AMD FX9590 (5ghz) Review [KITGURU]

[Boomstick777]

Today we are looking at the new AMD FX9590, clocked at an eye popping 5ghz. The FX9590 is shipped with a base clock of 4.7ghz and a maximum turbo speed of 5.0ghz – the all important figure which has already started a plethora of news stories across the net. AMD wanted to be the first out the door with a 5ghz processor and they achieved it. The question we ask today- ‘Ok – 5ghz, but at what cost?’.

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

 

[~>Dg<~]

lol @ review with possibly worst games.

why dont reviews use cpu power hungry games ?

 

[killoc]

between £650 and £700.

Is it worth it just for 5ghz?

 

[teppic]

The review seems quite biased against AMD throughout. E.g. comparing the stock clocked AMD processor against overclocked Intel ones in the tests where AMD is likely to do poorly in, and where it does well, only comparing against an overclocked 3960X. The tone is certainly not objective either.

 

[Redmint]

Even ignoring any AMD/Intel bias I can't see how the price can be any way reasonable given the performance in multi core tasks, which is surely the point of a 5GHz 8 core chip.

 

[teppic]

It's an odd price. An FX-8320 (about £120?) can typically be overclocked to 4.8GHz or so without any fancy coolers.

 

[Phixsator]

It's an odd price. An FX-8320 (about £120?) can typically be overclocked to 4.8GHz or so without any fancy coolers.

good luck with that..

 

[Martini1991]

Well that's pretty naff

 

[ubersonic]

The review seems quite biased against AMD throughout. E.g. comparing the stock clocked AMD processor against overclocked Intel ones in the tests where AMD is likely to do poorly in, and where it does well, only comparing against an overclocked 3960X. The tone is certainly not objective either.

If you read the review, its compared against the 3960X because its priced against the 3960X, and the FX9590 was actually overclocked in the test too (to 5GHz, and that required a voltage tweak for stability).

 

[Doomedspeed]

The review seems quite biased against AMD throughout. E.g. comparing the stock clocked AMD processor against overclocked Intel ones in the tests where AMD is likely to do poorly in, and where it does well, only comparing against an overclocked 3960X. The tone is certainly not objective either.

There were also stock Intel chips included, yes there were no over locked amd chip but there was enough info to compare stock to stock. Though that is beside the point, the were testing a 5ghz chip..

The reason they compared it to the 3960x is it falls into a similar price bracket. Comparing it to the 3930k would have been fairer, aside from the £300-400 difference.

It's an odd price. An FX-8320 (about £120?) can typically be overclocked to 4.8GHz or so without any fancy coolers.

That's not an easy over lock and you'd certainly need a good cooler to do it..

It doesn't sound like you know what your on about..

 

[RavenXXX2]

Fail @ AMD

 

[olivier renault]

big WTF.

 

[Boomstick777]

Well this CPU has at least made my 3960X seem like even more of a bargain @ £500.

We can bet that in the future if AMD do deliver with Steamroller, it isn't going to be cheap.

The pricing on this thing is ridiculous..

 

[Hagar]

Nothing to make me want to change or upgrade from £160 FX8350 which will run 4.7GHz 24/7, now 9 months old.

 

[mmj_uk]

6.5/10 seems like a generous score considering how it stacks up against the competition.

The only people likely to buy this are the world record overclock chasers and AMD probably know that given the paltry 1yr warranty.

 

[OLDPHART]

Its just a overclocked 8350 -
Cons:

• needs high end cooling.
• puts a lot of strain on the motherboard.
• runs hot.
• high power drain.
• struggles to compete.
• empty wallet.

 

[teppic]

There were also stock Intel chips included, yes there were no over locked amd chip but there was enough info to compare stock to stock. Though that is beside the point, the were testing a 5ghz chip..

The reason they compared it to the 3960x is it falls into a similar price bracket. Comparing it to the 3930k would have been fairer, aside from the £300-400 difference.



That's not an easy over lock and you'd certainly need a good cooler to do it..

It doesn't sound like you know what your on about..

I was just helping someone out the other day who had no issues at 4.8GHz with his 8320. Reviews also say that 8320/8350s can reach this kind of level with regular coolers. They're pretty consistent in saying that 4.7GHz is quite easily achievable.

I know why it is compared to the 3960x, but it isn't fair to compare a stock clocked CPU (well, at small bump to turbo) with an overclocked CPU alone.

There's no way that AMD with Piledriver is going to beat Intel in certain tests regardless of the clockspeed. I'd imagine that anyone willing to spend this amount on a CPU is going to know that. If they're going to compare it against several Intel processors where it doesn't do well, they need to compare it against those as well where it does do well.

Since it's clearly massively overpriced, a fair review can show that without trying to make it look worse.

 

[Zuban]

Folk say the 3930k is expensive but AMD are trying as hard as they can to make it look like good value lol.

 

[Marine-RX179]

It's almost like:

"Look! It's the most expensive factory overclock price premium...EVER!!"

I mean in graphic card terms, we've seen MSI Lightning, Asus Rogue (or whatever it was called), Gigabyte SOC charging around 33%-50% extra in price for factory overclock AND improved PCB...what exactly has AMD done to deserve the 5.6 times the price of a 8320?

 

[James J]

Folk say the 3930k is expensive but AMD are trying as hard as they can to make it look like good value lol.

Pretty much my thoughts also. disgusting price for the level of performance. Guru3D have also done a review that shows very similar results to kitguru.