Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
AMD FX-9590 and FX-9370 Review: Socket AM3+ Platform's Swan-song

Started by: nic | Date 02/25/14 01:59:38 AM
Comments: 138 | Last Comment:  11/29/16 07:21:56 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


Despite the new lower price, these CPUs are still pointless.
1 1 [Posted by: sanity  | Date: 02/25/14 09:25:49 AM]

These are the Pentium4 of AMD.
0 1 [Posted by: 3Dkiller  | Date: 03/01/14 10:32:41 PM]

There are a LOT of techincal errors in this story...

The FX-9000 CPUs require a special AM3+ mobo with a proper VRM circuit to provide sufficient power without overheating. You can not use a standard AM3+ mobo without overheating the VRM circuit and causing it to throttle the CPU frequency and performance.

Yes you might run a few benches but the VRM circuit will overheat and could easily fail if you use an AM3+ mobo that isn't specifically approved for the FX-9000 series CPUs.

The FX-9000 requires a top of the line HSF such as the Aegir SD128264 with a second fan, Noctua NH-D14, Phanteks PH-TC14PE or the Thermaltake Frio. If you're dumb enough to use water cooling you'd want a Swiftech 220 or better.

In addition socket AM3+ is EOL in Q1 of '15 but the FX name and discrete CPUs live on contrary to all the errors in this story.

The lowered price makes these attractive if you already have an FX-9000 approved AM3+ mobo and top 5 tower cooler. Otherwise it's a financial stretch for most folks. For those who don't understand these are just "halo" products to show that AMD's Vishera CPUs are very capable, which they are even when overclocked by the factory.
0 0 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 03/05/14 12:51:55 PM]

I find that the testing was very isolated and and does not show how broad and versatile the options are when enthusiasts want to take a shot at a high end machine using the FX architecture. In fact, most people are easily mislead to think FX CPUs are not as capable as intel series CPUs because articles like this project a rather narrow and sometimes closed mindset. And the occasional comment to boast something positive about the FX processors just to make is seem like they are totally objective.

I use a 95W AMD FX8300. When overclocked to 5GHz, I am not seeing much increase in the power consumption at all. I have to say, objectively speaking, that intel has a very strong edge with the latest i5 and i7 series CPUs, out of the box. But not everyone uses the same hardware configuration. That's why we have some who are very knowledgeable enthusiasts who have experimented with a wide array of hardware configurations with many hours of testing with different settings. It takes alot more to convince someone like me so I have read so many reports and reviews over the past 15 years just to get as much data as possible when i make a decision to buy something. And finally, I bought my first FX CPU in October 2013.

One thing that I noticed about a good comparison with games and comparing FPS. When someone uses a high end video card setup, maybe Crossfire or SLI, it takes the load off the CPU. So all the FPS scores in this review are pointless. Because the video configration in this setup was lacking if you want to build a good high end gaming machine. Like I said, I have an FX8300 95W processor. I witnessed this CPU at work while running 2 video cards in Crossfire with the FX8300 overclocked to 5GHZ. The total system wattage only increased slightly and when you do the math the conclusion was the CPU never even exceeded 125W. Well, I was so impressed by this system's performance I had to get an FX8300. Not only was it doing well as far as power consumption but the i7 4700k system it was being compared to was running at stock clocks with the same crossfire setup and only 2 out of 7 games did the 4700k rival the FX8300 in FPS. The guy who was doing this test told me not to place any emphasis on the FPS test because he said any enthusiast who knows how to build a rig should know that the GPU takes the brunt. Now, he said he can squeeze more frames out of the 4700k by overclocking it. SO I wanted to see. In order to beat the FX8300, he was causing the 4700k to consume alot more power. And in the end what we had were 2 high end systems that performed near equal, and power consumption with both CPUs was pretty comparable. Any differences were not worth mentioning. So basically if you do not look at the WHOLE picture when configuring a system, or doing a review, you are only going to convince those who do not know that much

All enthusiasts who have broad knowledge of system hardware integration are keen on some important details when building a rig. It's said that if you want to equal the performance of the i7 4700k with the comparable FX CPU, you have to overclock the FX CPU about 600mhz over top of the intel CPUs current clock rate. When it comes to overclocking, AMD seems to have the edge. Because some people have taken FX8350 to 5.2Ghz or more while using commonly used high end cooling products. In order to get your i7 4700K within 600mhz of this overclock, it would need to go to at least 4.6 GHz. Well that about squeezes what most 4700K CPUs have in them because they are known for being limited overclockers. Intel insists on using paste for the transference of heat between IHS and the die. If you want to risk damaging your CPU, you can remove it and solder the heat shield to the die or be smart and pay an experienced person to do it for you. This will add another $100 to the cost of your CPU, give or take.

In fact, so many people selling i7 4700K CPUs on EBAY as "NEW OTHER" because of how inconsistent these processors are. Enthusiasts buy the 4700K new, try to overclock it only to find out they got weak cores that do not overclock well. Alot of 4700K CPUs can't even exceed 4.2GHz without massive heat problems and system lock ups. And that should also be something to consider if you want to build a high end system with a nice overclock. Some people have gone through 4 or 5 4700K CPUs just to get 1 that overclocks to 4.4 to 4.6 GHz. Honestly I may not even consider trying a second time if it did not work the first time. And I won't settle for a limited processor. Making such a statement that AMD is out of the high end PC market is such a narrow minded way of looking at things . If you think about how consistently well FX CPUs can be overclocked, many will consider it best to chance an FX CPU and get to 4.8 or 5GHz or even higher instead of risking the chance of getting one of the many 4700K Dudds that are out there.

I am in no way trying to compare the processors in the same way this review compared them. These things I am mentioning were all factors that were important to enthusiasts when deciding which platform was best and this is something that is equally important to me.

At the end of the day, nobody has to run an FX processor at clock rates so high to get performance that will be more than adequate to handle any game or program you throw at it. When someone wants to show one platform is better than the other, that is just is the agenda they have. If a system with a 4700k will give me 100 FPS while running a high end game, using total system wattage of 250W I am going to be happy. If I have to run my FX8300 at stock clocks or restrict my overclock some in order to keep my system wattage comparable, it will not make my system inferior. Even if my system only gave me 85 FPS in this scenario, I do not know one person who will complain with 85 FPS with a high end game running at a high resolution. You just cannot claim a benchmark makes a CPU better when so many other things can be done to make both platforms more competitive. And in the end, there will be several scenarios to make both winners in many tests. It's is the versatility that won my vote. Intel required too much effort and money to make it versatile for overclocking. Not to mention to risk of getting one of the Dudds.

So, keep the reviews coming, because there are still some "wanna be enthusiasts" that will be easily swayed by a benchmark. But once all are on board, and more and more programs are designed around multicore architecture, the benchmarks programs will have to follow suit and then we may see that an 8 core FX CPU was never worst than an Intel i7 CPU. Perhaps FX CPUs are ahead of their time. Real world performance has always been more than fast enough and even FX Quad core has managed to integrate with other good hardware with the end result being a system that can handle ANYTHING you throw at it. People try to make them seem like they are not even competitive and that is the mindset of those who are biased. Do not ever discount an AMD FX Series Processor. Instead, learn more about ways to take advantage of how versatile and powerful it really is. And never worry about getting a Dudd
1 0 [Posted by: tteksystems  | Date: 03/20/14 05:17:34 PM]
- collapse thread

Very well said,Amen
1 0 [Posted by: Alexander Valenzuela  | Date: 06/06/14 05:07:47 PM]

The FX-8320 and FX-8350 has made believers out of a lot of Intel fanbois. Real world results are what most PC enthusiasts care about not bogus benches.
1 0 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 03/28/14 10:27:18 PM]

Your comments reviews about the FX series were bias and reckless as i have both intel and amd processors and the FX series outperforms the intel in real life and benchmark.
1 0 [Posted by: Alexander Valenzuela  | Date: 06/06/14 05:01:54 PM]

could you use a Digital Clamp Multimeter to measure the cpu 8pin current volume?
0 0 [Posted by: eanck  | Date: 07/20/14 03:02:10 AM]

Space heaters!
0 0 [Posted by: carcakes  | Date: 08/16/14 02:34:32 PM]

The results would have been much better for AMD if the HT Link was set to the default 2600mhz vs the 2200mhz used in this article.
1 0 [Posted by: DJ DEX  | Date: 11/03/14 09:07:24 AM]

Money no object: Intel wins, of course. Otherwise AMD wins no matter how they compare to Intel, you still get decent performance for MUCH LESS MONEY!
0 0 [Posted by: Nah Nood  | Date: 01/27/15 06:10:58 PM]

my friend has his 9590 at 5.4 .... you are doing something wrong hahaha
0 0 [Posted by: Dale Bacovin  | Date: 02/27/15 08:40:34 PM]

I would not say that these are not enthusiast class! If that is true then that means only the very expensive Intel i7's are enthusiast CPU's. Most Enthusiasts still do not buy the very expensive i7's. Most have the FX-8000's series or older i5's and i7's. This is because there is no need for the amount of power even from the older i5's and FX-8000 series. Because you can use a first gen i3 with a decent GPU to game with and run any modern game. But since the new FX-9000 series is just overclocked 8000 series, I would say that this is a desperate failure on AMD's part. But it does offer higher stock power I suppose. But the price is not at all justified! But they are definitely in the enthusiast class. And I would not say that the FX-8000 chips are not enthusiast class if I was expected to be a trusted reviewer. Because they are very strong chips! And AMD still has a clear winner with the FX-8320 and FX-8350 and especially with the FX-6300. Because they offer enthusiast power at budget price. I myself am running a Ivy Intel i5. But I am only running the i5 because I got a great deal on it, with a Z77 motherboard. If I had not got the good deal, I would currently have a FX-8320 running in my rig instead. Intel charges way too much for not much more than AMD offers. And I have no idea why a big deal is made about power efficiency! The supposed efficiency is nothing more than a scam! My i5 3470 uses 77watts, And the FX-8320 uses 125watts. Yeah that may look like a big deal when someone rambles on that it is, But it is not a big deal! That is barley a dollar more a year in electricity! Big deal!
0 0 [Posted by: Brian Blair  | Date: 03/23/15 05:09:25 PM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment