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
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.
258 Comments on AMD FX-9590 5 GHz Processor Benchmarks Surface, Great Performance At A Price
The Faildozer performance is officially back in effect. And if this thing is really going to cost $1000, the joke's on AMD. We'll be seeing this joke of a CPU hit under $300 bargain bins in no time.
The OEMs that would sell these will most likely have overclocking options available on other CPUs aswell.
Im sorry but I dont see any point with this processor except for overclocking (if it even can do that). This is only for the title: "Worlds highest clocked processor"
I love that they have released it dont get me wrong, but the price just dont justify it. You get lousy performance for what you pay.
A 3930K would be a much better choice for whatever you are doing and for a lower cost.
But that isnt the point of what I, and others have posted. The comparsion between the 4770K and the 9590 is very much valid. And proves the point that it is lousy performance for the price, and the average "joe schmoe" would be better of buying a 3930K and 3970X.
Its a bragging piece for highest frequency, exactly like the Pentium 560 and 570.
When I get to see some real LN2 OC results on this, then I'm open to discussing if this has a niche place in the market outside of fanboys or not. Without such information, I say it doesn't.
Price aside, atleast AMD can say that out the box, at stock speeds they've got prospectively the fastest CPU. You'd have to overclock your i7 to match it's performance. Unlike the Pentium 560 and 570 which got creamed by low end Semprons at stock speed.