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

[jacktesterson]

What do they need to justify?

OK - Why it is priced at this price then.

It makes no sense in the market, so why the price tag? Black Magic? Pull out of a hat?

Do they want to sell any of these? You can buy a $160 FX-8320, overclock it, and get 90-95% of the performance in most cases for 1/8th of the cost.

Serious question. What am I missing?

 

[SlowSpyder]

OK - Why it is priced at this price then.

It makes no sense in the market, so why the price tag? Black Magic? Pull out of a hat?

Do they want to sell any of these? You can buy a $160 FX-8320, overclock it, and get 90-95% of the performance in most cases for 1/8th of the cost.

Serious question. What am I missing?

I think they're waaaaay over priced at $800+. I think this chip should be sub $350, maybe closer to $300 (and the 9370 at $250 with the 8350 hanging out near $200) if I'm being honest. That would make sense to me. But, AMD obviously feels they can get a lot more money for these than $300-$350. Maybe its a 'me too' thing and they want their own i7 Extreme/Titan, but this is the best they could do with what they have available.

 

[Zucker2k]

I wonder why everyone doesn't drive a prius?

Efficiency isn't the only thing that matters, especially electrical efficiency, considering the cost we typically pay.

You are acting like an extra $1.50/month of electricity is a huge hardship.

I'm not even looking at it in that respect, but since you mention Prius, the 4770 is more like a GTR compared to the 8350 Sentra. Only thing is, the GTR also has better gas mileage!

 

[monstercameron]

I'm not even looking at it in that respect, but since you mention Prius, the 4770 is more like a GTR compared to the 8350 Sentra. Only thing is, the GTR also has better gas mileage!

or better yet...

Intel is like a hemi engine, when coasting on the highway it is 4 cylinders but when push comes to shove it can enable the 4 remaining cylinders[hyperthreads] for a boost, tonnes of low down torque[IPS] at a relatively low rpm[clockspd]

As for amd, it is more exotic, more like the 8 cylinder engine in the Lexus LFA. Even though it is fast, it needs a special driver[code optimizations] to take advantage of all the power[IPS] at higher rpms[clockspd]

my try at a idc style car analogy

 

[galego]

You forgot these

And

Even taking the higher igp-less number for the Intel, that is still an efficiency* level of 0.198 for the FX 8350 AMD platform, compared to 0.441 efficiency for the Haswell Core i7 4770k Intel Platform in that workload. Do you now get an idea how bad the Bulldozer/Piledriver architectures are?

LOL! I was only asked about power consumption, in case you did not notice. Therefore I was only asking about power consumption.

Now you are mentioning performance and efficiency. That is different, but if you insist...

As said above I am not going to write a review of each nonsensical stuff that one can find in the internet. Those figures were obtained after they changed the version of the x264 software that they had been using for years. I find curious that they changed the software to a new version specifically optimized for Intel chips, just when reviewed the new Haswell chip.

I know that even the older 8350 is still faster than the new top-end Haswell 4770k

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1306034-UT-INTELCORE31&sha=d1d6430&p=2

The 9590 is significantly faster than haswell

The two fair benchmarks given by me use normal software. Fortunately, nobody is benchmarking using software optimized only for AMD, because then we would laugh for weeks.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The 9590 is significantly faster than haswell

And you only post x264 encoding from a simulation. And you failed to see its a overclocked 8350 with a 2.7Ghz NB and 5Ghz baseclock. Something the 9590 doesnt have.

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

9590 is overall significant slower. Its an utter joke.

 

[Zucker2k]

LOL! I was only asked about power consumption, in case you did not notice. Therefore I was only asking about power consumption.

Now you are mentioning performance and efficiency. That is different, but if you insist...

As said above I am not going to write a review of each nonsensical stuff that one can find in the internet. Those figures were obtained after they changed the version of the x264 software that they had been using for years. I find curious that they changed the software to a new version specifically optimized for Intel chips, just when reviewed the new Haswell chip.

I know that even the older 8350 is still faster than the new top-end Haswell 4770k

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1306034-UT-INTELCORE31&sha=d1d6430&p=2

The 9590 is significantly faster than haswell

The two fair benchmarks given by me use normal software. Fortunately, nobody is benchmarking using software optimized only for AMD, because then we would laugh for weeks.

You're joking, right? Right? Your first link points to that phoronix Linux benchmarking suite. Their own review left them scratching their heads, apparently due to the current bad shape of support for Haswell on the Linux platform:

This past weekend I shared the first experiences of running Intel's new Haswell CPU on Linux. While Intel Haswell is a beast and brings many new features and innovations to the new Core CPUs succeeding Ivy Bridge, there were a few shortcomings with the initial Linux support. It still appears that the Core i7 4770K is still being finicky at times for both the processor and graphics, but in this article are the first benchmarks. Up today are benchmarks of the Intel Core i7 4770K when running Ubuntu 13.04 with the Linux 3.10 kernel.

I went over the initial Intel Haswell Linux details on Saturday. The initial support is there and overall it's in fairly good standing and roughly comparable to where things were at in 2012 when Ivy Bridge launched. However, as far as where the support is at in currently released Linux distributions, there's a lot better support to find out of the very latest upstream code. With the widely used Ubuntu 13.04, Haswell processors will work, but better support, features, and performance can be found with code not currently available through the standard repositories. This state is comparable to that of other Linux distributions released so far this year. Polished Haswell support coming to an "out of the box" Linux desktop won't really be there until later in H2'2013.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_4770k_linux&num=1

Conclusion:

Stay tuned for additional Intel Core i7 4770K "Haswell" benchmarks under Linux coming soon on Phoronix. No conclusions will be drawn at this time until the potential Haswell Linux performance bugs are uncovered and more extensive tests completed.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_4770k_linux&num=8

As for your PCGH link, it's a "simulation" of the FX 9590, as clearly noted on the graph. It's not real!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Wow it's faster than my $200 i5-4670k in a h264 benchmark that doesn't support FMA3 and AVX2.

0.39 FPS FASTER!!!!

More amazing still was their system was pulling ~ 360 Watts whereas mine was pulling ~ 165w, color me impressed.

 

[Essence_of_War]

I suspect galego either never translated the page or assumed that others would not...

 

[galego]

And you only post x264 encoding from a simulation. And you failed to see its a overclocked 8350 with a 2.7Ghz NB and 5Ghz baseclock. Something the 9590 doesnt have.

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

9590 is overall significant slower. Its an utter joke.

LOL. I have given one fair x264 test where the 8350 is faster than 4770k. Evidently the 9590 increases the gap with failwell.

Second, the pcgameshardware benchmarks also includes a 2.2Ghz/4.8Ghz run. Sorry, but variations of the order of 0.1GHz are irrelevant.

You're joking, right? Right? Your first link points to that phoronix Linux benchmarking suite. Their own review left them scratching their heads, apparently due to the current bad shape of support for Haswell on the Linux platform:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_4770k_linux&num=1

Conclusion:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_4770k_linux&num=8

As for your PCGH link, it's a "simulation" of the FX 9590, as clearly noted on the graph. It's not real!

LOL. At the one hand some posters here insist on that the 9590 is a mere OC 8350, at the other hand benchmarks of a OC 8350 are rejected. The truth is that the 9590 is not a mere OC 8350, but a OC 8350 simulates very well the performance of the 9590.

The 8350/9590 chips are not running at 100% of their capacity, in fact Piledriver cores are being treated as bulldozer cores by the compiler:

As shown in my earlier AMD Piledriver compiler tuning tests from the A10-5800K Trinity, with the current GCC release there isn't much improvement out of the "bdver2" optimizations for this processor that should expose the CPU's BMI, TBM, F16C, and FMA3 capabilities over the original AMD Bulldozer processors.

 

[galego]

Wow it's faster than my $200 i5-4670k in a h264 benchmark that doesn't support FMA3 and AVX2.

0.39 FPS FASTER!!!!

More amazing still was their system was pulling ~ 360 Watts whereas mine was pulling ~ 165w, color me impressed.

Let us assume that we accept your benchmark/comparison and that your i5-4670k is

13% FASTER!!!!

than the i7-4770k. In another part of the review they show an i5-3570k being faster than your i5-4670k :whiste:

 

[galego]

I suspect galego either never translated the page or assumed that others would not...

Above I show why your assumptions are wrong.

 

[Tsavo]

Oops wrong thread

 

[ShintaiDK]

LOL. I have given one fair x264 test where the 8350 is faster than 4770k. Evidently the 9590 increases the gap with failwell.

Maybe if you encode x264 all day. That seems to be a trend....

The FX 9590 is and will always be a joke. Beaten by a CPU that uses 1/3rd the power and cost almost 1/4th! Not to mention it doesnt require exotic cooling to avoid overheating or having to use an outdated platform.

 

[Sweepr]

You guys should wait for 2M/4C Kaveri instead of buying a 4M/8C PD part now cause it will somehow magically outperform Vishera parts with twice the number of cores.

...4M PD are being replaced by 2M Steamroller with superior performance.

 

[Stingercjc]

Above I show why your assumptions are wrong.

It's awesome that the AMD processors can hang with the 4770k in a few benchmarks, but all you have to do is read the reviews to see that overall Intel's "Failwell" as you so cleverly called it, is better.


You can be in denial about it all you want. In fact I enjoy watching you scramble to prove people wrong. So keep up the good work. Keep cheery picking those benchmarks where AMD actually has a strong showing.

You're gonna eventually run out.

 

[galego]

Maybe if you encode x264 all day. That seems to be a trend....

civ5 :biggrin: Do I need to say more?

 

[thilanliyan]

OK - Why it is priced at this price then.

It makes no sense in the market, so why the price tag? Black Magic? Pull out of a hat?

Do they want to sell any of these? You can buy a $160 FX-8320, overclock it, and get 90-95% of the performance in most cases for 1/8th of the cost.

Serious question. What am I missing?

Why is nVidia Titan priced at $1000 when you can get a GTX780, overclock it, and even beat Titan for $650? OC is not guaranteed. In this case 5ghz is guaranteed. This CPU isn't for price/perf afficiandos, much like Titan isn't.

 

[ruhtraeel]

An i7 runs BF3 multiplayer a whole lot better than an i5 at the same clocks.

I have a 2500k machine, a 2600k machine and a 3770k box. The i7's run almost 60fps 100% of the time with very brief and minor dips. The 2500k drops into the high 30's and the 40's frequently. All of them are running overclocked 7950's.

In the future as more and more games utilize multiple cores (with next gen gaming this will become common) I think the value of the i7's and potentially even the 8 core AMD's will be noticeable vs traditional quad cores.

Regarding this nuclear reactor of a processor, it's sad to see AMD in the position they are. I've probably built and used around two dozen AMD boxes so I'm certainly not a hater but Intel's advantage in anything but the budget $150 mark is staggering.

I wouldn't count on it. Looking at the history of hyperthreading, it's been around for ages, but it's never really made a world of difference. I sort of see hyperthreading like Nvidia's PhysX; it has certain times where it makes a huge difference, but more often than not, it makes little to no difference (due to not being supported) as of now.

Games will definitely utilize more cores in the future, but historically, by that point, the other features of the CPU would be holding it back already. I wouldn't expect a 6 core X6 to suddenly catch up to an i5 4670K because of using more cores in the future.

 

[Zucker2k]

Above I show why your assumptions are wrong.

Maybe show the entire benchmark results so that we can all see what a joke the benchmark suite you're cherry-picking from is? Core i7 4770 losing to i5 in various tests, etc. Obviously, the platform is seriously borked, as I quoted in my earlier post. It's funny watching Galego scrambling to find some scrappy results in order to justify his outlandish claims. Lol!

http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1306034-UT-INTELCORE31

LOL. At the one hand some posters here insist on that the 9590 is a mere OC 8350, at the other hand benchmarks of a OC 8350 are rejected. The truth is that the 9590 is not a mere OC 8350, but a OC 8350 simulates very well the performance of the 9590.

You're right. That's why it comes with a high end closed-loop liquid cooling system to prevent it throttling at idle. It's actually so good it costs $900 and comes with a whopping 30-Day Warranty on Newegg!!

 

[chubbyfatazn]

I wouldn't expect a 6 core X6 to suddenly catch up to an i5 4670K because of using more cores in the future.

Just wait... once cripple_AMD stops puttin' the man down you'll be eating those words

 

[Dice144]

I was going to buy this CPU when it came out. Glad I didn't wait. At $800+ it is just to much. The 4770k with $100 off combo was to hard to pass up.

 

[Zucker2k]

I was going to buy this CPU when it came out. Glad I didn't wait. At $800+ it is just to much. The 4770k with $100 off combo was to hard to pass up.

Nice system you got there in your sig.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Let us assume that we accept your benchmark/comparison and that your i5-4670k is

13% FASTER!!!!

than the i7-4770k. In another part of the review they show an i5-3570k being faster than your i5-4670k :whiste:

Of course, mine was overclocked. Though not to the brink like the FX was. 360w is about what i draw playing Sleeping Dogs with 7950 CF @ 1060/1545 and my i5 @ 4.8GHz with vsync on maxed out @ 1080p.

This is with Handbrake, from our own forum.

AVX2 supported h264, this new FX processor supports AVX2 so it should see the same boost right? :hmm:

 

[ruhtraeel]

Let's just agree that this generation of processors were all a bit of a letdown.

Haswell runs WAY too hot and Ivy Bridge runs hotter than it should because Intel decided to be cheap and used paste instead of solder to cut costs. The marginal performance improvements between the generations doesn't justify the massively reduced OC headroom.

FX 9590 is massively overpriced from what I've seen. It takes way too much power and gives results in areas not relevant to an everyday consumer, while not holding up in areas that matter, at least from an efficiency/monetary standpoint.

Here's hoping that Intel doesn't cheap out and the 4960X actually uses solder again like the rumours say. Not that I would upgrade anyways.
Also, here's to hoping AMD can pull it together during their next architecture to actuall have high end products to compete with Intel's.