AMD unleashes first ever commercial “5GHz” CPU, the FX-9590

[jhu]

*snip*

Thanks for that. I have a request though. Would you mind running Povray 3.7 benchmark with 1 thread and 8 threads and reporting those results? I have a 1045T which I'll test with too (1 thread, 6 threads).

 

[frozentundra123456]

This is the chart I developed tonight using both of the rigs listed in my sig below. I ran the 8350 stock, the 3770k stock, the 8350 @4.7 Ghz which will be the base clock without the turbo to 5 Ghz and my 3770k @ 4.4Ghz which is what I run it at. I run my 8350 at 4.6 Ghz so I bumped it up a bit to replicate the approximate base of the FX 9590. Remember that the scores will likely be a bit higher due to the turbo of 5Ghz. I probably could have replicated that but it was easier just running all 8 cores at 4.7Ghz. I realize these are only cpu scores and hardly "all encompassing". I don't own a 4770k so no figures would be available. Perhaps a poster who owns one could help out. I ran all of the newest Aida64 benchmarks (own a licensed version), CineBench 11.5 and Passmark 9 CPU tests (own licensed version). I'm open to all other suggestions for comparison tests. At least with these figures one can make a comparison of some cpu tests between the FX 8350 stock, the I7- 3770k stock and the projected base of the FX 9590 base of 4.7Ghz. I threw in my figures for my I7-3770k @ 4.4 Ghz to also compare. Hope this helps the discussion.

cant see it, ???

 

[guskline]

cant see it, ???

Sorry frozentundra123456: hope it's fixed now!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Sorry frozentundra123456: hope it's fixed now!

Thx, works now.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, they could be. They aren't, but they could be.

Yea, I was thinking about Richland cores but they using PileDrivers. No big surprise for that 220W TDP at 4.7GHz.


For once good marketing from AMD, 5GHz, 8 Cores, FX9590 will be faster than Haswell 4770K (default) in most of the benchmarks.

 

[guskline]

Yea, I was thinking about Richland cores but they using PileDrivers. No big surprise for that 220W TDP at 4.7GHz.


For once good marketing from AMD, 5GHz, 8 Cores, FX9590 will be faster than Haswell 4770K (default) in most of the benchmarks.

Cranking the FX 9590 to 4.7 Base/ turbo 5 Ghz will have a significant positive effect on a lot of benchmarks.,

 

[Abwx]

lol their slides are always good for a laugh.

I know my i5 will already beat it's Cinebench score while using 1/3 the power :thumbsup:

Yes , do an overclock and show us the results....

1/3 the power is 73W , btw....

 

[Abwx]

100W * 8760 hours (24 hours a day 365 day) = 876000 watt hours

876 kWh * $0.10 per kWh = $87.60 for 1 year continuous operation at the TDP difference (so assumes you use the exact workload that would closely approximate how AMD determines TDP)

That s about the added costs in 4 years assuming
full usage 6 hours per day , wich is unlikely as well ,
so it s a moot point...

 

[RampantAndroid]

Yes , do an overclock and show us the results....

1/3 the power is 73W , btw....

And the TDP of his CPU is what, 84W? Versus 220W?

Hmm.

 

[Abwx]

And the TDP of his CPU is what, 84W? Versus 220W?

Hmm.

Right , overclocked intel CPUs comsume less than at stock
frequency , about 73W once overclocked at a frequency
that makes it match the FX for cinebench...

 

[toyota]

220 watts for the stock cpu? lol my whole system only uses a little more power than that even in Crysis 3 which pushes my oced 2500k and gtx660ti.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Besides the PR novelty. I wonder how many they expect to sell. It can hardly be more than 1000 to the most dedidated supporters. I doubt the FX8xxx series today even sell 25000 a month.

And 220W TDP is simply a joke for such a poor CPU, or any CPU for that matter in the consumer space. I remember a certain company making fun of another one about TDP and heat. Oh the irony.

Not to mention the misleading PR about 5Ghz.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Right , overclocked intel CPUs comsume less than at stock
frequency , about 73W once overclocked at a frequency
that makes it match the FX for cinebench...

I think you misinterpreted my post to be agreeing with yours. I don't care if it's 5% slower...what I do care about is that the CPU doesn't make me get up and turn on the AC just to keep cool in the summertime (hint: I don't need AC normally.) This step just seems like desperation by AMD in the desktop space.

 

[Abwx]

..what I do care about is that the CPU doesn't make me get up and turn on the AC just to keep cool in the summertime (hint: I don't need AC normally.)

Exageration render your point insignificant.

 

[toyota]

Exageration render your point insignificant.

100 more watts can most certainly be noticeable when the pc is right beside you in a smaller room.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Exageration render your point insignificant.

When I go from browsing to gaming, I can feel the temperature go up. You were saying?

 

[Abwx]

When I go from browsing to gaming, I can feel the temperature go up. You were saying?

Since we dont know your configuration you are left
talking about nothing in respect of other posters...

100 more watts can most certainly be noticeable when the pc is right beside you in a smaller room.

Dont see the point to buy $$ish CPUs/PCs while living
in a few square meters...

 

[toyota]

Since we dont know your configuration you are left
talking about nothing in respect of other posters...



Dont see the point to buy $$ish CPUs/PCs while living
in a few square meters...

what kind of asinine reply is that? last time I looked most people that have a pc, have it in their office or bedroom and its usually located right beside them.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Since we dont know your configuration you are left
talking about nothing in respect of other posters...



Dont see the point to buy $$ish CPUs/PCs while living
in a few square meters...

My apartment is 860 sq. ft. My den area is where the CPU is, and leads into the kitchen. In other words, open space galore.

As for my setup? Doesn't matter. You're talking about a power difference that can amount to more than TWICE what my CPU does.

 

[Abwx]

Looks like power comsumption became an issue
once Intel got perf/watt advantage , but neverless
i never saw people complaining about QX9xxx...

To put things in perspective, the highest TDP part ever released by AMD prior to the FX-9000 series is the 140W TDP Phenom II X4 965 BE. For Intel, the vast majority of their chips have been under 130W, but a few chips (e.g. Core 2 Extreme QX9775, Core i7-3970X, and most of the Xeon 7100 series PPGA604 parts back at the end of the NetBurst era) managed to go above and beyond and hit 150W TDPs.

And that was without IMC...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

 

[ShintaiDK]

There is a huge difference even on 150W and the disaster AMD is about to release with 220W. Thats almost a 50% increase in power consumption compared to the previous max.

And besides the Netburst, that AMD publicly degraded due to power consumption, then the other CPUs atleast performed unlike the FX series.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Looks like power comsumption became an issue
once Intel got perf/watt advantage , but neverless
i never saw people complaining about QX9xxx...

And that was without IMC...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

Are you trying to change the subject here or something?

 

[Abwx]

There is a huge difference even on 150W and the disaster AMD is about to release with 220W. Thats almost a 50% increase in power consumption compared to the previous max.

As i wrote , 150W despite and external memory controller.

Anyway the chip wont absorb 220W , it will probably
at most consume 40% more than the 8350 assuming
they did cranck up the volts significantly...

Looks like the chips will be 1.3825V at iddle and 1.46
when turbo kicks , sorry to disapoint you...

 

[RampantAndroid]

As i wrote , 150W despite and external memory controller.

Anyway the chip wont absorb 220W , it will probably
at most consume 40% more than the 8350 assuming
they did cranck up the volts significantly...

Looks like the chips will be 1.3825V at iddle and 1.46
when turbo kicks , sorry to disapoint you...

My reaction is probably because I see you as just trying to paint AMD in a positive light, but time will tell. They're saying a 220W TDP for the top end part, and I would be VERY surprised if under full load it was under 200W at the least.

 

[Zucker2k]

Looks like power comsumption became an issue
once Intel got perf/watt advantage , but neverless
i never saw people complaining about QX9xxx...

And that was without IMC...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7066/amd-announces-fx9590-and-fx9370-return-of-the-ghz-race

150w TDP Xeon 7100 Series = 65nm with huge caches, up to 16mbs; 150w TDP QX9775 = 45nm, 12mb cache, 150w TDP i7 3970x 6c/12t, 15mb cache.

Let's take the 32nm Lithography i7 3970x at 150w tdp, 6c/12t @ 3.5Ghz/4Ghz Turbo, 15mb cache as a direct comparison to the 9590. Performance/watt, they'll not be in the same ballpark.