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

[galego]

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.

Sorry, but copying and pasting here one post from mine from another thread for next replying it with your above words is only doing me laugh :biggrin:

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! No one would confound a suite which has been named one of the best available benchmarks suites, with pure jokes such as sysmark.

Intel deficient work is the reason why failwell shows some regressions in performance, when compared with Ivy Bridge. Maybe Intel will improve the compiler before Haswell 2.0 is ready.

Of course, mine was overclocked.

Oops, you forgot to mention that detail when you gave us your benchmark. Thanks by giving it now.

 

[galego]

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.

Benchmarks show that the FX-8350 is within the same performance envelope that the i7-3770k. The FX-9590 gives a performance boost over the 8350 which is higher than the given by the 4770k over the 3770k.

There are some benchmarks where the 8350/9550 lose:

• The fake ones using the Cripple_AMD function. But those don't represent real performance and are aimed to fool users.
• Those specifically optimized for Intel chips. Those are fair benchmarks, but it is good to notice that are optimized for Intel, because we could also select software optimized for AMD.
• Poorly threaded games. However, future games will be more threaded. Moreover, the advantage of Intel chips with poorly threaded games disappears at high resolutions / high details. Most gamers agree on that the FX chips are good enough for gaming.

Regarding the last point, this Kitguru review shows the 9590 competing in games with an eXtreme 3960x OC a 33%.

 

[SPBHM]

"The FX-9590 gives a performance boost over the 8350"

and 100W TDP, and 600 USD boost! very impressive.

real world usage shows the 4770K doing extremely well compared to the much more expensive 9590, and that's 84w TDP (with more I/O and an IGP built in) vs 220w.

" this Kitguru review shows the 9590 competing in games with an eXtreme 3960x OC a 33%"

how desperate you are to be using this? any non GPU bottenecked test will show a 5GHz FX being beaten by i5s in most games, and yes, the i5 would also compete with the 9590 and the 3960x on the GPU bottlenecked kitguru test, so irrelevant...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35272270&postcount=106
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35273419&postcount=139
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35271581&postcount=82

we certainly need $800 CPUs to be "good enough for gaming" when $200 I5 are more than that.

 

[galego]

"The FX-9590 gives a performance boost over the 8350"

and 100W TDP, and 600 USD boost! very impressive.

1. An enthusiast with a 1500W PSU don't care about the TDP, specially when the 9590 consumes less power from the wall than OC Intel chips as that used in the KitGuru tests.
2. An enthusiast don't care about money. The examples of the overpriced Nvidia Titan and the 4770k being priced a 45% higher without giving a 45% more performance were given by other posters here.

What part of 1 and 2 is not understood?

 

[Phynaz]

Galego, what are your system specs?

Since enthusiasts don't care about money this will let everyone know if you are an enthusiast.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Oops, you forgot to mention that detail when you gave us your benchmark. Thanks by giving it now.

I didn't forget, I was simply comparing an overclocked chip against an overclocked chip you were insinuating was a 9590.

Did you miss the part about h264 getting AVX2 support, Haswell getting a boost, and your graph not reflecting that?

I wonder now that its clear the i5 beats AMD in video encoding (both in cpu only, and cpu/igpu), will you only post winzip benches and super computer benchmarks on a broken OS while pretending enthusiasts care?

 

[SPBHM]

1. An enthusiast with a 1500W PSU don't care about the TDP, specially when the 9590 consumes less power from the wall than OC Intel chips as that used in the KitGuru tests.
2. An enthusiast don't care about money. The examples of the overpriced Nvidia Titan and the 4770k being priced a 45% higher without giving a 45% more performance were given by other posters here.

What part of 1 and 2 is not understood?

"enthusiasts" like to OC right? the 4770k is a OC monster compared to the pitiful results the 9590 is giving...

but it's looks like you can't understand, 700MHz gain with 100W TDP more is something you achieve with overclocking is not impressive by any means, the 4770 compared to the 3770 gives you a new architecture, higher IPC, new instructions and for basically the same money, and you are unimpressed, probably because it's from the wrong "brand" more than anything.


Titan offers MORE, the 9590 doesn't... the 9590 is far from being called the fastest CPU, Titan is the fastest single GPU, Titan completely destroys any other geforce in terms of DP performance, Titan is always faster at the same clock than the second fastest NV single GPU card (780), still... I wouldn't recommend Titan, the same way I would never recommend a 3970x over a 3930K,

gotta love the price vs performance of the 9590 vs 8350 (the 8350 certainly can OC a lot more) when you can say anything bad about the 4770K pricing compared to the i5 (which have lower performance per clock and the same OC potential basically).

and WTH is this "enthusiast" thing? I always thought those guys with K i5s, overclocked 7950s and whatever were enthusiasts (getting extreme performance without unlimited money, making informed choices, having fun)

 

[galego]

Galego, what are your system specs?

Since enthusiasts don't care about money this will let everyone know if you are an enthusiast.

:awe:

I didn't forget, I was simply comparing an overclocked chip against an overclocked chip you were insinuating was a 9590.

Did you miss the part about h264 getting AVX2 support, Haswell getting a boost, and your graph not reflecting that?

I wonder now that its clear the i5 beats AMD in video encoding (both in cpu only, and cpu/igpu), will you only post winzip benches and super computer benchmarks on a broken OS while pretending enthusiasts care?

Hum your post #258 doesn't mention that you were OC.

Moreover, I don't know what you mean by "insinuating was a 9590". If you refer to the benchmark that I gave it is not from mine and I can see the text "9590" in it. Do I care to explain this again?

I wonder if you really believe what you say about the i5.

"enthusiasts" like to OC right?

Not all. Enthusiast is not a synonym for overclocker

 

[hackerballs]

en·thu·si·ast

/ɛnˈθuziˌæst, -ɪst/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled [en-thoo-zee-ast, -ist] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. a person who is filled with enthusiasm for some principle, pursuit, etc.; a person of ardent zeal: a sports enthusiast.

2. a religious visionary or fanatic.

lol

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hum your post #258 doesn't mention that you were OC.

Moreover, I don't know what you mean by "insinuating was a 9590". If you refer to the benchmark that I gave it is not from mine and I can see the text "9590" in it. Do I care to explain this again?

I wonder if you really believe what you say about the i5.

And?

Wut?

I do believe it, and I can prove it.

 

[SPBHM]

2. a religious visionary or fanatic.

that's the best explanation I can see for buying and defending the 9590 and its launch price... Enthusiast, sure.

 

[galego]

Wut?

I do believe it, and I can prove it.

Does this cryptic post mean that I have to explain this again or not?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Are you going to add an explanation as to why your second favorite bench type, besides broken OS super computer suites is now favoring the i5 as well? If so, please go ahead, otherwise save it.

 

[jacktesterson]

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.

The Titan isn't outperformed by $350 competitors

 

[USER8000]

The Titan isn't outperformed by $350 competitors

Its outperformed by cheaper aftermarket GTX780 cards,and the cheaper GTX690.

 

[SPBHM]

Its outperformed by cheaper aftermarket GTX780 cards,and the cheaper GTX690.

GTX 780 can't outperform, if you overclock both cards...
and the DP performance for CUDA is not comparable anyway.

GTX 690 is dual GPU, and with only 2GB per GPU it can be quite bad for 4K I guess.

it's nothing like 4770K OC vs 9590 OC, or 3930K OC.

 

[nemesismk2]

Intel pulled it off for years with the Pentium 4!

I was going to mention Pentium 4 but beat me to it

 

[Erenhardt]

The Titan isn't outperformed by $350 competitors

If you can find hd7970 for $350, which is not that hard... then yes, Titan is outperformed by $350 competitor. Not in gaming, but in compute tasks. Anyone bitcoin with titans here?

I think the only reason for this CPU to exist was to show people that they can get cheap fx8350 and overclock it up to 5GHz. Boosting nicely performance for increased thermals. And that is kind of a soft spot of haswell. Too many times we've seen people complaining about poor overclocking of i7-4770.

It is such a shame that people are always complaining when it comes to AMD.
-Ohh look! AMD FX-8350 can overclock to 5GHz!
-Meh... But then it takes more power, such a fail.

And in other thread the same people are looking for a flake of gold in a pile of shi...dirt.
-Haswell overclocking is weak. It brings nothing worth considering an upgrade.
-It is designed to be slower! Look - it takes 2W less than i7-3770!

I guess those people are huge fans of "intel inside" era.

 

[guskline]

Now that newegg has listed both the FX 9370 and FX 9590, perhaps we can get an actual user who bought one to post his/her findings. I did my best with my OC'd FX 8350.

 

[USER8000]

GTX 780 can't outperform, if you overclock both cards...
and the DP performance for CUDA is not comparable anyway.

GTX 690 is dual GPU, and with only 2GB per GPU it can be quite bad for 4K I guess.

it's nothing like 4770K OC vs 9590 OC, or 3930K OC.

The maximum overclocks argument is a bit lame though,especially when overclocking is a lottery. Factory pre-overclocks are also guaranteed.

Even with CPUs you get this. I have known people to get golden Core i5 CPUs which can hit 5GHZ,and yet their mates can get Core i7 CPUs which top out much lower(and vice versa). Price is not an indication of how well CPUs overclock,unless you know the CPUs are specially binned.

Specially binned Core i5 and FX8300 CPUs for world record attempts go for silly money(the Core i5 CPUs for 1000s of dollars IIRC).

Moreover at 4K the Geforce Titan GPU lacks sufficient grunt in a single card anyway unless you want to be running games at very low framerates at high detail.

You would need to drop AA and go down to probably lower settings anyway,to get a playable experience which also reduces the VRAM load.

It does not change the fact a factory overclocked GTX780 card is faster :

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/57437-palit-geforce-gtx-780-super-jetstream/

Even then anyone who is sane would get a GTX780 over a Geforce Titan for gaming. 3GB of VRAM is more than enough for the GPU grunt in the GK110,even for stock clocked cards,where a Titan is only a few percent slightly faster if both cards are at stock clocks.

At $370 the GTX780 owner will get the same experience,similar framerates and by the time the GK110 GPU becomes a limitation will have enough money from the sale of their card, and the money saved over the Geforce Titan,to get a $550 GTX880.

Hence,after a few years they will have better single card performance anyway,for the same expenditure as a person who spent $1000+ on a Titan. Moreover,the Geforce Titan is unlikely to drop in price and be EOL first,so even the SLI solution is in favour of the GTX780 too.

The fact is trying to compartmentalise that the CPU in this thread is the only example of poor value for money or a case of something cheaper being faster,is daft.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Now that newegg has listed both the FX 9370 and FX 9590, perhaps we can get an actual user who bought one to post his/her findings. I did my best with my OC'd FX 8350.

SlowSpyder (go back a bit further in this thread) bought one by itself for $368, but he doesn't know when he'll get it.

Otherwise I think you'll be waiting a long time considering Newegg only sells the things in combo deals... at least $861 for the 9370 and $1605 for the 9590.

 

[SPBHM]

The maximum overclocks argument is a bit lame though,especially when overclocking is a lottery. Factory pre-overclocks are also guaranteed.

Moreover at 4K the Geforce Titan GPU lacks sufficient grunt anyway unless you want to be running games at very low framerates at high detail.

You would need to drop AA and go down to probably lower settings anyway,to get a playable experience which also reduces the VRAM load.

It does not change the fact a factory overclocked GTX780 card is faster :

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/57437-palit-geforce-gtx-780-super-jetstream/

Even then anyone who is sane would get a GTX780 over a Geforce Titan for gaming. 3GB of VRAM is more than enough for the GPU grunt in the GK110,even for stock clocked cards,where a Titan is only a few percent slightly faster if both cards are at stock clocks.

At $370 the GTX780 owner will get the same experience,similar framerates and by the time the GK110 GPU becomes a limitation will have enough money from the sale of their card and the money saved over the Geforce Titan,to get a $550 GTX880.

Hence,after a few years they will have better single card performance anyway,for the same expenditure as a person who spent $1000+ on a Titan. Moreover,the Geforce Titan is unlikely to drop in price and be EOL first,so even the SLI solution is in favour of the GTX780 too.

The fact is trying to compartmentalise that the CPU in this thread is the only example of poor value for money or a case of something cheaper being faster,is daft.

without aggressive AA Titan is competent for 4K and the VRAM usage is easily over 2GB even with the reduced AA,

Titan have a pretty big OC potential, and I see no point in ignoring that, at the same clock it's always faster, and it can run at the same clock.

also let's not forget Titan is an older product, and big part of the appeal of GK110 was something which is crippled on the 780,

anyway 780 vs Titan looks like 3930K vs 3970x (excluding cuda DP)

as I said I would never recommend Titan for gaming (vs the 780, or even the 770!), but at least it offers something more.... the 9590 is very unimpressive compared to the cheaper products from the competition...

 

[USER8000]

without aggressive AA Titan is competent for 4K and the VRAM usage is easily over 2GB even with the reduced AA,

Titan have a pretty big OC potential, and I see no point in ignoring that, at the same clock it's always faster, and it can run at the same clock.

also let's not forget Titan is an older product, and big part of the appeal of GK110 was something which is crippled on the 780,

anyway 780 vs Titan looks like 3930K vs 3970x (excluding cuda DP)

as I said I would never recommend Titan for gaming (vs the 780, or even the 770!), but at least it offers something more.... the 9590 is very unimpressive compared to the cheaper products from the competition...

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

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7120/some-quick-gaming-numbers-at-4k-max-settings

The GPU runs out of grunt at that point. I would expect two GTX780 cards to outperform a single Geforce Titan in the 4K tests.

You can see three HD7950 3GB cards doing better than a two Geforce Titan cards,indicating RAM quantity is not the issue,but GPU grunt.

Lets look at HWBOT.

GTX780:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_780/

Geforce Titan:

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_titan/

It seems with over 400 submissions each,the GTX780 on average overclocks higher.

 

[Idontcare]

Now that newegg has listed both the FX 9370 and FX 9590, perhaps we can get an actual user who bought one to post his/her findings. I did my best with my OC'd FX 8350.

What kind of voltage you need for that 5GHz?

 

[galego]

Are you going to add an explanation as to why your second favorite bench type, besides broken OS super computer suites is now favoring the i5 as well? If so, please go ahead, otherwise save it.

Is this post addressed to me? Is this the supposed answer to the post just above yours? Would I took this as confirmation that I will need to explain the same stuff again?

Besides that what do you mean by "broken OS super computer suites"?