Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    AMD FX Series FX-9590 and FX-9370 are out!

    So recently AMD released their two new CPU's that would push the frequency to insane levels on eight cores, all at stock.

    The first one is around 350$ and is here, link.

    The second is much more pricey but the one that can get to 5GHZ stock. Link is here

    Though to be noted is the high TDP which is 220W, that's going to require some serious cooling just to get it to run at stock speeds. Also if you would like a link to some benchmarks I found they are right here. So what are your guys thoughts on the new processors?

    Also a video! It explains why the TDP is so high and what would be needed to run it.

    Last edited by Eren Yaeger; 2013-07-25 at 01:40 AM.
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  2. #2
    750€ processor, 220W, still less powerful than a i5-2500k.
    I think it's pretty much a joke.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Doylez View Post
    750€ processor, 220W, still less powerful than a i5-2500k.
    I think it's pretty much a joke.
    It's more powerful than a 2600k at least.

    http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-07...nchmarks11.jpg
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  4. #4
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,861
    1) You linked two 9370s >.>
    2) Why are benchmarks being done against 3 generation old CPUs, and not... yanno. Ones we care about? >.>
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    1) You linked two 9370s >.>
    2) Why are benchmarks being done against 3 generation old CPUs, and not... yanno. Ones we care about? >.>
    1) Fix'd.
    2) I have no idea, I guess you could look up the scores VS each other, according to http://www.cbscores.com/ the 9590 is beating the 3960X if I'm reading it right O.o and in this one http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/
    Last edited by Eren Yaeger; 2013-07-25 at 01:47 AM.
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  6. #6
    Looks nice, couldn't see myself paying for one at those prices though, even giving the market a gap for the price to fall those prices would take years before i'd consider buying one :O (but then again, I already own an i5 3570k so doubt i'd get one unless for work computer anyways

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Wounds View Post
    2) I have no idea, I guess you could look up the scores VS each other, according to http://www.cbscores.com/ the 9590 is beating the 3960X if I'm reading it right O.o and in this one http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/
    There isn't a single 9590 in either of your links.

    The architecture in the 3960X is as old as the 2600K.
    Last edited by yurano; 2013-07-25 at 01:53 AM.

  8. #8
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,861
    Maybe they didnt compare a 3770 or 4770 because then it would show that... I'm pretty sure AMD screwed the pooch.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Wounds View Post
    It's more powerful than a 2600k at least.

    http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-07...nchmarks11.jpg
    german site but you should still be able to get the benchmarks.

    overall performance games:
    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...sor-im-test/6/

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Doylez View Post
    german site but you should still be able to get the benchmarks.

    overall performance games:
    http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...sor-im-test/6/
    Those benchmarks seem really strange to me, as the 2500k is beating the 2600k. Either way I'm not saying that this chip is good or bad. Personally I think the only good thing would be the 300$ chip, and it's potential to overclock, the 9590 seems way to overpriced and seems to try to just break records with clock speeds.
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  11. #11
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,861
    It's still a Vishera, though.... So really all the 9370 is just a 8350 that's 400mhz more, and $100 more.

    And what's up with the naming scheme? Why isn't it just 8570 (like it ought to be)? It doesn't have 9 cores.

    I was hoping AMD would spur Intel into innovation. Instead, it sounds like all this has done is put AMD even further behind in the cpu race.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Wounds View Post
    Those benchmarks seem really strange to me, as the 2500k is beating the 2600k.
    not really sure why but apparently the 2500k really is faster than the 2600k in some games.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/20
    maybe they just had more of those games in their lineup.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    It's still a Vishera, though.... So really all the 9370 is just a 8350 that's 400mhz more, and $100 more.

    And what's up with the naming scheme? Why isn't it just 8570 (like it ought to be)? It doesn't have 9 cores.

    I was hoping AMD would spur Intel into innovation. Instead, it sounds like all this has done is put AMD even further behind in the cpu race.
    No clue, but I doubt a 8350 would be at 5GHZ stock. If you had the right cooling you could push the 9590 quite high.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doylez View Post
    not really sure why but apparently the 2500k really is faster than the 2600k in some games.
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/20
    maybe they just had more of those games in their lineup.
    Could it be due to the 2500k not having hyper threading that they focused on single core performance which would show up better in games?
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  14. #14
    Immortal Notarget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dark Side of the Moon
    Posts
    7,762
    Hyperthreading (the 2600k) can have a negative impact in some scenarios, that's why probably.
    CPU: Intel i5-3570k (4.5GHz) MB: ASUS Z77 Sabertooth (uefi 2003)
    GPU: Asus 280X TOP (1130MHz/1750MHz) RAM: Corsair LP/LV white 8GB 1600MHz
    SSD: Samsung 840Pro 256GB + Crucial m4 128GB (040H) PSU: Seasonic 620M CASE: Corsair 500R (White/Black) Monitor: 1440p BenQ GW2765HT 1080p LG 237L-BN IPS
    Current build! ||Old Build || Bitdefender Total Security 2015 || AV-TEST 2014

  15. #15
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Wounds View Post
    If you had the right cooling you could push the 9590 quite high.
    From what I'm seeing, you need the 'right cooling' just for stock. It doesn't look like the 9590 is overclockable by any degree.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    From what I'm seeing, you need the 'right cooling' just for stock. It doesn't look like the 9590 is overclockable by any degree.
    That's true, but I suspect that someone getting this processor already knows that and has planned some sort of high-tech custom water cooling loop. Right now the 9590 can run on a H80 at stock. The pricing is stupid though, if they made the 9590 320$ or around there, than that would be an amazing price/performance ratio.
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    From what I'm seeing, you need the 'right cooling' just for stock. It doesn't look like the 9590 is overclockable by any degree.
    yeah, the review I linked mentions they only managed to get it to 5,1Ghz even with watercooling.



    and with air cooling (Noctua NH-U12P) it was actually throttling down to 4,5Ghz.

  18. #18
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,861
    Where's what I don't understand.

    FX-8350, Vishera, 4.0/4.2ghz, 32nm die, 125w TDP
    FX-9370, Vishera, 4.4/4.6ghz, 32nm die, 220w TDP

    If anything, I would say an 8350 would beat a 9370 when it comes to overclocking. The lower heat/TDP ought o let it hit 5ghz easier than a 9370.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    Where's what I don't understand.

    FX-8350, Vishera, 4.0/4.2ghz, 32nm die, 125w TDP
    FX-9370, Vishera, 4.4/4.6ghz, 32nm die, 220w TDP

    If anything, I would say an 8350 would beat a 9370 when it comes to overclocking. The lower heat/TDP ought o let it hit 5ghz easier than a 9370.
    I haven't really seen many 8350's that are at 5GHZ without hardcore cooling. But it turns out that the 9590 is comparable to a 3960X in the this review. http://www.kitguru.net/components/cp...990fxa-ud5/26/ Which is surprising given that the intel chip is a lot more expensive, and that these are only in real gaming environments for the 9590 to compare.
    I'll tear you apart...
    Once my hand heals,
    I'll rip you apart...
    Tear you to shreds...
    Rip you into tiny pieces...
    And eat you! - Eren Yaeger

  20. #20
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirty Wounds View Post
    But it turns out that the 9590 is comparable to a 3960X in the this review.
    But.... who cares? The statement that "The 9590 is comparable to a 2 year old, 2 generation old CPU that nobody really uses anyway" is not very compelling.

    The bottom line is that pretty much any -current gen- Intel solution, which are cheaper, are better. As far as I can tell, anyway. What niche is being filled here?
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •