Spread the love! TechSpot Tech Gift Shortlist 2017

AMD becomes the first to reach 5GHz with FX-9590 processor

By Shawn Knight · 165 replies
Jun 11, 2013
Post New Reply
  1. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,837   +1,962

    Just got word from AMD, they are not sampling the FX-9000 series at this point which is surprising. At a guess I would say the reason is the performance isn't that great given the tradeoffs.

    The FX-8000 series are not 8-core processors, they are really 4-core processors with a HyperThreading like technology. So its 8-threads rather on 4-cores.

    Chips like the FX-8350 are only cheap because they have to be, they struggle to compete with the Core i5’s and that is why they are priced alongside them.

    Even in programs that use more than 4-threads the Core i5’s are often faster as each core is so much more efficient. Gaming is where the FX-8000 series often looks best due to most games being GPU limited.

    I mean look at our encoding results…


    The Core i5 owns the FX-8350 in most of those tests, particularly the real-world applications.

    Having said all that the FX-8350 is a great value chip given the price so essentially what you are trying to say is correct ;)
    EEatGDL and Jad Chaar like this.
  2. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,262

    What tradeoffs ???
    EEatGDL, Jad Chaar, LukeDJ and 3 others like this.
  3. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,837   +1,962

    LOL come on own up who turned their FX-9000 system on?
  4. SexyMan

    SexyMan TS Rookie Posts: 16

    You are right, AMD is a budget CPU that is more than very capable... that's why I built this for average people who does spreadsheet, word processing, internet browsing, Facebook, Skype, and casual gaming (windows 8 app store games, Facebook games like candy crush etc) .. these average people does not download 3Dmark, Sandra, super pi, passmark etc.. to benchmark.. They don't even know the word "benchmark". However, they know there's an INTEL and they don't care because money dictates.

    Analogy is... the average people know there such a car called Lamborghini or Ferrari but they still drive a Corolla because MONEY is a big factor and the Corolla can serve them very well for the everyday use like going to grocery, point A to point B and ETC but not racing at the track.. >>> There's an Intel but AMD is more than good enough for everyday use.

    For the money they save, I usually tell them to get an SSD instead.. that's were you can really feel a very good speed improvement.
  5. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,262

    Who's "you" ? You just referenced most of the people that posted on the thread. You keep this up and we'll need a bigger internet.
  6. SexyMan

    SexyMan TS Rookie Posts: 16

    I quoted him but my tag did not work.

    Edit.. just fixed it
  7. I think all you people criticizing AMD for not being efficient, you're spot-on wrong... Everyone who does, seems to forget that AMD is squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of each manufacturing process / node they get their hands on. The current AMD CPUs still run on the 32nm process, whereas Intel is at 22nm since Sandy Bridge. So give me a break with your lack-of-efficiency claims that are simply bogus. Comparing process to process is the only way to be honest and fair, and the fact that AMD holds [relatively] their own using an aged [32nm] process is a de facto statement about being the most efficient company from the two. Current AMD's FX processors have been designed for a future that hasn't arrived yet (multi-core applications etc), and you'll see this mentioned time and again in every review, along with one-off benchmarks that AMD bests Intel's -X series CPUs that cost +$1K! Simply put, Intel's capitalizing on legacy applications whereas AMD's moved on...(unfortunately maybe a little too soon to make a good bottom-line).

    P.S. Not too long after Rory Read took the CEO spot at AMD, it was formally announced that AMD stopped formally competing with Intel, which IMO was a good decision to end the rat-race. It's one thing competing fairly, and another when your competitor has their own foundry and uses monopolistic tactics, and kickbacks, and influence on blocking AMDs CPUs to be sold by OEMs. History is littered with Intel's foul play, which is in part why AMD is struggling because they don't have that much liquidity/resources to splurge on "buying" OEMs.
  8. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder This guy again... Posts: 2,198   +593

    Ehhhhhhh, not really, there are 8 "logical" cores in the fx 8350 so it is in truth an "8 core processor". I mean, they aren't 8 full cores, it's a different idea like you and I said to hyper-threading. Hyper-threading splits a core and half and considers itself 2 cores, on the fx chips, each module in truth contains "2 logical cores". It's a different concept than what intel was going for.
  9. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,837   +1,962

    Intel only moved to the 22nm process with Ivy Bridge which isn’t a great deal faster than Sandy Bridge (32nm part). I wasn’t even talking power consumption, by core efficiency I mean a single Intel core is much faster than a single AMD core. We have seen Intel Core i5 processors clocked at just 2.0GHz providing the same or even more performance in some cases than an FX-8000 series processors at 4.0GHz, that is the efficiency I and virtually everyone else is talking about.

    I am not bashing AMD for the sake of bashing them. Saying that AMD is squeezing every last bit of performance out of the 32nm process isn’t just wrong, it’s pretty silly as well.
    Ehhhhhhh put it however you want, does it change anything about core efficiency? Also when I said HT "like" that is very much what I meant, didn't say it was the same concept.
  10. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 12,759   +2,431

    So your suggesting that was was strategic decision, and not based on the fact it didn't matter what announcement was made, they couldn't compete anyway.

    I have to laugh at all this "root for the underdog garbage".

    Back when Intel was pushing clock speed, using net burst architecture, peddling P-4s and struggling to keep up with AMD, the AMD fanbois were having a field day running their yaps.
    In fact, AMD even numbered their CPUs to indicate the clock speed they felt was comparable to an equivalent Intel CPU.

    Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and AMD has to overclock everything to keep their heads above water. Suddenly, clock speed is the ultimate measure. Maybe Intel should start numbering their products commensurate with AMD's old policies as well.

    And CPU efficiency , well that means nothing. And just because an Intel CPU will do the same work for half the energy, well that's just "foul play and industrial bullying", now isn't it?
  11. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,891   +1,262

    That would mean pitting the FX-8350 against the 990X (Gulftown: 22% smaller die, 15.6% lower core speed, 2 fewer "cores" if you don't buy into the shared front end of PD's modules negating the 8 core theory), or Xeon E5-2690 (equal number of "cores", 36% larger die, 27% lower all cores enabled speed)
    Both Intel's early and late 32nm process tend to stack up pretty well with PD- and that's without the benefit of PD's wider range of instruction set compatibility. AMD's efficiency deficit stems just as much from an inefficient cache structure as shared front end resources, and Intel being able to maximise their cache performance (minimizing cache miss penalties) thanks to an integrated µOp cache with SB/IB/Haswell.
    Efficient in what way ? Performance per mm² or performance per watt. These are the two metrics most used in judging process efficiency. The other measure is usually a foundry process metric ( transistors per mm²), and PD works out at 5.02 million/mm² to SB-E's 5.22m/mm².
    Pap to relieve the weight of expectation from AMD's shoulders. You can bet your bottom dollar that Kaveri is aimed squarely at Haswell. AMD will leverage the graphics IP they have as a head-to-head competitor against Intel. Conventional CPUs and chipsets might be an entirely different prospect, but then, AMD haven't really been in that particular race for a while. How much real difference is there between the 800 and 900 series chipsets? and how long as the 990FX been AMD's flagship? No PCI-E 3.0 controller might not be a big deal in desktop, but it's a big selling point in the enterprise sector.
    Steve likes this.
  12. Kelorth

    Kelorth TS Rookie

    Very nice sounding CPU, if you're into PC games, this is the CPU to go for, the next gen consoles are all AMD and their Radeon hardware based, so makes sense to go AMD, most PC games are now console ports, so they'll run far more smoothly on AMD, I've cancelled my new Nvidia GPUs and waiting for the new Radeon 8000 series, I'll most likely have to upgrade my Motherboard too, but what the hell, it's due for an overhaul.

    I'm glad I waited until the new consoles were announced and didn't waste my cash on Intel.
    GhostRyder likes this.
  13. GG to anyone who can run Battlefield at 360FPS when the FPS

    cap is 200.
  14. JCrysis86

    JCrysis86 TS Rookie

    Since when is the real money in the Enthusiast market?!? The Enthusiast or "Hardcore" makes up what? 1-2% of overall sales......Most people walk into wal-mart see a laptop or desktop for $50-$100 less with an AMD in it and it's a no brainer. I have an Ivy Bridge, but The difference is not exactly mind blowing anymore between the 2 in gaming performance maybe 5-10 frames. Haswell is an absolute joke as well the performance difference is hardly there compared to its Ivy Bridge counterparts, and the integrated GPU performance still gets destroyed by AMD APU offerings. I hope AMD makes a comeback, intel is pulling a 3DFX and resting on its laurels instead of making quality products to push the market further.
  15. amstech

    amstech IT Overlord Posts: 1,896   +1,060

    I've had AMD CPU's to game on and while they perform awesome for the price, Intel is king. They (i7's) rule the gaming charts. As far as the Radeon's they are awesome for the price but again, I am not saving money. I want the fastest GPU with the least amount of driver issues and most features, so I spend the money and get Nvidia. Everything is priced accordingly, you get what you pay for.
  16. PC nerd

    PC nerd TS Booster Posts: 317   +41


    Seriously though, with a TDP of 500 million watts, no one is going to be able to keep this thing cool.
  17. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    I think AMDs whole team needs a shake up. The CPU and GPU division seem to like increasing the clock speeds more than squeezing out pure performance.
    GhostRyder likes this.
  18. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder This guy again... Posts: 2,198   +593


    /re Ignore

    Yeah JC713, I agree on the CPU part, not the GPU part, they are doing excellent there no matter what anyone is saying. When Steamroller comes out, I want to see where they turn their attention to because that could easily be a better deciding factor then this lol. Ill still probably unless the claims of performance are true with this next architecture are true, grabbing the Ivy Bridge-E chip.

    ...I agreed with you lol, I said you were right on the HT like part. Im just saying in terms of HT versus the multi-core idea of AMD, the concept is only better in multi-threaded apps that can really take advantage of that concept. Intel is better a Core efficiency, I never denied that and anyone who is is obviously ignorant to that fact. Intel Focuses on the Single Core Efficiency, AMD went for Multi-Core efficiency and they are moving along. Only time will tell who was right, but at the moment, Intel was right.

    Hit the nail on the head there
  19. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    AMD has fixed their driver issues a bit with the uninstall utility. But that is only for Windows 7 at the moment. I hope they build it into the installer soon. AMDs problem now is really the fact that they dont get drivers out on major title release dates like nVidia does. That is where AMD needs to improve.
  20. stonarda

    stonarda TS Booster Posts: 143   +18

    Why is this now becoming a debate about who is better..Intel or AMD??? They both have advantages and disadvantages, we all know this! I run an 8350 and am perfectly happy with it! But I still am aware that Intel has better single threaded performance than AMD, but AMD has better multithreaded performance. Give the chip a chance and then discuss it.
  21. GhostRyder

    GhostRyder This guy again... Posts: 2,198   +593

    Yea, that having to uninstall first thing and driver sweep was annoying. Though now with the uninstall utility, its fine now (FYI it does work on windows 8). I do wish they would speed up driver releases for games as they come out.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  22. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    Dat pic (y). Their driver team is a mess, that is the reality.
  23. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,417   +3,434

    Seriously how can a chip have better multi-threaded performance when they suffer at single-threaded performance. Forgive me but this sounds to be contradictory statements. Not to mention the fact that if true, AMD would be on top of the benchmark test.
    Jad Chaar likes this.
  24. Jad Chaar

    Jad Chaar Elite Techno Geek Posts: 6,515   +974

    Like I said, AMD doesnt know how to optimize cores. They just know how to up the clock speed and TDP :D.
  25. amstech

    amstech IT Overlord Posts: 1,896   +1,060

    AMD still has all types of driver issues, ranging from more bugs/glitches on average to install/uninstall problems.
    This quote from Toms Hardware by a review done on May 30th caught my eye.
    Article located here:

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...