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
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.

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.
Time and again in these threads people with no interest whatsoever chirp a poo out.
Why bother borein shit moan moan moa.

Its epic doe, scarce and doesn't fit most people's needs but wow some people got some shit to chat


Nnnnnn222222 or phase FTW.
Posted on Reply
#2
d1nky
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.
thats nice to know :D

im already using the bios for it, however it seems a bit funny with high levels of vcore.... ahahaha!
Posted on Reply
#3
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: BigMack70
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:
So it is the CPU's fault that the motherboard BIOS that doesn't have a profile for the CPU can't read the clock off of it?

It must be the rams fault it wont run at 2400mhz without BIOS adjustments in that same exact review as well.

Did that CPU ever mention dropping down to 4.5ghz under load (200mhz below stock non-boost frequency)? No it didn't there is a simple BIOS issue that is easily fixable and well known issues with new high clock CPU's and AMD boards. I had the same issue with my prerelease 955BE and multiple boards the FID/VID table is different.

Why to change your post after I responded too.



Real smooth.

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.
The Crosshair V Formula runs it just fine according to Flank3r on XS.
Posted on Reply
#4
BigMack70
I didn't change my position, I just fleshed out my post a bit since I was on my phone when I originally replied and didn't feel like typing much. And while this may come as a shock to you, sometimes it takes more than two minutes to type out a reply :twitch:. I can post the original if you like.

And yeah, I'd say it could well be the CPU's fault. It's not staying at 5 GHz under load without manual overclocking in the two reviews we have so far on AMD approved boards for the 9590, and the 5 GHz claim is not even technically for 100% load given how turbo boost can work.

The best case scenario here is that AMD has released a (lousy) product that is not ready for primetime.

And I get all the LN2 stuff about this chip, and am interested to see if any significant OC numbers come out of that community. However, the fact that this may possibly be an interesting LN2 chip does not mean that it is worth anywhere even near what AMD apparently thinks it is worth, especially when it's been released to the general DIY public. I would not be surprised if the majority of these chips wind up in the hands of clueless suckers who just see the price tag and new series name and think it's something awesome, rather than in the hands of folks that will put it under LN2.
Posted on Reply
#5
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: BigMack70
I didn't change my position, I just fleshed out my post a bit since I was on my phone when I originally replied and didn't feel like typing much. And while this may come as a shock to you, sometimes it takes more than two minutes to type out a reply :twitch:. I can post the original if you like.
Whatever floats you boat.

by: BigMack70
And yeah, I'd say it could well be the CPU's fault. It's not staying at 5 GHz under load without manual overclocking in the two reviews we have so far on AMD approved boards for the 9590, and the 5 GHz claim is not even technically for 100% load given how turbo boost can work.
Really they are supported huh. Mind finding the FX 9370 and FX 9590 on these CPU support lists for me?

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FX/#support_CPU

The 990FX-UD5 supports it with a beta BIOS. Kitguru didn't have a copy of that BIOS. As of right now the Crosshair V and Sabertooth both received the thumbs up from AMD, but the BIOS's are not out even on the Asus FTP site.

by: BigMack70
The best case scenario here is that AMD has released a (lousy) product that is not ready for primetime.
So lack of BIOS support makes it a bad product...Well shit better sell your intel stock as both companies have those issues.

by: BigMack70
And I get all the LN2 stuff about this chip, and am interested to see if any significant OC numbers come out of that community. However, the fact that this may possibly be an interesting LN2 chip does not mean that it is worth anywhere even near what AMD apparently thinks it is worth, especially when it's been released to the general DIY public. I would not be surprised if the majority of these chips wind up in the hands of clueless suckers who just see the price tag and new series name and think it's something awesome, rather than in the hands of folks that will put it under LN2.
Is it's AMD's fault people will pay for it.
Posted on Reply
#6
oNyX
I like to think that any FPS beyond 60 that a Intel gives that AMD doesn't to me is a real waste. Thats why I like AMD, by the time some specific game have troubles running on your AMD system you should've upgraded already.

One thing I don't understand is everyone bitch about the FX-9590's TDP. As followers of computer technology I would've guessed that at least one forum member would say that TDP isn't the actual power usage of the processor and even if the actual power usage is higher than the TDP it would be on all cores, and we all know there isn't any games or consumer software than can load all 8 cores. Only time when one would strain all cores would during overclocking/stability tests and during the period Cool'nQuiet has been turned off. Some people care about power usage, others don't.

Yes, Intel is way more efficient when it comes to power, they are much faster than AMD ever will be at this point. It's not because Intel is necessarily better (performance, status wise) because both gets the job done, but it's because Intel has more money at their disposal for R&D and they can develop better products. Besides, most enthusiasts and real enthusiasts I know buys both Intel and AMD nonetheless.
Posted on Reply
#7
BigMack70
Hey blame whatever you want. Like I said, best case scenario here is that AMD released something before it was ready (and if you believe KitGuru, AMD have validated those boards, so that's a fail on their part if they validated the boards before the appropriate updates were released). There's also no guarantee that these chips will run at 5 GHz when under load, and given our current data, I'll believe that when I see it.

If you believe that a new BIOS will meaningfully alter the conclusions about this chip, you may want to take the red tinted goggles off.

Oh wait wait wait.... I just found some more cheese. All is well now. Continue with the whine.
Posted on Reply
#8
theoneandonlymrk
by: oNyX
I like to think that any FPS beyond 60 that a Intel gives that AMD doesn't to me is a real waste. Thats why I like AMD, by the time some specific game have troubles running on your AMD system you should've upgraded already.

One thing I don't understand is everyone bitch about the FX-9590's TDP. As followers of computer technology I would've guessed that at least one forum member would say that TDP isn't the actual power usage of the processor and even if the actual power usage is higher than the TDP it would be on all cores, and we all know there isn't any games or consumer software than can load all 8 cores. Only time when one would strain all cores would during overclocking/stability tests and during the period Cool'nQuiet has been turned off. Some people care about power usage, others don't.

Yes, Intel is way more efficient when it comes to power, they are much faster than AMD ever will be at this point. It's not because Intel is necessarily better (performance, status wise) because both gets the job done, but it's because Intel has more money at their disposal for R&D and they can develop better products. Besides, most enthusiasts and real enthusiasts I know buys both Intel and AMD nonetheless.
Many know the tdp script is to stop the fx shutting itself down at 5ghz as mine often does but trolls have trouble with technical things check big mac for example hes not buying but still throwing his two pence in
Posted on Reply
#9
Johan45
The CHV-z and Sabertooth won't have any trouble runing that chip, they've been among my top recommendations for anyone who want to OC the FX8350. As far as the bios release that isn't even necessary. I know quite a few who prefer running their piledrivers on the bulldozer BIOS releases. They feel they get better performance.
Asus doesn't need to change anything on these boards they will handle the power draw and heat very well. All they need is default speed recognition and turbo info.
I assume tha if I dropped a 9590 into my board today it would boot up at 4.0 thinking that it's an 8350, which is fine for people that aren't afraid of their bios screen.
The majority of these will be solt to people that want a kick ass gaming rig with a couple 780's in them where someone else does all the work setting it up.
Posted on Reply
#10
d1nky
asrock had a new bios for this 'update for cpu code' beta version.
Posted on Reply
#11
oNyX
AMD wouldn't launch CPUs if there weren't any boards to fit it into. Ferrari wouldn't launch a sportscar if there weren't any smooth tar roads to drive it on.
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: BigMack70
Hey blame whatever you want. Like I said, best case scenario here is that AMD released something before it was ready (and if you believe KitGuru, AMD have validated those boards, so that's a fail on their part if they validated the boards before the appropriate updates were released). There's also no guarantee that these chips will run at 5 GHz when under load, and given our current data, I'll believe that when I see it.
There is a list of motherboards with 9590 ready BIOS's, so using one of those boards is on the reviewer not the product reviewed. "Current data" shows it performing with the 3960x (a $1069.99 CPU) so maybe before calling AMD's chip a POS you take your intel products and remember they are no better.

by: BigMack70
If you believe that a new BIOS will meaningfully alter the conclusions about this chip, you may want to take the red tinted goggles off.
So you are saying a BIOS wont alter performance of a CPU?

link, link stop being pompous.

by: BigMack70
Oh wait wait wait.... I just found some more cheese. All is well now. Continue with the whine.
Posted on Reply
#13
Over_Lord
News Editor
Anybody who bought this chip? What's the max OC?
Posted on Reply
#14
BigMack70
by: cdawall
maybe before calling AMD's chip a POS you take your intel products and remember they are no better...


So you are saying a BIOS wont alter performance of a CPU?...

stop being pompous.
This may totally blow your mind, but not everyone who critiques a product is a fan of the other brands' products. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread, and I don't know why you are treating it like one in your responses to my posts. Note the total lack of arguments in favor of Intel's chips in my posts (using them as a baseline comparison is not making argument for them...) :slap:

And with regards to the BIOS, I am saying that a BIOS update will not change the conclusions about *this* CPU. Tell you what, if BIOS updates come in and move this chip out of the "smelly overpriced turd" category - if they even move it into merely the "overpriced turd" category, I will edit or delete all my posts in this thread to reflect that. :cool:

But just because you cannot see this chip for what it is does not make me pompous or a troll. But please, continue with the ad hominem.
Posted on Reply
#15
theoneandonlymrk
by: BigMack70
This may totally blow your mind, but not everyone who critiques a product is a fan of the other brands' products. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread, and I don't know why you are treating it like one in your responses to my posts. Note the total lack of arguments in favor of Intel's chips in my posts (using them as a baseline comparison is not making argument for them...) :slap:

And with regards to the BIOS, I am saying that a BIOS update will not change the conclusions about *this* CPU. Tell you what, if BIOS updates come in and move this chip out of the "smelly overpriced turd" category - if they even move it into merely the "overpriced turd" category, I will edit or delete all my posts in this thread to reflect that. :cool:

But just because you cannot see this chip for what it is does not make me pompous or a troll. But please, continue with the ad hominem.
What's your point then still as both major manufacturers have overpriced turds by value/performance standards its just amd has less.
Again if your not going to buy it why throw post after post of hate at it, I agree with your sentiment with respect to ME buying it but for the oc teams this chips a joy.
I went amd fx for yhe amount of settings to tweak myself for some the odd bits count and these are not high volume.
Posted on Reply
#16
suraswami
by: oNyX
.... but it's because Intel has more STOLEN money at their disposal for R&D and they can develop better products....
corrected!
Posted on Reply
#17
eidairaman1
by: BigMack70
. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread
nice lil cover up but you certainly try to make these threads into them anyway.:nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#18
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: BigMack70
This may totally blow your mind, but not everyone who critiques a product is a fan of the other brands' products. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread, and I don't know why you are treating it like one in your responses to my posts. Note the total lack of arguments in favor of Intel's chips in my posts (using them as a baseline comparison is not making argument for them...) :slap:
You of all people should know that is a bold faced lie. There is not a single AMD FX news thread you have not posted something derrogatory about AMD in. It is always using Intel as a baseline is better than XYZ. Guess what we all have brains and the ability to read reviews. Your heavily biased Intel opinion is very well known. No one really cares what you have to say and not a single one of your posts has been constructive. As far as I am concerned you could STFU and GTFO.

by: BigMack70
And with regards to the BIOS, I am saying that a BIOS update will not change MY conclusions about *this* CPU. Tell you what, if BIOS updates come in and move this chip out of the "smelly overpriced turd" category - if they even move it into merely the "overpriced turd" category, I will edit or delete all my posts in this thread to reflect that. :cool:
FIFY.

by: BigMack70
But just because you cannot see this chip for what it is does not make me pompous or a troll. But please, continue with the ad hominem.
As an overclockers toy and money maker for AMD? How dare they take an $200 CPU and sell it heavily binned for more money. Those jerks. Intel hasn't been doing that for 15+ years now at all.

I do however like how you have gone from complaining about the CPU to arguing how I am a fanboy and you are not. Troll.
Posted on Reply
#19
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
I think this conversation has taken its course. Let's move on folks.
Posted on Reply
#22
Wex
Wow....

I thought coming over here from a very biased forum (three letters, starts with O) there still are AMD bashers all over the place. Intel must have a BIG payroll for these internet trolls that lurk on all forums waiting to pounce on anything AMD and bash it. Sheesh.

I'm saving up to get the 9370 right now. :cool:
Posted on Reply
#23
Kantastic
by: Wex
I thought coming over here from a very biased forum (three letters, starts with O) there still are AMD bashers all over the place. Intel must have a BIG payroll for these internet trolls that lurk on all forums waiting to pounce on anything AMD and bash it. Sheesh.

I'm saving up to get the 9370 right now. :cool:
Your choice of language tells me you're a hardcore AMD fanboy... I've never been partial to either AMD or Intel (I've often recommend AMD-driven computers to friends and family), but can you tell me how an architecture that runs hotter, consumes more power, and is clock-for-clock slower than Intel's offerings at identical price points a better purchase for anyone other than those belonging to a very specific niche market, and fanboys?
Posted on Reply
#24
ensabrenoir
Noir bash you now!!!!

by: Wex
I thought coming over here from a very biased forum (three letters, starts with O) there still are AMD bashers all over the place. Intel must have a BIG payroll for these internet trolls that lurk on all forums waiting to pounce on anything AMD and bash it. Sheesh.

I'm saving up to get the 9370 right now. :cool:
,,,,,WHAT???

LETS GET HIM GUYS:roll:

Seriously though... its like everybody has a favorite sports team/car/whatever.... hopefully all in fun and no matter what is said.... if it can't be backed up with facts.... its just an opinion and should be regarded as such:)
Posted on Reply
#25
Wex
by: Kantastic
Your choice of language tells me you're a hardcore AMD fanboy... I've never been partial to either AMD or Intel (I've often recommend AMD-driven computers to friends and family), but can you tell me how an architecture that runs hotter, consumes more power, and is clock-for-clock slower than Intel's offerings at identical price points a better purchase for anyone other than those belonging to a very specific niche market, and fanboys?
Not really an AMD "fanboy" but hate people who own Intel who crappost all over AMD threads. Intel trolls is what they are. ;)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment