AMD FX-9590 Benchmarks Revealed

by - 7 years ago


AMD’s FX 9590 processor has been kicking up a bit of a storm recently. AMD’s new CPU is the first to run commercially at 5GHz speeds out of the box. This makes it a one of a kind for the PC market. Now we finally have some results to show you for the AMD FX-9590 courtesy of MacClipper on the VR-Zone forums. Running an extensive suite of tests we can see how the new AMD CPU performs in a wide range of tests. Interestingly the temperatures aren’t that bad, at around 62 degrees under high load though we don’t actually know what the cooling solution was so the main to draw from these results are the performance scores.

While the results appear impressive in the grand scheme of things most Haswell/Ivy Bridge Core i7 chips clocked at 4.5GHz upwards do better and Sandy Bridge-E at 5GHz absolutely demolishes the FX-9590 in in CPU intensive benchmarks. For comparison the i7 3960X at 5GHz scores 14.13 in Cinebench 11.5 compared to 8.62 for the FX-9590. For a staggering $900 you’ve really got to be a loyal AMD fan to want to get one of these. They’ll probably double their cost after a few years of usage in power consumption alone.

Images courtesy of MacClipper (VR-Zone Forums)

Related Topics:

Article Index

Author Bio

Add a Comment

19 Comments on AMD FX-9590 Benchmarks Revealed

  • Avatar Wayne says:

    I don’t know what AMD are thinking about. They’ve gotta stop smoking whatever they’re smoking.

    • Avatar Mombasa69 says:

      Well they’ve bagged the next gen console market and you’ll be running AMD Radeon optimized ports on your PC, so whatever they’re smoking it’s paid off big time. =P

      • Avatar Wayne says:

        Sure they’ve bagged the next gen consoles and while it’s a feather in their caps, it’s not the big deal they make it out to be.
        As for the optimized ports… The games will run just as well on an Intel/nVidia PC.
        What we’re all trying to tell you here is you’ve got to be off your rocker to pay the asking price for a FX9590.

        • Avatar klepp0906 says:

          They always bag the consoles. They’re cheaper. Console makers struggle to even break even on consoles. Every saved dollar counts.

      • Avatar klepp0906 says:

        This was/is due to cost. Nothing more.

        Judging by the date of your post and this “supposed” optimization and throne knocking… How long are we supposed to wait to see this? It’s been 10 months now. Next family of cpus due out soon….

        I’m sorry but I own a very very high end intel rig, and a very high end amd rig. Let’s be realistic .. The amd fanboys are sounding more and more uneducated and grasping at straws.

        How many of us are buying our enthusiast CPUs for Linux/ server performance? Anybody ?!? Didn’t think so…. Sigh.

        Trust me, I wanted amd to put up this go round… But even at their current price point.. They simply are hard to justify. Trying to argue it when this article was posted is down right fanboyism at it’s finest.

        I will say that my 4770k @ 4.7 isn’t that much faster than my 9590 @ 5.1. I’d venture that they’re closer to the same real world wise, same cost wise , and both run hot as hell. One area I prefer the amd is multiboxing. With 8 actual cores divvying up the load is much more ideal than the 4 core haswell (the reason I bought it actually) and I wanted an amd rig because nvidias piss poor surround/SLI drivers in windows 8 are making my quad titan rig worthless @ 4680×2560.

  • Avatar tudor_76 says:

    i totally disagree with the argues from this article that wants to subdue the efforts of AMD. If AMD is able to issue a more powerful processor, by sacrificing power, why not, let them promote their product and anybody to make his own opinion about the product.

    Intel can be overclocked very small , lets say 5% so can be rised up from 8.62 to 10.00 in cinebench. Value 14.13 in Cinebench for Intel is false totally in this article, meaning that Intel can scale up 75%…. totally false.

    • Avatar Ryan Martin says:

      Our testing revealed those results A stock 3960X did 9.58 and a 3960X at 5GHz did 14.13, thats a 47.5% gain from a 51.5% overclock – about right. Intel can be overclocked “very small”? Are you kidding. What’s a 3.3GHz 3960X to 4.6GHz? – 40%, to 5GHz – 52%. Whats a 2500K to 5GHz – 52%, a 3770K to 4.5GHz -28%. I simply don’t understand what you are getting at and where you get that 5% value from. The equivalent, and lower priced, Intel CPUs easily beat this AMD CPU and do it with superior power consumption. In the long run that’s gonna save you a heck of a lot on your power bills too.

      • Avatar tudor_76 says:

        As general information i can agree with results, but are laboratory results. 3960X maybe can perform that score for short period reclaimed by a test, not stock . You put that 3960X overclocked on the market as you did and will get burnt in a month.

        So ifwe tock about tunning for the stock performance, then let Intel to tune their CPU 3960X for stock use. I ll bet that will be less than 1/3 that you proposed additionally.

        • Avatar Ryan Martin says:

          Even at stock (3.3GHz) the i7 3960X beats the FX-9590 at 5GHz. It does that with 2 less cores and 1.7 less GHz per core. That means 19.8GHz (3.3 X 6) of Intel CPU power beats 40GHz (8 * 5) of AMD CPU power, and does so with less power consumption. Furthermore, the i7 3960X at 5GHz uses almost identical voltages to the FX-9590 if not slightly lower. It also produces LESS heat because it uses LESS power therefore it will not “get burnt in a month” if you take precautions to using the right cooling solution. The EXACT same scenario is applicable for the FX-9590. Both run hot and both need good cooling as a result. I am not even going to continue having this discussion because every sane person on the internet knows the 3960X is superior to a 5GHz Piledriver (be it FX-9590 or 8350 OC to 5GHz). The 3960X uses less power, has better single thread performance, has better multi-thread performance, has better memory bandwidth and clock per clock it absolutely blows AMD away. What’s more there is absolutely no reason to defend AMD because the FX-9590 is extortionately priced. With an FX 8350 at 5GHz its easy to defend AMD because it costs like $200 and the 3960X costs $1050 but with the FX 9590 that costs $900+ you’d be stupid to not buy a 3960X.

          • Avatar tudor_76 says:

            OK, let’s wait Intel to answer with their enhanced CPU + cooling solution to see how far will they get with their present worst for overclocking pieces.
            Personally now I m not interested how much i can overclock potentially and professionally my Intel solution, I m interested with what AMD brought to the market.

            Untill Intel answer, we discuss about AMD performance increase, with the sacrifice of the power consumption of course.

          • Avatar Mombasa69 says:

            The FX-9590 is a factory clocked Vishera (FX-8350) using the best grade stock, and it easily keeps up with any i7 when it comes to gaming, as will a clocked up FX-8350 which only costs £160 quid.

            And that’s with the current batch of games that are mostly only using a single thread.

            As I’ve already mentioned AMD Radeon are now at the heart of the next gen consoles, most PC games will be ported from them, so good luck with your over expensive i7, My AMD cpu which costs far less will run the ports just as well, probably better.

            And I’m so glad Intel is finally going to be knocked off it’s petty little throne.

      • Avatar Mombasa69 says:

        Intel optimized Cinebench! LMAO!!!

  • Avatar Макаров says:

    “Has better multi-threading performance”
    You cannot be more wrong Ryan Martin (clearly have no idea about CPU’s and what you’re talking about). AMD are better than Intel’s lame multi-threading furthermore AMD cores have proven to be much better use for servers and running virtual machines and also kick ass in Linux operating systems. Intel is only good at processing more data using less energy, big deal.

    “What’s more there is absolutely no reason to defend AMD because the FX-9590 is extortionately priced”
    Like anyone else with the right mind, a new product on the market means high price. For certain period of time. Also, both Intel’s and AMD’s products would be no where if there was no competition.

    “It also produces LESS heat because it uses LESS power therefore it will not “get burnt in a month” That Intel CPU does not include a CPU cooler, good luck running it without one. Out of all my years building both Intel and AMD rigs, I never had an AMD processor blow up within a month. Clearly produces allot of heat, therefore this CPU is specially for the custom builders and enthusiasts that can afford $300 + to cool high end components.

    “Even at stock (3.3GHz) the i7 3960X beats the FX-9590 at 5GHz. It does that with 2 less cores and 1.7 less GHz per core. That means 19.8GHz (3.3 X 6) of Intel CPU power beats 40GHz (8 * 5) of AMD CPU power”
    I do have another thing to point out, benchmarking and testing are in it’s early stages amongst enthusiasts. Won’t be seeing any proper test results accumulated until mid November this year. So it’s way too early to suggest such a stupid hypothetical interpretation that ‘this will undoubtedly beat that’ you never give AMD a chance and thats the kind of people I like to see drop dead in-front of me. Jos8coreHead

    • Avatar Ryan Martin says:

      Slightly OTT reaction but I will respond anyway. I’ll believe what you say when I see an FX-9590 review that proves your point of view in terms of better performance. Not sure how you could defend the price of the AMD FX-9590 when the FX-8350 is a fraction of the cost, i’m sure even you’d agree that $900 for a cherry-picked speed binned FX-8350 is a tad extortionate? Totally agree with you about the CPU cooler but as far as I am aware the FX-9590 will not come pre-shipped with a CPU (will be an OEM part only from what we’ve been told) so even if it is slightly cheaper than a 3960X there’s always the option of a 3930K and a solid CPU cooler for the lower price point. I am also aware of the fact that AMD CPUs are becoming more optimised as time goes on (and they face an uphill battle because Intel can essentially pay developers to optimise for them) but at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding and most CPU/Synthetic/Gaming benchmarks show better performance for the Intel LGA 2011 parts (compared to Piledriver FX). Yes sure there will be optimisations but It would be foolish to deny that Intel is winning the enthusiast users wallet and it sure isn’t because the performance is worse than AMD, it is because its better. As far as the “you never give AMD a chance and thats the kind of people I like to see drop dead in-front of me”. Well I do give AMD a chance. I use AMD GPUs, I use AMD APUs and my previous system ran AMD. I have always liked AMD, just in recent times they’ve been slacking on single and multi-threaded performance in applications/games (that conumsers use) and they’ve done that with higher power consumption. As far your comments suggesting I should drop dead, I think that is totally pathetic, there is no need for that at all. If you dislike someone’s opinion, prove them wrong with logic and evidence. You don’t resort to insults and make statements with no justifications like you’ve just done. There are 5GHZ FX-8350 vs i7 3960X results that show Intel wins. I’d appreciate it if you could link me to these linux/server scenario results where AMD beats Intel. I’ve got an open mind and i’m always up for reading/learning new things. Though I’m not up for being personally attacked because of my interpretation of widely available data.

      • Avatar Mombasa69 says:

        Fanboy! AMD Radeon hardware is at the heart of the next-gen consoles, developers are optimizing for AMD now buddy.

      • Avatar PLAYDODGY says:

        you were not personally attacked , he did not single you out in the article did he,

        and may be pay attention to what you say and I quote “Totally agree with you about the CPU cooler but as far as I am aware the FX-9590 will not come pre-shipped with a CPU


  • Avatar Mombasa69 says:

    Using the Intel optimized benchmarks again? Oh dear.

  • Avatar Sean Patrick DeMarco says:

    Hopefully those AM3+ statements were true from the past and we will see cpus that are even better than this that can be used on all AM3+ boards in the future with a bios flash and we will see cpus that cost less than $900 😛

Related Posts