• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is a simulation of the performance of the FX-9590 for crysis 3
FX-9590_Centurion_Review-Simulation_Crysis_3_PCGH-pcgh.png

That is a previous CPU comparison AMD vs Intel
qSNrpeA.png

Here a comparison Centurion vs 3930K and 3960X on x264 5.0
FX-9590_Centurion_Review-Simulation_x264_HD_Benchmark_5.0.1_PCGH-pcgh.png

This test seems to be intel optimized, and they are using W7 plus the manual hotfixes, when the automatic updates or the improved scheduler in W8 are a bit better, but already shows that the Centurion competes with both 3930K and 3970X. Look the Haswell score as well.
 
i will have one of these ;-) my cooler combo is able to take min. 350W so 220W Tops AMD is not a big deal to me and my solution ! Great job AMD.... SteamRoller will be on 1100FX chipset and DDR4 Quad 16 cores 8 modules lol im waiting for that too for 230$
 
Piotrsama said:
My 8350 stock (mem. @ 1866) takes 2m57s.
Sounds as if both times you had it OCed.

How are you OCing it? Through BIOS or some program on Windows?
Click to expand...

No all of my OCing is through the BIOS. I'll rerun the 8350 stock. I also have a 8320 so, time permitting, I'll run it.
 
@guskline

Try those settings when OC and plz rerun PovRay with 8-cores at 4.7GHz and see if you get a different outcome than beffore.

EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
DIGI+ VRM
CPU Load-line Calibration [Extreme]
CPU/NB Load Line Calibration [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Duty Control [C.Probe Thermal]

Also, turbo mode(or CPB) should be disable.
 
galego said:
This is a simulation of the performance of the FX-9590 for crysis 3
FX-9590_Centurion_Review-Simulation_Crysis_3_PCGH-pcgh.png

That is a previous CPU comparison AMD vs Intel
qSNrpeA.png

Here a comparison Centurion vs 3930K and 3960X on x264 5.0
FX-9590_Centurion_Review-Simulation_x264_HD_Benchmark_5.0.1_PCGH-pcgh.png

This test seems to be intel optimized, and they are using W7 plus the manual hotfixes, when the automatic updates or the improved scheduler in W8 are a bit better, but already shows that the Centurion competes with both 3930K and 3970X. Look the Haswell score as well.
Click to expand...
and do we need to post the slides from other Crysis 3 reviews that show the 8350 being slower? 🙄
 
thepath said:
Here check this
http://www.overclock.net/t/1364211/pclab-more-crysis-3-cpu-benchmarks

Also, check this The Lost Island DLC benchmark for crysis 3. Even 2nd gen i5 wins
http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1501649/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL
Click to expand...

The reason he always posts this Welcome to the Jungle benchmark is that its the only level the FX8350 manages to match Intel's quads (average FPS).

Also, check this:

99f.png


1-2+ average FPS dont always mean best gaming experience.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
It is unlikely that people will buy the enthusiast line 9000 to run software that exploits only a half of the chip.

I already remarked that the 9000 series main goal will be future highly multi-threaded games. The first time I used crysis 3 Welcome to the Jungle benchmark as example of how next games will be. Several of you missed my point entirely.

The second time I used it for comparison with the FX-9590 simulation.
 
Last edited:
galego said:
Misusing 8 threads is a more adequate description. Look at the core load percentages. That explain why the 8 threads 2600k (3.4GHz) got almost the same FPS than the 4 threads 2500k (3.3GHz), the difference being entirely explained by the higher clock.
Click to expand...
welcome to the real world. if you owned a pc you would know thats how things work most of the time. instead you search day and night to find a few niche results that back up your pathological obsession with anything AMD.
 
toyota said:
welcome to the real world. if you owned a pc you would know thats how things work most of the time. instead you search day and night to find a few niche results that back up your pathological obsession with anything AMD.
Click to expand...
and your personal attack is any better? argue the fact/fictions and move on. In any case, we all know that the amd solution would perform better with better multi-threaded software.
 
toyota said:
welcome to the real world. if you owned a pc you would know thats how things work most of the time. instead you search day and night to find a few niche results that back up your pathological obsession with anything AMD.
Click to expand...

Besides being used as excuse for another ad hominem, your post lacks any relevance to my points.
 
AtenRa said:
@guskline

Try those settings when OC and plz rerun PovRay with 8-cores at 4.7GHz and see if you get a different outcome than beffore.

EPU Power Saving Mode [Disabled]
DIGI+ VRM
CPU Load-line Calibration [Extreme]
CPU/NB Load Line Calibration [Extreme]
CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
CPU Power Duty Control [C.Probe Thermal]

Also, turbo mode(or CPB) should be disable.
Click to expand...
Same outcome. 2m 31 s. BTW, I already had those settings.
 
galego said:
Besides being used as excuse for another ad hominem, your post lacks any relevance to my points.
Click to expand...
you have no pc and know nothing about real world performance on anything pc related. again all you do is scour the web trying to only find anything to back up your obsession with anything AMD.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top