A board to power the FX-9590!
- Thread starter Andrew Moore
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,321
- Location
- Cornwall
No, it's not in an entirely different league at all. You pay £400 extra for 300Mhz on the 3970X, and you pay £550 extra for 800Mhz on the FX.
The 3970X has slightly more cache yeah, but it won't make an appreciable difference in anything (prove me wrong).
I understand it's cool to hate on AMD, but come on.
Or...
3970X over 3930K:
79% price increase for 9% stock clock increase
8.4% price increase per 1% stock clock increase
9590 over 8350:
338% price increase for 17.5% stock clock increase
19.3% price increase per 1% stock clock increase
So the 9590 seems to charge relatively more for the increase than the 3970X does.
The question is what sort of overclocking headroom the 9590 has and how much higher it will clock than a 8350. My understanding is the 3970X doesn't overclock that much higher than a 3930K.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,327
- Location
- UK.
Very nice looking mobo, shame there isn't a decent enough CPU to complement it..
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 311
- Location
- Sunny London
Imagine the bragging rights of owning this mobo, FX-9590 and a Nvidia Titan... and the massive void in your virtual wallet!
That would be a massive void in you actual wallet
What a stupidly priced Cpu
AMD are doing what Nvidia have done in the past.
These companies have customers who will pay ANYTHING to have the best they have to offer. Look at the Titan, it was STUPIDLY priced yet many on this forum fell for it and bought them.
I think you need to stop the hateing on AMD's pricing because its been done before and its nothing new.
Don't like the price? ooo well don't buy it.
Also you fail to notice that's exactly what nvidia did, They released a GPU few months after the titan that with a minor Overclock will beat it and priced it at near 40% less. If AMD do the same for CPU's then who CARES!?
Price of 9590 is a bit silly, but I suspect it's a strategic placement to give room for Steamroller to come in at a higher price point that Bulldozer/Piledriver.
However, a better analogy might be Alfa Romeo vs BMW. Why would anyone buy an Alfa over a Beemer? They're similarly priced for similarly specced cars, but the BMWs are better built, have better residuals, and are an instantly recognisable illustration of your wealth/success in the eyes of most of the population. Alfas, however, have soul and a certain purity and are, therefore, a car for the enthusiast.
AMD is Alfa.
This ^ is right
However, a better analogy might be Alfa Romeo vs BMW. Why would anyone buy an Alfa over a Beemer? They're similarly priced for similarly specced cars, but the BMWs are better built, have better residuals, and are an instantly recognisable illustration of your wealth/success in the eyes of most of the population. Alfas, however, have soul and a certain purity and are, therefore, a car for the enthusiast.
AMD is Alfa.
Hi there
In my testing I found them both very evenly matched, to go into details:-
The Gigabyte would typically achieve the better prime stable CPU overclock, in the region of 50-100MHz.
However the Asus board would typically get the better memory overclocks, of upto say an extra 200MHz.
So overall performance wise they are very even, the only thing I did notice in testing was that the Gigabyte board did seem to run cooler, but in fairness when running and overclocking an FX-9590 they both get very hot so having some airflow is pretty crucial.
To be honest its more like:
Ferrari £200k
Lambo £250k
Same Ferrari with but with go faster stripes £700k
Considering the FX-9590 costs £200+ more than an entire OcUK FX-8530 bundle clocked 100MHz lower I know which one I would be after if I was going for an AMD system.
At least the Titan had the performance to match.
In this case of this CPU...
More like "your shipment of fail has arrived"
The Voodoo 5 6000/Maxtor Bigfoot of the CPU world has arrived!
(Google them, about as fail as GPU's/HDD's can get
)I must say that the mother board is full of nice features and the price is good to.
You must live in very poor area if you think that. Ten a penny by me.
You must live in very poor area if you think that. Ten a penny by me.
It isn't as if Intel haven't done the same thing. Remember the QX6700 at something like £600 ? Just a Q6600 with an unlocked multiplier. Of course Intel justified that by releasing it a few months ahead of the Q6600 which was about £150 or so.
If AMD are highway robbers, then so are Intel.
If AMD are highway robbers, then so are Intel.
Erm... why do you think lots of BMW ownership in your, presumably, affluent area disproves my point?
PS, I live in a fairly affluent area. There are a lot of BMWs
PPS, I'm no BMW fan.
i think people fail to see that AMD never intended for a mass market release for this chip...
it was more of a world first to release a chip that will hit 5ghz at stock ( yes ok it uses its boost tech to get there but the user doesnt need to do anything to get it there ) and is more of a " nah nah nah nah nah we got there first intel "
ive got my 8350 at 5.1ghz with some serious cooling.
it was more of a world first to release a chip that will hit 5ghz at stock ( yes ok it uses its boost tech to get there but the user doesnt need to do anything to get it there ) and is more of a " nah nah nah nah nah we got there first intel "
ive got my 8350 at 5.1ghz with some serious cooling.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,371
- Location
- Dormanstown.
No It did not.
Fail comment
So Titan isn't the single fastest GPU?
I don't think Intel care to be honest, and I'd be surprised if they couldn't have done it with Sandy's.
Even if it was a limited run.
I bet AMD could have done it with Zambezi too (But that'd probably be like a volcano)