AMD FX-9590 5 GHz Processor Benchmarks Surface, Great Performance At A Price

[erocker]

Some people will buy these just because it has 8 cores and is clocked at 5.0 (with turbo)
Non-informed people will be super impressed by that.
Also, some shady sellers will peg this as a 40ghz (8 cores x 5.0ghz each) monster CPU.

Others have money burning holes in their pockets and think that the most expensive is the best.

Yes, and it doesn't make any difference to me. Nor should it for anyone else. People's spending habits and research skills (or lack thereof) doesn't affect me one bit nor is it any of my business. It's their money, people should do what they please with it.

 

[radrok]

Back in the day when AMD used to sell their $999 dollar chips, some people spent the megabucks on AMD rigs.

Lovely Athlon 64 FX days

Would love to see AMD leading the pack again sometimes.

We'd all benefit from it.

 

[suraswami]

Lovely Athlon 64 FX days

Would love to see AMD leading the pack again sometimes.

We'd all benefit from it.

Nah, let AMD be the underdogs, I am perfectly happy with the current FX pricing (except 9*** series). Let the Intel FBs pay that extra to gain few secs in their life

 

[flash.flood]

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.

I contacted AsRock on 8/1/13 about my Fatal1ty 990FX and they said it does not support the FX 9590 or 9370. Apparently that updated CPU code in the latest beta BIOS is not for these processors. I'm not going to risk it until I can get confirmation. If I have to change motherboards again it will be the last AsRock I buy.

Both the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX support the new processors as well. Newegg offers them in bundles at this time.

 

[oNyX]

Let the Intel FBs pay that extra to gain few secs in their life

The FX-9590 is kinda like the Lexus LFA. Any other supercar is faster than it and cheaper. But the difference is that it's a Lexus. Faster performance doesn't buy better enjoyment.

 

[d1nky]

I contacted AsRock on 8/1/13 about my Fatal1ty 990FX and they said it does not support the FX 9590 or 9370. Apparently that updated CPU code in the latest beta BIOS is not for these processors. I'm not going to risk it until I can get confirmation. If I have to change motherboards again it will be the last AsRock I buy.

Both the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX support the new processors as well. Newegg offers them in bundles at this time.

i believe this, i got the same mobo and it hardly handles a 8350 @ 5ghz

im always tripping the board out.

 

[flash.flood]

i believe this, i got the same mobo and it hardly handles a 8350 @ 5ghz

im always tripping the board out.

Interesting. I'm still running my old Antec Truepower Quattro 1000W PS and have absolutely no issues with the FX-8350 at 5ghz when using the fatal1ty. In fact, when I was running the 8150 before that, I found the Fatality to be the only board I could get the 8150 processor to 5ghz and still see a desktop (Not much stability other than web browsing). I tried the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX before buying the AsRock and had poor stability beyond 4.5ghz with the 8150. I always thought the V12 + 2 Power Phase was what made the Fatil1ty.

The thing is, there is no real advantage to running the FX-9370. The passmark benchmarks between the two are 9100 range(FX-8350) to 9500 range(FX-9370) respectively. That's not much of a jump considering the the FX-8150 benched around 7700 with the exact same tests. For as much power as it takes I am disappointed with AMD and their antiquated technology. It may be time to go back to Intel since I will need to buy a new motherboard anyway (Thanks AsRock).

Let the Intel FBs pay that extra to gain few secs in their life

The Intel Core i7-4770K is cheaper and much faster than the FX-9370 while having a Max TDP of 84 W compared to 220 w. You could probably buy another 4770k after a year of using the 9370. Way too much energy if you're the one paying for it. Even the 3770K beats it with a TDP of 77 w.

AMD better start pricing their GPU's and CPU's much lower or AMD is going to stand for Another Manufacturer Dies. Nobody in their right mind would waste money on the FX-9590.

 

[d1nky]

have absolutely no issues with the FX-8350 at 5ghz when using the fatal1ty

i know this is off subject, but what voltage does that require?!

mine at 5ghz (overclocked FSB, CPUNB, RAM and HT) wants around 1.6v

i did have 5.1ghz stable for about 20mins but tripped OCP.

1.61v is the limit ive found, any more at full load and it trips straight away.

what happens is all lights go off the mobo, screen freezes, the reset button does nothing as the board is dead. i have to drain the power then reboot.

 

[Johan45]

i know this is off subject, but what voltage does that require?!

mine at 5ghz (overclocked FSB, CPUNB, RAM and HT) wants around 1.6v

i did have 5.1ghz stable for about 20mins but tripped OCP.

1.61v is the limit ive found, any more at full load and it trips straight away.

what happens is all lights go off the mobo, screen freezes, the reset button does nothing as the board is dead. i have to drain the power then reboot.

Set the bios to ignore cpu voltage it'll be in the monitoring section. That'll let you make all the magic smoke leak out Dinky

 

[Johan45]

that's my 8350 cpu score of a tad over 11.5 k with a 25% o/c
I am quite happy to go toe to toe with any fellow amd or intel in benchies

Here happydays try this http://hwbot.org/submission/2393308_johan45_superpi___1m_fx_8350_14sec_102ms

 

[Johan45]

Herentry all 8 http://hwbot.org/submission/2395503_johan45_wprime___32m_fx_8350_6sec_366ms

 

[Wile E]

Just found this thread. Haven't really been hitting the forums for a few months. I wanted to go back to page one and the x264 bench and show my results on my low clock, low noise, couldn't be arsed to tweak anything settings. (I need to break down and clean out my loop. It's been in there since I installed the chip.)

980X@3864
3x2GB @ 1600 7-9-7-28 1T

Not bad for a 3 year old cpu on low clocks.

This AMD chip doesn't look too bad. How well do they clock on water compared to the similar Intel offerings?

EDIT:

Went back into my bios because I realized my ram was set wrong. It's CAS6 ram. So I did a quick run at my old 24/7 settings of 4264Mhz and proper ram timings.

 

[Johan45]

oopa

 

[Wile E]

Prettyn sure this is the AMD section

Irrelevant when I'm asking how a clocked 9590 compares.

 

[Johan45]

Pretty sure it'll compare alot like the 8350 maybe just a bit better V_core

 

[flash.flood]

i know this is off subject, but what voltage does that require?!

Stable at 5ghz and 1.55v with an Antec kuhler h2O 920. Idles around 10-15°C and stays under 40°C when stressing all cores for more than 4 hours. I have 5 fans running in an Antec 900 case but they never go beyond 50%.

To be honest I haven't OC'ed it for about 8 months. In the beginning I ran many simulations but anyone that owns an FX8350 knows it does well on it's own. I keep it on auto-clock paired with a GTX-680 and it does it's cool and quiet thing while maxing out every game to date.

I've had it for about a year now. I'm ready for something new and thanks to AsRock, I won't be able to try out the latest from AMD. No bueno!

 

[Am*]

Most of that's wrong too
Vishera has on die nb and imc it doesn't have a capacity for outputting vga but that would not preclude a compute use gpu (technicaly) in am3+ package or ddr4 as even that can be added via external nb which is exactly what amd needs to focus on next imho , that and its sb but its on it like arm over x86 they're are doing stuff people don't seem to be noticing with there already modularised designs
Oh and the ht link as a resource is indispensable and without doubt requires advancement but its going nowhere.

At what point have you been on topic btw

That is complete and utter nonsense. First off, Vishera has no Northbridge on die. Secondly, putting the memory controller on the northbridge is the most idiotic suggestion anyone can make, since
A. it will make the latency skyrocket
B. adds another point of failure to the motherboard, which no sane person would ever want. And HyperTransport needs to either evolve faster to stay relevant or die and get replaced by PCI-E 3.0, which is evolving much faster (doubling every 3-5 years roughly, HyperTransport has barely changed at all in the last 6 years).

And I have been on topic the whole time, since this thread is about a Vishera-based CPU.

 

[cdawall]

Hypertransport is no different than qpi and both carry similar speeds and bandwidths.

 

[TheHunter]

EDIT:

Went back into my bios because I realized my ram was set wrong. It's CAS6 ram. So I did a quick run at my old 24/7 settings of 4264Mhz and proper ram timings.

http://img.techpowerup.org/130806/x264fhd_4264.jpg

Well you can't really compare 12 vs 8 threads, but ok i'll compare too this is what i get at 4.6Ghz


Basically the same as you at ~4.3ghz, not bad imo for a 8 threaded cpu and 3x cheaper

 

[eidairaman1]

You have no earthly Idea how TDP works

Interesting. I'm still running my old Antec Truepower Quattro 1000W PS and have absolutely no issues with the FX-8350 at 5ghz when using the fatal1ty. In fact, when I was running the 8150 before that, I found the Fatality to be the only board I could get the 8150 processor to 5ghz and still see a desktop (Not much stability other than web browsing). I tried the Asus Crosshair Formula V and SABERTOOTH 990FX before buying the AsRock and had poor stability beyond 4.5ghz with the 8150. I always thought the V12 + 2 Power Phase was what made the Fatil1ty.

The thing is, there is no real advantage to running the FX-9370. The passmark benchmarks between the two are 9100 range(FX-8350) to 9500 range(FX-9370) respectively. That's not much of a jump considering the the FX-8150 benched around 7700 with the exact same tests. For as much power as it takes I am disappointed with AMD and their antiquated technology. It may be time to go back to Intel since I will need to buy a new motherboard anyway (Thanks AsRock).




The Intel Core i7-4770K is cheaper and much faster than the FX-9370 while having a Max TDP of 84 W compared to 220 w. You could probably buy another 4770k after a year of using the 9370. Way too much energy if you're the one paying for it. Even the 3770K beats it with a TDP of 77 w.

AMD better start pricing their GPU's and CPU's much lower or AMD is going to stand for Another Manufacturer Dies. Nobody in their right mind would waste money on the FX-9590.

Just found this thread. Haven't really been hitting the forums for a few months. I wanted to go back to page one and the x264 bench and show my results on my low clock, low noise, couldn't be arsed to tweak anything settings. (I need to break down and clean out my loop. It's been in there since I installed the chip.)

980X@3864
3x2GB @ 1600 7-9-7-28 1T

Not bad for a 3 year old cpu on low clocks.

http://img.techpowerup.org/130806/x264fhd_3864.jpg

This AMD chip doesn't look too bad. How well do they clock on water compared to the similar Intel offerings?

EDIT:

Went back into my bios because I realized my ram was set wrong. It's CAS6 ram. So I did a quick run at my old 24/7 settings of 4264Mhz and proper ram timings.

http://img.techpowerup.org/130806/x264fhd_4264.jpg

dude- 1366 arch was faster in certain tasks than what 1156/55 were even gave 2011 a hardtime

 

[Fourstaff]

dude- 1366 arch was faster in certain tasks than what 1156/55 were even gave 2011 a hardtime

I thinik 1366 was clock for clock slower than IVB, and IVB can overclock just as high if not higher. The only scenario I can think of is when 1366 comes out tops is using the 6 core chips. Maybe more ramslots and more PCI-E, but that's just it.

 

[HumanSmoke]

I think 1366 was clock for clock slower than IVB, and IVB can overclock just as high if not higher. The only scenario I can think of is when 1366 comes out tops is using the 6 core chips. Maybe more ramslots and more PCI-E, but that's just it.

Pretty much. The first iteration of mainstream LGA 1155 gave Gulftown a run for its money. Core-for-core and clock-for-clock the difference certainly doesn't favour the Bloomfield CPUs.

 

[Wile E]

Well you can't really compare 12 vs 8 threads, but ok i'll compare too this is what i get at 4.6Ghz
View attachment 52259 View attachment 52260

Basically the same as you at ~4.3ghz, not bad imo for a 8 threaded cpu and 3x cheaper

Not too shabby at all.

I never tried for max stable clocks on mine. Just randomly set it there, and it worked, so I left it there. Still have plenty of voltage headroom to play with, I'm just too lazy. lol.

 

[radrok]

I bet you can reach 4,7 GHz, that's the speed I used to run mine.

 

[BigMack70]

Looks like AMD is running out of whatever they were smoking and slowly coming back to reality with this chip:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/jules/amd-orders-huge-price-cut-on-fx-9590-game-on/