First Pre-Built Desktop With AMD's $900 FX-9590 Spotted

[CommentariesAnd More]

Wanted to know the performance of those chips , is it at par with the i7-3960X and i7-3970X ?

 

[slomo4sho]

The article says "MSI 9990FXA-GD80" which hasn't been announced. See the extra 9?

Seems like a typo to me...

Also, this chip is already available on Aria PC

 

[Daniel Revas]

Potentially great hardware in such a PLAIN wrapper. Ugh.

 

[sarinaide]

Think this would have been better in a 600T limited edition AMD chassis with a ASUS crosshair V formula Z, AMD branded RAM and a single GTX780 or HD7970 GHZ edition ASUS TOP card topped off with a H100i

 

[jaber2]

AMD will sell this CPU at the price people would pay, in few weeks the price would drop by 1/2 and then again until it would be at same price point of current 8350.

 

[Stealthman80]

Why?. And only a 120mm rad no way that thing stays cool.

well my 212 Evo can handle my 8350@4.7ghz and lately 4.5ghz because its summer. so unless then CLC is worse then the 212 it certainly can handle it

 

[jee_are]

Here is a review of the FX-9590:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/

Conclusion: Meh

 

[sarinaide]

Here is a review of the FX-9590:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/

Conclusion: Meh

Apart from distorting results by not running Intel chips at stock in a review, I mean listen to how stupid this sounds, they ran a overclocked Intel Extreme and i7 Socket 1155 and 1150 part compared it to a stock FX9590 and they call themselves reviewers. So it consumed 317w under load at 5ghz and a i7 3960X at 4.8ghz (probably unstable as $#@#) uses like 420w In the gaming benches, beats by a little, equals or loses by such miniscule amounts to the top end Intel Extreme

 

[jee_are]

Here is a review of the FX-9590:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/

Conclusion: Meh

Apart from distorting results by not running Intel chips at stock in a review, I mean listen to how stupid this sounds, they ran a overclocked Intel Extreme and i7 Socket 1155 and 1150 part compared it to a stock FX9590 and they call themselves reviewers. So it consumed 317w under load at 5ghz and a i7 3960X at 4.8ghz (probably unstable as $#@#) uses like 420w In the gaming benches, beats by a little, equals or loses by such miniscule amounts to the top end Intel Extreme

Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that the FX chip is also overclocked. It just doesn't have much headroom. They were not able to push it passed 5GHz (which is the Turbo clock rate, default is 4.7) as anything above was unstable and would have required a more hardcore cooling solution. I think we can agree that most games are not CPU bound (at least not with these chips) and that more CPU intensive metrics (e.g. media encoding) paint a better picture of a CPU's capabilities. If you look at these results you'll find more chips included in the benches at stock and overclocked.

Cheers

 

[demonhorde665]

does the .8-1 ghz boost over a 8350 really make that much of a difference ? this has to be asked , PLEASE TOMS do a CPU comparision. Since I built my system on a 8350 there is no other upgrade route for me currently so inquiring mind would like to know! if in a year's time when this chip gets massive price cuts I want to know if the upgrade would be worth it. Assuming my main board doesn't support the steam roller chips that will likely be out then (I do have an asus sabertooth MB so it might very well support some steamrolers with a future bios update). but just in case , would really like to see actual numbers on this one.

for those that don't know the 8350 is 8 core , and clocks at 4.0 ghz to 4.5 on turbo core.

 

[sarinaide]

Here is a review of the FX-9590:

http://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/zardon/amd-fx9590-5ghz-review-w-gigabyte-990fxa-ud5/

Conclusion: Meh

Apart from distorting results by not running Intel chips at stock in a review, I mean listen to how stupid this sounds, they ran a overclocked Intel Extreme and i7 Socket 1155 and 1150 part compared it to a stock FX9590 and they call themselves reviewers. So it consumed 317w under load at 5ghz and a i7 3960X at 4.8ghz (probably unstable as $#@#) uses like 420w In the gaming benches, beats by a little, equals or loses by such miniscule amounts to the top end Intel Extreme

Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that the FX chip is also overclocked. It just doesn't have much headroom. They were not able to push it passed 5GHz (which is the Turbo clock rate, default is 4.7) as anything above was unstable and would have required a more hardcore cooling solution. I think we can agree that most games are not CPU bound (at least not with these chips) and that more CPU intensive metrics (e.g. media encoding) paint a better picture of a CPU's capabilities. If you look at these results you'll find more chips included in the benches at stock and overclocked.

Cheers

Even the encoding reviews workbenches the 9590 did well reletive to the i7's although the big stumbling point is the price, if they costed around the $250 and $400 mark respectively they may have sold by the boatload all things said OEMs sell and is it wrong for AMD to sell to make profit even if off OEM only?

 

[MichaelC4]

Erm just to remind folks I threw out a AMD S939 FX57 a few days ago. They retailed initially for $1000 back in 2005.

So allow for inflation...

They were $1,199 at TigerDirect. I've still got the catalog. And, I'm holding on to my FX60(939) rig because that was the last time AMD was on top. I keep it for old school games that don't run well on new rigs.

 

[KealiaCliq]

No thanks, my wallet likes my money just fine for now.