AMD FX9590 @ 5GHz reviewed at Kitguru

Obligatory links:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/26/

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2331055

Some quotes from the conclusion:

"When up against the Core i7 4770k or 3930k/3960x it is seriously outgunned. This is probably why AMD arent sampling the part directly to the press, aiming it at system builders. Again, we cant imagine a system builder will want to cool this monster long term"

"The AMD FX9590 is a solid processor for 3D rendering, but Intel have made a lot of strides in the last couple of generations, and we found that even the Core i7 4770k is a much more effective design on a core per core basis, even with four less physical cores"

"It proves very difficult to score the AMD FX9590 as it is a seriously niche product. The price alone drops the overall score several points. If AMD brought it out around the £300 mark then it would have made a lot more sense, but at £700 there is no possibility for a recommendation"

Seems like AMD tried and tried as hard as they might, but in the end, they still fell flat on their face. This Frankenstein Monster CPU is their best attempt at catching up to a lower clocked Intel CPU? Lol, epic fail.

Stick with blue, boys. It'll get you to where you need to go faster, cooler, and cleaner.

Translation: "I didn't like what the review said but have nothing of value to offer to this thread so I'll just post some random, meaningless drivel."

Panda threads are always good.

.

Another pointless panda thread bashing AMD whats new..... nothing. 04dcarraher

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Another pointless panda thread bashing AMD whats new..... nothing. stizzal13

[QUOTE="stizzal13"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Another pointless panda thread bashing AMD whats new..... nothing. ionusX

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="stizzal13"] You sound like one of those SW fools. He posted some interesting information showing how the FX9590 stacks up against other CPU's, and all you can do is attack OP. GTFO! Anyways, thanks for the information OP. I was wondering how AMD's latest would perform. Intel's track record of innovation and the biggest R&D budget in the industry continue to make it the top dog. stizzal13

This thing costs several hundred dollars more than what I paid for a 3930k.  WTF?!?  :|

 

This thing costs several hundred dollars more than what I paid for a 3930k.  WTF?!?  :|

FaustArp

 

This thing costs several hundred dollars more than what I paid for a 3930k.  WTF?!?  :|

FaustArp

AMD has serious cajones charging that kind of markup for something that's inferior to what Intel has in their arsenal. Seriously, their marketing department is deluded.

No one in the right mind would buy a fx 9590 when a fx 8350 is 200. And or get a i7 4770k for $35004dcarraher

I know, I'm honestly confused as hell here.  I just don't get it.  :question::question:

Holy crap, an AMD CPU loses to Intel? Color me surprised.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]No one in the right mind would buy a fx 9590 when a fx 8350 is 200. And or get a i7 4770k for $350FaustArp

I know, I'm honestly confused as hell here.  I just don't get it.  :question::question:

[QUOTE="FaustArp"]

I know, I'm honestly confused as hell here.  I just don't get it.  :question::question:

04dcarraher

Lol, I was actually coming here to post, when I saw your reply.  Yeah, I just finished reading that review (rather than just skimming it and looking at the data).  

Well you are right, and this is the way that the review in the OP put it, quoting them:

After spending the last week with this system we can make an educated guess that AMD simply wanted to be first to release a 5ghz processor. There seems to be no logical reason why the release of the FX9590 processor makes any sense in todays market. AMD can  sometimes stand behind questionable marketing campaigns, such as when they promoted the FX8150 as the first processor to hit 7ghz, then 8ghz.

Many people didnt realise at the time that 6 of the 8 cores were disabled to achieve the overclock. Its a meaningless chase for bigger numbers, translating to absolutely nothing in the real world. You show me an enthusiast user who buys an eight core processor to run with six disabled and ill show you a psychiatric hospital.

It's just bullshit meaningless numbers used as marketing...

5ghz sounds nice.

Amd thinks Intel dosent exists.

Hopping forums tonight saw this comment, I thought was a kinda interesting comment from somebody on a thread about the review on another forum:

For the record, Bulldozer is NOT 8-cores. It's 4 modules with 2-sub cores.

AMD is splitting hairs with their marketing.

Think of this way:
Phenom I - 1core == 2 Logic units
Phenom II - 1 core == 2 Logic units
Bulldozer - 1 core == 1 logic unit.

They've made a hardware version of hyperthreading. This is essentially why AMD gets smacked in anything that isn't single threaded or at that designed to not exceed 4 cores.

8 AMD cores today == 4 AMD cores of yesterday, which are all still less than 4 Intel cores of two yesterdays ago.

AMD is retarded and this price tag makes me think they are clearly losing their minds. This on the back of rumors of HD 9970 costing >$800, I have no confidence this company will recover from the last two-three years.

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#Bulldozer_core

AMD has re-introduced the "Clustered Integer Core" micro-architecture, an architecture developed by DEC in 1996 with the RISC microprocessor Alpha 21264. This technology is informally called CMT (Clustered Multi-Thread) and formally called "module" by the AMD. In terms of hardware complexity and functionality, this "module" is midway between a dual-core processor and its integer power (each thread having a fully independent integer core) and a single core processor that has the SMT ability, which can create a dual threads processor but with the power of one (each thread shares the resources of the module with the other thread)railven

So are they still selling it for a high price?

AMD has serious cajones charging that kind of markup for something that's inferior to what Intel has in their arsenal. Seriously, their marketing department is deluded.

SolidPandaG

Just like most thinking these FX chips will be the future...

ROFL

Also, to clarify, it's pretty disingenuous of AMD to claim the processor is 5GHz when it's actually clocked at 4.7GHz and has a dynamic boost that brings it up to 5 when it's stressed.

Just more pathetic attempts at trying to return to their glory days. It's over AMD, you missed.

 

This thing costs several hundred dollars more than what I paid for a 3930k.  WTF?!?  :|

FaustArp

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Another pointless panda thread bashing AMD whats new..... nothing. stizzal13

Pandas alt detected

Holy crap, an AMD CPU loses to Intel? Color me surprised.

TwistedShade

only at the price they are offering. AMD stuff is usually cheaper, based more around performance. This CPU, IMO will see a price drop VERY fast if every reveiwer comes out like this

If AMD doesnt make a good CPU to fit in my socket am3+ board I will never buy AMD again.

Another pointless panda thread bashing AMD whats new..... nothing. 04dcarraher

Holy crap, an AMD CPU loses to Intel? Color me surprised.

TwistedShade

If AMD doesnt make a good CPU to fit in my socket am3+ board I will never buy AMD again.

_SKatEDiRt_

Get ready to buy a new mobo and CPU at some point.  :P  Lol.

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

If AMD doesnt make a good CPU to fit in my socket am3+ board I will never buy AMD again.

FaustArp

Get ready to buy a new mobo and CPU at some point.  :P  Lol.

[QUOTE="TwistedShade"]

Holy crap, an AMD CPU loses to Intel? Color me surprised.

superclocked

[QUOTE="FaustArp"]

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

If AMD doesnt make a good CPU to fit in my socket am3+ board I will never buy AMD again.

2ndWonder

Get ready to buy a new mobo and CPU at some point.  :P  Lol.

[QUOTE="2ndWonder"][QUOTE="FaustArp"]

Get ready to buy a new mobo and CPU at some point.  :P  Lol.

godzillavskong

[QUOTE="2ndWonder"][QUOTE="FaustArp"]

Get ready to buy a new mobo and CPU at some point.  :P  Lol.

godzillavskong

Intel is for running benchmarks, AMD is for everything else.

AMD is better per dollar in nearly every day-to-day usage model and just falls behind in gaming, but for gaming you see a bigger improvement going with a better GPU than a CPU.  (And as games get more multithreaded, AMD will gain the advantage)

Yes intel blows AMD out of the water in old games, but no one can tell the difference between 200 fps and 300 fps.

congrats AMD you have officially been the first to hit 5ghz.  *golf clap*.  But seriously, I dont think AMD really cares at this point for the CPU performance crown, they're just doing it for the publicity, and some poor sucker will end up buying this turd CPU.  For shame AMD, for shame.

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

If AMD doesnt make a good CPU to fit in my socket am3+ board I will never buy AMD again.

FaustArp

Get ready to buy a new mobo and CPU at some point.  :P  Lol.

Ahh I feel like I just got this rig :/

[QUOTE="stizzal13"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"]Another pointless panda thread bashing AMD whats new..... nothing. ionusX

Not that anyone would actually SEE or NOTICE a performance difference in ANY current CPU running over 3ghz anyway...

But hey, go ahead and overlock and waste you moneyzzz!

Big benchmark scores is where it's at, yo!

Not that anyone would actually SEE or NOTICE a performance difference in ANY current CPU running over 3ghz anyway...

 

But hey, go ahead and overlock and waste you moneyzzz!

 

Big benchmark scores is where it's at, yo!

Netherscourge

Errr...

The difference is in some occasions, massive.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Not that anyone would actually SEE or NOTICE a performance difference in ANY current CPU running over 3ghz anyway...

 

But hey, go ahead and overlock and waste you moneyzzz!

 

Big benchmark scores is where it's at, yo!

AMD655

Errr...

The difference is in some occasions, massive.

..

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="stizzal13"] You sound like one of those SW fools. He posted some interesting information showing how the FX9590 stacks up against other CPU's, and all you can do is attack OP. GTFO! Anyways, thanks for the information OP. I was wondering how AMD's latest would perform. Intel's track record of innovation and the biggest R&D budget in the industry continue to make it the top dog. whitey_rolls

You don't know what a troll is.

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

Not that anyone would actually SEE or NOTICE a performance difference in ANY current CPU running over 3ghz anyway...

 

But hey, go ahead and overlock and waste you moneyzzz!

 

Big benchmark scores is where it's at, yo!

AMD655

Errr...

The difference is in some occasions, massive.

There is a bug in starcraft 2 that makes the game unable to use more than 2 cores.  Performance for AMD was A LOT better during the beta when quad core support still existed.