Hi, thanks for the review.
On the CPU Performance page, the AMD FX9590 is stated as running @ 4.70GHz yet the direct comparison with the Intel slide only shows 'Underclocked' FX speeds, starting @ 4.50GHz and dropping.
The CPU comparison is a little bias in that the Core i7 you have there is obviously much quicker than the top of the range AMD equivalent and a direct 'Clock Comparison' isn't fair in that sense.
I dont know anyone that would run an FX9590 as low as 2.50GHz...
Can you please redo the test on the AMD FX9590 showing:
AMD FX-9590 (5.00GHz): Score
AMD FX-9590 (4.70GHz): Score
There's no run on the standard factory clock speed, and there's no overclock value shown as an example.
The stock clock speed on my FX9590 is 4.7GHz so I would prefer to see the CPU benched at the normal operating clock speed and then also show an Overclock. I can run my 9590 Black Edition at 5Ghz as the max overclock.
The FX9590 tests are all ran at clock speeds lower than the normal operating clock speed of the CPU as stated directly from AMD.
Thanks for checking!!
I don't think you are understanding the results. The first CPU chart that features the AMD and Intel processors has tested them at their default operating frequencies with turbo boost technologies enabled. So while the FX-9590 is labeled as 4.7GHz as this is its base frequency though it could run as high as 5GHz using its turbo frequency. The FX-9590 isn't a 5GHz processor.
The CPU scaling results with the FX-9590 have disabled turbo frequencies and all cores are clocked at the specified frequency. Pretty simple stuff
So what you are asking for is included in the review and the result is 81fps.
I question the benchmarks a bit on the AMD CPU side of things. I just performed the same test as listed with an fx 8320 oc to 4.2 with a gtx 970 and I'm getting any where from 86 - 88 fps on avg. after 3 runs using fraps.
Based on our results we would have seen around 78 - 80fps so the fact that you are getting 86 - 88fps testing what is likly a less demanding section of the game isn't mind blowing.
The benchmarks will obviously vary but the 'Test Rig' here was clearly Intel based. I believe the OP simply introduced some runs from an AMD based system for comparison reasons but we obviously dont know what the system specs were here. Obviously the current AMD lineup is not as recent or as powerful as the current Intel setup used for this review.
I can't even begin to imagine what this means :S