AMD FX9590 (5ghz) Review [KITGURU]

ubersonic · 18 Jul 2013 at 15:49

In October 2004 Intel cancelled the planned launch of the 4GHz Pentium 4 Prescott because they knew this is exactly how it would end.

imginy · 18 Jul 2013 at 22:45

That's shocking,

Why is AMD just going for more cores and higher clocks?

I'm pretty sure my £150 3570k clocked up would beat that at most things for example on 3dmark11 I can get 9900 and that can only get 8100 wtf?

cheesyboy · 19 Jul 2013 at 09:25

RavenXXX2 said:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...66-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-18.html

Pleased to see HC can at least see the real spirit behind this CPU. Their conclusion sums everything up rather well.

Desktop enthusiasts are still blindly digging their own grave, unfortunately. Especially those who can't see how important the appearance of this kind of throwback CPU is.

ubersonic · 19 Jul 2013 at 09:34

cheesyboy said:
Pleased to see HC can at least see the real spirit behind this CPU. Their conclusion sums everything up rather well.

No their conclusion is nonsense, its nothing more than the ramblings of a fanboy clutching for straws. The FX-60 reference would hold water if the 9590 was actually the fastest thing around, but in the majority of situations it can be outperformed by a heavily overclocked i5 (which is a valid comparison as the 9590 is a heavily oc'd 8350).

At least with the cancelled 4GHz P4 Intel had the sense to realize it was a bridge too far.

riskyfrisky · 19 Jul 2013 at 10:07

wolvers said:
Regardless of what those of us 'in the know' think about the price, this is good news in some respects because it shows that AMD are trying to push into that sector of the market. For years all the doom sayers have been banging on about AMD not trying to compete with Intel at the top end and how that's bad for enthusiasts etc, etc. Just being in that market sector again, even with an inferior product, will get themselves seen there. It's like they're doing some brand positioning or something. They must know that they can sell these chips at those prices, or they wouldn't release them, so I suspect they 'think' have better CPUs coming that are good enough to increase their reputation in this high end sector.

I really don't understand it though because AMD made it clear they weren't competing at the high-end anymore, then they release the 9590 at high-end prices and the chip isn't even a high-end processor.

=XDC=FluphyBunny · 19 Jul 2013 at 10:44

We achieved a constant speed of 5GHz (with Turbo disabled) in multi-threaded applications which represents a 300MHz increase over reference frequencies. For air cooling this isn't all that bad.

Just wow! Hardware Canucks credibility gone in one sentence. That's just sad.

Also love how they ignore the £700 amd constantly getting outperformed by a i7 4770 and on occasions previous gen intels. Plus I don't think they were even overclocked.

I guess the reviewer didn't need lube :rolleyes:

Marine-RX179 · 19 Jul 2013 at 11:58

wolvers said:
Regardless of what those of us 'in the know' think about the price, this is good news in some respects because it shows that AMD are trying to push into that sector of the market. For years all the doom sayers have been banging on about AMD not trying to compete with Intel at the top end and how that's bad for enthusiasts etc, etc. Just being in that market sector again, even with an inferior product, will get themselves seen there. It's like they're doing some brand positioning or something. They must know that they can sell these chips at those prices, or they wouldn't release them, so I suspect they 'think' have better CPUs coming that are good enough to increase their reputation in this high end sector.

A KIA priced against Mercedes and BMW would still be a KIA. It is not the price dictate whether or not it is good, but rather the quality and performance instead...

AMD is getting seen alright for their launch of the new CPU range for sure, but as a laughing stock for people in the know...laughing out loud with "Seriously!?"

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Jul 2013 at 12:24

wolvers said:
Regardless of what those of us 'in the know' think about the price, this is good news in some respects because it shows that AMD are trying to push into that sector of the market. For years all the doom sayers have been banging on about AMD not trying to compete with Intel at the top end and how that's bad for enthusiasts etc, etc. Just being in that market sector again, even with an inferior product, will get themselves seen there. It's like they're doing some brand positioning or something. They must know that they can sell these chips at those prices, or they wouldn't release them, so I suspect they 'think' have better CPUs coming that are good enough to increase their reputation in this high end sector.

The funny thing is that the people who are whinging the most probably pay silly money for expensive motherboards and RAM which look nicer,graphics card which have the nicest design,OTT cases,etc when cheaper alternatives will do same job. The worst thing you could argue that 99% of the time the aesthetic appearance fo internal components matters little for performance or stability,yet people spend decent money on it.

Even the whole aspect of water cooling and high end air and AIO water cooling also has no real VFM. You can see people trying to get that extra 200MHZ to 300MHZ out of their CPU and then spending more on cooling or changing the motherboard to do so. Like that makes so much difference.

However,as usual they compartmentalise thinking they are VFM Kings. Yet looking at how much they spend on their PCs and at the rate they change parts,they are not really VFM Kings. Its more the delusions they think they are.

Personally I would never buy this CPU,but then I consider a lot of the high end market just overpriced especially graphics cards. The whole market above the GTX770 and HD7970 is a extraordinarily poor VFM. Any CPU used for a gaming system over a Core i5 K series is not brilliant for the money too. The same goes with those £120+ motherboards,etc.

humbug · 19 Jul 2013 at 12:30

cheesyboy said:
Pleased to see HC can at least see the real spirit behind this CPU. Their conclusion sums everything up rather well.

Desktop enthusiasts are still blindly digging their own grave, unfortunately. Especially those who can't see how important the appearance of this kind of throwback CPU is.

I agree with you, but there is no such thing as a pure enthusiast anymore, people who call themselves enthusiasts take sides and drone on about the faults from the side they are not on. i must admit i'm guilty of that myself.

Its much more power hungry and often not as fast, all hale Intel, right?

Perhaps we are missing the point.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Jul 2013 at 12:32

ubersonic said:
No their conclusion is nonsense, its nothing more than the ramblings of a fanboy clutching for straws. The FX-60 reference would hold water if the 9590 was actually the fastest thing around, but in the majority of situations it can be outperformed by a heavily overclocked i5 (which is a valid comparison as the 9590 is a heavily oc'd 8350).

At least with the cancelled 4GHz P4 Intel had the sense to realize it was a bridge too far.

SKYMTL an AMD fanboi?? You taking the **** or something??

He is hardly one,if you read his posts on XS. If anything he is more partial to Intel and Nvidia. He even called the HD7970 a half generation out of date when compared to a GTX680.

SKYMTL said:
I think you are completely taking this product out of context. If this was a NEW architecture and had accordingly high expectations, I'd come down on it like a ton of bricks.

But this isn't a new architecture, nor is it billed as efficient. It is a niche product built for a particular consumer niche with products that wouldn't normally be used. This is AMD pushing their chip to the highest point possible and releasing a component that would normally be completely ignored if the tree huggers had anything to do with it.

This goes for all enthusiast components too.

The perf per watt of a GTX TITAN is in the ****ter compared to a GTX 760

The same can be said about the 3960X when placed against an i7 4770K. Think IVB-E will be any better? Hell no.

If power consumption and efficiency were the only things dictating CPU engineering, you would have to kiss the enthusiast component market goodbye. This is about pushing the limits.

I'd have a serious problem with these new processors if AMD said "that's it, we're done" but they're not. While these are being released, work on Steamroller is proceeding apace, as is Excavator. The FX-9590 is a last hurrah for Piledriver and I think it is a fitting send-off.

__________________

humbug · 19 Jul 2013 at 12:43

Yeah, he's right. ^^^^^

teppic · 19 Jul 2013 at 12:53

I think it's right that a review should not just base the entire thing on price. A good balanced review will make it very clear to anyone that the 9590 compares poorly to other cheaper Intel CPUs in some tests, and it'd be right to mention that you can get nearly the same performance spending a lot less even with AMD's own FX range.

The hardwarecanucks review is a million times more objective than the first one. It clearly states when Intel CPUs beat this one and vice versa, uses fair comparisons, objective language, and they say in the conclusion that given the expected price it's very unlikely to sell well.

wolvers · 19 Jul 2013 at 13:05

riskyfrisky said:
I really don't understand it though because AMD made it clear they weren't competing at the high-end anymore, then they release the 9590 at high-end prices and the chip isn't even a high-end processor.

Well that's my point entirely. This shows that they are intending to get more serious in the high-end CPU area. Releasing these, I think, shows that.

Marine-RX179 said:
A KIA priced against Mercedes and BMW would still be a KIA. It is not the price dictate whether or not it is good, but rather the quality and performance instead...

The car analogy is a good one, you just used it in the wrong context.

Cheaper brands regularly make tuned up versions of their stock cars. The Fiesta ST can be up to £20k but people will still buy them. Bonkers but the market is clearly there.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The funny thing is that the people who are whinging the most probably pay silly money for expensive motherboards and RAM which look nicer,graphics card which have the nicest design,OTT cases,etc when cheaper alternatives will do same job. The worst thing you could argue that 99% of the time the aesthetic appearance fo internal components matters little for performance or stability,yet people spend decent money on it.

Even the whole aspect of water cooling and high end air and AIO water cooling also has no real VFM. You can see people trying to get that extra 200MHZ to 300MHZ out of their CPU and then spending more on cooling or changing the motherboard to do so. Like that makes so much difference.

However,as usual they compartmentalise thinking they are VFM Kings. Yet looking at how much they spend on their PCs and at the rate they change parts,they are not really VFM Kings. Its more the delusions they think they are.

Personally I would never buy this CPU,but then I consider a lot of the high end market just overpriced especially graphics cards. The whole market above the GTX770 and HD7970 is a extraordinarily poor VFM. Any CPU used for a gaming system over a Core i5 K series is not brilliant for the money too. The same goes with those £120+ motherboards,etc.

Personally, I think this a harmless product that will do little to effect the CPU market. SKYMTL puts it very well. Titan on the other hand, I feel, has been used by Nvidia to inflate the prices of the GPU range as a whole. Just like Intel have done with their high-end CPUs.

You could say that the 9590 will give Intel an excuse to raise their high-end prices even more, but I think it will just make them think they'd better not get too complacent with the competition. I've read before that senior Intel guys are very wary of AMD might rock up with one day, and this is going to signal an intent that they may just be close to doing that.

humbug · 19 Jul 2013 at 13:21

Intel are wise to be wary of AMD ^^^^^ Intel had got to complaisant once before.
AMD might not have the vast resources that Intel have, but they are innovative and tenacious, i wouldn't count them out making this architecture 'bit by bit' come good, its just taking a frustratingly long time, hiving said that i do think Steamroller is when the architecture will start getting good enough to start changing the landscape.

Marine-RX179 · 19 Jul 2013 at 14:09

wolvers said:
The car analogy is a good one, you just used it in the wrong context.

Cheaper brands regularly make tuned up versions of their stock cars. The Fiesta ST can be up to £20k but people will still buy them. Bonkers but the market is clearly there.

Yea you pretty much hit right on on what I wanted to say

I just didn't think of the more appropriate example.

wolvers · 19 Jul 2013 at 19:03

Internet telepathy! :cool:

ussie · 20 Jul 2013 at 17:20

killoc said:
between £650 and £700.

Is it worth it just for 5ghz?

As a user of both intel and amd but inparticularly the amd 8350 which I also have. I don't personally think it is worth that price.

I mean I can overclock mine to 5ghz stable fine, but there is quite some heat to it as from what ive seen the voltage you need at 5ghz is allot higher than going from 4ghz to 4.6ghz or 4.6ghz to 4.8ghz.

Better to pay the £160 for the 8350 and overclock (I got mine on OCUK sale

)

mmj_uk · 20 Jul 2013 at 18:41

The trouble is now that FX9370 is available FX8350 are likely to be poor overclockers compared to before because the decent clockers will be binned into FX9370/9590 category.

Kaapstad · 20 Jul 2013 at 20:26

mmj_uk said:
The trouble is now that FX9370 is available FX8350 are likely to be poor overclockers compared to before because the decent clockers will be binned into FX9370/9590 category.

Somehow I don't think the FX9590 is going to be a big seller so I don't think there will be a lot of binning going on.

farlow2012 · 20 Jul 2013 at 20:39

there only one reason im glad they have done this .......cause everyone learns from there mistakes wonder what the future will bring with amd after they realize the mess they made of this chip with pricing