & Vishera on a entirely new socket, namely FM2-based. This CPU is more proof that current AM3+ Piledriver chips are nothing more than AMD humouring the users of their ancient socket -- no matter how high they clock it, the socket will hold it back.
Posted on Reply
#13
BigMack70
by: cdawall
Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.
Blameshifting is fun :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#14
theoneandonlymrk
by: Am*
Out of curiosity, can you post a link proving this?


Also even if that is the case, it wouldn't affect the benches that I was looking at, namely single threaded Cinebench & 720p gaming benches (where it gets raped by a stock 2500k and very closely followed by a £60 stock clocked Deneb), since it wouldn't use more than 4 cores tops. It still doesn't change the fact that this processor is more than useless for pretty much any task and this has happened with almost every Bulldozer/Piledriver review -- AMD's old dogs like Deneb & Thuban come away as bang-for-buck AND performance kings, same goes for even their current APUs, which put up a good fight. AMD should've just die shrunk their K10-based Thubans & Denebs, released an 8 core K10 variant and put Zambezi & Vishera on a entirely new socket, namely FM2-based. This CPU is more proof that current AM3+ Piledriver chips are nothing more than AMD humouring the users of their ancient socket -- no matter how high they clock it, the socket will hold it back.
Sounds like someone got reemed by intel
Posted on Reply
#15
Am*
by: theoneandonlymrk
Sounds like someone got reemed by intel
Sounds like someone is grasping at straws, trying desperately to justify his purchase. :slap: :shadedshu

The next time you want to use my words out of context, try not to quote the whole post, where I was clearly praising AMD if you had actually read what you quoted -- it makes you look like a desperate fanboy.
Posted on Reply
#16
Johan45
by: cdawall
Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.
I've had my 8350 well over 1.6v on occasion nearly 1.7v on my Sabretooth R2. The board is not throttling for me. My issues are with the heat the chip puts out. I want to add some attachment to validate this but the attachment tool isn't working for me just comes up with error on page when I try.
So I'll put this link up. This is another site I belong to. I was doing runs with superpi and the first 2 are at 1.668v to the CPU on a sabretooth. http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=197&t=8105
Here's another of Wprime
http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=185&t=8090&start=80
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: BigMack70
Blameshifting is fun :ohwell:
Why do you insist on posting in amd threads if all your going to do is troll. Go play in the ivy threads. Sadly enough rhis awful clock speed bump still offers more of a performance gain than the latest intel revision.

by: Johan45
I've had my 8350 well over 1.6v on occasion nearly 1.7v on my Sabretooth R2. The board is not throttling for me. My issues are with the heat the chip puts out. I want to add some attachment to validate this but the attachment tool isn't working for me just comes up with error on page when I try.
So I'll put this link up. This is another site I belong to. I was doing runs with superpi and the first 2 are at 1.668v to the CPU on a sabretooth. http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=197&t=8105
Here's another of Wprime
http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=185&t=8090&start=80
Read the entire review. The reviewer said it dropped to 4.5ghz under load his scores reflect as such. It is also a rev 1 board from the system breakdown page. Theu are not the same boards.
Posted on Reply
#18
Jstn7477
So, do most users need a new motherboard to run the FX-9590 unless they already own one of the highest end models, and manufacturers have to create board compatibility lists for this processor if it throttles at stock on weaker high-end boards?
Posted on Reply
#19
theoneandonlymrk
by: Am*
Sounds like someone is grasping at straws, trying desperately to justify his purchase. :slap: :shadedshu

The next time you want to use my words out of context, try not to quote the whole post, where I was clearly praising AMD if you had actually read what you quoted -- it makes you look like a desperate fanboy.
Raped by a 2600k is praising , trolllalong im v happy with my well considered purchases and would happily buy amd again, not a 9590 though :p
Posted on Reply
#20
BigMack70
by: cdawall
Why do you insist on posting in amd threads if all your going to do is troll. Go play in the ivy threads. Sadly enough rhis awful clock speed bump still offers more of a performance gain than the latest intel revision.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to discredit a review you dislike was considered making constructive posts.

For the record, I consider both ivy and haswell to be turds. But Intel didn't have the guts to overcharge by a factor of 3 for their turds. And I don't hate AMD. I built my main work rig on a 5600k APU, and I have two old budget gaming rigs sitting around based on an Athlon II x3 and a Phenom II x6. AMD has some cool stuff. But this CPU is not part of the "cool stuff" category... it sits firmly in the "overpriced turd" category.

And the stock responses from AMD fans at this point when an AMD CPU is released are just old... "You didn't use the right motherboard"... "Why did you compare it to that Intel CPU?"... "Obviously that reviewer is biased"... "You didn't use the right memory"... "That set of tests isn't fair"... "The reviewer doesn't understand what the chip is for"... "You didn't test on a Thursday"... "The reviewer forgot his lucky underwear".

I think I need to go get some more cheese to go with the whine.
Posted on Reply
#21
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Jstn7477
So, do most users need a new motherboard to run the FX-9590 unless they already own one of the highest end models, and manufacturers have to create board compatibility lists for this processor if it throttles at stock on weaker high-end boards?
Pretty much the idea behind it, 220w TDP is quite a bit to ask from even the higher end boards for 24/7.

by: BigMack70
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to discredit a review you dislike was considered making constructive posts.

And for the record, I consider both ivy and haswell to be turds. But Intel didn't have the guts to overcharge by a factor of 3 for their turds.
I told you to read the entire review, but you failed to do so. Here is a quote from the review since you can't read.
Only ASUS’ AI Suite II (which takes its temperature readings directly from the BIOS) was somewhat accurate with its reading of 65°C under load but we had reasons to doubt this too since, as you see in the screenshot above, our FX-9590 began throttling some cores down to the 4.515GHz mark after 20 minutes or so of continual full-load testing. Another possibility is that AMD has set Turbo Core 3.0 to begin throttling downwards when core temperature hits that 65°C mark in an effort to cap thermals and power consumption.
Obviously there is an issue with setup let it be the motherboard or cooling. There CPU did not operate properly for testing so the entire review is worthless.
Posted on Reply
#22
Am*
by: theoneandonlymrk
Raped by a 2600k is praising , trolllalong im v happy with my well considered purchases and would happily buy amd again, not a 9590 though :p
Raped by a 2600K? More like matched at best, unlike your powerplant-draining Faildriver getting raped by my ancient 3 year old Deneb build @4.2GHz. Shows how little you know about your so-called "well considered" purchases (your trollcave must be like a sauna with that 300W+ Powerdrainer running) -- now troll along kid, or better still have another go, and this time, try doing it in proper English, not retarded Twitter-speak.
Posted on Reply
#23
BigMack70
by: cdawall
Obviously there is an issue with setup let it be the motherboard or cooling. There CPU did not operate properly for testing so the entire review is worthless.
Fun fact, this isn't an isolated issue, but rather it seems like 5 GHz is the sticker speed only, unless you do some overclocking yourself:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/6/

But yeah the issue is definitely NOT that this CPU is a giant smelly turd that can't even operate at its advertised frequency. It's the motherboard's fault. Or maybe the fact that it wasn't running on liquid helium. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#24
theoneandonlymrk
by: Am*
Raped by a 2600K? More like matched at best, unlike your powerplant-draining Faildriver getting raped by my ancient 3 year old Deneb build @4.2GHz. Shows how little you know about your so-called "well considered" purchases (your trollcave must be like a sauna with that 300W+ Powerdrainer running) -- now troll along kid, or better still have another go, and this time, try doing it in proper English, not retarded Twitter-speak.
Yours cant do 4.9 then eh ah well and is it running 4x pciex slots 4xgpu ;), flat out mines bigger then yours btw at 3ghz you win lolzzz

And your the one having a hissy fit and getting your balls out , its too hot to turn my pc on and one thumbs shit and lazy you gramma star
And YOU SAID A 2600K RAPED AN FX not me
Posted on Reply
#25
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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment