First FX-9590 benchmarks

[Vesku]

Can it? Without AMD releasing the specs the 220W is totally meaningless.

Yes, that is a possible explanation but we won't know for sure unless someone does a power use comparison of several 9590s vs 8350s at same clock and voltage.

 

[Ratman6161]

I'm sorry, it's the same chip as the 8350 with higher stock frequency.

I hope that settles our differences.

I think you are right. I really want to like AMD and I actually do have an FX 8320 that does a great job of running an ESXi System in a lab environment, I have to say the 5 Ghz bit is a stunt. Cherry pick some 8350's and OC the crap out of them and you get a 220 watt fire breathing monster (and I don't mean this in a good way). 220 watt CPU's just will not cut it in this market place. Realistically, not many people buy $1,000 cpus in the best of circumstances and when they do its usually because they have a very specific purpose in mind. Basically almost no one is going to buy one of these.

So this is really a stunt to show enthusiasts how much an 8320 or 8350 might overclock and drive sales of those CPU's. In that light, an 8320 at Micro center for $149, when overclocked might actually perform not that far off the $1K 220 watt monster.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The 200 watt TDP isn't that big of a deal. But $1000 is a joke, if real.

 

[SiliconWars]

The 200 watt TDP isn't that big of a deal. But $1000 is a joke, if real.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

 

[24601]

If anyone actually spends $1000 on one of these and shows up bragging about it on a hardware forum, I predict they will get laughed out of it in short shrift.

I can see an IT department requisitioning one of these just for fun though .

 

[monstercameron]

If anyone actually spends $1000 on one of these and shows up bragging about it on a hardware forum, I predict they will get laughed out of it in short shrift.

it is a collector edition...

 

[Makaveli]

x264 FHD:
29 fps - AMD FX-9690 @ 5,0GHz (4 C / 8T )
27.7 fps - Intel i7-3930K @ 3.2GHz ( 6C / 12T )
http://www.x264fhdbenchmark.republika.pl/Results.txt

Fritz chess
15 678 - AMD FX-9690 @ 5,0GHz (4 C / 8T )
14 139 - Intel i7-3690X @ 3.9GHz ( 6C / 12T )

x264 FH
30.2 fps - Intel Core i7 970 @ 4.2GHz ( 6C / 12T )

And a heads up the 4.2 version you have posted above only allows me to see 8 logical cores on my rig. After I updated to version 4.3 I was able to see all 12 cores.

Some more comparison results.

http://www.jens-hartmann.at/Fritzmarks/

 

[guskline]

I'm glad the actual performance numbers are out. If this chip was prices @$400 it would be a direct competitor to the 4770k/3770k and there would be a real war on. However, at @$800-$1000 puts it in the league of an Intel I7-3960/3970. What was AMD thinking????? DID CEO Rory really houseclean?

I'm happy with my 8350 for $199 and my 8320 at $169. I suspect the 9570 has a bit of overhead clock room but not as much as I do with my 8350/8320 at 4.6Ghz and 4.3 Ghz respectively. My 3770k at 4.4Ghz popped a 8.87pt Cinebench 11.5. If the 9570 was priced at @ $400 it would be a great competitor.

 

[Makaveli]

I'm glad the actual performance numbers are out. If this chip was prices @$400 it would be a direct competitor to the 4770k/3770k and there would be a real war on. However, at @$800-$1000 puts it in the league of an Intel I7-3960/3970. What was AMD thinking????? DID CEO Rory really houseclean?

I'm happy with my 8350 for $199 and my 8320 at $169. I suspect the 9570 has a bit of overhead clock room but not as much as I do with my 8350/8320 at 4.6Ghz and 4.3 Ghz respectively. My 3770k at 4.4Ghz popped a 8.87pt Cinebench 11.5. If the 9570 was priced at @ $400 it would be a great competitor.

Couldn't agree anymore boss.

What were they thinking at this price?

 

[sequoia464]

Does anyone have any insight as to the cooling that will be used?

I'm using a H80i on a FX chip running at 4300 MHz and it is barely sufficient ... not to mention the noise involved.

How would you reliably cool that thing and keep the noise at a reasonable level?

 

[Arkaign]

Pfft. This is a product for morons, clearly.

I've had this performance for over a year with a CPU I got for $229 at MC :

Runs cooler, uses less power, and kicks butt on a $100 mobo.

 

[Smartazz]

What a joke. I'd rather have a 3930k for the money.

 

[guskline]

Does anyone have any insight as to the cooling that will be used?

I'm using a H80i on a FX chip running at 4300 MHz and it is barely sufficient ... not to mention the noise involved.

How would you reliably cool that thing and keep the noise at a reasonable level?

I use a Corsair H100 on my FX8350 @4.6Ghz and a Thermaltake Water 2.0 Pro for my FX8320 @ 4.3 Ghz. Both cool just fine. At 5 Ghz your are really approaching a custom water cooling setup. BTW, I have a Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme on my 3770k @4.4 Ghz and it works well also.

Suffice it to say that water cooling is almost a certainty with the FX 9570 ( with the exception of say a Noctual big air cooler)

 

[Arkaign]

I'm glad the actual performance numbers are out. If this chip was prices @$400 it would be a direct competitor to the 4770k/3770k and there would be a real war on. However, at @$800-$1000 puts it in the league of an Intel I7-3960/3970. What was AMD thinking????? DID CEO Rory really houseclean?

I'm happy with my 8350 for $199 and my 8320 at $169. I suspect the 9570 has a bit of overhead clock room but not as much as I do with my 8350/8320 at 4.6Ghz and 4.3 Ghz respectively. My 3770k at 4.4Ghz popped a 8.87pt Cinebench 11.5. If the 9570 was priced at @ $400 it would be a great competitor.

I think it should be $300, TOPS. It's plainly a CPU hand-picked and pushed to it's upper limits to start with with insane volts and heat. If 5Ghz is your bag, you can buy a pre-validated/warrantied 5Ghz i7 from an OC specialist reseller for way less than $1k, and it will own the 9590 in almost everything.

 

[Arkaign]

What a joke. I'd rather have a 3930k for the money.

Hell, at that price they're against this : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116877

LOL

 

[guskline]

When the FX 9570 was announce at @ $800 I said it would be smarter to buy a 3930k AND a decent mb for @ the same price. If the price is @$1000 no question the 3930k.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

At $800 I'd rather have a 8320, actually I'd rather have three of them.

 

[guskline]

I know some pro AMD anti Intel posters will view this as AMD "bashing" it's NOT. It's really questioning the price.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'm glad the actual performance numbers are out. If this chip was prices @$400 it would be a direct competitor to the 4770k/3770k and there would be a real war on. However, at @$800-$1000 puts it in the league of an Intel I7-3960/3970. What was AMD thinking????? DID CEO Rory really houseclean?

Its a PR chip that they cant make more than a handfuld of. So they dont want to sell much if any. They just want to talk about when they reached (4.8)5Ghz and hope everyone else forgets all the other parameters besides that. This is the last high performance part from AMD that we will ever see.

 

[SiliconWars]

I know some pro AMD anti Intel posters will view this as AMD "bashing" it's NOT. It's really questioning the price.

From what I can tell most AMD guys are questioning the price as well?

 

[Ratman6161]

I use a Corsair H100 on my FX8350 @4.6Ghz and a Thermaltake Water 2.0 Pro for my FX8320 @ 4.3 Ghz. Both cool just fine. At 5 Ghz your are really approaching a custom water cooling setup. BTW, I have a Thermaltake Water 2.0 Extreme on my 3770k @4.4 Ghz and it works well also.

Suffice it to say that water cooling is almost a certainty with the FX 9570 ( with the exception of say a Noctual big air cooler)

I've got an 8320 that will do 4.5 no problem using a Hyper 212+ that cost me $25 bucks back when I originally got it for my 2600K. Of course I only tried it that way briefly just to see what it would do cause I actually got it to run VMware ESXi on. There, I left it running at 4 Ghz 24x7. But Microcenter is now selling the 8320 for $149. Thats why I think the 5 Ghz CPU's are really a stunt designed to sell more 8320's and 8350's.

 

[Makaveli]

Pfft. This is a product for morons, clearly.

I've had this performance for over a year with a CPU I got for $229 at MC :

Runs cooler, uses less power, and kicks butt on a $100 mobo.

hey how were you able to get an Open GL score so high?

Are you using the 13.4 drivers?

From your screenshot you are running your 7970 at default clocks yet your getting 20fps more?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You're probably bottlenecking, it's not very threaded I believe.

 

[Arkaign]

Not sure, that image was taken back in early 2012 IIRC. Maybe it was a driver fluke or something. Same era :

 

[Makaveli]

You're probably bottlenecking, it's not very threaded I believe.

Do you really think the 800 mhz difference in clock speed is making a 20fps difference in an Open GL benchmark when he is running at default clocks and i'm at Ghz speeds on our gpus?

hmm i'm leaning more towards drivers since his screenshot is using very old drivers will have to do some more testing.