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
Dent1
HumanSmoke said:
It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series).
Yes, the FX 9590 is the first 5GHz mainstream desktop processor

The Power6 isn't in the commercial desktop arena.
Posted on Reply
#2
Fourstaff
Dent1 said:
Yes, the FX 9590 is the first 5GHz mainstream desktop processor
I don't see how this expensive toy can be called mainstream :confused:
Posted on Reply
#3
theoneandonlymrk
Dent1 said:
Yes, the FX 9590 is the first 5GHz mainstream desktop processor

The Power6 isn't in the commercial desktop arena.
I note Ibm have heat and tdp issues with the p6 as any at that speed are watercooled and it dosnt fit in ANY desktop pc lame asssss trolling bringing it up all in (not u dent1)
Posted on Reply
#4
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Fourstaff said:
I don't see how this expensive toy can be called mainstream :confused:
It is avaliable in the mainstream channels, so in that sense it is mainstream.
Posted on Reply
#5
Dent1
Fourstaff said:
I don't see how this expensive toy can be called mainstream :confused:
It's mainstream because providing stock permits, and providing your pocket is big enough anyone can pick this up in from a etailer and slot it into a compatible motherboard.

Whereas the IBM Power6, is only available a small audience. You wouldn't find it in a etailer and even if you wanted one IBM wouldn't answer the phone to you.
Posted on Reply
#6
mandis
Everybody is allowed to and should have a brand preference but ...nobody likes fanboys!!! :slap:
Posted on Reply
#7
radrok
Too expensive imho but still a good PR stunt by AMD even if it's out of desperation.

Let's hope they succeed on their high frequency quest or they move on, which would be better.
Posted on Reply
#8
itsakjt
Dent1 said:
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?
It is said as octacore but it is not a real octacore but 4 modules and 2 cores per module which is = 8 cores.
According to you, then all Intel i7s are octacore with Hyper Threading.
And whether its a quad core or octacore, I don't care. It is clearly seen that its performance is not upto the mark. Just imagine an i7 at 5 GHz. It will literally eat the FX 9590. And as for Intel's overclocking, they are good enough. They just don't brag about overclock this and overclock that.
And I am not a fanboy. I am an AMD user myself but this new FX series just didn't impress me enough.

drdeathx said:
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



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.
EXACTLY!
Posted on Reply
#9
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
itsakjt said:
It is said as octacore but it is not a real octacore but 4 cores and 8 "modules".
According to you, then all Intel i7s are octacore with Hyper Threading.
And whether its a quad core or octacore, I don't care.
4 modules and 8 cores you mean. And no, it is not like HT at all. Not in the least.
Posted on Reply
#10
itsakjt
Frick said:
4 modules and 8 cores you mean. And no, it is not like HT at all. Not in the least.
My mistake. Edited. But it is not a true octa core. It is just like some Core 2 Quads which actually had 2 Core 2 Duos.
Posted on Reply
#11
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
itsakjt said:
My mistake. Edited. But it is not a true octa core. It is just like some Core 2 Quads which actually had 2 Core 2 Duos.
Depends on how you define a core. Which is why the term "module" exists. And that second part is/was marketing BS.
Posted on Reply
#12
Daimus
acerace said:
Some stupid fanboy wars. Move along people.
What Acerace says.
Posted on Reply
#13
theoneandonlymrk
itsakjt said:
My mistake. Edited. But it is not a true octa core. It is just like some Core 2 Quads which actually had 2 Core 2 Duos.
Its not much like that bar its modular and nothing like Ht its also developing into a very good architecture for a drop in Ip future I want 8 x86 and 16 arm v8s and an amazing nb and imc all in one at 7ghz please.
Posted on Reply
#14
GC_PaNzerFIN
AMD releases CPU that costs twice more, has double the TDP and probably can't OC at all on air/water because it is already taken to limit. And not only that, is also slower. Congratulations? :confused:
Posted on Reply
#15
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
GC_PaNzerFIN said:
AMD releases CPU that costs twice more, has double the TDP and probably can't OC at all on air/water because it is already taken to limit. And not only that, is also slower. Congratulations? :confused:
Fair point, although 95% of people don't overclock so this may be their only opportunity (for now) to get a mega fast 5ghz heat seeking nuclear power plant! I am sure some will pay the money..... me? personally no thanks but some will be bought no doubts.
Posted on Reply
#16
theoneandonlymrk
Tatty_One said:
Fair point, although 95% of people don't overclock so this may be their only opportunity (for now) to get a mega fast 5ghz heat seeking nuclear power plant! I am sure some will pay the money..... me? personally no thanks but some will be bought no doubts.
There doesn't seem to be any about anywhere id actually buy from so amd look likely to hit there targets with it.
Posted on Reply
#17
NeoXF
itsakjt said:
And as for Intel's overclocking, they are good enough. They just don't brag about overclock this and overclock that.
LOL, ever since Sandy Bridge, Intel has been going backwards with overclocking on its CPUs, Ks or otherwise. To the point where a IPC can't make up for lost OC headroom... and that with going from 32nm to 22nm AND 22nm maturity. As for bragging, yeah... I think Intel have bragged plenty about the new BCLK generator and integrateted voltage regulator and whatnot... as well as the fact that you can no longer overclock non-K (fully featured CPUs) processors... AT ALL, anymore.

I suspect Haswell refresh won't do anything to change this. Most we can expect from Intel is the a shift to mainstream (~340$) of six-core i7 CPUs, on IB-E, for 2014. Otherwise, for 2014, Kaveri and it's possible refresh/succesor might be the only worthwile new face in the x86 scene.


The pricing might be stupid, but all in all, I can understand AMD's move, and if it brings them a little more revenue, good for them.
Posted on Reply
#18
Dent1
itsakjt said:
It is said as octacore but it is not a real octacore but 4 modules and 2 cores per module which is = 8 cores.
According to you, then all Intel i7s are octacore with Hyper Threading.
And whether its a quad core or octacore, I don't care. It is clearly seen that its performance is not upto the mark. Just imagine an i7 at 5 GHz. It will literally eat the FX 9590. And as for Intel's overclocking, they are good enough. They just don't brag about overclock this and overclock that.
And I am not a fanboy. I am an AMD user myself but this new FX series just didn't impress me enough.



EXACTLY!
Why are you talking about performance? I'm talking about TDP.

Yes, 4 modules, 2 core per module is 8 core. But those 8 cores generate the same amount of heat as a traditional CPU design. So regardless of the dispute about whether its a traditional 8 core, AMD octocores generate heat on each core under stress.

The i7, is only a quad core. HTT is only virtual, a virtual way of manipulating threads. But its still a quad core and could never output as much heat as an physical 8 core CPU.

So going back to my original point, how can a virtual core, which doesn't exist (HTT) be at the same TDP rating as AMD's 8 physical cores. The fact that AMD achieved that feat with real cores really paints AMD in a positive light.


drdeathx said:


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.
Hyperthreading is not a core, its a virtual core at best, in reality its just a Intel patented "technique" - Computer hardware 101

The FX range are real cores, the only grey area is it breaks the traditional design, as the location of the cores and how it shares its cache memory has been radicalised. But it's real cores regardless of it's makeup and deployment - Computer hardware 102.

itsakjt said:
But it is not a true octa core. It is just like some Core 2 Quads which actually had 2 Core 2 Duos.
The Core 2 Quads were real quad cores. They had 4 physical cores, thus quad core in every sense. Yes the early Core 2 Quads were two Core 2 Duos glued together, but regardless of how it was packaged it had 4 physical cores, hence quad core - Computer hardware 103.
Posted on Reply
#19
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Dent1 said:
Yes, the FX 9590 is the first 5GHz mainstream desktop processor

The Power6 isn't in the commercial desktop arena.
power 6 is a RISC unit lacking many x86 instructions as- AMD Intel parts are CISC.
Posted on Reply
#20
xorbe
eidairaman1 said:
AMD Intel parts are CISC.
Someone break it down for this poster ...
Posted on Reply
#21
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
xorbe said:
Someone break it down for this poster ...
Lol google risc and cisc.
Posted on Reply
#22
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
cdawall said:
Lol google risc and cisc.
Better still.... google "who cares" :D this thread is starting to slide into oblivion, the topic is a retail 5ghz AMD eight core offering, can we keep with that please, whatever your "core" definition may be.
Posted on Reply
#23
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Tatty_One said:
Better still.... google "who cares" :D
Everyone should care, as it's very interesting. ;)
Posted on Reply
#24
techtard
Some people will be wowed by 8 cores @ 5.0ghz, and will buy these even if they cost a small fortune.

Not everyone is a tech enthusiast, these chips weren't made for most of us @ TPU and other fine communities. Except maybe the extreme OC guys.

Why pick fights over a chip? If you don't want it, don't buy it. Maybe TPU should start banning trolls in the news and reviews sections of the site like some other communities do.
Posted on Reply
#25
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
Frick said:
Everyone should care, as it's very interesting. ;)
If you find RISC/CISC interesting then you worry me!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment