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

[Jad Chaar]

I bought an 8350 and thought it was a middle ground as far as price-to-performance goes. I'm hoping to keep this CPU for at least the next 5 years. Gaming wise, there's no reason to go for a more expensive Intel set up when you can play ANY game on high specs with an AMD rig. The only reason you'd invest several thousand dollars in an i7 coupled with SLI Titans is bragging rights. You simply don't need that kind of computing power to play games, and the small benefits you gain are not justified by the money you spend.

AMD CPUs are not as good for future-proofing as Intels' CPUs are. Game developers need the best possible hardware and they usually develop and build games on a Intel platform since it is superior. They usually rely on the community to report issues with AMD systems.

 

[MachineGod]

I bought an 8350 and thought it was a middle ground as far as price-to-performance goes. I'm hoping to keep this CPU for at least the next 5 years. Gaming wise, there's no reason to go for a more expensive Intel set up when you can play ANY game on high specs with an AMD rig. The only reason you'd invest several thousand dollars in an i7 coupled with SLI Titans is bragging rights. You simply don't need that kind of computing power to play games, and the small benefits you gain are not justified by the money you spend.

AMD CPUs are not as good for future-proofing as Intels' CPUs are. Game developers need the best possible hardware and they usually develop and build games on a Intel platform since it is superior. They usually rely on the community to report issues with AMD systems.

I'm not sure what you base this assertion on. Developing on an Intel doesn't mean the game isn't gonna work well on an AMD. And for gaming, your GPU matters way more than your CPU. I tend to see a lot more compatibility issues occurring with Nvidia vs. AMD cards rather than CPUs.

 

[Jad Chaar]

I'm not sure what you base this assertion on. Developing on an Intel doesn't mean the game isn't gonna work well on an AMD. And for gaming, your GPU matters way more than your CPU. I tend to see a lot more compatibility issues occurring with Nvidia vs. AMD cards rather than CPUs.

Yes, but in terms of future-proofing, Intels are just more optimized for long term than AMDs.

 

[MachineGod]

Yes, but in terms of future-proofing, Intels are just more optimized for long term than AMDs.

Is there any evidence to that?

 

[Jad Chaar]

Is there any evidence to that?

This is not that directly related, but it will give you an idea: http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/.

 

[Guest]

In my opinion, Intel is much more universal CPU, they don't raise their Clocks only, but all the technology and performance, so they're way better.

 

[GhostRyder]

Depends on what your definition of "future proofing" is. AMDs fx 8 series contains 8 cores and is heavily dependent on multi-threading where as intels focuses on the power of a single core. Both architectures are aimed to accomplish different goals while solving the same issue. If programs continue focusing on using cores 0-3 (4 cores) rather than optimized to use all that's available efficiently, them the intel is a much better future proof processor. However if programs decided to start heavily adding multi-threading as their primary goal, then you would see the amd shine.

Problem is, beyond a certain point, most programs do not benefit enough yet from encoding to use as many processors (or threads) available as a way to improve efficiency and focus on using up to 4 in most cases. So for the time being and what seems like even the near future (at least enough before most people would upgrade anyway) the intel i7 will hold up to the test of time the best (especially the 6 core variants) unless something drastically changes.

 

[St1ckM4n]

Check the weekend tech reading: Intel to release 8-core Haswell-E.

 

[captaincranky]

Check the weekend tech reading: Intel to release 8-core Haswell-E.

Wow, just think how many FPS you could get on Hi-Def porn with one of those babies!

 

[GhostRyder]

I saw that, sounds sexy, but were still waiting for Ivy Bridge-E. That's what im wanting to see first.

 

[CyrisPC]

I used to be an AMD guy for years, but my 2 yr old 2600k @ 4.5 still beats this...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2600K+@+3.40GHz

I beg to differ...

I'm still looking forward to ivy bridge-e though.

I love how he says his 4.5GHZ 2600k beats this and you try to prove him wrong with a chart showing a stock one. learn more about this AMD vs. Intel battle. Intel has dominated the CPU market since the 70s its not gonna change. Intel makes money each time AMD makes a cheap because Intel owns the 386 instruction sets that are required by every CPU to be compatible with most OSes. Amd is cool if your being cheap but if you got more then $150 to spend on a CPU go towards Intel because past that price point an AMD is like shooting yourself in the foot. example my 3rd Gen i5 3570k OCed at 4.5Ghz blows everyAMD cheap on the market out of the water by leaps and bounds. ijs

 

[CyrisPC]

I'll gladly support AMD. The money saved on their processors, which are still plenty powerful enough, is money I can invest in a better video card or more RAM.

Until you play a game that requires High IPC like starcraft 2 and you now notice you are processor bottlenecked and no amount of overclocking will save you

sry to say man my amd 8 core does better then the intel I7 on that game and I dont over clock it. starcraft 2 is to ez to run lol now go with a FPS game like black ops and battle field now theres a game to test it on but I still wont lag vs the I7 which will get a lil lower frame rate then a amd just cuz intels dont like vid cards that are not intel , amd + ati work together to make a better pc.
I run at 360fps in battle field off 1 vid card no lag ever and never over clocked.
hell a I5 gen 2 can in some games beat the I7 I have seen it both my frends have the pc we put all 3 side by side and the amd beat all on load and frame rate and minimzin the game and open new windows.
till u put them all side by side u will never know the dif its all just here say intel people love there stuff amd people love there they all think the rest is crap lol im a amd guy cuz well its cheaper and runs longer and better I have seen to many intel pc blow up and start on fire or just fry out

I'm just going to quote your post and wait for the next guy to comment because it looks like this forum has become a satirical comedy blog with the way you're talking.

Who told you that intel cpus don't like other cards besides Intel. INTEL DOESN'T MAKE A DEDICATED GRAPHICS CARD. Intels like Nvidia Cards but still out perform AMDs when paired with an AMD GPU. Intel is just plan better and I was with AMD from 2000 until Feb. of this year so I'm really an AMD fan boy but in the quad core age they let everyone down.the main reason intel is better is because no one ever buys a gaming PC ONLY for gaming. it just doesn't happen, people such as myself and others build a "future proof" system with massive gaming capabilities because we like running benchmarks and decompression and installs are very slow on AMDs because they are low end even at the high end.

 

[dividebyzero]

Yeah, but cant you get hold of one when it reaches retail? Do you know when that is?

Well JC, if this is any indication, the FX-9350 ain't gonna be cheap- even taking into account the pre-order "new tax".

Hey, at least it's cheaper than a i7 3970X

 

[Lionvibez]

I love how he says his 4.5GHZ 2600k beats this and you try to prove him wrong with a chart showing a stock one. learn more about this AMD vs. Intel battle. Intel has dominated the CPU market since the 70s its not gonna change. Intel makes money each time AMD makes a cheap because Intel owns the 386 instruction sets that are required by every CPU to be compatible with most OSes. Amd is cool if your being cheap but if you got more then $150 to spend on a CPU go towards Intel because past that price point an AMD is like shooting yourself in the foot. example my 3rd Gen i5 3570k OCed at 4.5Ghz blows everyAMD cheap on the market out of the water by leaps and bounds. ijs

If you are gonna put in facts make sure they are correct. its the x86 instruction set not 386 that was a processor in the late 80's.

And during the Pentium 4 era you would have been stupid to not buy AMD they were producing the faster cpu's.

It wasn't until Core2duo that intel got back on focus and its been intel at the top since 2006.

The OP is obviously bias towards AMD but give them credit for a company their size they have put up a good fight while most other would have folded already.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Well JC, if this is any indication, the FX-9350 ain't gonna be cheap- even taking into account the pre-order "new tax".

Hey, at least it's cheaper than a i7 3970X

But it performs less than the $500 3930K. AMD fails again... a huge TDP/clock speed is not enough to conquer the king (Intel).

 

[Guest]

FX needs between 6.3 GHz to 6.9 GHz to equal the single-threaded performance of a 3.9 GHz Core i7-4770K.

The 4.2 GHz single-thread performance out of a FX equals that of a Core i3 running at 2.7 GHz to 2.8 Ghz.

This 5.0 GHz FX-9590 is on par with a Core i3 or i5 running at 3.1 GHz to 3.2 GHz range in single-thread performance.

SC2 runs horribly bad on any FX because the game engine is single-threaded. Whoever was the kid who said in the comments that Starcraft 2 was EZ on a FX should kill himself. I dare this kid to compare SC2 performance on a FX-9590 and Core i3-3250 running. I can bet for sure it will run better on the Core i3.