[expreview] FX-8350 @ FX-9590 benchmarks; gaming is better, video encode is DAYUM

[IonusX]

we have out 1st benchmarks for the 9590 centurion cpu (piledrievr 2.0). and the results are decent.

in a clock for clock fight with an fx-8350 @ 4.1ghz (9590 ahs turbo disabled so its running at 4.8ghz) the half pint managed to step up preformance noticeably across the board. this looks like a real winner of a cpu based on what we have now


Mod Addition: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-9590-CPU-257460/Tests/AMD-FX-9590-Centurion-Test-1073781/

http://www.expreview.com/26196.html

Since this isn't actually a FX-9590 review, the thread title has been amended accordingly. I've also thrown in the link to the original PCGH article that Expressview has apparently ripped their images from
-ViRGE

 

[Ancalagon44]

Its not clock for clock if one is running at 4.1 and the other at 4.8!

 

[guskline]

Funny thing. I kept clicking on the link and the CPU-Z referers to a FX8350 with a fsb of 270 and a multiplier of 18.5 with a vcore of 18.5. I can't read Chinese but it appears that someone mere took a 8350, upped the voltage to 1.5v, upped the fsb to 270 and lowered the multiplier to 18.5. That is NOT a FX 9570! It's an OC'd 8350. It might be representative to what it can do. To represent it as a FX 9570 benchmark is somewhat misleading.

 

[NTMBK]

It's not a 9590 review. It's a "simulation", i.e. an overclocked 8350.

 

[guskline]

It's not a 9590 review. It's a "simulation", i.e. an overclocked 8350.

Agreed. I can OC my 8350 to come close but I need faster ram.

 

[Durvelle27]

As FX-9590 will not retail, so we want to know its authenticity could need workaround, you can use the current FX-8350 FX-9590 to emulate the performance.

OP if you can read it clearly said

 

[inf64]

It's not even expreview... They took pcgamshardware.de simulated review and put it online on their website.. Lame. You can clearly see PCGH.de banner in the slides.

Performance wise it's expected,+17-20% over 8350 is putting this new FX part in the top of the charts.

Also this is interesting:

- Einstellung 1 (FX 8350 @ ~4,1 GHz bei ~1,35 Volt): ~245 Watt
- Einstellung 2 (FX 8350 @ ~4,8 GHz bei ~1,45 Volt): ~320 Watt
- Einstellung 3 (FX 8350 @ ~5,0 GHz bei ~1,51 Volt): ~360 Watt

Since top FX will be 4.7-5Ghz part the power difference will roughly be in line with what PCGH measured, a 75W vs stock 8350. Not bad at all.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Impressive if the actual chip can mirror those results. Would be even better if we could further oc it, to say 5.5ghz hehe wishful thinking i know

 

[inf64]

5.5Ghz probably won't be possible but 5.1-5.2Ghz is not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[Subyman]

Those wattage pulls are no joke.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It's not even expreview... They took pcgamshardware.de simulated review and put it online on their website.. Lame. You can clearly see PCGH.de banner in the slides.

Performance wise it's expected,+17-20% over 8350 is putting this new FX part in the top of the charts.

Also this is interesting:

Since top FX will be 4.7-5Ghz part the power difference will roughly be in line with what PCGH measured, a 75W vs stock 8350. Not bad at all.

If the actual chip matches this simulation, even in one of the most favorable benchmarks for the FX, it still trials both hex core intels at stock. So if the rumored price of 800.00 or more is correct, I dont see any point in it. If the price is around 300.00 it could have a niche market. I also question the simulation, because if they overclocked all eight cores to 5 ghz, it will be a few percent faster, since in the real chip all eight cores only run at 4.7 ghz.

 

[Hitman928]

If the actual chip matches this simulation, even in one of the most favorable benchmarks for the FX, it still trials both hex core intels at stock. So if the rumored price of 800.00 or more is correct, I dont see any point in it. If the price is around 300.00 it could have a niche market. I also question the simulation, because if they overclocked all eight cores to 5 ghz, it will be a few percent faster, since in the real chip all eight cores only run at 4.7 ghz.

I think "best case" being 5 Ghz in a multi-threaded benchmark is probably unrealistic. I see where they did it to say that it can theoretically turbo to 5 Ghz given the right power/temp conditions, but AMD still hasn't said how many modules can turbo to 5 Ghz at the same time. However, the 4.8 Ghz test is probably pretty accurate.

About the price, it is still rumor, but I agree, a price above intel's 6 cores is way too much if it is true. Maybe if they still have another ~500 Mhz oc headroom in them I could see people jumping on them, but that would be quite some trick AMD pulled out of their hats for that to happen. Priced at or just above a 4770k would probably work (they are "specialty" sku's after all).

 

[sauria]

How did it come out. will an OC FX8350 be as fast at 4.7 GHz?

In the future please don't resurrect old threads

-Thanks
ViRGE

 

[inf64]

Yeah, it will be roughly the same as FX9590, provided you get to 4.7-4.8Ghz OC with stability. That is guaranteed for FX9590, it's pre-OCed and pre-tested part, hence the price difference. It's cherry picked 8350 that can OC to ~5Ghz range on WC.

 

[netxzero64]

So the 9590 is a golden chip 8350 after all? hmmmm...