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



## Over_Lord (Jul 7, 2013)

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.




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 7, 2013)

I smell a serious war coming... welp.

If i had 1000$ for a CPU, and it's just my opinion, i would kinda rather have the 3970X. But that's only my opinion and i'm sure many will choose the AMD FX chip. I think.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jul 7, 2013)

I'd like one of those 12 core 24 threaded chips from Intel. I guess they're coming next year with Haswell EP


----------



## Fatal (Jul 7, 2013)

I wouldn't spend $1000 for any CPU looks good though.


----------



## madness777 (Jul 7, 2013)

Why is it slower than my 2600k at 5GHz?






My chip scored 10.62 at 5.5GHz too 
Take that  AMD


----------



## buggalugs (Jul 7, 2013)

Just looking at the AIDA memory benchmarks, my 3770K@ 4.5Ghz has much better memory throughput and latency.

 Other benchmarks, 3D mark 11 for AMD is ~7900,  I get over 10,000 and that's with a 77W CPU!! and similar graphics card....

 Its good AMD is trying but they need to do better if they want to be taken seriously. 220W is just frightening.....but I'm sure someone will buy it because it has 5 Gigalertzzzzz!!!


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

I wish they would have overclocked it that is what I really want to see how does it clock. Some decent ram would have been nice as well.



madness777 said:


> Why is it slower than my 2600k at 5GHz?
> http://shrani.si/f/2x/zT/2ERz3W1a/cinebench-5ghz.jpg
> 
> My chip scored 10.62 at 5.5GHz too
> Take that  AMD



Do a little more research into the code path that cinebench uses on an Intel vs AMD. 

x264 is a better benchmark and notice its scores

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-07-07/AMDFX-95905GHzbenchmarks11.jpg


----------



## Renald (Jul 7, 2013)

220W 

It reminds me 500 series of nVidia which were ovens...


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

Renald said:


> 220W
> 
> It reminds me 500 series of nVidia which were ovens...



I'm still curious of actual results not the rated number. Your also thinking first gen fermi cards which were the 4x0 series.


----------



## razaron (Jul 7, 2013)

This is meant for breaking OC records, not making energy efficient high end PCs. If you don't have LN and don't spend large amounts of money on OCing because reasons, buy something else and stop complaining.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 7, 2013)

I'd like to see how close it was to the 220w TDP while running these benchies, were's the power usage figures?


----------



## madness777 (Jul 7, 2013)

cdawall said:


> I wish they would have overclocked it that is what I really want to see how does it clock. Some decent ram would have been nice as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scores 27.6 at 5GHz, yep the AMD is faster here.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 7, 2013)

wow, even the news editor thinks this is a mainstream chip :shadedshu


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 7, 2013)

de.das.dude said:


> wow, even the news editor thinks this is a mainstream chip :shadedshu



It is all a matter of perspective. Fome some, this is a meanstream chip, for other's it could be the CPU of their dreams.


----------



## de.das.dude (Jul 7, 2013)

but its not. its a limited edition fancy chip for getting high Ghz only.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 7, 2013)

In other words, it's exactly what was expected... a chip that gets  by the 3930k which is ~2/3rds the price. 

Good job AMD. :shadedshu

This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jul 7, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.



I guess that was their intention from the start


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 7, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> In other words, it's exactly what was expected... a chip that gets  by the 3930k which is ~2/3rds the price.
> 
> Good job AMD. :shadedshu
> 
> This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.



How is it bad that amd are selling this made for
Ln2 chip yet ok for intel to sell extremes xeons etc it is what it is NOT FOR YOU, or me for that matter


----------



## acerace (Jul 7, 2013)

Some stupid fanboy wars. Move along people.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 7, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> How is it bad that amd are selling this made for
> Ln2 chip yet ok for intel to sell extremes xeons etc it is what it is NOT FOR YOU, or me for that matter



Because there is as yet no proof that it's worth the price premium for LN2 and it's absolutely not worth the price for anything else?

Sorry but I don't understand the AMD apologists on this one. Intel's uber expensive stuff doesn't get beaten by chips that cost 1/2 to 2/3rds as much.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 7, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Because there is as yet no proof that it's worth the price premium for LN2 and it's absolutely not worth the price for anything else?
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand the AMD apologists on this one. Intel's uber expensive stuff doesn't get beaten by chips that cost 1/2 to 2/3rds as much.


Not in the one metric that counts with these chips , intel are a ways off 9ghz on any of there platform's but I do agree ln2 results dont really matter that much and is a pure competitive pr show much like any world record attempt is , the fact you and I think they are wacky and overpriced is completely  irrelevant , intel on the other hand charge a premium for most chips and top end consumer chips are way overpriced for the performance increase yet these arent special cases , intel universally slaps ass on price And feature killing But thats ok I ssuppose because they are technically (with intel compilers anyway)  quicker.


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 7, 2013)

I get 30fps @ 4.5Ghz,


----------



## Makaveli (Jul 7, 2013)

TheHunter said:


> I get 30fps @ 4.5Ghz,
> http://i.imgur.com/XleBO8X.png




encoded 2500 frames, 30.20 fps, 22397.57 kb/s


x264 [info]: ended at Sun Jul 07 10:44:06 2013

x264 [info]: encoding duration 0:01:23

i7 970 @ 4.2 Ghz


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 7, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Because there is as yet no proof that it's worth the price premium for LN2 and it's absolutely not worth the price for anything else?
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand the AMD apologists on this one. Intel's uber expensive stuff doesn't get beaten by chips that cost 1/2 to 2/3rds as much.



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.




BigMack70 said:


> In other words, it's exactly what was expected... a chip that gets  by the 3930k which is ~2/3rds the price.
> 
> Good job AMD. :shadedshu
> 
> This thing better break every overclocking record out there, because it has bad joke written all over it otherwise.





Why else would you buy this CPU? If you bought it for performance alone the jokes on you.


----------



## boulard83 (Jul 7, 2013)

Loll, junk result ... my 4770k pull much better numbers at lower clocks ... fail AMD !


----------



## natr0n (Jul 7, 2013)

All these news editors now crawling out the woodwork.


----------



## Intel God (Jul 7, 2013)

Why doesnt amd just add another module or two and release a 12 core?


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## nanonimo (Jul 7, 2013)

it costs 800€ in spain http://www.pccomponentes.com/amd_fx_9590_4_7ghz.html


----------



## dwade (Jul 7, 2013)

Just awful. Dat TDP in said "Post-PC era." We know which companies will die first.


----------



## ASharp (Jul 7, 2013)

dwade said:


> Just awful. Dat TDP in said "Post-PC era." We know which companies will die first.



Yeah because you know, it's not like AMD has any other products. Oh wait...


----------



## steelkane (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 7, 2013)

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.



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.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Nokiron (Jul 7, 2013)

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?


----------



## eviltwin125 (Jul 7, 2013)

you can reach that speed on a FX 8350 or FX 8320 why the $1000 dlls price tag ?


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 7, 2013)

i got almost 45k on my cpu run at 4.5ghz in vantage, so this one not look so amazing


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Am* (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Nokiron (Jul 7, 2013)

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?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

Nokiron said:


> Its a heavily overclocked and cherrypicked 8350... So what is the difference?



OEM. The three letters that describe the 9590.


----------



## Jorge (Jul 7, 2013)

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?


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## mandis (Jul 7, 2013)

WOW!!! This is amazing performance!!! AMD is the new CPU KING!!! Awesome!!!


----------



## Nokiron (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

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 



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"
> ...



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


----------



## Nokiron (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 7, 2013)

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.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 7, 2013)

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. A*nd 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.


----------



## Nokiron (Jul 7, 2013)

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


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 7, 2013)

People who can afford a $1000 cpu don't care about the price, they will just buy it. 

The people who buy this are not going to be joe schmo, and will probably already know about comparisons with other intel cpu's, they are going to buy this because it is specially binned by amd and are probably going to put it under LN2 etc.

I don't really see the point of arguing over the price tbh, If you think it is too expensive then you probably can't afford it or don't understand the point of it. 

AMD obviously know what they are doing releasing this and are targeting a specific market/person.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 7, 2013)

realllYYYYYY????

I SMASH them benches with my cpu at 4.9ghz or abouts!

wtf amd, this really is just an oc'd 8350?


and i thought it had a 2.7 stock cpunb? why run 2.2ghz?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 7, 2013)

"WOW!!! This is amazing performance!!! AMD is the new CPU KING!!! Awesome!!! "

.............wow that made my day!  ....just waiting for a bridge buyer  to post  their pre-order


----------



## mandis (Jul 7, 2013)

ensabrenoir said:


> .............wow that made my day!



You're welcome!


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 7, 2013)

cdawall said:


> OEM. The three letters that describe the 9590.



FAIL. there's four more that describe this cpu. OVERPRICED and POWERHUNGRY are a couple more.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 7, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> FAIL. there's four more that describe this cpu. OVERPRICED and POWERHUNGRY are a couple more.



someone doesnt know the difference between letters and words, let alone cpu's


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 7, 2013)

Intel God said:


> Why doesnt amd just add another module or two and release a 12 core?



they already do. the opertons have up to 16 cores. and cost a ton as well.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 7, 2013)

d1nky said:


> someone doesnt know the difference between letters and words, let alone cpu's



its all for entertainment.  besides, what oem would use this thing anyway?


----------



## d1nky (Jul 7, 2013)

the price tag says it all. no one, no company and no gamer is buying this for commercial/domestic use! (my beliefs)

at stock speeds its on par with a 5ghz 8350, which is heavily dependant on RAM!

a 5ghz 8350 needs about 1.5-1.6v for 5ghz this 9590 stock 1.5v. the 8350 has a cpunb of 2200mhz stock and overclocks to about 2700mhz max, 9590 2700mhz stock


i believe this chip with the right mobo and RAM will smash the hell out of old AMD records and MOAR!


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 7, 2013)

d1nky said:


> the price tag says it all. no one, no company and no gamer is buying this for commercial/domestic use! (my beliefs)
> 
> at stock speeds its on par with a 5ghz 8350, which is heavily dependant on RAM!
> 
> ...



problem is you'll need a motherboard that can run the nb at 2700 guaranteed. not all are capable of that. and i dont know of any board out at the moment that support 220w tdps. 

however, even the best setup wont cover up the fact that this is an overclocked $200 chip being masqueraded as an elitist part and being sold at $1000.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 7, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> however, even the best setup wont cover up the fact that this is an overclocked $200 chip being masqueraded as an elitist part and being sold at $1000



its an overclocked 8350, while being a 9590 at stock speeds. For sure!


and for the cpunb, more voltage would cure that lol

most 990FXs will probably handle this, just not an overclocked 9590. the phase design would need to be decent. and from what ive heard, theres a few manufacturers releasing updated bioses for this. - not my words!


----------



## cdawall (Jul 7, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> its all for entertainment.  besides, what oem would use this thing anyway?



Origin pc already has it listed.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 8, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> problem is you'll need a motherboard that can run the nb at 2700 guaranteed. not all are capable of that. and i dont know of any board out at the moment that support 220w tdps.
> 
> however, even the best setup wont cover up the fact that this is an overclocked $200 chip being masqueraded as an elitist part and being sold at $1000.



Its probably not a overclocked $200 CPU, my guess is, these are from the best bin AMD currently has. There is probably no 8350 that can run at this clock out of the box. AMD knows these will run at 5ghz out of the box, that's why its sold as a 5ghz cpu.

Also who really cares what the tdp is. I don't think these are meant for joe to put in his machine with a $40 air cooler, if you buy this then you know the cooling requirements and will have appropriate cooling for it.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jul 8, 2013)

What oems are expected to use this?


----------



## riffraffy (Jul 8, 2013)

Why are people mad at AMD ? Intel's R&D is in billions (maybe) AMD R&D is in millions no way they can keep up with the monster , and Haswell didn't exactly knock it out of the park and thats with AMD nibbling at its heels (tiny nibbles ) imagine how Haswell would look if there were no AMD .  Even if someone were strictly a Intel buyer it would be in there interest if AMD did well . AMD needs a big breakthru by one of there lab guys .


----------



## riffraffy (Jul 8, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> and i dont know of any board out at the moment that support 220w tdps



Maybe the people that overclock this chip know how to overclock the motherboard or rig it somehow if thats possible .


----------



## TRWOV (Jul 8, 2013)

I had read that the Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 *rev.3* is supposed to support these but it still lists a 8+2 design in the specs


----------



## garrlker (Jul 8, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Not in the one metric that counts with these chips , intel are a ways off 9ghz on any of there platform's but I do agree ln2 results dont really matter that much and is a pure competitive pr show much like any world record attempt is , the fact you and I think they are wacky and overpriced is completely  irrelevant , intel on the other hand charge a premium for most chips and top end consumer chips are way overpriced for the performance increase yet these arent special cases , intel universally slaps ass on price And feature killing But thats ok I ssuppose because they are technically (with intel compilers anyway)  quicker.



Well maybe if AMD invested some money into a compiler of their own they would have a compiler.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Jul 8, 2013)

garrlker said:


> Well maybe if AMD invested some money into a compiler of their own they would have a compiler.



how much money amd have?


----------



## 20mmrain (Jul 8, 2013)

As far as I can tell I can spend less $ and get way better benchmarks and performance. i7 3930k @ 4.6Ghz







View attachment 51793


----------



## cdawall (Jul 8, 2013)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What oems are expected to use this?



Read below or two posts up from yours when that was answered the first time.



cdawall said:


> Origin pc already has it listed.





garrlker said:


> Well maybe if AMD invested some money into a compiler of their own they would have a compiler.



Any avx based compiler shows large improvements with an amd processor however most of them are set up to not allow anything that isn't intel to use that code path.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 8, 2013)

SIGSEGV said:


> how much money amd have?


Rubbish. AMD have never been that interested even when they were showing a healthy profit. It seems to be a favourite excuse to use AMD's financial situation now to justify their failings when the truth of the matter is that Jerry Sanders was more interested in spunking cash for lavish parties and satisfying his ego. Cash plowed into a compiler when AMD started working on their own architecture with NexGen/K6 would have reaped a better return than a bunch of "look at me" Christmas parties
Bear in mind that for a supposedly poor company, AMD generally carried $5-7bn in assets against less than $2bn in debt up until the ATI acquisition.


----------



## TheinsanegamerN (Jul 8, 2013)

riffraffy said:


> Maybe the people that overclock this chip know how to overclock the motherboard or rig it somehow if thats possible .



no....just no. overclocking the motherboard-and by that, i mean overclocking the northbridge-has nothing to do with it. it's based on how much power the vrms on the motherboard can support. the current 12 phase motherboards have 140 watt support. you would need enough to run a 220 watt tdp. that kind of board would be very expensive (just like this processor...) and would sell very few total boards. I doubt any company will take a gamble on this thing when making a 3rd party board.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 8, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Rubbish. AMD have never been that interested even when they were showing a healthy profit. It seems to be a favourite excuse to use AMD's financial situation now to justify their failings when the truth of the matter is that Jerry Sanders was more interested in spunking cash for lavish parties and satisfying his ego. Cash plowed into a compiler when AMD started working on their own architecture with NexGen/K6 would have reaped a better return than a bunch of "look at me" Christmas parties
> Bear in mind that for a supposedly poor company, AMD generally carried $5-7bn in assets against less than $2bn in debt up until the ATI acquisition.



Though you aren't wrong I don't see how this is Ot but anyways amd works to open standards and in doing so are in some areas held back ,like compilers with most amd favoured ones leveraging open tech and standards from partners  , this could end up being the right path with Hsa though at least imho.
@ insanegamer do you think my chip is pulling 125 watts at 5ghz 1.52core volts on an 8+2 crosshair v   , I've no doubt the crosshair Z would have no issues and if mine gets a bios update id be able to run one though my ocing would be limited.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jul 8, 2013)

dwade said:


> Just awful. Dat TDP in said "Post-PC era." We know which companies will die first.



Welcome to the space heater era!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 8, 2013)

In some cases the TDP has been underestimated such that in real applications (typically strenuous, such as video encoding or games) the CPU has exceeded the TDP. In this case, the CPU will either cause a system failure (a "therm-trip") or throttle its speed down.[1]*Most modern CPUs will only cause a therm-trip on a catastrophic cooling failure such as a stuck fan or a loose 
heatsink.

Taken from wiki

QUOTE=jihadjoe;2937232]Welcome to the space heater era! [/QUOTE]

Indeed but given they are ment for overclocking that shouldn't matter 

I think some have misunderstood why the tdp is high

On a 125watt tdp part from amd they have designed in a hard bios theoretical limit via tdp that is thermally monitored and can throttle or shutdown the cpu.

By setting a 220 tdp top end they have opened up that limit meaning not that more heat can be delt with before the processor calls time out just the processor isn't holding itself back when hitting a safety limit it has hard coded in.

End result hopefully some crazey world records and some good pr but given intel fanboys tend to be too thick to actually know thermal dynamics or power principles and jump on the 220 watt tdp as negative instead of a MASSIVE help to oc teams ah well ,,,,, still all Pr is good isn't it .


----------



## itsakjt (Jul 8, 2013)

Its a bad chip. 5 GHz on 220W TDP is pretty bad when 2nd gen Core i7s at 95W TDP perform better than that at stock. And moreover a core i7 easily gets to 5 GHz within 220W TDP. That being said I think it will be a super flop. And I don't care about any architectural and instruction set differences. AMD FX series have all the instruction sets that the Intels have and even more like the XOP and FMA. So talking about optimizations, it is not possible.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 8, 2013)

....actually I think AMD has been under valueng itself for quite a while.  The bottom line is that they are a business and thy're in business to make a profit.  Their strategy so far of selling cheap chips in mass quantity hasnt yeilded their desired returns so a change is in order.  And we all.... 95% of us know what the true purpose of this chip is for.  The kicker is that if Intel charges you a grand for something.... it RULES.  Amd is justified to do the same....as long as it takes the performance crown.....so sub zero overclocking better be beyound awesome on this chip.   Only some one doing extreme overclocking would value this thing.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 8, 2013)

itsakjt said:


> Its a bad chip. 5 GHz on 220W TDP is pretty bad when 2nd gen Core i7s at 95W TDP perform better than that at stock. And moreover a core i7 easily gets to 5 GHz within 220W TDP.



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?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 8, 2013)

TheinsanegamerN said:


> no....just no. overclocking the motherboard-and by that, i mean overclocking the northbridge-has nothing to do with it. it's based on how much power the vrms on the motherboard can support. the current 12 phase motherboards have 140 watt support. you would need enough to run a 220 watt tdp. that kind of board would be very expensive (just like this processor...) and would sell very few total boards. I doubt any company will take a gamble on this thing when making a 3rd party board.



The good 8+2 phase boards support the chip just fine. Asus CHVF(-z), GB 990FX-UD5/7 and Asrock Fatality/extreme 9 are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. MSI may release a BIOS for their boards, but I hardly trust them with a 140w chip.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 8, 2013)

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



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?



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.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jul 8, 2013)

Missing poll option.

Never spending more than $300 on a CPU.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 8, 2013)

PopcornMachine said:


> Missing poll option.
> 
> Never spending more than $300 on a CPU.



Overclock a 8350 to 5GHz and save $800


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 8, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Overclock a 8350 to 5GHz and save $800



Best plan for most of us 

You should try and figure in the process node advantage intel have , amd are pushing boundaries on 32nm now well soon 28nm and not so far away 20 nm there also pushing max clocks and an excellent feature set unrestricted across the whole fx line with new tech , instructions sets and open standards all over the show ,,,

Name another company that rolls like that plus they sometimes make freak shows for the rich and frosty few.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 9, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Best plan for most of us
> 
> You should try and figure in the process node advantage intel have , amd are pushing boundaries on 32nm now well soon 28nm and not so far away 20 nm there also pushing max clocks and an excellent feature set unrestricted across the whole fx line with new tech , instructions sets and open standards all over the show ,,,
> 
> Name another company that rolls like that plus they sometimes make freak shows for the rich and frosty few.



Read my above reply. This AMD CPU is all hype. Intel Exreme processors kick the snot out of AMD.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 9, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Read my above reply. This AMD CPU is all hype. Intel Exreme processors kick the snot out of AMD.



I don't see how being the first to sell a 5ghz processor being all hype..  nor do i consider winning in a synthetic benchmark kicking the snot out of AMD. Real world performance there's not a big difference. Plus, this is still cheaper than an Extreme chip.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 9, 2013)

Mindweaver said:


> I don't see how being the first to sell a 5ghz processor being all hype..


It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series). As for desktop, you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose? It's a PR stunt pure and simple.


Mindweaver said:


> Plus, this is still cheaper than an Extreme chip.


But ~ 60% more expensive than a 3930K


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 9, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series). As for desktop, you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose? It's a PR stunt pure and simple.
> 
> But ~ 60% more expensive than a 3930K



Intel chips run too hot to do this. Most users would be forced to use water.....


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 9, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Intel chips run too hot to do this. Most users would be forced to use water.....



Wow trolls trollin trolls now ,, crak on


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 9, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Wow trolls trollin trolls now ,, crak on



Umm, not trolling, stating a fact. read TOS pal. Crank off


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 9, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Umm, not trolling, stating a fact. read TOS pal. Crank off



Yes the same fact s add naseum 
I7 smash it move along we've heard


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 9, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> Intel chips run too hot to do this. Most users would be forced to use water.....


Ah, OK. Must be why I'm on water at 4.8...and here I was foolishly thinking my chip was an anomaly 

Considering Intel already supply an Asetek rebrand AIO, you'd think that even a bog standard 570LX wouldn't run too much added cost to the final package.  EDIT: Oh shit, that wouldn't work- there's no way someone buying an expensive binned chip would have a chassis capable of mounting a 240mm rad - WTF was I thinking!!
Then again, they could have offered the CPU as OEM/tray with a basic one year warranty, though you're probably right in thinking that people who buy high binned chips would also covet the stock HSF- awesome piece of kit that it is.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 9, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Ah, OK. Must be why I'm on water at 4.8...and here I was foolishly thinking my chip was an anomaly
> 
> Considering Intel already supply an Asetek rebrand AIO, you'd think that even a bog standard 570LX wouldn't run too much added cost to the final package.  EDIT: Oh shit, that wouldn't work- there's no way someone buying an expensive binned chip would have a chassis capable of mounting a 240mm rad - WTF was I thinking!!
> Then again, they could have offered the CPU as OEM/tray with a basic one year warranty, though you're probably right in thinking that people who buy high binned chips would also covet the stock HSF- awesome piece of kit that it is.



I am not disagreeing with the Asetek add on but 2600K and 2700K are dead plus AMD did not do that 2 years ago........ Haswell does not have the lid soldered... Ohh shit and Intel uses cheap TIM. Sorry Asetek would probably not work on Haswell plus most have not achieved 5GHz on current retail 4770K's....... so we have not seen too many binned chips out there as of yet... Do we need to go futher?


Another side bar, charge a premium for an Intel chip and add another $200 for cooling puts the price up there over a 3930K so what's the point?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 9, 2013)

drdeathx said:


> I am not disagreeing with the Asetek add on but 2600K and 2700K are dead plus AMD did not do that 2 years ago


Which was why I said:


HumanSmoke said:


> As for desktop, you think that Intel *couldn't have *binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose? It's a PR stunt pure and simple.


So, if 5GHz was some all-important must-have bullet point, Intel had ample opportunity to capitalize two years ago. They didn't. 
Are you proposing that Intel's marketing department didn't think of it (and out-thought by AMD marketing), or that Intel was unable to bin SB chips for 5GHz operation?
Personally, I think that if Intel felt the need to push the PR in that direction they would have offered a limited run of binned chips to OEMs like Puget and drip-fed chips to wholesale as tray only processors. They didn't likely because they 1. Didn't need to (SB wasn't exactly a slow seller), 2. Why offer another reason not to buy Gulftown, and 3. Binning cost/ platform (mobo) validation costs.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 9, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> It is when IBM actually have had a 5GHz processor in production for the last five years ( Power 595 - Power6 series).



I don't understand why you compare a power6 (RISC) processor with AMD's or Intel's offerings.  



HumanSmoke said:


> you think that Intel couldn't have binned a few 2600K/2700K with 50X multipliers if the PR need arose?



I don't have to they didn't, because it would cannibalize sales on there Extreme chips. If it was up to Intel we would still be using 933mhz PIII's.. If it wasn't for Thunderbird that's where we would be... 



HumanSmoke said:


> But ~ 60% more expensive than a 3930K



I suggest you stop "_trolling/Flaming_", and add to the tread or move along.  Intel does not need your PR, and definitely not in this AMD thread.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 9, 2013)

Mindweaver said:


> I don't understand why you compare a power6 (RISC) processor with AMD's or Intel's offerings.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



about time someone threw him against the wall


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 9, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> about time someone threw him against the wall



I think the word bitch slap may be in order?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 9, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> It's actually fairly easy to understand. Your original statement:
> 
> ...makes no mention of architecture. "_First to sell a 5ghz processor_" is incorrect...unless you don't consider Power6 to be a processor
> 
> ...


Then go buy a power6 chip. No one cares what other anti-amd pro-intel banter you have to say.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 9, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Then go buy a power6 chip. No one cares what other anti-amd pro-intel banter you have to say.



its quite sad tbh.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 9, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> It's actually fairly easy to understand. Your original statement:
> 
> ...makes no mention of architecture. "_First to sell a 5ghz processor_" is incorrect...unless you don't consider Power6 to be a processor
> 
> ...



Intelligent argument/debate is good but you in this case are wearing intel shaded sunglasses


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## Fourstaff (Jul 9, 2013)

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


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 9, 2013)

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)


----------



## Frick (Jul 9, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> I don't see how this expensive toy can be called mainstream



It is avaliable in the mainstream channels, so in that sense it is mainstream.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 9, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> I don't see how this expensive toy can be called mainstream



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.


----------



## mandis (Jul 9, 2013)

Everybody is allowed to and should have a brand preference but ...nobody likes fanboys!!!


----------



## radrok (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## itsakjt (Jul 9, 2013)

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!


----------



## Frick (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## itsakjt (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## Frick (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## Daimus (Jul 9, 2013)

acerace said:


> Some stupid fanboy wars. Move along people.



What Acerace says.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 9, 2013)

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?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 9, 2013)

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?



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.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## NeoXF (Jul 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 9, 2013)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 10, 2013)

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.


----------



## xorbe (Jul 10, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> AMD Intel parts are CISC.



Someone break it down for this poster ...


----------



## cdawall (Jul 10, 2013)

xorbe said:


> Someone break it down for this poster ...



Lol google risc and cisc.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 10, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Lol google risc and cisc.



Better still.... google "who cares"   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.


----------



## Frick (Jul 10, 2013)

Tatty_One said:


> Better still.... google "who cares"



Everyone should care, as it's very interesting.


----------



## techtard (Jul 10, 2013)

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.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 10, 2013)

Frick said:


> Everyone should care, as it's very interesting.



If you find RISC/CISC interesting then you worry me!


----------



## xorbe (Jul 10, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Lol google risc and cisc.



I meant for the guy I quoted, not me.  Today's cisc chips are risc past the decoder and sequencer.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 12, 2013)

So anybody know what the stock cpu voltage is going to be?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2013)

They do exist 



cdawall said:


> My FX showed up back home  (along with a new chip for my laptop)


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2013)

cdawall said:


> They do exist



whats the chip with the TIM on it?


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> whats the chip with the TIM on it?



One for my netbook just an old TK42. Poor old LT3103u is getting a higher watt chip stuffed in it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2013)

cdawall said:


> One for my netbook just an old TK42. Poor old LT3103u is getting a higher watt chip stuffed in it.



ok i dunno what model and make of that chip- Athlon, Turion, Phenom, Sempron?


----------



## mastrdrver (Jul 12, 2013)

fullinfusion said:


> So anybody know what the stock cpu voltage is going to be?



There's a photo I saw floating around showing 1.5v under load for the cores.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2013)

mastrdrver said:


> There's a photo I saw floating around showing 1.5v under load for the cores.



yup just like the ol Athlon XP 3200+ ran


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> ok i dunno what model and make of that chip- Athlon, Turion, Phenom, Sempron?



Athlon X2 (mobile) it's a low watt chip to replace my Athlon X2 L310 which replaced the Athlon L110 that was in my netbook originally.

TK-42, L310, L110



mastrdrver said:


> There's a photo I saw floating around showing 1.5v under load for the cores.



He had turbo turned off and the frequency hard set to 5ghz I wouldn't be suprised if the real CPU is different.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 12, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Athlon X2 (mobile) it's a low watt chip to replace my Athlon X2 L310 which replaced the Athlon L110 that was in my netbook originally.
> 
> TK-42, L310, L110
> 
> ...



thx for the clarification- must be a better chip overall for that laptop


----------



## cdawall (Jul 12, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> thx for the clarification- must be a better chip overall for that laptop



It's not a terrible $30 upgrade  Only thing I wish I could swap was the X1270 onboard for an HD3200


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 12, 2013)

mastrdrver said:


> There's a photo I saw floating around showing 1.5v under load for the cores.


Thats what I expected. When I had my FX8150 it took 1.5v to get 5ghz 

Wow, so that's all this over priced cpu is


----------



## mastrdrver (Jul 12, 2013)

Oh, I guess it was the pics in this thread that I was talking about. 

Is it on the VR-Zone forum that the person said they disabled turbo?



fullinfusion said:


> Thats what I expected. When I had my FX8150 it took 1.5v to get 5ghz
> 
> Wow, so that's all this over priced cpu is



Actually, it's just a new bin that is still with in AMD spec which could be different depending on how much your FX took to be stable. Even then, even an overclocked CPU may not pass certain tests as the P3 1.16Ghz did for Tom's and [H] back in the day.


----------



## m1ch (Jul 12, 2013)

in stock at some polish shop here - http://proline.pl/?p=PROAMDFX10015
guess reviews are coming soon price converted... 1018$


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 12, 2013)

m1ch said:


> guess reviews are coming soon



AMD didn't contact me this time about doing the review, which was rather surprising considering our large AMD user base, but I have heard from a few reviewers I talk to that they have chips already, so I expect reviews soon myself. I have a board sitting here waiting for this chip's review, even. Will have to send an email!

My 8350 did 5 GHz, too, would be quite interesting to compare differences.


----------



## refillable (Jul 14, 2013)

I would buy it if it is $250 . I have a 8120, I'm upgrading to a 8350 and OC it to 5GHz with Noctua D14 if this isn't $250...


----------



## cdawall (Jul 15, 2013)

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/

Looses in synthetic bs but competes with the 3960x@4.4ghz in games. Interesting this may mean the 9370 with a slight overclock can hold its own pretty well.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 15, 2013)

LOL i know of 8350s that are nearly scoring 10k physics in 3d11. in firestrike physics i can hit 10,300. 

i want mine to hit 9.5k today 3d11 physics


just an oc'd version it looks like. 9590 at 5ghz for £700...... or i could go through a few 8350s lol 

unless someone overclocks this to 6.2ghz on water or they reach 9+ ghz on dice/ln2, what a waste

to quote: Kitguru says: An interesting release from AMD to target system builders, but we can’t help but feel it is a little like bringing a knife to a gunfight.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 16, 2013)

d1nky said:


> to quote: Kitguru says: An interesting release from AMD to target system builders, but we can’t help but feel it is a little like bringing a knife to a gunfight.



This isn't for typical system builders. 

It's for people whom are trying to break records and people whom want memorabilia of having a limited edition CPU for sentimental reasons or for financial appreciation to resell.


----------



## oNyX (Jul 16, 2013)

Why would AMD launch a 5GHz FX-8350 and re-brand it as a FX-9590? They must've done some incremental revision of  architecture. Kinda like the FX6100 and FX-6200. Besides, I honestly don't care if a 4770K is 5.5% faster, AMD couldn't look any better.


----------



## oNyX (Jul 16, 2013)

Price drop. 

AMD FX9590 price drops from £719.99 to £659.99


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 17, 2013)

Hardware Canucks Review:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 17, 2013)

So this CPU is even more fail than it looked like on paper. Doesn't overclock hardly at all on air, can't keep up with stock Haswell i7s in gaming, and at its very *best* keeps up with stock SB-E chips from Intel in a couple synthetics.

This chip is so bad it makes Bulldozer look like God's gift to CPUs.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 17, 2013)

im seeing mixed reviews on this chip, some can get 5ghz stable with little extra volts and some need loads more and still cant get stable.

obviously its an highly binned 8350, but a lil more refined. but i get the feeling motherboards cant handle it, as to make reviews so diverse.

worth the cash NO, unless someone breaks 10ghz on extreme cooling.


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 17, 2013)

Check out this review at kitguru http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/18/. The benchmarks are still lame but the gaming tests are a little more realistic. If someone is spending that kind of cash they certainly won't be gaming at 1080. In these titles the FX9590 goes frame for frame with the i7 3960x OC'd to 4.4. That alone is pretty impressive. 
AMD still has a long way to go to compete in the intel arena but strictly gaming the 9590 does quite well. 
Sorry for the link but every time I tried to insert it properly the page would error.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 17, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> So this CPU is even more fail than it looked like on paper. Doesn't overclock hardly at all on air, can't keep up with stock Haswell i7s in gaming, and at its very *best* keeps up with stock SB-E chips from Intel in a couple synthetics.
> 
> This chip is so bad it makes Bulldozer look like God's gift to CPUs.



Hardwaee canucks chip is acting like it throttled back under load... looks like both from heat and wattage. AMD does spec a pretty high speed fan when using the H80 with a stock chip let alone oc'd. Lower end sabertooth board is used along with a simple air cooler...I would like to see at least an H100 used and a top teir board.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 17, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Hardwaee canucks chip is acting like it throttled back under load... looks like both from heat and wattage. AMD does spec a pretty high speed fan when using the H80 with a stock chip let alone oc'd. Lower end sabertooth board is used along with a simple air cooler...I would like to see at least an H100 used and a top teir board.



Yep, agree 100%. But then, AMD said they weren't giving out review samples for these chips, and you can see that [H]ardOCP posted as much on their front page, too, so to me there's obvious anti-AMD bias going on there, and using such a cooler was rather foolish.

Oh well. There's more value in that review than first meets the eye, and none of that has to do with AMD.


And yes, I am on AMD's list of media sites, and they do send me CPU samples. But these chips aren't really meant for "off-the-shelf" purchases, so AMD sees no need for reviews.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 17, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> Yep, agree 100%. But then, AMD said they weren't giving out review samples for these chips, and you can see that [H]ardOCP posted as much on their front page, too, so to me there's obvious anti-AMD bias going on there, and using such a cooler was rather foolish.
> 
> Oh well. There's more value in that review than first meets the eye, and none of that has to do with AMD.
> 
> ...



I guess I will get to see how the lesser model does personally. With a better cooler and better board. I am hoping for well over 5.2ghz...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 17, 2013)

cdawall said:


> I guess I will get to see how the lesser model does personally.



Can't you pull a sicky some peeps be eager for some oc news.;p


----------



## cdawall (Jul 17, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Can't you pull a sicky some peeps be eager for some oc news.;p



I wish I am roughly a 22 hour flight from the states and another several hour flight to home were the CPU is.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 17, 2013)

cdawall said:


> I wish I am roughly a 22 hour flight from the states and another several hour flight to home were the CPU is.


Break a leg?? You would be forced to sit at home ,, damn;p


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 18, 2013)

cdawall said:


> I guess I will get to see how the lesser model does personally. With a better cooler and better board. I am hoping for well over 5.2ghz...


My crystal ball tells me .... 1.570v for 5.2 and it just goes higher from there..

I hope you have alot of dice on reserve


----------



## Am* (Jul 18, 2013)

Fluffmeister said:


> Hardware Canucks Review:
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html



Good God, this 9590 is so much worse than I thought. In gaming, even at 5GHz, it can't even keep up with a 2.5 year old 2500K. To add insult to injury, even in single threaded synthetic benchmarks, it barely keeps up with a 4+ year old Deneb, which is and has always been the best CPU AMD have had in the past 6 years, closely followed by Thuban. It won't be long until this turd hits the sub-£400 market.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 18, 2013)

Am* said:


> Good God, this 9590 is so much worse than I thought. In gaming, even at 5GHz, it can't even keep up with a 2.5 year old 2500K. To add insult to injury, even in single threaded synthetic benchmarks, it barely keeps up with a 4+ year old Deneb, which is and has always been the best CPU AMD have had in the past 6 years, closely followed by Thuban. It won't be long until this turd hits the sub-£400 market.



Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 18, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.



thats what im starting to think with all these reviews, seems the better performing/overclocking ones used a better board, but still wasnt enough!

i hope this plays well on Ln2, that would be good to see!


----------



## itsakjt (Jul 18, 2013)

I still don't know why people would need a 5GHz CPU that has very low IPC. It is all about IPC and that's why, new gen CPUs perform better even at low clocks than higher clocked older ones. I think its time to underclock this 9590 to a 8350 speed and check difference in performance. If I am not very wrong, they should be close.


----------



## Am* (Jul 18, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.



Out of curiosity, can you post a link proving this?


Also even if that is the case, it wouldn't affect the benches that I was looking at, namely single threaded Cinebench & 720p gaming benches (where it gets raped by a stock 2500k and very closely followed by a £60 stock clocked Deneb), since it wouldn't use more than 4 cores tops. It still doesn't change the fact that this processor is more than useless for pretty much any task and this has happened with almost every Bulldozer/Piledriver review -- AMD's old dogs like Deneb & Thuban come away as bang-for-buck AND performance kings, same goes for even their current APUs, which put up a good fight. AMD should've just die shrunk their K10-based Thubans & Denebs, released an 8 core K10 variant and put Zambezi & Vishera on a entirely new socket, namely FM2-based. This CPU is more proof that current AM3+ Piledriver chips are nothing more than AMD humouring the users of their ancient socket -- no matter how high they clock it, the socket will hold it back.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 18, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.



Blameshifting is fun


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 18, 2013)

Am* said:


> Out of curiosity, can you post a link proving this?
> 
> 
> Also even if that is the case, it wouldn't affect the benches that I was looking at, namely single threaded Cinebench & 720p gaming benches (where it gets raped by a stock 2500k and very closely followed by a £60 stock clocked Deneb), since it wouldn't use more than 4 cores tops. It still doesn't change the fact that this processor is more than useless for pretty much any task and this has happened with almost every Bulldozer/Piledriver review -- AMD's old dogs like Deneb & Thuban come away as bang-for-buck AND performance kings, same goes for even their current APUs, which put up a good fight. AMD should've just die shrunk their K10-based Thubans & Denebs, released an 8 core K10 variant and put Zambezi & Vishera on a entirely new socket, namely FM2-based. This CPU is more proof that current AM3+ Piledriver chips are nothing more than AMD humouring the users of their ancient socket -- no matter how high they clock it, the socket will hold it back.



Sounds like someone got reemed by intel


----------



## Am* (Jul 18, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Sounds like someone got reemed by intel



Sounds like someone is grasping at straws, trying desperately to justify his purchase.   :shadedshu

The next time you want to use my words out of context, try not to quote the whole post, where I was clearly praising AMD if you had actually read what you quoted -- it makes you look like a desperate fanboy.


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 18, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Review is bad the sabertooth can't run the chip without throttling.



I've had my 8350 well over 1.6v on occasion nearly 1.7v on my Sabretooth R2. The board is not throttling for me. My issues are with the heat the chip puts out. I want to add some attachment to validate this but the attachment tool isn't working for me just comes up with error on page when I try. 
So I'll put this link up. This is another site I belong to. I was doing runs with superpi and the first 2 are at 1.668v to the CPU on a sabretooth.  http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=197&t=8105
Here's another of Wprime
http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=185&t=8090&start=80


----------



## cdawall (Jul 18, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Blameshifting is fun



Why do you insist on posting in amd threads if all your going to do is troll. Go play in the ivy threads. Sadly enough rhis awful clock speed bump still offers more of a performance gain than the latest intel revision.



Johan45 said:


> I've had my 8350 well over 1.6v on occasion nearly 1.7v on my Sabretooth R2. The board is not throttling for me. My issues are with the heat the chip puts out. I want to add some attachment to validate this but the attachment tool isn't working for me just comes up with error on page when I try.
> So I'll put this link up. This is another site I belong to. I was doing runs with superpi and the first 2 are at 1.668v to the CPU on a sabretooth.  http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=197&t=8105
> Here's another of Wprime
> http://classicplatforms.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=185&t=8090&start=80



Read the entire review. The reviewer said it dropped to 4.5ghz under load his scores reflect as such. It is also a rev 1 board from the system breakdown page. Theu are not the same boards.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 18, 2013)

So, do most users need a new motherboard to run the FX-9590 unless they already own one of the highest end models, and manufacturers have to create board compatibility lists for this processor if it throttles at stock on weaker high-end boards?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 18, 2013)

Am* said:


> Sounds like someone is grasping at straws, trying desperately to justify his purchase.   :shadedshu
> 
> The next time you want to use my words out of context, try not to quote the whole post, where I was clearly praising AMD if you had actually read what you quoted -- it makes you look like a desperate fanboy.



Raped by a 2600k is praising , trolllalong im v happy with my well considered purchases and would happily buy amd again, not a 9590 though


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 18, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Why do you insist on posting in amd threads if all your going to do is troll. Go play in the ivy threads. Sadly enough rhis awful clock speed bump still offers more of a performance gain than the latest intel revision.



Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to discredit a review you dislike was considered making constructive posts.

For the record, I consider both ivy and haswell to be turds. But Intel didn't have the guts to overcharge by a factor of 3 for their turds. And I don't hate AMD. I built my main work rig on a 5600k APU, and I have two old budget gaming rigs sitting around based on an Athlon II x3 and a Phenom II x6. AMD has some cool stuff. But this CPU is not part of the "cool stuff" category... it sits firmly in the "overpriced turd" category.

And the stock responses from AMD fans at this point when an AMD CPU is released are just old... "You didn't use the right motherboard"... "Why did you compare it to _that_ Intel CPU?"... "Obviously that reviewer is biased"... "You didn't use the right memory"... "That set of tests isn't fair"... "The reviewer doesn't understand what the chip is for"... "You didn't test on a Thursday"... "The reviewer forgot his lucky underwear".

I think I need to go get some more cheese to go with the whine.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 18, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> So, do most users need a new motherboard to run the FX-9590 unless they already own one of the highest end models, and manufacturers have to create board compatibility lists for this processor if it throttles at stock on weaker high-end boards?



Pretty much the idea behind it, 220w TDP is quite a bit to ask from even the higher end boards for 24/7.



BigMack70 said:


> Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to discredit a review you dislike was considered making constructive posts.
> 
> And for the record, I consider both ivy and haswell to be turds. But Intel didn't have the guts to overcharge by a factor of 3 for their turds.



I told you to read the entire review, but you failed to do so. Here is a quote from the review since you can't read.



> Only ASUS’ AI Suite II (which takes its temperature readings directly from the BIOS) was somewhat accurate with its reading of 65°C under load but we had reasons to doubt this too since, as you see in the screenshot above, *our FX-9590 began throttling some cores down to the 4.515GHz mark after 20 minutes or so of continual full-load testing. *Another possibility is that AMD has set Turbo Core 3.0 to begin throttling downwards when core temperature hits that 65°C mark in an effort to cap thermals and power consumption.



Obviously there is an issue with setup let it be the motherboard or cooling. There CPU did not operate properly for testing so the entire review is worthless.


----------



## Am* (Jul 18, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Raped by a 2600k is praising , trolllalong im v happy with my well considered purchases and would happily buy amd again, not a 9590 though



Raped by a 2600K? More like matched at best, unlike your powerplant-draining Faildriver getting raped by my ancient 3 year old Deneb build @4.2GHz. Shows how little you know about your so-called "well considered" purchases (your trollcave must be like a sauna with that 300W+ Powerdrainer running) -- now troll along kid, or better still have another go, and this time, try doing it in proper English, not retarded Twitter-speak.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 19, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Obviously there is an issue with setup let it be the motherboard or cooling. There CPU did not operate properly for testing so the entire review is worthless.



Fun fact, this isn't an isolated issue, but rather it seems like 5 GHz is the sticker speed only, unless you do some overclocking yourself:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/6/

But yeah the issue is definitely NOT that this CPU is a giant smelly turd that can't even operate at its advertised frequency. It's the motherboard's fault. Or maybe the fact that it wasn't running on liquid helium.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 19, 2013)

Am* said:


> Raped by a 2600K? More like matched at best, unlike your powerplant-draining Faildriver getting raped by my ancient 3 year old Deneb build @4.2GHz. Shows how little you know about your so-called "well considered" purchases (your trollcave must be like a sauna with that 300W+ Powerdrainer running) -- now troll along kid, or better still have another go, and this time, try doing it in proper English, not retarded Twitter-speak.



Yours cant do 4.9 then eh ah well and is it running 4x pciex slots 4xgpu , flat out mines bigger then yours btw at 3ghz you win lolzzz

And your the one having a hissy fit and getting your balls out , its too hot to turn my pc on and one thumbs shit and lazy you gramma star
And YOU SAID A 2600K RAPED AN FX not me


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 19, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that making unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to discredit a review you dislike was considered making constructive posts.
> 
> For the record, I consider both ivy and haswell to be turds. But Intel didn't have the guts to overcharge by a factor of 3 for their turds. And I don't hate AMD. I built my main work rig on a 5600k APU, and I have two old budget gaming rigs sitting around based on an Athlon II x3 and a Phenom II x6. AMD has some cool stuff. But this CPU is not part of the "cool stuff" category... it sits firmly in the "overpriced turd" category.
> 
> ...



Time and again in these threads people with no interest whatsoever chirp a poo out.
Why bother borein shit moan moan moa.

Its epic doe, scarce and doesn't fit most people's needs but wow some people got some shit to chat 


Nnnnnn222222 or phase FTW.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 19, 2013)

seronx said:


> 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)
> ...



thats nice to know 

im already using the bios for it, however it seems a bit funny with high levels of vcore.... ahahaha!


----------



## cdawall (Jul 19, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Fun fact, this isn't an isolated issue, but rather it seems like 5 GHz is the sticker speed only, unless you do some overclocking yourself:
> http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/6/
> 
> But yeah the issue is definitely NOT that this CPU is a giant smelly turd that can't even operate at its advertised frequency. It's the motherboard's fault. Or maybe the fact that it wasn't running on liquid helium.



So it is the CPU's fault that the motherboard BIOS that doesn't have a profile for the CPU can't read the clock off of it?

It must be the rams fault it wont run at 2400mhz without BIOS adjustments in that same exact review as well.

Did that CPU ever mention dropping down to 4.5ghz under load (200mhz below stock non-boost frequency)? No it didn't there is a simple BIOS issue that is easily fixable and well known issues with new high clock CPU's and AMD boards. I had the same issue with my prerelease 955BE and multiple boards the FID/VID table is different.

Why to change your post after I responded too.







Real smooth. 



seronx said:


> 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)
> ...



The Crosshair V Formula runs it just fine according to Flank3r on XS.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 19, 2013)

I didn't change my position, I just fleshed out my post a bit since I was on my phone when I originally replied and didn't feel like typing much. And while this may come as a shock to you, sometimes it takes more than two minutes to type out a reply . I can post the original if you like.

And yeah, I'd say it could well be the CPU's fault. It's not staying at 5 GHz under load without manual overclocking in the two reviews we have so far *on AMD approved boards for the 9590*, and the 5 GHz claim is not even technically for 100% load given how turbo boost can work.

The best case scenario here is that AMD has released a (lousy) product that is not ready for primetime.

And I get all the LN2 stuff about this chip, and am interested to see if any significant OC numbers come out of that community. However, the fact that this may possibly be an interesting LN2 chip does not mean that it is worth anywhere even near what AMD apparently thinks it is worth, especially when it's been released to the general DIY public. I would not be surprised if the majority of these chips wind up in the hands of clueless suckers who just see the price tag and new series name and think it's something awesome, rather than in the hands of folks that will put it under LN2.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 19, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> I didn't change my position, I just fleshed out my post a bit since I was on my phone when I originally replied and didn't feel like typing much. And while this may come as a shock to you, sometimes it takes more than two minutes to type out a reply . I can post the original if you like.



Whatever floats you boat.



BigMack70 said:


> And yeah, I'd say it could well be the CPU's fault. It's not staying at 5 GHz under load without manual overclocking in the two reviews we have so far *on AMD approved boards for the 9590*, and the 5 GHz claim is not even technically for 100% load given how turbo boost can work.



Really they are supported huh. Mind finding the FX 9370 and FX 9590 on these CPU support lists for me?

http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SABERTOOTH_990FX/#support_CPU

The 990FX-UD5 supports it with a beta BIOS. Kitguru didn't have a copy of that BIOS. As of right now the Crosshair V and Sabertooth both received the thumbs up from AMD, but the BIOS's are not out even on the Asus FTP site.



BigMack70 said:


> The best case scenario here is that AMD has released a (lousy) product that is not ready for primetime.



So lack of BIOS support makes it a bad product...Well shit better sell your intel stock as both companies have those issues.



BigMack70 said:


> And I get all the LN2 stuff about this chip, and am interested to see if any significant OC numbers come out of that community. However, the fact that this may possibly be an interesting LN2 chip does not mean that it is worth anywhere even near what AMD apparently thinks it is worth, especially when it's been released to the general DIY public. I would not be surprised if the majority of these chips wind up in the hands of clueless suckers who just see the price tag and new series name and think it's something awesome, rather than in the hands of folks that will put it under LN2.



Is it's AMD's fault people will pay for it.


----------



## oNyX (Jul 19, 2013)

I like to think that any FPS beyond 60 that a Intel gives that AMD doesn't to me is a real waste. Thats why I like AMD, by the time some specific game have troubles running on your AMD system you should've upgraded already.

One thing I don't understand is everyone bitch about the FX-9590's TDP. As followers of computer technology I would've guessed that at least one forum member would say that TDP isn't the actual power usage of the processor and even if the actual power usage is higher than the TDP it would be on all cores, and we all know there isn't any games or consumer software than can load all 8 cores. Only time when one would strain all cores would during overclocking/stability tests and during the period Cool'nQuiet has been turned off. Some people care about power usage, others don't.

Yes, Intel is way more efficient when it comes to power, they are much faster than AMD ever will be at this point. It's not because Intel is necessarily better (performance, status wise) because both gets the job done, but it's because Intel has more money at their disposal for R&D and they can develop better products. Besides, most enthusiasts and real enthusiasts I know buys both Intel and AMD nonetheless.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 19, 2013)

Hey blame whatever you want. Like I said, best case scenario here is that AMD released something before it was ready (and if you believe KitGuru, AMD have validated those boards, so that's a fail on their part if they validated the boards before the appropriate updates were released). There's also no guarantee that these chips will run at 5 GHz when under load, and given our current data, I'll believe that when I see it.

If you believe that a new BIOS will meaningfully alter the conclusions about this chip, you may want to take the red tinted goggles off. 

Oh wait wait wait.... I just found some more cheese. All is well now. Continue with the whine.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 19, 2013)

oNyX said:


> I like to think that any FPS beyond 60 that a Intel gives that AMD doesn't to me is a real waste. Thats why I like AMD, by the time some specific game have troubles running on your AMD system you should've upgraded already.
> 
> One thing I don't understand is everyone bitch about the FX-9590's TDP. As followers of computer technology I would've guessed that at least one forum member would say that TDP isn't the actual power usage of the processor and even if the actual power usage is higher than the TDP it would be on all cores, and we all know there isn't any games or consumer software than can load all 8 cores. Only time when one would strain all cores would during overclocking/stability tests and during the period Cool'nQuiet has been turned off. Some people care about power usage, others don't.
> 
> Yes, Intel is way more efficient when it comes to power, they are much faster than AMD ever will be at this point. It's not because Intel is necessarily better (performance, status wise) because both gets the job done, but it's because Intel has more money at their disposal for R&D and they can develop better products. Besides, most enthusiasts and real enthusiasts I know buys both Intel and AMD nonetheless.



Many know the tdp script is to stop the fx shutting itself down at 5ghz as mine often does but trolls have trouble with technical things check big mac for example hes not buying but still throwing his two pence in


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 19, 2013)

The CHV-z and Sabertooth won't have any trouble runing that chip, they've been among my top recommendations for anyone who want to OC the FX8350. As far as the bios release that isn't even necessary. I know quite a few who prefer running their piledrivers on the bulldozer BIOS releases. They feel they get better performance. 
Asus doesn't need to change anything on these boards they will handle the power draw and heat very well. All they need is default speed recognition and turbo info. 
I assume tha if I dropped a 9590 into my board today it would boot up at 4.0 thinking that it's an 8350, which is fine for people that aren't afraid of their bios screen.
The majority of these will be solt to people that want a kick ass gaming rig with a couple 780's in them where someone else does all the work setting it up.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 19, 2013)

asrock had a new bios for this 'update for cpu code' beta version.


----------



## oNyX (Jul 19, 2013)

AMD wouldn't launch CPUs if there weren't any boards to fit it into. Ferrari wouldn't launch a sportscar if there weren't any smooth tar roads to drive it on.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 19, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Hey blame whatever you want. Like I said, best case scenario here is that AMD released something before it was ready (and if you believe KitGuru, AMD have validated those boards, so that's a fail on their part if they validated the boards before the appropriate updates were released). There's also no guarantee that these chips will run at 5 GHz when under load, and given our current data, I'll believe that when I see it.



There is a list of motherboards with 9590 ready BIOS's, so using one of those boards is on the reviewer not the product reviewed. "Current data" shows it performing with the 3960x (a $1069.99 CPU) so maybe before calling AMD's chip a POS you take your intel products and remember they are no better.



BigMack70 said:


> If you believe that a new BIOS will meaningfully alter the conclusions about this chip, you may want to take the red tinted goggles off.



So you are saying a BIOS wont alter performance of a CPU?

link, link stop being pompous.



BigMack70 said:


> Oh wait wait wait.... I just found some more cheese. All is well now. Continue with the whine.


----------



## Over_Lord (Jul 20, 2013)

Anybody who bought this chip? What's the max OC?


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 20, 2013)

cdawall said:


> maybe before calling AMD's chip a POS you take your intel products and remember they are no better...
> 
> 
> So you are saying a BIOS wont alter performance of a CPU?...
> ...



This may totally blow your mind, but not everyone who critiques a product is a fan of the other brands' products. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread, and I don't know why you are treating it like one in your responses to my posts. Note the total lack of arguments in favor of Intel's chips in my posts (using them as a baseline comparison is not making argument for them...) 

And with regards to the BIOS, I am saying that a BIOS update will not change the conclusions about **this** CPU. Tell you what, if BIOS updates come in and move this chip out of the "smelly overpriced turd" category - if they even move it into merely the "overpriced turd" category, I will edit or delete all my posts in this thread to reflect that. 

But just because you cannot see this chip for what it is does not make me pompous or a troll. But please, continue with the ad hominem.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 20, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> This may totally blow your mind, but not everyone who critiques a product is a fan of the other brands' products. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread, and I don't know why you are treating it like one in your responses to my posts. Note the total lack of arguments in favor of Intel's chips in my posts (using them as a baseline comparison is not making argument for them...)
> 
> And with regards to the BIOS, I am saying that a BIOS update will not change the conclusions about **this** CPU. Tell you what, if BIOS updates come in and move this chip out of the "smelly overpriced turd" category - if they even move it into merely the "overpriced turd" category, I will edit or delete all my posts in this thread to reflect that.
> 
> But just because you cannot see this chip for what it is does not make me pompous or a troll. But please, continue with the ad hominem.


What's your point then still as both major manufacturers have overpriced turds by value/performance standards its just amd has less.
Again if your not going to buy it why throw post after post of hate at it, I agree with your sentiment with respect to ME buying it but for the oc teams this chips a joy.
I went amd fx for yhe amount of settings to tweak myself for some the odd bits count and these are not high volume.


----------



## suraswami (Jul 20, 2013)

oNyX said:


> .... but it's because Intel has more STOLEN money at their disposal for R&D and they can develop better products....



corrected!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> . This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread



nice lil cover up but you certainly try to make these threads into them anyway.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 20, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> This may totally blow your mind, but not everyone who critiques a product is a fan of the other brands' products. This isn't an AMD vs Intel thread, and I don't know why you are treating it like one in your responses to my posts. Note the total lack of arguments in favor of Intel's chips in my posts (using them as a baseline comparison is not making argument for them...)



You of all people should know that is a bold faced lie. There is not a single AMD FX news thread you have not posted something derrogatory about AMD in. It is always using Intel as a baseline is better than XYZ. Guess what we all have brains and the ability to read reviews. Your heavily biased Intel opinion is very well known. No one really cares what you have to say and not a single one of your posts has been constructive. As far as I am concerned you could STFU and GTFO.



BigMack70 said:


> And with regards to the BIOS, I am saying that a BIOS update will not change *MY* conclusions about **this** CPU. Tell you what, if BIOS updates come in and move this chip out of the "smelly overpriced turd" category - if they even move it into merely the "overpriced turd" category, I will edit or delete all my posts in this thread to reflect that.



FIFY.



BigMack70 said:


> But just because you cannot see this chip for what it is does not make me pompous or a troll. But please, continue with the ad hominem.



As an overclockers toy and money maker for AMD? How dare they take an $200 CPU and sell it heavily binned for more money. Those jerks. Intel hasn't been doing that for 15+ years now at all.

I do however like how you have gone from complaining about the CPU to arguing how I am a fanboy and you are not. Troll.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 20, 2013)

I think this conversation has taken its course. Let's move on folks.


----------



## oNyX (Jul 24, 2013)

Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 - CPUBoss


----------



## suraswami (Jul 24, 2013)

oNyX said:


> Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 - CPUBoss



so what are you trying to convey?


----------



## Wex (Jul 28, 2013)

*Wow....*

I thought coming over here from a very biased forum (three letters, starts with O) there still are AMD bashers all over the place. Intel must have a BIG payroll for these internet trolls that lurk on all forums waiting to pounce on anything AMD and bash it. Sheesh.

I'm saving up to get the 9370 right now.


----------



## Kantastic (Jul 28, 2013)

Wex said:


> I thought coming over here from a very biased forum (three letters, starts with O) there still are AMD bashers all over the place. Intel must have a BIG payroll for these internet trolls that lurk on all forums waiting to pounce on anything AMD and bash it. Sheesh.
> 
> I'm saving up to get the 9370 right now.



Your choice of language tells me you're a hardcore AMD fanboy... I've never been partial to either AMD or Intel (I've often recommend AMD-driven computers to friends and family), but can you tell me how an architecture that runs hotter, consumes more power, and is clock-for-clock slower than Intel's offerings at identical price points a better purchase for anyone other than those belonging to a very specific niche market, and fanboys?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 28, 2013)

*Noir bash you now!!!!*



Wex said:


> I thought coming over here from a very biased forum (three letters, starts with O) there still are AMD bashers all over the place. Intel must have a BIG payroll for these internet trolls that lurk on all forums waiting to pounce on anything AMD and bash it. Sheesh.
> 
> *I'm saving up to get the 9370 right now.*



,,,,,*WHAT???*

LETS GET HIM GUYS

Seriously though... its like everybody has a favorite sports team/car/whatever.... hopefully all in fun and no matter what is said.... if it can't be backed up with facts.... its just an opinion and should be regarded as such


----------



## Wex (Jul 28, 2013)

Kantastic said:


> Your choice of language tells me you're a hardcore AMD fanboy... I've never been partial to either AMD or Intel (I've often recommend AMD-driven computers to friends and family), but can you tell me how an architecture that runs hotter, consumes more power, and is clock-for-clock slower than Intel's offerings at identical price points a better purchase for anyone other than those belonging to a very specific niche market, and fanboys?



Not really an AMD "fanboy" but hate people who own Intel who crappost all over AMD threads. Intel trolls is what they are.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 28, 2013)

Kantastic said:


> Your choice of language tells me you're a hardcore AMD fanboy... I've never been partial to either AMD or Intel (I've often recommend AMD-driven computers to friends and family), but can you tell me how an architecture that runs hotter, consumes more power, and is clock-for-clock slower than Intel's offerings at identical price points a better purchase for anyone other than those belonging to a very specific niche market, and fanboys?



High end computing is a niche market


----------



## HumanSmoke (Jul 28, 2013)

Wex said:


> Not really an AMD "fanboy" but hate people who own Intel who crappost all over AMD threads. Intel trolls is what they are.


Well, you'll still get that here...likewise any and every Intel news thread is carpet bombed by the AMD Army- often by the same people getting bent out of shape by the Intellitrolls on the AMD threads, and that's in addition to the whole AMD/Nvidia GPU posting farrago.


----------



## Am* (Jul 29, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Yours cant do 4.9 then eh ah well and is it running 4x pciex slots 4xgpu , flat out mines bigger then yours btw at 3ghz you win lolzzz
> 
> And your the one having a hissy fit and getting your balls out , its too hot to turn my pc on and one thumbs shit and lazy you gramma star
> And YOU SAID A 2600K RAPED AN FX not me



Dude, you're insane. There is no logical reason for running the 4 random GPUs that you're running in your rig together. PhysX can't use more than 1 GPU core and AFAIK you can't Crossfire a 5850 with a 5870 without flashing one or the other.

Nobody said anything about getting their balls out, so you might want to keep those kind of thoughts to yourself. 

I couldn't understand anything else from the rest of what you typed.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 29, 2013)

HumanSmoke said:


> Well, you'll still get that here...likewise any and every Intel news thread is carpet bombed by the AMD Army- often by the same people getting bent out of shape by the Intellitrolls on the AMD threads, and that's in addition to the whole AMD/Nvidia GPU posting farrago.



Pretty much this. AMD threads will get crapped on by Intel fans, and vice versa same goes for AMD vs Nvidia crap. Just stay out of those threads if you won't want to get all bent out of shape, be the bigger person and don't involve yourself in the BS.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 29, 2013)

Am* said:


> Dude, you're insane. There is no logical reason for running the 4 random GPUs that you're running in your rig together. PhysX can't use more than 1 GPU core and AFAIK you can't Crossfire a 5850 with a 5870 without flashing one or the other.
> 
> Nobody said anything about getting their balls out, so you might want to keep those kind of thoughts to yourself.
> 
> I couldn't understand anything else from the rest of what you typed.


You answered most of it no problem,  been on holiday? ??
Read up dude your showing just what you know the 5870+5850@1000 loose 2% over two 5870s but have and are doing well at 3-4years xfired the physx is hardly used and mostly disabled as is sli but they make batman ac ok and were a good oc investigation purchase also I Have and will fold on all that though id split out the gtx460 2win (90uk notes new)

Now Ot where's the ln2 benches damn already.

Oh yes right insane me what for trying stuff out and on Tpu how dare I


----------



## erocker (Jul 29, 2013)

Wex said:


> Not really an AMD "fanboy" but hate people who own Intel who crappost all over AMD threads. Intel trolls is what they are.



Um... I own both Intel and AMD rigs. Intel is superior in performance and power consumption, that's a fact.

Calling people who state their opinions and backed up facts shouldn't be labeled as trolls. Your posts calling out "fanboys" and "trolls" is nothing but trolling. You need to check the definition of trolling to gain a better understanding


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 29, 2013)

Am* said:


> Dude, you're insane. There is no logical reason for running the 4 random GPUs that you're running in your rig together. PhysX can't use more than 1 GPU core and AFAIK you can't Crossfire a 5850 with a 5870 without flashing one or the other.
> 
> Nobody said anything about getting their balls out, so you might want to keep those kind of thoughts to yourself.
> 
> I couldn't understand anything else from the rest of what you typed.





theoneandonlymrk said:


> You answered most of it no problem,  been on holiday? ??
> Read up dude your showing just what you know the 5870+5850@1000 loose 2% over two 5870s but have and are doing well at 3-4years xfired the physx is hardly used and mostly disabled as is sli but they make batman ac ok and were a good oc investigation purchase also I Have and will fold on all that though id split out the gtx460 2win (90uk notes new)
> 
> Now Ot where's the ln2 benches damn already.
> ...



@Am*

He can run whatever he wants in system, it may not seem logical, but who cares. 

At this point you guys should just take your little argument to personal messages or something, as its not getting very far here.


----------



## Am* (Jul 29, 2013)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> @Am*
> 
> He can run whatever he wants in system, it may not seem logical, but who cares.
> 
> At this point you guys should just take your little argument to personal messages or something, as its not getting very far here.



Just to end this BS argument, I never said he couldn't run what he wants, but he was the one trying to imply that I was an Intel fanboy for suggesting that AMD changed their sockets. He then went on to say how his rig was such a "well justified purchase" and mine wasn't because I didn't have a 2600K. He can nuke his house down with 4x Fermis and 8x nitrogen-cooled 10 gigglehurtz Pentium 4s for all I care and I wouldn't have said a word until he called me out the way he did, but for him to suggest that my rig was somehow a poorly justified purchase compared to his is a little more than laughable.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 30, 2013)

Am* said:


> Just to end this BS argument, I never said he couldn't run what he wants, but he was the one trying to imply that I was an Intel fanboy for suggesting that AMD changed their sockets. He then went on to say how his rig was such a "well justified purchase" and mine wasn't because I didn't have a 2600K. He can nuke his house down with 4x Fermis and 8x nitrogen-cooled 10 gigglehurtz Pentium 4s for all I care and I wouldn't have said a word until he called me out the way he did, but for him to suggest that my rig was somehow a poorly justified purchase compared to his is a little more than laughable.



Well in all reality socket 754 actually had a reasonably long life span. 3-4 generations of cpus and a die shrink, unlike socket 423 from intel at the same time. It died when it could not support dual core cpu's. FM1 was short lived, but unluckily I feel like that will become the norm of apu's seems like advancements on the cpu or gou side make it a rough socket to cross generation.


----------



## Am* (Jul 30, 2013)

cdawall said:


> Well in all reality socket 754 actually had a reasonably long life span. 3-4 generations of cpus and a die shrink, unlike socket 423 from intel at the same time. It died when it could not support dual core cpu's. FM1 was short lived, but unluckily I feel like that will become the norm of apu's seems like advancements on the cpu or gou side make it a rough socket to cross generation.



I didn't expect much from socket 754 because it was a budget socket that offered nothing over socket 939. FM2 on the other hand has several technical advancements over AM3+ already, like on-die GPU support and integrated northbridge on-chip, including an integrated PCI-E controller. Even if you put aside or forget about Piledriver's crap single threaded performance, FM2 will not be affected the same way AM3+ is. AM3+ needs to run HyperTransport links to the northbridge/PCI-E controller which adds overhead/latency and is a waste of resources, which will make it lose to the exact same die-based chip on socket FM2 vs an AM3+ variant (so Vishera on FM2 will beat the exact same Vishera on AM3+). This is why they will eventually need to kill both FM2 AND AM3+ and replace them with one unified socket -- FM2 does not have the bandwidth scalability of AM3+ and AM3+ does not have the features/improvements of FM2.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 30, 2013)

FM2+ Was already announced so no idea how AMD is feeling about unification. AM4 may just carry the advancements.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 30, 2013)

Am* said:


> I didn't expect much from socket 754 because it was a budget socket that offered nothing over socket 939. FM2 on the other hand has several technical advancements over AM3+ already, like on-die GPU support and integrated northbridge on-chip, including an integrated PCI-E controller. Even if you put aside or forget about Piledriver's crap single threaded performance, FM2 will not be affected the same way AM3+ is. AM3+ needs to run HyperTransport links to the northbridge/PCI-E controller which adds overhead/latency and is a waste of resources, which will make it lose to the exact same die-based chip on socket FM2 vs an AM3+ variant (so Vishera on FM2 will beat the exact same Vishera on AM3+). This is why they will eventually need to kill both FM2 AND AM3+ and replace them with one unified socket -- FM2 does not have the bandwidth scalability of AM3+ and AM3+ does not have the features/improvements of FM2.



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


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jul 30, 2013)

None of the AM* socketed CPUs have integrated north bridges, only memory controllers which AMD has had integrated since K8 and socket 754. Only FM* socketed CPUs have an integrated north bridge which is why those platforms only have a PCH instead of the legacy NB/SB.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 30, 2013)

i73930K said:


> As for the FX9590 it's nothing, but an overclocked FX 8350



i think youre right on this one, nothing has shown otherwise of yet.

but can you blame a company for making more money from something they have already. there are a high percentage of 8350s able to do 5ghz and making some revenue from this is a great source of income. all they have to do is select and bin the chips like they do with all the others, great income potential.


----------



## BigMack70 (Jul 30, 2013)

d1nky said:


> great income potential.



Doesn't the chip actually have to have some value, so that customers will buy it, in order to have "great income potential"? 

I would see this chip having much more income potential at 40-50% of its current price.


----------



## radrok (Jul 30, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> Doesn't the chip actually have to have some value, so that customers will buy it, in order to have "great income potential"?
> 
> I would see this chip having much more income potential at 40-50% of its current price.



Agreed.

No one in their sane mind would pick this over a 3930K.

No fanboyism, just facts and data of course.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 30, 2013)

people are buying the cheaper ones (9370 etc) and i bet there is still a percentage of people that buy this chip, especially fan boys. 

its still making money from something they already have.

like kids selling lemon juice but then realising they can sell better lemon juice as well from the same source.

i agree with most of the intel comments on here tbh.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Jul 30, 2013)

seronx said:


> 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)
> ...


Add the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0 to the list as it supports the Fx9 cpus right out the box with the F1 bios.


----------



## erocker (Jul 30, 2013)

Thread has been purged of the trolling posts and responses to trolling posts.

-Stay on topic
-Keep your posts civil in manner
-Read the forum's posting guidelines if there is any confusion.

Thank you.


----------



## d1nky (Jul 30, 2013)

^^^ LOL at this intel god above us!


has this 9590 hasnt been on LN2 or helium yet, who knows what it will do. and record breaking, even highest valid frequencies still make money (from what ive seen)


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 30, 2013)

radrok said:


> Agreed.
> 
> *No one in their sane mind would pick this *over a 3930K.
> 
> No fanboyism, just facts and data of course.



.... saw a build log thread in another site where someone is going all out with an Amd rig for this thing(should have subbed itnever seen anyone throw that much $ at a red team build)  If i find it again ...will be interesting to see the outcome.....


----------



## erocker (Jul 30, 2013)

The willingness to buy this CPU comes down to being an enthusiast. Enthusiasts can have enthusiasm about a vast amount of things including computer chips with various branding printed on them. My grandmother paid a few hundred dollars for a spoon once. A spoon for crying out loud!

There's a market for anything and everything. You couple that with 6+ billion individual people and thus, you have those who will buy this CPU. There's nothing wrong with it. In its most basic form it comes down to the particular interest that an individual has based upon their experiences in life.

It has nothing to do with saving money, getting better performance, what reviews say, what other enthusiasts say, forum posters, color of the sky, etc. 

People need to think about these things before questioning someone else's decisions and passing judgment upon them. It is helpful to post things like relevant facts and figures to possibly help the discerning and willing to learn individual when necessary but it just doesn't make a difference to some. No one should have any feelings of anger, outrage, empathy, whatever due to what others do in regards to a CPU like this.


----------



## Johan45 (Jul 30, 2013)

erocker said:


> The willingness to buy this CPU comes down to being an enthusiast. Enthusiasts can have enthusiasm about a vast amount of things including computer chips with various branding printed on them. My grandmother paid a few hundred dollars for a spoon once. A spoon for crying out loud!
> 
> There's a market for anything and everything. You couple that with 6+ billion individual people and thus, you have those who will buy this CPU. There's nothing wrong with it. In its most basic form it comes down to the particular interest that an individual has based upon their experiences in life.
> 
> ...



You're absolutely right. The ones in the know aren't likely to shell out that coin for a cherry picked re=branded 8350. But you take " Joe Rocker" out buying a new gaming system. He's dropping 2-3 grand and doesn't care about Intel this and AMD that. What he does care about is his sweet ass rig with the 5.0GHz chip in it. He's probably never gonna do anything but turn it on and play COD on his 3x 27" monitors. 
Me If AMD finds they're not selling and drops the price I might pick one up just for some boints and the nostalgia of the TWKR's.


----------



## techtard (Jul 30, 2013)

erocker said:


> The willingness to buy this CPU comes down to being an enthusiast. Enthusiasts can have enthusiasm about a vast amount of things including computer chips with various branding printed on them. My grandmother paid a few hundred dollars for a spoon once. A spoon for crying out loud!
> 
> There's a market for anything and everything. You couple that with 6+ billion individual people and thus, you have those who will buy this CPU. There's nothing wrong with it. In its most basic form it comes down to the particular interest that an individual has based upon their experiences in life.
> 
> ...



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.



ensabrenoir said:


> .... saw a build log thread in another site where someone is going all out with an Amd rig for this thing(should have subbed itnever seen anyone throw that much $ at a red team build)  If i find it again ...will be interesting to see the outcome.....



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


----------



## erocker (Jul 30, 2013)

techtard said:


> 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 (Jul 30, 2013)

techtard said:


> 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 (Jul 30, 2013)

radrok said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2013)

seronx said:


> 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)
> ...



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 (Aug 5, 2013)

suraswami said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2013)

flash.flood said:


> 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 (Aug 6, 2013)

d1nky said:


> 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). 




suraswami said:


> 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 *A*nother *M*anufacturer *D*ies. Nobody in their right mind would waste money on the FX-9590.


----------



## d1nky (Aug 6, 2013)

flash.flood said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

d1nky said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 7, 2013)

happydays said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2013)

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


----------



## Wile E (Aug 7, 2013)

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 (Aug 7, 2013)

oopa


----------



## Wile E (Aug 7, 2013)

Johan45 said:


> Prettyn sure this is the AMD section



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


----------



## Johan45 (Aug 7, 2013)

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


----------



## flash.flood (Aug 13, 2013)

d1nky said:


> 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* (Aug 17, 2013)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> 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 (Aug 17, 2013)

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


----------



## TheHunter (Aug 17, 2013)

Wile E said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2013)

You have no earthly Idea how TDP works



flash.flood said:


> 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).
> 
> ...





Wile E said:


> 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
> ...



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


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 18, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> 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 (Aug 18, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2013)

TheHunter said:


> 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 (Aug 19, 2013)

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


----------



## BigMack70 (Aug 20, 2013)

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/


----------



## d1nky (Aug 20, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> 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/



WOWOWOW!

still £100 too much tho!

I bet I could do better with my 8350 and loop tbh!


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 20, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> 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/



That is a very sensible price for that chip! 

Now then, the cost of a motherboard able to support it ...


----------



## d1nky (Aug 20, 2013)

Fourstaff said:


> That is a very sensible price for that chip!
> 
> Now then, the cost of a motherboard able to support it ...



chvf/fatality/saber/extreme9/(ud3p LOL)


----------



## Fluffmeister (Aug 20, 2013)

BigMack70 said:


> 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/



That didn't take long.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Aug 20, 2013)

Fluffmeister said:


> That didn't take long.


I guess its only a matter of time before all those people that railed against Nvidia for insulting Titan owners by releasing the GTX 780 and devaluing their purchase will now do likewise for those poor early (4 weeks ago) adopters of the FX-9590


----------



## oNyX (Aug 22, 2013)

5GHz Smartphone?? That's even a worse product than the 9590. If one can find proper use for a 1GHz Dual Core phone I'd be surprised.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 22, 2013)

oNyX said:


> 5GHz Smartphone?? That's even a worse product than the 9590. If one can find proper use for a 1GHz Dual Core phone I'd be surprised.



I bog my Galaxy S3 down all the time. It's easy to max out a dual core phone.


----------



## flash.flood (Sep 19, 2013)

eidairaman1 said:


> You have no earthly Idea how TDP works



Not my fault you missed the point. Oh well. Try connecting the different systems to a watt meter and get back to me. 
_________________________________________________

AsRock Fatal1ty 990FX update: AsRock support contacted me two weeks ago stating that bios v 1.90 does support the latest monstrosity that AMD calls an FX processor. Figured I'd throw it out there in case somebody wants to waste money. 

http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty 990FX Professional/?cat=CPU


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Sep 19, 2013)

flash.flood said:


> Not my fault you missed the point. Oh well. Try connecting the different systems to a watt meter and get back to me.
> _________________________________________________
> 
> AsRock Fatal1ty 990FX update: AsRock support contacted me two weeks ago stating that bios v 1.90 does support the latest monstrosity that AMD calls an FX processor. Figured I'd throw it out there in case somebody wants to waste money.
> ...


Surely you missed the point , a month ago and with the price drop they are looking  a bit better


----------

