KitGuru tested the FX9590... it's pretty bad.

[guskline]

I spent the $25 for the OC warranty from Intel for my 3770k

 

[SlowSpyder]

The H100 can handle it but the temps are @65C with both fans running full out. I think the FX 9590 might be a bit better. Remember though I was running ALL 8 cores at 5 Ghz. The 9590 runs all of them at 4.7 Ghz and some of them at 5 Ghz.

SlowSpyder I run my 8350 24/7 at 4.6 Ghz with Multiplier at 21 and FSB at 219. I use 1866 memory but set it at 1600 and allow the fsb increase to take it to @1750. My vcore is set to 1.462. I run much cooler and am plenty FAST for what I need.

Here are some benchmarks at the various speeds.

Thanks for the info! So the cooler was right at about its limit, but you run it slower more for efficiency than anything if I'm understanding correctly?

 

[USER8000]

Well, at least you admit the 9590 is not a good value for the money. At least one part of your post is accurate and relevant.

I don't really care that much whether it passes your own standards on what you think is relevant or not.

Moreover,you don't see how much the Core i5 for high clockspeed records go for, and neither is the fact that multiple UK retailers list 3 year warranties for the AMD FX9590 CPUs:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-360-AM
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-...k-47ghz-turbo-5ghz-4mb-x2-l2-cache-8mb-l3-cac
http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/Other+products/AMD+%28Piledriver%29+FX-9590+4.70GHz+%285.00GHz+Turbo%29+Socket+AM3%2B+8-Core+Processor+-+OEM+?productId=56227

OcUK(first retailer) is part of Caseking(a very big European computer parts retailer),and probably one of the best known enthuasiast retailers in western europe.

The 3.46EE was selling for $1000 in 2004,or have you forgotten that??

So were they in your viewpoint useless CPUs??

The Phenom II TWKR Edition was more of the same,and silly money.

Even the QX6700,QX6800 and QX6850 were pointless when the Q6600 did the same job for less. The QX6800 was still many times the price of the Q6600,even when the latter dropped in price to silly low levels.

The QX9650 was more of the same too when compared to the Q9550. The QX series launched at $1000. Why would anyone buy one over a Q9550,for the 200MHZ extra overclocking headroom:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_q9550_2.83ghz/
http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx9650_3.00ghz/

The Phenom II X4 980BE was the same compared to the cheaper Phenom II X4 955BE and 965BE,etc.

The $1000 Core i7 965 existed when the $284 Core i7 920 would overclock to the same level:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_920/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_extreme_965/

In the graphics card market the same has happened countless times too.

There has been a whole history of this happening. Its all false outrage by enthusiasts.

I could even understand some person who was not into DIY PC building being shocked,by even a $300 CPU,let alone a $600 one or $1000 one.

Personally for gaming any CPU beyond a Core i5 K series CPU is a silly waste of money. The whole socket 2011 platform for gaming is a silly waste of money regarding price/performance for gaming.So is any AMD CPU above the FX8320,and any graphics card beyond the GTX770 and HD7970.

However,I understand that segment exists. Its better than crying crocodile tears over it,especially when so many people on computer forums(like this) who make decisions not based on value for money,especially at the rate they change out hardware for small,incremental differences,or measurebate over FPS counters on the side of their screens/on their keyboards or just want new shiny bits in their computer.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't really care that much whether it passes your own standards on what you think is relevant or not.

Moreover,you don't see how much the Core i5 for high clockspeed records go for, and neither is the fact that multiple UK retailers list 3 year warranties for the AMD FX9590 CPUs:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-360-AM
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-...k-47ghz-turbo-5ghz-4mb-x2-l2-cache-8mb-l3-cac
http://www.aria.co.uk/SuperSpecials/Other+products/AMD+%28Piledriver%29+FX-9590+4.70GHz+%285.00GHz+Turbo%29+Socket+AM3%2B+8-Core+Processor+-+OEM+?productId=56227

OcUK(first retailer) is part of Caseking(a very big European computer parts retailer),and probably one of the best known enthuasiast retailers in western europe.

The 3.46EE was selling for $1000 in 2004,or have you forgotten that??

So were they in your viewpoint useless CPUs??

The Phenom II TWKR Edition was more of the same,and silly money.

Even the QX6700,QX6800 and QX6850 were pointless when the Q6600 did the same job for less. The QX6800 was still many times the price of the Q6600,even when the latter dropped in price to silly low levels.

The QX9650 was more of the same too when compared to the Q9550. The QX series launched at $1000. Why would anyone buy one over a Q9550,for the 200MHZ extra overclocking headroom:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_q9550_2.83ghz/
http://www.hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx9650_3.00ghz/

In the graphics card market the same has happened countless times.

There has been a whole history of this happening. Its all false outrage by enthusiasts.

I could even understand some person who was not into DIY PC building being shocked,by even a $300 CPU,let alone a $600 one or $1000 one.

Personally for gaming any CPU beyond a Core i5 K series CPU is a silly waste of money. The whole socket 2011 platform for gaming is a silly waste of money.So is any AMD CPU above the FX8320,and any graphics card beyond the GTX770 and HD7970.

However,I understand that segment exists. Its better than crying crocodile tears over it,especially when so many people on computer forums(like this) who make decisions not based on value for money,especially at the rate they change out hardware for small,incremental differences,or measurebate over FPS counters on the side of their screens/on their keyboards or just want new shiny bits in their computer.

Bringing up Pentium 4 EE, really? What is the relevance of that? Live in the past much?

Anyway, if someone wants to buy a better processor or gpu than the minimum, does that hurt you somehow? Personally, I agree that anything above an i5, especially an unlocked one, is overkill. But if someone wants to buy an i7, FX8350, or 3930K, more power to them.

It is just that the 9570 offers so little performance increase at such a large increase in price and power consumption that I dont understand why someone who wants to spend that much would not get a 3930k and a nice cooler and MB.

 

[SPBHM]

Two Geforce Titans can barely break 30FPS in some major titles:

OK, again you are missing my point,
first SSAA with 4K is really the way to go for a single card
read my post again... and 2GB is bad for a SLI (690) in 4K, that's for sure

and... again, Titan offers more than the 780, better performance, better performance at the same clock, double the ram, and more than 2x the FP64 performance (let's do some handpicking), it's the fastest single GPU (and I still don't consider it a good buy for gaming), you absolutely can't say the same about the FX 9590, the comparison makes no sense, that's what I'm trying to say... I'm not saying Titan is worth the money, I'm just saying that as a extreme product it offers some advantages.

Even the QX6700,QX6800 and QX6850 were pointless when the Q6600 did the same job for less.

Again you are missing something, the QX offered unlocked multiplier, higher clock without crazy thermal specs and the absolute highest performance, the first P4 EE offered l3 cache, the FX 51 offered dual channel, these all had some differential, and higher performance...

even among the silly extreme products the 9590 look bad, because it looks like a piece of silicon made for a 125w $200 CPU with a stupid 18% OC, 95W higher TDP and a crazy price tag which makes no sense compared to the Intel and AMD CPUs

 

[escrow4]

I bought a 3930K specifically for gaming, all the PC does is game for a few hours and that's it. Just because I could and partially because longevity wise that 3930K has some staying power and quite a bit of resale value, especially compared to a ho hum i7. This AMD chip, I don't see the point. Its outclassed in basically every metric.

 

[USER8000]

OK, again you are missing my point,
first SSAA with 4K is really the way to go for a single card
read my post again... and 2GB is bad for a SLI (690) in 4K, that's for sure

and... again, Titan offers more than the 780, better performance, better performance at the same clock, double the ram, and more than 2x the FP64 performance (let's do some handpicking), it's the fastest single GPU (and I still don't consider it a good buy for gaming), you absolutely can't say the same about the FX 9590, the comparison makes no sense, that's what I'm trying to say... I'm not saying Titan is worth the money, I'm just saying that as a extreme product it offers some advantages.

Except,in gaming it means little,which what Titan is bought by many people for.That 6GB of VRAM is a moot point as the GPU itself is not strong enough to push 30FPS in 4K gaming and that is Ian Cutress on Anandtech not some random person on a forum. If you want to you should ask him why it is the case. Its like those 6GB HD7970GE cards. VRAM E-PEEN is getting a bit daft now. Maybe we will see if the GPUs in 2014 can really use 6GB of VRAM in a modern game and not produce 15FPS at 4K resolutions in an intensive game.

I know people who bought Geforce Titan when it came out,and all but one used it for gaming. They were all annoyed when the GTX780 came out since it offer more or less the same performance for significantly less money. They wish they had waited since they actually believed no GK110 based GTX780 would be released and it would be a rehashed GTX680.

Again you are missing something, the QX offered unlocked multiplier, higher clock without crazy thermal specs and the absolute highest performance, the first P4 EE offered l3 cache, the FX 51 offered dual channel, these all had some differential, and higher performance...

even among the silly extreme products the 9590 look bad, because it looks like a piece of silicon made for a 125w $200 CPU with a stupid 18% OC, 95W higher TDP and a crazy price tag which makes no sense compared to the Intel and AMD CPUs

The QX unlocked multiplier made no real difference though:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_q6600_2.4ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx6700_2.66ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx6800_2.93ghz/

10% extra OC headroom for a few times the price??

The Q6600 was 105W in B0 and 95W in G3. The QX6700 and QX6800 was rated for 130W TDPs. I was even offered a QX6700 at twice the price of my Q6600. I declined,since it really was not worth it,even if it was "cheap" for the time. In some ways maybe I should have bought it to sell it to some mug!!

The P4 EE 3.46GHZ was a waste of money and it was considered overpriced for the time. There were cheaper P4 CPUs which could almost match it in things like gaming for a much lower price(or even exceed it in other things),and that is not even considering competitors CPUs which could do the same too,and exceed it in many metrics too.

Its all false outrage and crocodile tears.

Computer company releases expensive,low value for money part shocker. Meh. Best thing - vote with your wallet and don't buy it. I am not and the same applies to so many "enthusiast" parts which will depreciate faster than a lead balloon. However,I am not expressing false shock at these parts,since it has been happening for so long. Wellcome to 10 years ago(or more).

As BSG states:
All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Guys USER8000 has some valid points. All of them release these abnormally expensive chips from time to time. This is AMD's P4 Extreme Edition, just more power hungrier and hotter. A cpu i would never buy at $800 but could get it at $300 since i have a motherboard for it already.

 

[SPBHM]

Except,in gaming it means little,which what Titan is bought by many people for.That 6GB of VRAM is a moot point as the GPU itself is not strong enough to push 30FPS in 4K gaming and that is Ian Cutress on Anandtech not some random person on a forum. If you want to you should ask him why it is the case. Its like those 6GB HD7970GE cards. VRAM E-PEEN is getting a bit daft now. Maybe we will see if the GPUs in 2014 can really use 6GB of VRAM in a modern game and not produce 15FPS at 4K resolutions in an intensive game.

I know people who bought Geforce Titan when it came out,and all but one used it for gaming. They were all annoyed when the GTX780 came out since it offer more or less the same performance for significantly less money. They wish they had waited since they actually believed no GK110 based GTX780 would be released and it would be a rehashed GTX680.

sure, and I also know people who bought titan for Cuda DP, and it still completely destroyes any other card for that usage, and the fact remains, Titan was never good performance per $ compared to the 680, but it was faster, and it remains as their fastest single GPU card... not worth the money, but a real "premium" product.

again, super sampling anti aliasing for 4k... that's why... you are not forced to "max out" games to see the benefits of 4K.

The QX unlocked multiplier made no real difference though:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_q6600_2.4ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx6700_2.66ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx6800_2.93ghz/

10% extra OC headroom for a few times the price??

The Q6600 was 105W in B0 and 95W in G3. The QX6700 and QX6800 was rated for 130W TDPs. I was even offered a QX6700 at twice the price of my Q6600. I declined,since it really was not worth it,even if it was "cheap" for the time. In some ways maybe I should have bought it to sell it to some mug!!

The P4 EE 3.46GHZ was a waste of money and it was considered overpriced for the time. There were cheaper P4 CPUs which could almost match it in things like gaming for a much lower price(or even exceed it in other things),and that is not even considering competitors CPUs which could do the same too,and exceed it in many metrics too.

Its all false outrage and crocodile tears.

Computer company releases expensive,low value for money part shocker. Meh. Best thing - vote with your wallet and don't buy it. I am not and the same applies to so many "enthusiast" parts which will depreciate faster than a lead balloon. However,I am not expressing false shock at these parts,since it has been happening for so long. Wellcome to 10 years ago(or more).

As BSG states:
All Of This Has Happened Before And Will Happen Again.

It was of limited importance sure, but it was a differential, Intel knows their segmentation stuff well, and they create differences, AMD just released an OCed from factory part... I'm not defending the other overpriced parts, I'm just saying this FX for $800 is even worse... at least the 3970x is the fastest for MT, have more l3 cache compared to the 3930K...

 

[galego]

Wut? You mean like ignoring how the i5 is faster in h264?

I'm not sure what can be more clear than the stock i7 is faster in more things than it's slower against the stock 9590.

You mean in the review that showed the stock i7 winning more than losing, and the overclocked i7 walking away?

Is this the same review that was showing the 5GHz 9590 OC losing to the 4.5GHz i7 while drawing twice as much power?

It's like you're arguing to buy a video card that costs three times as much, and once overclocked isn't even as fast as the cheaper GPU, while it draws twice as much power.

I wonder how a product like that would float in a market that actually knows what competition is...

Ohh, the no proof statement, right. Also my chip is on a $50 air cooler and was never delidded, no temp issues for me.

Yes yes, AMD makes quality tank like products. So robust and durable, they never ever fail, steady, slow, cumbersome, just like a tank, .01 miles to the gallon. Just like a tank.

Ironic statement since even the WR LN2 runs wouldn't beat a good clocking on air Haswell :|

Still none of that addresses the issue of no warranty for overclocking, nor does it address the 30 day warranty a $900 product comes with. Which makes you wonder, if AMD thought their uarch was so robust with excessive voltage and temps, why a 30 day warranty? Why not a year, why not a typical three year warranty?

Clearly not even AMD thinks these will last.

Why would anyone buy a 8350 if they needed the performance it provides at 5GHz? Why wouldn't they buy a SBe, IBe, or Haswell? All of which offer better performance/$ and all of which even with the worst clockers are faster.

I see the the other way. It's poor of AMD, having to run their uarch to the brink with pretty much zero OC headroom, huge power budget, no warranty, and even then it fails. It seems even if AMD succeeded in hitting their clock goals they had for this terrible uarch for mainstream products it still would have failed just as miserably.

I only purchase products from approved retailers, unless they're used. Though it's not like you have to worry about warranty, since AMD provides none anyways.

Nothing of this collection of half-truths, plain nonsense, and some valid points addresses the point. I will quote it once again:

The point is that the 9590 is a choice for those who would buy a 8350 and OC it above 4.5Ghz. Intel does not have something similar because it cares little about overclockers

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So AMD cares, because they don't warranty overclocking therefore they overclock a 8350, give it a new package, and charge over four times as much for a 18% overclock?

Awesome. :thumbsup:

 

[Idontcare]

Thanks for the info! So the cooler was right at about its limit, but you run it slower more for efficiency than anything if I'm understanding correctly?

I doubt the cooler is at its limit.

Water cooling only hits its limit when the water reaches its boiling point under whatever pressure the self-containment loop provides.

(yes a very real analogy to the water-cooling loop in your car applies here)

If the core is at 65C then the water is only going to be cooler than that.

The other way you know the H100 couldn't possibly be near its limit is just compare it to the stock coolers that come on a GPU card that has a 330W TDP at stock. Nowhere near as beefy as an H100 but they get the job done too.

The QX unlocked multiplier made no real difference though:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_q6600_2.4ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx6700_2.66ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_qx6800_2.93ghz/

10% extra OC headroom for a few times the price??

The Q6600 was 105W in B0 and 95W in G3. The QX6700 and QX6800 was rated for 130W TDPs. I was even offered a QX6700 at twice the price of my Q6600. I declined,since it really was not worth it,even if it was "cheap" for the time. In some ways maybe I should have bought it to sell it to some mug!!

I owned a QX6700 and five Q6600's. My QX6700 ran 4GHz for years, my Q6600's would not go much above 3.4GHz.

The real value of the unlocked multiplier for the QX was that in 2006 and 2007 the real silicon lottery was not your Q6600 but rather it was the NB chipset on the mobo and whether or not it could support the FSB needed to push a multiplier-locked Q6600 to 3.6GHz or higher.

The QX6700 eliminated that bottleneck and let you get back to focusing on the limits of the CPU silicon for your OC.

This is what I love about AMD and their multiplier unlocked CPUs, playing with my FX-8350 is like playing with my QX6700.

 

[galego]

8 FP threads would not get a "real core". And you make up more random nonsense numbers.

They must look "random nonsense" for those believing that FP=core

Well, at least you admit the 9590 is not a good value for the money. At least one part of your post is accurate and relevant.

This is a misunderstanding of his post.

 

[Enigmoid]

again, super sampling anti aliasing for 4k... that's why... you are not forced to "max out" games to see the benefits of 4K.

I agree. On a 4k monitor there is a lot less aliasing and 2x AA is generally sufficient for 27".

I have had 2 15.6" laptops, one 768p (which is why I got rid of it) and one 1080p. The 768p pretty much required AA but at 1080p aliasing is pretty much unnoticeable (yes I can see a bit of a difference in screen shots but I have to really look for it and its very minor; not enough to detract from gameplay). In the few games where its bad very light AA is more than enough unless my face is a foot from the screen.

So really for playable numbers use 4k at 2x AA no supersampling. (Also possibly consider that Ultra in a lot of games is pretty much worthless visually; basically no difference in crysis 3 between high and very high).

 

[galego]

no because you cant get anything close to that from the AMD side.

You pay the extra option, yet its an option.

Its also available only on the K line... but as i said if ur overclocking, your getting a K line anyhow.

and your last statement just shows how rooted u are with AMD.
The thing is , yeah u wont get the same overclocking chip, however u get a NEW luck at a new chip.
No questions asked minus physical damage on how the chip died.
Electron mitigation damage from long term overvolting... no problem.... Intel will replace it without batting an eye... or give u a cpu greater equal in value to it.
(and they are usually great in options of EQUAL OR GREATER)

With an AMD cpu... it dies.. its DEAD Jim, do not pass go.. do not collect 200 dollars... end of options for you period.

As said before you can buy an AMD 9000 series chip with warranty that will work at the required clock and you can also buy a OC AMD chip from a reseller specialised again with warranty that will work at the required clock. Moreover, you can but extension of warranty.

However, with Intel option you don't get the warranty to work at a desired clock, pure silicon lottery. It is funny to know people who purchased a K Haswell series and is obtaining ridiculous OC. Intel does not warrant anything.

I still think that guy owes Balla an appology.
He said INTEL doesnt warrenty overclocking.
Balla showed it did.

Nope. He does not own one, because we were discussing about ordinary purchasing of chips, and he quoted Intel official warranty for ordinary purchase.

Both of you mentioned an optional warranty that has to be purchased by separate and that only affects to certain models and under certain restrictions.

 

[galego]

So AMD cares, because they don't warranty overclocking therefore they overclock a 8350, give it a new package, and charge over four times as much for a 18% overclock?

Awesome. :thumbsup:

Intel way is better:

Reduce OC capabilities systematically: SB OC > IB OC > HW OC

Eliminate OC from non-K

http://techreport.com/news/24950/intel-removes-modest-free-overclocking-from-standard-haswell-cpus

Finally, offer customers an extra warranty that does not guarantee that you can obtain the desired clocks neither that you chip will survive a pair of years

One manufacturer claims that pre-release chips marked as 3.5GHz parts were tested completely stably at 4.8GHz, but of the 40-50 retail units the company has tested not a single one has managed to reach above 4.2GHz without hitting unsafe temperatures or requiring too-high levels of voltage. Another firm has stated that it has had to drop plans to offer pre-overclocked Haswell systems running at 4.5GHz - a figure, again, planned based on engineering work carried out on pre-production samples provided by Intel - to 4.3GHz in order to ensure stability. 'There is a big difference in the overclocking potential between early Haswell samples and retail,' the unnamed manufacturer claimed.

Another manufacturer claims that retail Haswell parts are proving too hot to handle, stating that even while running at stock speeds the chips reach higher temperatures than the pre-production engineering samples - by around 15 degrees Celsius, according to the unnamed company's tests - or even the retail models of Intel's last-generation Ivy Bridge chips.

Intel, for its part, has refused to comment on the specifics of the manufacturers' claims, stating only that overclocking is not covered by the its warranties and that companies - or individuals - doing so are boosting performance at their own risk. The company has also stated that the overclocking potential of a given chip will vary from batch to batch, but has provided no explanation for the apparent vast difference in heat output between pre-production and retail Haswell models.

Our review of Intel's Core i7-4770K can be found here, and while we were able to get our chip up to 4.7GHz it wasn't without difficulty: despite using a Corsair H100i sealed-loop cooler, the temperature of the chip hit a whopping 98 degrees Celsius - giving us cause to question just how far a Haswell chip can be pushed for long-term use.

It is not awesome, it is super awesome :awe:

 

[Idontcare]

Finally, offer customers an extra warranty that does not guarantee that you can obtain the desired clocks neither that you chip will survive a pair of years

How long is AMD's warranty for the FX-9590?

How long are you guaranteed that 5GHz clockspeed and that your chip will survive?

Is it "a pair of years", or is it considerably less?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Intel way is better

I agree!

I hope I don't get one of those retail CPU's you're talking about from a product warranty replacement of a dead chip via overclocking! I don't think my $50 air cooler would be able to cope with a retail chip.

Of course I'd find it hard to complain about getting a working, functional cpu to replace a dead one I killed overclocking. I mean if I paid $900 to AMD they'd tell me to go fly a kite in the same situation.

 

[georgec84]

Ugh, come on AMD.

 

[sniffin]

This forum reminds me of OCN. You can tell what most people are going to say just by looking at who wrote the post

 

[galego]

How long is AMD's warranty for the FX-9590?

How long are you guaranteed that 5GHz clockspeed and that your chip will survive?

Is it "a pair of years", or is it considerably less?

Are you trolling me? Warranty periods depend on country, and I cannot give you an universal span.

In this same thread, USER8000 gave three links to three retailers who are selling the FX 9590 series with 3 years warranty from AMD.

I agree!

The super awesome :awe: was in the parts of my post that you snipped.

 

[NostaSeronx]

How long is AMD's warranty for the FX-9590?

http://support.amd.com/us/warranty/Pages/Processorinabox3YearLimited.aspx

 

[chubbyfatazn]

http://support.amd.com/us/warranty/Pages/Processorinabox3YearLimited.aspx

That only applies to processors-in-a-box. Which, according to this page, applies to the following:

FX 4100, FX 4130, FX 4170, FX 4300, FX 4350, FX 6100, FX 6200, FX 6300, FX 6350, FX 8120, FX 8150, FX 8320, FX 8350

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yep, the 220W fire hazards are only sold as OEM to avoid any serious warranty covering.

Really shows the confidence AMD got in its own products.

 

[guskline]

SlowSpyder, I agree with IDC's assessment of the cooling capacity of the Corsair H100 - it's a beast for the $$. From what I have read, a custom water cooling sytem gives the best overall cooling but the higher end AIO water coolers do agood job for the money.

I wish you luck with the FX 9590. What mb did you buy?