fx-9590 benchmarks surface

I'm still waiting to see benchmarks against 8350 at same clock speed. Curious if the extra cache helps
 
Cool. Just want to see some real, official pricing. I still cant believe this thing is coming out at $700-800 like theyre saying.
 
Intel extreme CPUs use the 'extreme' moniker to denote performance, not heat output.
 
leeleatherwood said:
Price isn't really that bad when Intel Extreme CPU's are $1000+
Click to expand...

Those are actually at the top of pretty much everything when it comes to performance though. Kind of like the Titan. It's the best single card, and there is a premium because of that.
 
In his cpuz the HT link speed says 2000..Mine says 2617. Other than that the cpu has the exact same revision stepping and family as my 8350. Why the low HT speeds on that chip?
 
1/2 bent said:
In his cpuz the HT link speed says 2000..Mine says 2617. Other than that the cpu has the exact same revision stepping and family as my 8350. Why the low HT speeds on that chip?
Click to expand...

it could be that the motherboard reporting it wrong or cpuz reporting it wrong, if you look at i think it's the third to last screenshot it shows the HT clock at 2.594Ghz.
 
You get what you pay for with the Intel pricing. Is it overpriced? Yes...

However, if AMD were to come up with a product that competes in the near future when AMD releases their new chips in the late fall/Q4 of this year...then AMD might smell blood in the water if their performance competes with the I7 in the upper end of the market and prices their chips accordingly, Intel would lower the price to keep sales up, they did it with the Athlon 64 back in the day.
 
pbassjunk said:
There's extra cache? Both chips are 8 L2 8 L3.
Click to expand...

I read they had 16mb of L2 and 16mb of l3, though it could of been a misprint.

Also the intel extremes run hot, i bought one once and it ran super hot -- but it was fast.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Those are actually at the top of pretty much everything when it comes to performance though. Kind of like the Titan. It's the best single card, and there is a premium because of that.
Click to expand...

This pretty much covers it. I feel like anything over $500 is pushing it for this chip, though. AMD needs a pretty large overclock to keep up with any of the stock SB/IB/Haswell CPUs as it is, even for a 'top-end premium' product there is a certain obligation to justify the price if you want anybody to buy it. With Titan and Intel EE CPUs, there really wasn't any single processing unit that could touch it in the consumer realm at the time of release. With this CPU, they're still fighting an uphill battle against a significantly cheaper chip.
 
One scenario where i could see this cpu finding buyer is someone having ultra expensive software tied to his pc otherwise pricing is sad joke.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Those are actually at the top of pretty much everything when it comes to performance though. Kind of like the Titan. It's the best single card, and there is a premium because of that.
Click to expand...

Yes, the EE's are $1000+ because they are the top performers and do demand a premium.

Which is why the FX-9590's will be ~$800, 20% cheaper.
 
Which is why the FX-9590's will be ~$800, 20% cheaper.
Click to expand...

Should it be 20% cheaper than the 3960X or the 3930X?

I do not see any way that this CPU will be as good as an i7 3960X overall. It may be in heavily multithereaded applications like video encoding, VMs and a few other applications however overall the 3960X can not be its target can it? Also how much can it overclock over the stock 4.7GHz compared to the 3960X/ 3970X?
 
Last edited:
drescherjm said:
Should it be 20% cheaper than the 3960X or the 3930X?

I do not see any way that this CPU will be as good as an i7 3960X overall. It may be in heavily multithereaded applications like video encoding, VMs and a few other applications however overall the 3960X can not be its target can it? Also how much can it overclock over the stock 4.7GHz compared to the 3960X/ 3970X?
Click to expand...

Why should the FX-9590 be as good as an i7 3960X when it will be ~20% cheaper?

I would expect it achieve 20% less performance since it costs 20% less.
 
Hmmmm, yeah... No thanks...

bth_HotElectricMeter.gif
 
To me I do not care as much about the 220W if there is performance to be had and that they can keep the idle power down.
 
Everyone quit bitching about the heat, it's not like we didn't run .35um Pentium IIs and shit :p
 
I think the idea was supposed to be to compare the FX-9590 to the i7-3960X and the FX-9350 to the i7-3930k making the AMD parts cheaper than their supposed equivalent intel parts, unfortunately these early benchmarks are showing the higher end FX-9590 isn't even a match for the cheaper i7-3930k even for the tasks that the "real" AMD cores are supposed to hold their own against the HT intel cores such as video encoding




Even "bestcase" isn't as good as the i7-3930k stock, which is looking to be ~$250 cheaper, and the "platform cost" of 2011 isn't anywhere near over $250 more than the AMD one.

Just buy the FX-8350 and OC it to about the same as these chips anyway and save yourself 600 bucks.
 
you know what does come to light is.... AMD Piledrivers when put into perspective..... aren't bad at at all, especially lightly over clocked.
 
buttons said:
I read they had 16mb of L2 and 16mb of l3, though it could of been a misprint.

Also the intel extremes run hot, i bought one once and it ran super hot -- but it was fast.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I pointed out in another thread that the Tigerdirect page showed 16mb each. The CPU-Z screenshots from the OP's link show 8mb. You can also see that they're using ~1.525v to achieve 5GHz, another indication that they're just cherry picked Visheras overclocked to the max.

There's no reason to buy one of these over an 8320 as far as I can tell. The handful of FX systems I've worked on have all easily been able to achieve at least 4.6 GHz at 1.45v (Piledriver seems to go to 4.8 on the same voltage, though I've only worked on three). I can see why AMD is marketing these to OEMs rather than enthusiasts.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, my 4.9ghz 8320 had a higher cinebench 11.5 benchmark then the 9590. i do think the 8320 is pretty good value.
 
Sheppard said:
you know what does come to light is.... AMD Piledrivers when put into perspective..... aren't bad at at all, especially lightly over clocked.
Click to expand...

I realized this a while back when I built my 6 core. It's nice when you don't expect shit and get gold :)
 
buttons said:
Yeah, my 4.9ghz 8320 had a higher cinebench 11.5 benchmark then the 9590.
Click to expand...

I suspect that they're throttling back some of the cores using APM to keep the TDP below 220w, sacrificing multi-threaded performance for lower power consumption. There's no way a Vishera with all 8 cores under full load running at 4.7+ GHz would only pull 220w. With APM switched off in the BIOS performance and power consumption should be the same as an equally overclocked 8320/8350.

I'd have to play with one to know for sure though.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
This is still Piledriver. We don't know when Steamroller will be out.
Click to expand...

reb00tin said:
Is this Steamroller the last AM3+?
Click to expand...

If going by the most recent roadmap, Kaveri (Steamroller APU) should be out by the end of the year if AMD sticks to the schedule. Latest I see that being released is Q1 2014.

As for Steamroller FX, an older roadmap had it scheduled to be released sometime mid- to late-2014. I would not be surprised if it's released the same time as the 1070 and 1090FX chipsets.

Also have to realize that with all of AMD's financial troubles from a year or two ago and their restructuring/layoffs, a lot of things got pushed back while others that may bring a profit to AMD got pushed forward. In other words, Steamroller FX got pushed back and Excavator has been on "indefinite" for now. Pushed forward are the Steamroller APUs (Kaveri), Jaguar APUs (Kabini, Temash, Bobcat 2.0), and Vishera APUs (Richland, Trinity). AMD HD 8000/8000M is OEM only, and HD 9000 is just starting to get leaked released date some time in October of this year.
 
Aww. I was hoping it would be $500. I wanted to make a high end AMD (Linux gaming) PC.
 
octoberasian said:
If going by the most recent roadmap, Kaveri (Steamroller APU) should be out by the end of the year if AMD sticks to the schedule. Latest I see that being released is Q1 2014.

As for Steamroller FX, an older roadmap had it scheduled to be released sometime mid- to late-2014. I would not be surprised if it's released the same time as the 1070 and 1090FX chipsets.

Also have to realize that with all of AMD's financial troubles from a year or two ago and their restructuring/layoffs, a lot of things got pushed back while others that may bring a profit to AMD got pushed forward. In other words, Steamroller FX got pushed back and Excavator has been on "indefinite" for now. Pushed forward are the Steamroller APUs (Kaveri), Jaguar APUs (Kabini, Temash, Bobcat 2.0), and Vishera APUs (Richland, Trinity). AMD HD 8000/8000M is OEM only, and HD 9000 is just starting to get leaked released date some time in October of this year.
Click to expand...

So Steamroller for AM3+ will have many things disabled, like GPU and southbrige?
 
The AM3+ platform does not even support graphics, nothing will be disabled it just is not the same part as you get on FM2+ .

Piledriver is also on AM3+ and on FM2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top