• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD to Launch FX-9590 Refresh Package

Aquinus

Resident Wat-man
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
13,147 (2.96/day)
Location
Concord, NH, USA
System Name Apollo
Processor Intel Core i9 9880H
Motherboard Some proprietary Apple thing.
Memory 64GB DDR4-2667
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2
Storage 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External
Display(s) Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays
Case MacBook Pro (16", 2019)
Audio Device(s) AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Power Supply 96w Power Adapter
Mouse Logitech MX Master 3
Keyboard Logitech G915, GL Clicky
Software MacOS 12.1
this got me intrigued cause any reviews I looked at, the i7-3820 seems to consume more power than the old 940



it is understandable that 940 consumes around what 10-15w? more than the 945? But even if we add it up that would still fit in the not negligible bracket between the i7-3820 so I'm curious where you pulled that 80w difference.

Okay, first of all you can't just pull screenshots from anywhere and expect that you're talking about the right thing. First of all, if you read what they were doing:
For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, while simultaneously loading the GPU with OCCT v3.1.0 GPU:OCCT stress test at 1680x1050@60Hz in full screen mode.

Also are those overclocked power draws? Yeah, I don't think so. Those are stock. So consider for a moment that SB-E idles like a champ even when overclocking.

So okay, assuming they did the same amount of work, they're the same. Oh wait, how much slower is the 945 against the 3820 again? Look at the numbers, most of them show the 3820 to be twice as fast as the 945, according to the review that you took that screenshot from. So lets assume you have both CPUs and the 3820 spends half as much time doing the same job because it does twice as much in the same amount of time (more or less, but on average I would say that is correct.)

So lets assume we record over a few days of load where the 3820 takes 0.75 days instead of 1.5 days like the 945 would. That's the 3820 running at "166-watts" for 0.75 hour (124.5 watt/hours) plus idle which is hours at 64-watts @ 1.75 (80 watt/hours) for a total of 204.5 watt/hours.

Take the 945, loaded for twice as long (1.50 days) and idle for only (0.5 days). So 173-watts would be 259.5 watt/hours a day plus idle of 0.5 days @ 79-watts (39.5 watt/hours) which totals ~300 watt/hours.

So the actual power used difference is right there. If the 945 draws more power, the result of subtracting the value of the 945 from the 3820 should yield a negative number.

300 watt/hours - 204.5 watt/hours = 95.5 watt/hours difference for the same workload which would be recorded for twice the length of time of the longest running CPU.

Now that's the calculated difference from Cannucks. Hilbert Hagedoorn would disagree with the 3820 power consumption figures there. It doesn't help that their stressing the GPU which has nothing to do with CPU load if you're already maxxing it out.

What they leave out is what happens when you overclock the 945 and it ate power in a similar manner as Hilbert's graph does for the 8150 but not as bad, but it got up there.


So not only am I talking about machines that are overclocked, my idea of saving power over it holds true even for stock speeds, the power issue will only become more apparent the more you overclock.

I thank you for the challenge, but a little more research might be in order before making such claims.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 3, 2014
Messages
965 (0.27/day)
System Name Sham Pc
Processor i5-2500k @ 4.33
Motherboard INTEL DZ77SL 50K
Cooling 2 bay res. "2L of fluid in loop" 1x480 2x360
Memory 16gb 4x4 kingstone 1600 hyper x fury black
Video Card(s) hfa2 gtx 780 @ 1306/1768 (xspc bloc)
Storage 1tb wd red 120gb kingston on the way os, 1.5Tb wd black, 3tb random WD rebrand
Display(s) cibox something or other 23" 1080p " 23 inch downstairs. 52 inch plasma downstairs 15" tft kitchen
Case 900D
Audio Device(s) on board
Power Supply xion gaming seriese 1000W (non modular) 80+ bronze
Software windows 10 pro x64
my i5-2500k with 40% oc "1.35v" idles at 15.xxW
i wish i had bothered to check what my Q6600 idled at (but it was always running at 3.7 and never clocked down with the way i had it)
the i5 at full load occt gets to 111.54w
( represents a decent load, which is a bit more than you get from gaming or cpu intensive pc tasks)

These measurements are taken from aida64 and only measure the cpu power draw not the system draw..

maybe we need to compile a list some where a "post your aida 64 cpu power consumption idle and load" Thread. and after a set amount of time make it in to a nice little graph..
This would help us know just how much you stand to save over a given period at your electricity tariff.

I am certain that i am making a substantial saving with the i5 vs the q6600 but only because my tarif is close to 50c P/kwh
however i cant find power consumption figures for the q6600 alone. only system power usage.. which makes it a bit more difficult to calculate properly.

-=edit=-
found some one elses results and they had these numbers
47.23w Idle
145.6w Load
so seems there is a conciderable difference. and i probably should have had my q6600 clock down from 3.7 when it wasnt under load.
(over 100% diference in idle consumption and about 25% difference under load.)
I will call my idle usage of the q6600 at 75w as a guess. so you guys are right even at my tarif the main bulk of my savings must have come from swapping the tv.
but at idle this i5 saves a considerable amount ~65w compared to the q6600. and 34w at load, so it does add up over the avarage upgrade course of 3 years at my tariff of 48c p/kwh.. and does mean that the cpu will pay for its self with ease.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,973 (0.77/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 desktop systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Ryzen 5 5500 / Ryzen 5 4600G / FX 6300 (12 years latter got to see how bad Bulldozer is)
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (1) / MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (2) / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Cooling Νoctua U12S / Segotep T4 / Snowman M-T6
Memory 16GB G.Skill RIPJAWS 3600 / 16GB G.Skill Aegis 3200 / 16GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) ASRock RX 6600 + GT 710 (PhysX)/ Vega 7 integrated / Radeon RX 580
Storage NVMes, NVMes everywhere / NVMes, more NVMes / Various storage, SATA SSD mostly
Display(s) Philips 43PUS8857/12 UHD TV (120Hz, HDR, FreeSync Premium) ---- 19'' HP monitor + BlitzWolf BW-V5
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / Sharkoon Rebel 9 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Silver Power 400W / Sharkoon 650W
Mouse CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / Coolermaster Devastator / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / Coolermaster Devastator / Logitech
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10 / Windows 7
Do you have home PCs in your houses or servers where all the neighbors are uploading tasks forcing your system to run constantly with at least 80-100% utilization?

There is difference between Intel and AMD, but things are not so melodramatic when talking about power bills. It depends on the person and how much it uses the system. If the system is constantly loaded, or idle. If it is constantly open, in stand by mode, or most of the time off. We can create scenarios where the PC is OCed and constantly runs all the time at high loads and come out with numbers that favor Intel greatly, or create other scenarios where the person has 5 PCs in his house usually only one or two of then ON not doing much, where the AMD is a better choice if we factor how much cheaper 5 AMD solutions are compared with 5 Intel. But these are extreme scenarios that only want to come out with an advantage for Intel or AMD and nothing else.
 
Joined
May 3, 2014
Messages
965 (0.27/day)
System Name Sham Pc
Processor i5-2500k @ 4.33
Motherboard INTEL DZ77SL 50K
Cooling 2 bay res. "2L of fluid in loop" 1x480 2x360
Memory 16gb 4x4 kingstone 1600 hyper x fury black
Video Card(s) hfa2 gtx 780 @ 1306/1768 (xspc bloc)
Storage 1tb wd red 120gb kingston on the way os, 1.5Tb wd black, 3tb random WD rebrand
Display(s) cibox something or other 23" 1080p " 23 inch downstairs. 52 inch plasma downstairs 15" tft kitchen
Case 900D
Audio Device(s) on board
Power Supply xion gaming seriese 1000W (non modular) 80+ bronze
Software windows 10 pro x64
well 5 i7's of the same price and performance of the 9590 would be cheaper than 5 amd systems. (need less cooling and less expensive mother boards) and would also run using 1/2 the power...
but i was comparing intel to intel.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
2,973 (0.77/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 desktop systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Ryzen 5 5500 / Ryzen 5 4600G / FX 6300 (12 years latter got to see how bad Bulldozer is)
Motherboard MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (1) / MSI X470 Gaming Plus Max (2) / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3
Cooling Νoctua U12S / Segotep T4 / Snowman M-T6
Memory 16GB G.Skill RIPJAWS 3600 / 16GB G.Skill Aegis 3200 / 16GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) ASRock RX 6600 + GT 710 (PhysX)/ Vega 7 integrated / Radeon RX 580
Storage NVMes, NVMes everywhere / NVMes, more NVMes / Various storage, SATA SSD mostly
Display(s) Philips 43PUS8857/12 UHD TV (120Hz, HDR, FreeSync Premium) ---- 19'' HP monitor + BlitzWolf BW-V5
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / Sharkoon Rebel 9 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Silver Power 400W / Sharkoon 650W
Mouse CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / Coolermaster Devastator / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster Devastator III Plus / Coolermaster Devastator / Logitech
Software Windows 10 / Windows 10 / Windows 7
well 5 i7's of the same price and performance of the 9590 would be cheaper than 5 amd systems. also run using 1/2 the power...
but i was comparing intel to intel.

Really? Well next time we compare power efficiency and performance/watt between AMD and Nvidia cards let's start with Titan Z.
 
Joined
May 3, 2014
Messages
965 (0.27/day)
System Name Sham Pc
Processor i5-2500k @ 4.33
Motherboard INTEL DZ77SL 50K
Cooling 2 bay res. "2L of fluid in loop" 1x480 2x360
Memory 16gb 4x4 kingstone 1600 hyper x fury black
Video Card(s) hfa2 gtx 780 @ 1306/1768 (xspc bloc)
Storage 1tb wd red 120gb kingston on the way os, 1.5Tb wd black, 3tb random WD rebrand
Display(s) cibox something or other 23" 1080p " 23 inch downstairs. 52 inch plasma downstairs 15" tft kitchen
Case 900D
Audio Device(s) on board
Power Supply xion gaming seriese 1000W (non modular) 80+ bronze
Software windows 10 pro x64
would kind of be pointless how about a 290x vs a 770
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
561 (0.12/day)
System Name Salamander
Processor Ryzen 5 3600 @ 4.325ghz 1.206v
Motherboard Asrock X370 Taichi
Cooling EK Supremacy Evo | Black Ice Nemesis 360GTS XFlow | Noiseblocker BlackSilent Pro 120mm x 3
Memory Team T-Force Xtreem 2x8GB DDR4 3733 @ 3733mhz c16 1.4v | IF @ 1866mhz
Video Card(s) XFX RX-470 RS Single Fan flashed to RX-570 @ stock water-cooled
Storage Samsung 850 Evo 256gb M.2 | Crucial M4 128GB | WD Blue 1TB | WD Blue 500GB 2.5" | Toshiba 2TB 2.5"
Display(s) LG 27MP68VQ 27" 1920x1080 75hz IPS Freesync monitor
Case Fractal Design Define C
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Gold 650w
Mouse Steelseries Kana White
Keyboard Steelseries 6GV2 Cherry MX Black
Software Windows 10 Pro N
Okay, first of all you can't just pull screenshots from anywhere and expect that you're talking about the right thing. First of all, if you read what they were doing:


Also are those overclocked power draws? Yeah, I don't think so. Those are stock. So consider for a moment that SB-E idles like a champ even when overclocking.

So okay, assuming they did the same amount of work, they're the same. Oh wait, how much slower is the 945 against the 3820 again? Look at the numbers, most of them show the 3820 to be twice as fast as the 945, according to the review that you took that screenshot from. So lets assume you have both CPUs and the 3820 spends half as much time doing the same job because it does twice as much in the same amount of time (more or less, but on average I would say that is correct.)

So lets assume we record over a few days of load where the 3820 takes 0.75 days instead of 1.5 days like the 945 would. That's the 3820 running at "166-watts" for 0.75 hour (124.5 watt/hours) plus idle which is hours at 64-watts @ 1.75 (80 watt/hours) for a total of 204.5 watt/hours.

Take the 945, loaded for twice as long (1.50 days) and idle for only (0.5 days). So 173-watts would be 259.5 watt/hours a day plus idle of 0.5 days @ 79-watts (39.5 watt/hours) which totals ~300 watt/hours.

So the actual power used difference is right there. If the 945 draws more power, the result of subtracting the value of the 945 from the 3820 should yield a negative number.

300 watt/hours - 204.5 watt/hours = 95.5 watt/hours difference for the same workload which would be recorded for twice the length of time of the longest running CPU.

Now that's the calculated difference from Cannucks. Hilbert Hagedoorn would disagree with the 3820 power consumption figures there. It doesn't help that their stressing the GPU which has nothing to do with CPU load if you're already maxxing it out.

What they leave out is what happens when you overclock the 945 and it ate power in a similar manner as Hilbert's graph does for the 8150 but not as bad, but it got up there.


So not only am I talking about machines that are overclocked, my idea of saving power over it holds true even for stock speeds, the power issue will only become more apparent the more you overclock.

I thank you for the challenge, but a little more research might be in order before making such claims.

Yup I'm just clarifying cause you never mentioned you're doing productivity tasks. Now my charts may be a bit off cause just as I said, I assumed all you did is just gaming. Just want to emphasize the difference in terms of total consumption minus the productivity factor. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,316 (0.31/day)
Processor i7-13700k
Motherboard Asus Tuf Gaming z790-plus
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper 212 RGB
Memory Corsair Vengeance RGB 32GB DDR5 7000mhz
Video Card(s) Asus Dual Geforce RTX 4070 Super ( 2800mhz @ 1.0volt, ~60mhz overlock -.1volts. 180-190watt draw)
Storage 1x Samsung 980 Pro PCIe4 NVme, 2x Samsung 1tb 850evo SSD, 3x WD drives, 2 seagate
Display(s) Acer Predator XB273u 27inch IPS G-Sync 165hz
Power Supply Corsair RMx Series RM850x (OCZ Z series PSU retired after 13 years of service)
Mouse Logitech G502 hero
Keyboard Logitech G710+
AMD plans to deliver 25x APU energy efficiency gains but also plans to deliver 25x CPU energy consumption, heat gains. :roll:

Now compare:
Code:
         i7-4790K - FX-9590
5GHz     air           water
nm       22nm          32nm
price    340$          360$

So you are paying same price for old tech. :rockout:

AMD add's in GPU has part of the performance which I have seen a few artcles from "amd" fan review sites that wrote story from such view point, AMD put bench mark to say their apu is performance wise as fast an i7. But the benchmarks in question were basemarkCL, 3dmark, and forgot the other. all 3 were ones that could use both cpu and gpu at same time. Mostly everyone knows that only handful programs at best do that in real world use.

edit: found the article the title:
"AMD goes punch-for-punch with Intel's top-end i7 processors"

Yet they used an i7 4500u for comparison and claim that is "top-end i7" only dual core i7.

I can support AMD including water coolers for their top CPUs. It differentiates itself from Intel. Whether they are great CPUs, that's debatable.

they had to use water cooler, nothing else could cool the damn thing.

FX chips are severely overvolted. I've tuned core voltage down to >1.3v on my 8350s and 1.225v on my 8320s without crashes or any other problem (running Boinc 100% of the time they're on). Heck, at that VCORE, my 8320s run on 95w boards (Asrock 880GM-LE FX) without any problem.

Why do they ship with a 1.4v VCORE? My guess is that some of the worse chips do need the 1.4v and AMD chose to play sure.

Not like that would suddenly turn them into power sipping powerhouses but every bit helps :toast:

Its the silicon lottery, some cpu's can do same voltage at lower volts but a lot of them can't. So they gotta set voltage based on what works on everything. If you looked at intel cpu's, same thing happens with theirs. my 4770k can do 4.5ghz at 1.20volts but a lot of other chips are closer to 1.30-1.35volts or even higher.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
3 (0.00/day)
Location
Louisiana
System Name Odin
Processor AMD 8350 @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Asus Sabertooth 990FX Rev. 2
Cooling Scythe Ashura Shadow
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB (2x8GB) @ 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X
Storage 1x Kingston Hyper X 120GB SSD, 1x Seagate Barracuda 1 TB HDD, 1x Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD
Display(s) Asus VE24Q x 1
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Silverstone Strider 1000W 80+Gold
Software Windows 7 Home 64 bit
C'mon AMD.....adding the AIO will not "wooo" anyone...not even die hard AMD fans (like me). As others have stated, lower the TDP on the 9000 series FX chips, and then we may bite. But AIO....thanks but no thanks, will be sticking to my 8350. o_O
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
1,316 (0.31/day)
Processor i7-13700k
Motherboard Asus Tuf Gaming z790-plus
Cooling Coolermaster Hyper 212 RGB
Memory Corsair Vengeance RGB 32GB DDR5 7000mhz
Video Card(s) Asus Dual Geforce RTX 4070 Super ( 2800mhz @ 1.0volt, ~60mhz overlock -.1volts. 180-190watt draw)
Storage 1x Samsung 980 Pro PCIe4 NVme, 2x Samsung 1tb 850evo SSD, 3x WD drives, 2 seagate
Display(s) Acer Predator XB273u 27inch IPS G-Sync 165hz
Power Supply Corsair RMx Series RM850x (OCZ Z series PSU retired after 13 years of service)
Mouse Logitech G502 hero
Keyboard Logitech G710+
C'mon AMD.....adding the AIO will not "wooo" anyone...not even die hard AMD fans (like me). As others have stated, lower the TDP on the 9000 series FX chips, and then we may bite. But AIO....thanks but no thanks, will be sticking to my 8350. o_O

wouldn't be possible without a whole more cpu arch to replace it. 9590 is nothing more then overclocked 8350.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2014
Messages
3 (0.00/day)
Location
Louisiana
System Name Odin
Processor AMD 8350 @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Asus Sabertooth 990FX Rev. 2
Cooling Scythe Ashura Shadow
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical 16GB (2x8GB) @ 1866
Video Card(s) Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X
Storage 1x Kingston Hyper X 120GB SSD, 1x Seagate Barracuda 1 TB HDD, 1x Seagate Barracuda 2TB HDD
Display(s) Asus VE24Q x 1
Case NZXT Switch 810
Audio Device(s) N/A
Power Supply Silverstone Strider 1000W 80+Gold
Software Windows 7 Home 64 bit
wouldn't be possible without a whole more cpu arch to replace it. 9590 is nothing more then overclocked 8350.
Yeah, I know....still can wish this into reality right?;)
 
Top