• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i5 2500k v AMD FX-9590

I think the more useful scores show the amd a bit faster, but in general yes, it's a shame overall I wish there was more competition for Intel so us consumers get more for our money.
 
Talk about a troll thread!! You know this thread is going to provoke certain people and before long will turn into a flame war. This thread should be locked before it degenerates.
 
Hopefully AMD will be able to get back in the game in 2016 when their new architecture is ready. They don't really have the resources to fight off both Intel and Nvidia though, considering they're a smaller company than either of them.
 
I'm not sure about the Anandtech bench, those Cinebench results are way out of whack compared with my FX-8320 at 4.5GHz. I'm hitting 7.78 in r 11.5 and 1.19 single thread.

I'd expect the single thread at 5GHz to be more like 1.32, they're basically showing a significant under-performance there.
 
They could have turbo off, so it'd be at 4.7GHZ not 5GHZ.
Either way, the OP's post is pointless, it's also a pointless comparison, stock for stock the FX95 puts up a good showing and has the lead when it gets to 6-8 threads.

I'd never pick an FX95 over an i5 2500k like.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
AMD FX-9590 released 2014

i5 2500k released 2011

Is there any hope that AMD will once again be competitive with Intel? It's ridiculous an Intel CPU three years old is competing or beating out an 5Ghz latest AMD.




http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/288?vs=1289
Click to expand...

Whilst the fx9590 was released in 2013, it would be more fair to compare the I5 to the original Fx83** series which was released in Oct 2012, as the fx9's are just speed binned cpu's, (well just cpu's for thick people who can't overclock).

July 2013 was the first official release for the Fx 9590 and 9370, then re-released in 2014 under the ''amd hype to win some shares, before Amd become irrelevant'' tactic, along with the ''guess what's coming hint'' for socketed kabini.
here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=26203212

Never-less there are pro's and con's to an fx8 at 4.8ghz or above vs an i5 SB.
In real work loads say video editing, or handbrake hdd to hdd conversions, I'd take an fx8 over a 2500k. I don't base performance on synthetic meaningless scores, however I'm not going to deny that the fx8 isn't that great a cpu either. Power consumption is a big pet hate of mine, firstlly in the ways reviewers load the cores up in testing, but also as Amd really could have refined the operating voltages earlier during the production of Piledriver.
Instead we are only just now seeing the Vid tuned FX-8370/E

I never take any notice of the benches provided by anandtech especially with regards to gpu performance. It's not clear what settings were used during the cpu testing and so many variables can change a result,
Maybe the fx8 was thottling?

But really this thread is a pretty pointless thread, as you don't provide any evidence of your own findings when comparing the fx8 vs the i5 2500k.
I however did own an fx8320 and I still own a 2600k, I did bench them against each other and therefore I consider myself more knowledgeable and experienced than yourself, who just quoted a website. Whilst the fx9590 is considered the latest cpu by Amd your comparison of 3 year Sb vs 2014 Fx8 is incorrect you should reword your statement to

Is there any hope that AMD will once again be competitive with Intel? It's ridiculous an Intel CPU three years old is sometimes competing or beating out a 2 year old 5Ghz (essentially re badged AMD fx83**)

Peace
 
pastymuncher said:
Talk about a troll thread!!
Click to expand...

Martini1991 said:
Either way, the OP's post is pointless
Click to expand...

Agree /fail thread.

Davedree said:
Whilst the fx9590 was released in 2013, it would be more fair to compare the I5 to the original Fx83** series which was released in Oct 2012...
I'd take an fx8 over a 2500k. I don't base performance on synthetic meaningless scores...
But really this thread is a pretty pointless thread, as you don't provide any evidence of your own findings when comparing the fx8 vs the i5 2500k.
I however did own an fx8320 and I still own a 2600k, I did bench them against each other and therefore I consider myself more knowledgeable and experienced than yourself
Click to expand...

First sensible post I have seen in a long while. An 8320 is still £50 cheaper although no matter what I think - this thread does need binning before the barmy army get dribbling over the same old rhetoric. :cool:
 
I have stopped giving a monkeys about what so and so say about many things.

I have had a 6 core I7-970 upstairs in a Saphire PureBlack x58 Motherboard. A short while ago, I bought another pair of GSKill RipJaw ram so that this I7 could have 6 sticks of 4GB giving it 24GB.

My current PC at the time, was the AMD 8350 in a Sabretooth 990FX, along with 4x4GB GSkill.

The other day, I swapped them over, and saw that the I7 was way slower than the AMD. Also the AMD could do Both SLI and XFire, and I was running XFire mainly because the temps of the GTX card were ridiculous and the ATIs were much cooler, but the Saphire gave me ZERO gap and so I have had to lose a card. No biggie I suppose, one card is more than enough for my needs anyway.

The reall issue was that when I ran a speed test comparing it against my other setups, I found that thI7 was desperately slow compared to the AMD.

So much so, that I am absolutely regretting doing the swap.

No biggie of course, I can just swap them back, buts its the effort in doing it all because I am in a wheelchair and so having to strip 2 PCs and swapp their bits over takes me all night ( Cannot do it during the day as we have kids plus ferrets roaming the house

In saying that however, my new Laptop is an I7. 2.5Ghz and its a monsterously quick bugger, that utterly demolishes the AMD

This shows me that the newer Intels are seriously quick sods.

I really need to dig out my Xeon PC - also in storage since my latest operation, thats got 2 HexCore XEONS, so that should be even quicker.

Bottom line however is that for me, I think that AMD are the better option, both the Motherboard is better than any of my Intel based ones and the layout supports more too!
 
Probably

The AMD I bought all brand new and its sweet as a nut, but the Intels are all from the MM or elsewhere and are used.

To be fair, I am trying to give that I7 a fair trial, but when the most I can get out of it, seems to be 10% give or take, then thats kind of annoying! - I cannot remember if the AMD did similar or not?
 
pastymuncher said:
This thread should be locked before it degenerates.
Click to expand...

reckon the degeneration point was prior to the first comment here.

besides, at least amd tried to bring us a multicore future, shame it didnt pan out so well.

they arent bad cpu's anyway, its just for the rich intel make better ones, but amd still have a good bang for budget going on.

although the concept of them bringing out something newer and more hefty would be great, they should take a leaf out of their gpu division because they dont seem to be doing too badly
 
The problem that I see here, is that just because Intel make CPUs that are faster than AMD, then we have the mantality that all of a sudden, AMD cpus are rubbish!

It seems that we are often NOT really taking into account the costs at all.

For example, AMD 9590 vs Intel 4690 are the same price, and so when I went to compare the two, I found that they are very much on par with each other within a limit of course. Single core, the Intels are quicker, but overall, the AMD is.

So, why be so harsh on AMD when in fact, they are not really that much slower?

Sure, intel have faster CPUs but I ask myself.. Of all the people that are ****ging AMD off, do you actually have a faster CPU? I know that so many of us do, but at the same time, I kow ythat many simply dont. And for the ones that dont have a faster CPU, I feel that the have no say in the arguement.

Its kind of like arguing over whats better, a Ford or vauxhal. We are comparing their best Cars when we only actually drive a 1.6 Zetec.

I myself have to admit to being an AMD fan. but at the same time, I use the fastest I can afford. Like an idiot, I have bought a whole load of really good PCs when I could have simply only bought myself one or two seriously REALLY REALLY good PCs.

Right now, as of 2 days ago, Im on Intel, but I wish I hadnt done and so as soon as I can, Im going to get the AMD back in.

The performance is not THAT different, but overall the AMD setup is better
 
I also used to be on the fx/990fx and went intel recently and most of what I play has massively improved (Dota2,Tf2,arma2/3,dayz).
 
spoffle said:
ERMERGERD MY 3930K THAT WAS RELEASED 3 YEARS AGO IS OUTPERFORMING THE 4790 THAT WAS RELEASED JUST MONTHS AGO! INTEL MUST BE DYING!
Click to expand...

SAY ITS NOT SO!!:eek:

I HEARD THAT YOU NEED AT LEAST A CORE I7 5820K AT 5GHZ TO RUN MINESWEEPER AND ANY OLDER CPU IS RUBBISH. IF YOU DON'T UPGRADE NOW YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE MISSING!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom