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
Intel God
Why doesnt amd just add another module or two and release a 12 core?
Posted on Reply
#2
TheinsanegamerN
cdawall said:
I'm still curious of actual results not the rated number. Your also thinking first gen fermi cards which were the 4x0 series.
well, given the 8350 pulled about 180 watts at stock, vs its 125 watt tdp? thats almost 70 percent more. just apply that to the 220 watt tdp....374 watt. :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#4
dwade
Just awful. Dat TDP in said "Post-PC era." We know which companies will die first.:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#5
ASharp
dwade said:
Just awful. Dat TDP in said "Post-PC era." We know which companies will die first.:laugh:
Yeah because you know, it's not like AMD has any other products. Oh wait...
Posted on Reply
#6
steelkane
Just a toy for the bigboys or ppl who have the cash to burn, I just don't see it lasting too long before it burns out.
Posted on Reply
#7
Thefumigator
Intel God said:
Why doesnt amd just add another module or two and release a 12 core?
There are opterons with 8 modules, but it would be great to have 5 modules or more for desktop. However this won't improve single threaded performance at all... but in my case I could make use of as many cores are available.

TheinsanegamerN said:
well, given the 8350 pulled about 180 watts at stock, vs its 125 watt tdp? thats almost 70 percent more. just apply that to the 220 watt tdp....374 watt. :wtf:
Is there any motherboard supporting such TDP? I own an Asrock extreme 3 (AM3+) and it states its 140W max, and I haven't seen any AM3+ mobo supporting more than that.
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
madness777 said:
Scores 27.6 at 5GHz, yep the AMD is faster here.
That's cools so your cpu overclocked is faster than this cpu stock what a shocker how about stock vs stock? Is it faster then? No? I didn't think so.
Posted on Reply
#9
Nokiron
cdawall said:
That's cools so your cpu overclocked is faster than this cpu stock what a shocker how about stock vs stock? Is it faster then? No? I didn't think so.
What? How does that make any sense?
Posted on Reply
#10
eviltwin125
you can reach that speed on a FX 8350 or FX 8320 why the $1000 dlls price tag ?
Posted on Reply
#11
Hayder_Master
i got almost 45k on my cpu run at 4.5ghz in vantage, so this one not look so amazing :confused:
Posted on Reply
#12
Dent1
Intel God said:
Why doesnt amd just add another module or two and release a 12 core?
Marketing, on paper 12-core would be a beast, but the high end segment isn't where AMD make money. The FX-9590 is only being considered as a one off Limited Edition CPU, just to cement their name on the first 5GHz desktop solution, break a few OC records and scoop free publicity. Believe me AMD have no intention of pursuing this CPU as the money product are the APUs.
Posted on Reply
#13
Am*
Unless this thing is able to hit 6GHz minimum on water, it is completely worthless. The $1000 price tag is not even funny, since this thing is clearly a trolling attempt by AMD. I didn't know how hard AMD sucked ass at making processors until this turd came out and made the 2 year old 3960X look like a bang-for-buck CPU and I never ever thought I'd say that about a $1000 CPU that I never even liked when it came out.

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.
Posted on Reply
#14
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Nokiron said:
What? How does that make any sense?
This CPU runs at 5ghz STOCK comparing it to a HEAVILY OC'D i7 and say well it's faster is dumb.
Posted on Reply
#15
Nokiron
cdawall said:
This CPU runs at 5ghz STOCK comparing it to a HEAVILY OC'D i7 and say well it's faster is dumb.
Its a heavily overclocked and cherrypicked 8350... So what is the difference?
Posted on Reply
#16
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Nokiron said:
Its a heavily overclocked and cherrypicked 8350... So what is the difference?
OEM. The three letters that describe the 9590.
Posted on Reply
#17
Jorge
Since folks who have OC'ed the FX-8350 to 5 GHz. aren't showing 220w TDP, I expect that these CPUs are rated excessively for TDP so mobo makers with poor VRM circuits don't offer a BIOS update so consumers can use the FX-9590 on weak mobos not intended for serious overclocking?
Posted on Reply
#18
Jstn7477
cdawall said:
This CPU runs at 5ghz STOCK comparing it to a HEAVILY OC'D i7 and say well it's faster is dumb.
All AMD did was take a 3.5GHz processor and OC it to 4.7GHz out of the box. Not exactly a great analogy, but does this make a Pentium 4 661 superior to an Athlon 64 3700+, just because it's a base Pentium 4 with a huge factory OC? Out of box clock speed only means something to the morons who buy extreme edition processors just for the highest clock speed out of the box and don't even overclock them. If anything, this CPU probably has little headroom unless it's under LN2 for world record overclocking which seems to be the intended use of the processor.
Posted on Reply
#19
mandis
WOW!!! This is amazing performance!!! AMD is the new CPU KING!!! Awesome!!! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#20
Nokiron
cdawall said:
OEM. The three letters that describe the 9590.
Does that make it better or what. i still dont understand the comparsion?

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.
Posted on Reply
#21
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Jstn7477 said:
All AMD did was take a 3.5GHz processor and OC it to 4.7GHz out of the box. Not exactly a great analogy, but does this make a Pentium 4 661 superior to an Athlon 64 3700+, just because it's a base Pentium 4 with a huge factory OC? Out of box clock speed only means something to the morons who buy extreme edition processors just for the highest clock speed out of the box and don't even overclock them. If anything, this CPU probably has little headroom unless it's under LN2 for world record overclocking which seems to be the intended use of the processor.
Most people don't overclock :laugh:

Nokiron said:
Does that make it better or what. i still dont understand the comparsion?

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.
This isn't made for every joe schmo to purchase it's still a limited edition CPU.
Posted on Reply
#22
Nokiron
cdawall said:

This isn't made for every joe schmo to purchase it's still a limited edition CPU.
Yes I know.

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.
Posted on Reply
#23
BigMack70
Dent1 said:
Urrrm. I remember Pentium 4 and Pentium D Extreme Edition getting beat out by Sempron's 1/10th the price.

You have a short and selective memory.
I'm sorry, I thought it was clear from my 3930k mention that I was thinking of the current set of available CPUs. I didn't realize that thoroughgoing historical precision was required when someone makes a current comparison of two companies' products.

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.
Posted on Reply
#24
Dent1
Nokiron said:
Yes I know.

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.
Lets be fair, even the 3930K and 3970X have lousy performance for the price too. Spending $1000+ on a CPU whether Intel or AMD isn't exactly ticking the performance/economic box.

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.
Posted on Reply
#25
Nokiron
Dent1 said:
Lets be fair, even the 3930K and 3970X have lousy performance for the price too. Spending $1000+ on a CPU whether Intel or AMD isn't exactly ticking the performance/economic box.

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.
Ofcourse, but you will get a whole lot more for your money, even at the pricepoint of 3930/3970 and the 9590
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment