9590 & 9370 retail box editions hit the egg - $389/289

[Rvenger]

When they sold them for $1000 they weren't intended for retail sale. Now they are retail items... pretty cool.

 

[AtenRa]

so it's not that bad BUT, is it really worth that money (compared to other options)? buying the 8320 for $160 or the 8350 for $200 would give you 90 or 130 for cooling, could you do better than the kuhler 920 with that money?

The NZXT Kraken X60 at $109,99 may be a little better and Corsair H100i could be better at $111,99. For a strictly low budget the FX8320 + Air Cooler is better. For out of the box higher performance and perhaps higher OC, the FX9370 + WC kit is better.

 

[SPBHM]

The NZXT Kraken X60 at $109,99 may be a little better and Corsair H100i could be better at $111,99. For a strictly low budget the FX8320 + Air Cooler is better. For out of the box higher performance and perhaps higher OC, the FX9370 + WC kit is better.

so it sounds like it's a good deal for a higher end AM3+ PC :thumbsup: (if you are going to buy a good quality WC and MB anyway)

not amazing compared to the 83xx + cooler, but, higher stock clock and a pretty good cooler without paying a huge extra...

 

[SlowSpyder]

so it sounds like it's a good deal for a higher end AM3+ PC :thumbsup: (if you are going to buy a good quality WC and MB anyway)

not amazing compared to the 83xx + cooler, but, higher stock clock and a pretty good cooler without paying a huge extra...

The 9370 probably makes sense if you have a highend AM3+ board. But with the future of AM3+ cloudy at best, I don't know that most people would want to build a complete system from the ground up with one of these CPU's. Not to mention you're not going to get away with running these on a $50 low end AM3+ closeout special motherboard.

 

[Vesku]

Still have my fingers crossed there will be some Steamroller AM3+ CPUs released to see my AM3+ board through to retirement. Otherwise I will end up with only Intel in my performance machines with the possible addition of an AMD APU or two in mobile/HTPC form factors.

 

[inf64]

I wouldn't hold my breath for AM3+ SR CPUs. It will be FM2+ and whataver socket comes in 2015 for Excavator. It wouldn't surprise me if AMD launched a new socket in 2015 that is backwards comp. with SR...

 

[thilanliyan]

I'm hoping there is SR on AM3+ as well, otherwise I will likely go Intel for my next CPU upgrade.

At the very least, I'd like some low power versions of Piledriver on AM3+. These 220w CPUs don't interest me in the slightest.

 

[RaistlinZ]

220W CPU is still laughable.

 

[Sweepr]

According to Hardware.fr review the FX9590 is still slower than a stock i7 4770K and draws an extra 160W @ load. An OCed FX8320/8350 offers you very similar performance (if not better if it does >4.7GHz) for a lower price.

 

[Burpo]

Passmark shows it a tick faster, and NewEgg has them for $349 now, but still..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113347

 

[Rvenger]

9590 is very fast in the applications that benefit it. Its a beast in BF3 and BF4, that's for sure.

 

[Dave3000]

According to Hardware.fr review the FX9590 is still slower than a stock i7 4770K and draws an extra 160W @ load. An OCed FX8320/8350 offers you very similar performance (if not better if it does >4.7GHz) for a lower price.

You have to also consider the time spent on testing overclocks for stability and even then stability isn't guaranteed if stability tests ran for many hours without problems. You don't have to do that with an FX9590 at stock settings and are guaranteed a 4.7GHz base clock and a 5GHz turbo clock. Most people just don't want to mess around with overclocking. Also an FX-9590 has a 5GHz turbo clock. How common is it for an FX8350 to be able to turbo to 5GHz without problems and at FX9590 stock voltages?

 

[Sweepr]

How common is it for an FX8350 to be able to turbo to 5GHz without problems and at FX9590 stock voltages?

How common is it for FX9590 to hit 5GHz?
According to Hardware.fr turning Turbo off actually improves performance (with all cores @ load). I'd say you have pretty good chances of hitting 4.7GHz on a FX8350, and if you already have a reasonably good cooler you dont have to spend the equivalent of 2x FX8350 for a 14% performance bump.

 

[mrmt]

Looks like AMD decided to burn their most loyal customers.

 

[NTMBK]

Looks like AMD decided to burn their most loyal customers.

Price cuts happen. *shrug*

Besides, AMD weren't officially selling them to end users- that was just a few websites reselling OEM parts.

 

[TerryMathews]

Looks like OEMs decided to burn their most loyal customers.

FTFY. These chips weren't offered retail by AMD until just now.

 

[Phynaz]

Edit: Im sure the FX9370 can be used with every AM3+ 9xx Chipset motherboard like the ASUS M5A97 R2.0.

I'm sure it can't. Does every board have capability to support a 220w+ CPU? Nope.

 

[guskline]

Went to a 3930K. More expensive but I already have a 8350 OC'd to 4.6 Mhz.

 

[AtenRa]

I'm sure it can't. Does every board have capability to support a 220w+ CPU? Nope.

Currently running an FX8350 @ 4.6GHz (all 8 cores) on the ASUS M5A97 R2.0. FX9370 with a base clock of 4.4GHz will run just fine on all 9xx boards.

 

[SlowSpyder]

220W CPU is still laughable.

Intel i7-930 @ 4.0GHz


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/6

According the the link above their factory clocked i7 920 system uses 129 watts at idle. At 4.08GHz the same system uses 375 watts under load. From a power use stand point you're probably in the same ballpark as the FX9xxx CPU's.

 

[Phynaz]

Currently running an FX8350 @ 4.6GHz (all 8 cores) on the ASUS M5A97 R2.0. FX9370 with a base clock of 4.4GHz will run just fine on all 9xx boards.

Citation?

Does that include MSI?

How about this board that can't even support an 8350, would a 9370 run in it?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2285799
http://www.msi.com/product/mb/970A-G46.html#/?div=Basic

 

[Durvelle27]

Currently running an FX8350 @ 4.6GHz (all 8 cores) on the ASUS M5A97 R2.0. FX9370 with a base clock of 4.4GHz will run just fine on all 9xx boards.

Not true at all Just because it runs fine with a 8350 @4.6GHz doesn't mean a 9370 would work. If the manufacture didn't release a BIOs update to add support for it its not going to work most likely. I have M5A97 Evo with a FX 8350 @5.1GHz that runs fine but it wouldn't boot with a 9370 due to incompatibility :\

 

[Vesku]

You can probably run the 9370 in most 990FX boards with a heatsink on the VRMs. 970 (heatsinked or not) and 990 boards without heatsinks on the VRMs will be a roll of the dice, imo.

 

[BSim500]

No thanks. Regardless of performance, I just don't want a 220w room heater especially in the summer... AMD's problem is not performance/$ it's performance/watt.

Intel i7-930 @ 4.0GHz
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/6
According the the link above their factory clocked i7 920 system uses 129 watts at idle. At 4.08GHz the same system uses 375 watts under load. From a power use stand point you're probably in the same ballpark as the FX9xxx CPU's.

Which is fine for a 2008-era 45nm chip. The thing is, it's 2013 and they've kinda gone out of fashion...

 

[DominionSeraph]

Intel i7-930 @ 4.0GHz


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/03/01/intel-core-i7-930-cpu-review/6

According the the link above their factory clocked i7 920 system uses 129 watts at idle. At 4.08GHz the same system uses 375 watts under load. From a power use stand point you're probably in the same ballpark as the FX9xxx CPU's.

And what does the FX9xxx look like with a 53% overclock?