Users of the AMD 9590 and the AMD 8350 please help with these questions

[g335]

Hello for users of the AMD 9590 and the AMD 8350

I am going to buy the 8350 but before I do I would like to know how has using the 9590 and 8350 been?

I've read a lot of good reviews on the 9590. Seeing how it is close to price to the 8350 now, wondering if it might be worth buying it.

 

[chrisbphoenix]

the xeon would be a better choice over the 9xxx series. Best you can do with a xeon overclocking wise is lock the cores at the turbo frequency of 3.9ghz which will outperform the amd even at 4.6+

Well, I suppose if you are planning on building a workstation the Xeon would be an alternative to an AMD 8 core, but remember that within this price bracket, the best you'll get from Intel is a low clocked quad-core Xeon with hyperthreading. And given that hyperthreading is just a clever way to make four physical cores split a load across 8 scheduled threads, whereas AMD actually has 8 physical integer cores, I'd say that the AMD would be better for productivity.
The only place where the FX line falls short is if you are doing tons of Floating point calculations, because they only have 4 shared floating point processors.

Not to mention that Intel Xeon isn't really built for gaming, and has almost no overclocking capability.

 

[dacquesta1]

If i was doing nothing but rendering and video encodes and my budget allowed, I would take the xeon over the AMD hands down. Even though the AMD does have 8 physical cores the xeon is just plain faster and at less power at that. I will say though my 8320 @ 4.8 eats through encodes on handbrake. It really is a matter of preference and budget, you can't go wrong with either. BTW the e3-1230v2/3 is the same as a 3770/4770 without the IGP and no unlocked multiplier.

Edit: Not to mention, the FX line falls short big time on power consumption when overclocked...its just horrid 170+ watts to pass 4.5/4.6Ghz.

 

[chrisbphoenix]

Back in the medieval days computer language was written in Basic (if x then goto here, else goto here) and IBM machines dominated the computer world. This coding was serial, all the commands were written in a line. So computer games followed that course. Even through the DOS days it was the same, everything was written serial. Then some bright spark at AMD realized that serial commands could only happen just so fast, starting at A you gotta go the whole alphabet to get to Z, so parallel coding was implemented and AMD took off like crazy for a few years, until Intel finally cottoned onto the idea and came out with dual cores.. able to run single threads, in parallel. The games naturally followed suit. Most games ran with serial codeing dominant.
So it was until a short while ago. Now games and other software like AutoCAD have so much information, that even serial code must be run in parallel, and this is where AMD shines, with more cores, designed to work in conjunction with each other to produce a result greater than the sum of each individual core.
So now today we have games written in parallel code dominant which heavily tailor to AMD, and other games written with serial code dominant, which heavily tailor to Intel.
It all makes for a real mess and a lot of argument over which is better, when it simply comes down to what you want to do with it. In something like AutoCAD, 3d Rendering etc, its all AMD, multi-cores, parallel thinking. Skyrim is tailored towards serial threads, so Intel outshines AMD there. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, just means one is better suited to certain tasks than the other, and vice versa.

Of course this was a serious over-simplification of the whole thing.

If i was doing nothing but rendering and video encodes and my budget allowed, I would take the xeon over the AMD hands down. Even though the AMD does have 8 physical cores the xeon is just plain faster and at less power at that. I will say though my 8320 @ 4.8 eats through encodes on handbrake. It really is a matter of preference and budget, you can't go wrong with either. BTW the e3-1230v2/3 is the same as a 3770/4770 without the IGP and no unlocked multiplier.

Edit: Not to mention, the FX line falls short big time on power consumption when overclocked...its just horrid 170+ watts to pass 4.5/4.6Ghz.

Well, if you had a bunch of money and wanted a machine that'd kick everything's butt (gaming, CAD, whatever) You'd be best off with an Intel Ivy Bridge-E i7, like the Intel Core i7-4930K

But I assume that given the interest in AMD processors, the op isn't made of money.

 

[jimmysmitty]

8350 owner sitting at constant 4.7ghz. Its been absolutely fantastic for me!

And I never understand the "OMG it takes so much power" stuff. I've not seen any noticeable difference in our power bill.

The power is something that for most people, it wont matter. But it is a good way to show the efficiency of a CPU. The FX 8000 series does use a lot of power, almost double when overclocked not even 50%. That shows that it is not as efficient of a architecture.

It also shows that Intel probably could cut the iGPU and throw in more cores and still use less power thus creating less heat leading to better clock speeds and better performance.

It is all in theory as Intel isn't showing any signs of pushing more core, as of right now they really do not need to nor does AMD.

I might of exaggerated but this is how much poorly threaded games can ruin the FX 8320's performance.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

Thankfully most games aren't like this.

Wow that is low for Skyrim and Shogun 2, looks unplayable, even for the higher end Intel's.

Who can play that game?

Well how about the 9590? or the Intel E3-1240 V2 Ivybrigde 3.4 GHZ cpu? Will these do well in games as well as rendering 3D animation (lightwave, etc) ?

Shogun 2 is a very CPU intensive game which is why it performs so low. The biggest problem that faces AMDs current CPU arch is that when a application needs to use certain features that are shared between the "cores" it will make it look worse than it could be.

Of course if an app is designed to take advantage of AMDs specific arch it will look and perform better than say a i7 as it has more resources for its 8 "cores" than what SMT gives, which is just a basic way of allowing two processes to be inter-threaded in one core.

Back in the medieval days computer language was written in Basic (if x then goto here, else goto here) and IBM machines dominated the computer world. This coding was serial, all the commands were written in a line. So computer games followed that course. Even through the DOS days it was the same, everything was written serial. Then some bright spark at AMD realized that serial commands could only happen just so fast, starting at A you gotta go the whole alphabet to get to Z, so parallel coding was implemented and AMD took off like crazy for a few years, until Intel finally cottoned onto the idea and came out with dual cores.. able to run single threads, in parallel. The games naturally followed suit. Most games ran with serial codeing dominant.
So it was until a short while ago. Now games and other software like AutoCAD have so much information, that even serial code must be run in parallel, and this is where AMD shines, with more cores, designed to work in conjunction with each other to produce a result greater than the sum of each individual core.
So now today we have games written in parallel code dominant which heavily tailor to AMD, and other games written with serial code dominant, which heavily tailor to Intel.
It all makes for a real mess and a lot of argument over which is better, when it simply comes down to what you want to do with it. In something like AutoCAD, 3d Rendering etc, its all AMD, multi-cores, parallel thinking. Skyrim is tailored towards serial threads, so Intel outshines AMD there. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, just means one is better suited to certain tasks than the other, and vice versa.

Of course this was a serious over-simplification of the whole thing.

I have heard this argument many times before. AMD is better at multitasking, hell it was the main argument as to why Phenom I was better than Core 2 Quad along with "it is smoother" multitasking.

In all honesty I think Intel has an impressive arch right now, even if they haven't been making Pentium D -> Core 2 strides. If you look at an application like that in this review:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-8350_7.html

Or even THGs own review, you can see that even with a lower base and booted clock (3.5GHz stock w/3.9GHz Turbo vs 4GHz w/4.2GHz Turbo) and only 4 real cores with SMT vs 2 modules with 80% of a dual core the i7 either beats or keeps up with it.

That shows a very impressive architectural advantage to Intel even in a comparison where AMD has the advantage in number of cores or at least resources for the cores.

That said, the OP was asking about AMD and unless he has a budget or is looking to do something more specific the question was answered as the 8350 is a better buy since it costs less and overall the performance will be the same minus the need for a much more expensive after market cooling solution.

If he wants to consider Intel it as well depends on what he is planning on doing.

 

[dacquesta1]

i just don't see the value in the 8350 when the 8320 can be had for less and will at the least clock up to 8350 speeds. With either chip your going to want a hyper 212 to keep things quiet.

 

[chrisbphoenix]

i just don't see the value in the 8350 when the 8320 can be had for less and will at the least clock up to 8350 speeds. With either chip your going to want a hyper 212 to keep things quiet.

I agree, but this thread isn't comparing the 8350 to the 8320, nor is it asking for the better value chip. The op wanted to hear of our experiences with the 9590 and 8350.

In a nut shell, our time has been great whether we bought a 8320 and overclocked it to meet/beat the 8350 or the 9590 or bought a 9590 to start with and found little headroom over its ridiculous stock speed. AMD's FX's are great processors with a value that can't be beat. Intel may have the upper hand in gaming, but that upper hand comes at a higher cost which may be worth it to some people, but personally I switched from a Core 2 Duo back to an AMD 3 years ago and I don't think I'll ever go back to Intel again.

 

[dacquesta1]

I know he wasn't asking about the 8320 but as the OP came here asking for our opinions there is no reason not to mention the better value chip to him, especially considering they are all the same chip just binned differently.

 

[g335]

I have owned an 8350 for almost a year now, and it's been fantastic. Bone stock, it kicks some serious butt. However, I recently bumped it up to the exact speeds that the FX-9370 runs at. (Base 4.4GHz; Turbo 4.7GHz) Given that the caches and all the other components are pretty much exactly the same, I have essentially overclocked my way to the 9370.
The difference is only noticeable when you watch your FPS counter, (I can't really see a difference between 150FPS and 180FPS unless I look at the counter.) I'm using a Corsair H60 water cooler and my temps never go above 58C, which is well within spec for this chip (and that's only under a torture test with Prime95 and Furmark on SLI graphics (everything pretty much pushing out maximum heat).) I'd also like to point out that I was able to get a rock-solid overclock at 4.4(4.7) without adjusting the voltage at all. I'm running at the stock voltage settings. (Which means that I have FX-9370 performance with a 147W thermal ceiling instead of 220W)
On top of all that, I saved about $50 over buying an actual 9370. I do recommend getting a motherboard with a 990FX chipset though, that way you'll be able to take advantage of all the features that Piledriver has to offer.

P.S. I tried to overclock to the 9590's clock speeds, but I couldn't keep my system stable at those clocks, your mileage may vary, but personally I'm very happy with my 4.4GHz(4.7GHz) that I have now. I'd certainly rather have nearly the performance of Intel's I7s for only $200 than waste my money on high end Intel processors. You can push the savings to getting a better graphics card, or an ssd or whatever.

TLDR: Love AMD, get the 8350 and a decent cooler (air or water works fine) and overclock the nuts off of it, you'll save a bunch of money which you can then invest in better graphics card(s) without any difference in performance from the pricier processors, and actually a significant decrease in power consumption (if you get your overclock settings right.).

8350 with decent overclock and cooler to match, good video card.. and 16-32GB of 1866/2133 RAM or you'll be takin a nap waiting on the rendering and 3d design stuff

Its not really a good idea to make an active attempt to seek out personal reviews because people (especially on here) love to justify their purchases wheter it be from Intel, AMD or NVIDIA. What you want to ask an comparison question because you can get the ups and downs about processors and not just the silver lining.

The FX 8350 IMO has bad value, so lets ignore that and look at the more competitively priced FX 8320. The FX has 8 integer cores, so it will be faster than any i5 in higly paralell and/or integer tasks like the ones you mentioned that you will use. It can overclock easily into the 4 GHz's and you can sometimes push it into the 5 GHzs. The AM3+ platform and the FX CPUs are cheap and have good value.

The FX 8320 has downsides that need to be mentioned, however. First off, the FX 8320 is slower than most i5s in games and falls especially hard in lightly threaded games like Skyrim. Like games, lightly threaded workloads will also choke on the FX 8320. The stock TDP and the power consumption at stock clocks are both pretty high, and they can both sharply increase when you overclock, so be prepared for that. While we are on the topic of overclocking, dont get any CPU based on the premise that you will get impressive overclocks. Those people may just have gotten a better chip than you and yours could be exceptionally bad or good. Its all based on luck, really.

While the AM3+ motherboards are cheaper, they are old and a lot of features you might take for granted are going to be on the higher end 990FX boards. That being said, the uATX solutions for AM3+ are pretty poor and mITX AM3+ motherboards simply don't exist, so you are going to need at least an ATX Mid case.

If you are ok with the downsides, then go ahead with the FX 8320. Where it does perform well its a perfectly good CPU.

I would get the i'7 but I think the AMD is the better buy for now. I am still thinking about the 9590

 

[dacquesta1]

For the insane price of the 9590 you would be better off with the 4770k or a xeon e3-1230v2/3

 

[Karadjgne]

To me it just seems that being $369 with an included kuhler 920(?) Water cooler, the 9590 is tailored to be an upgrade for those running older FX chips on a 990 mobo, not so much as a build a system around it chip. The '9' series seems to be the flagship series of FX chips and probably the last, and I wonder what AMD has up their sleeves for the next series when they stop chasing Intel and stick to them for a change.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I have owned an 8350 for almost a year now, and it's been fantastic. Bone stock, it kicks some serious butt. However, I recently bumped it up to the exact speeds that the FX-9370 runs at. (Base 4.4GHz; Turbo 4.7GHz) Given that the caches and all the other components are pretty much exactly the same, I have essentially overclocked my way to the 9370.
The difference is only noticeable when you watch your FPS counter, (I can't really see a difference between 150FPS and 180FPS unless I look at the counter.) I'm using a Corsair H60 water cooler and my temps never go above 58C, which is well within spec for this chip (and that's only under a torture test with Prime95 and Furmark on SLI graphics (everything pretty much pushing out maximum heat).) I'd also like to point out that I was able to get a rock-solid overclock at 4.4(4.7) without adjusting the voltage at all. I'm running at the stock voltage settings. (Which means that I have FX-9370 performance with a 147W thermal ceiling instead of 220W)
On top of all that, I saved about $50 over buying an actual 9370. I do recommend getting a motherboard with a 990FX chipset though, that way you'll be able to take advantage of all the features that Piledriver has to offer.

P.S. I tried to overclock to the 9590's clock speeds, but I couldn't keep my system stable at those clocks, your mileage may vary, but personally I'm very happy with my 4.4GHz(4.7GHz) that I have now. I'd certainly rather have nearly the performance of Intel's I7s for only $200 than waste my money on high end Intel processors. You can push the savings to getting a better graphics card, or an ssd or whatever.

TLDR: Love AMD, get the 8350 and a decent cooler (air or water works fine) and overclock the nuts off of it, you'll save a bunch of money which you can then invest in better graphics card(s) without any difference in performance from the pricier processors, and actually a significant decrease in power consumption (if you get your overclock settings right.).

8350 with decent overclock and cooler to match, good video card.. and 16-32GB of 1866/2133 RAM or you'll be takin a nap waiting on the rendering and 3d design stuff

Its not really a good idea to make an active attempt to seek out personal reviews because people (especially on here) love to justify their purchases wheter it be from Intel, AMD or NVIDIA. What you want to ask an comparison question because you can get the ups and downs about processors and not just the silver lining.

The FX 8350 IMO has bad value, so lets ignore that and look at the more competitively priced FX 8320. The FX has 8 integer cores, so it will be faster than any i5 in higly paralell and/or integer tasks like the ones you mentioned that you will use. It can overclock easily into the 4 GHz's and you can sometimes push it into the 5 GHzs. The AM3+ platform and the FX CPUs are cheap and have good value.

The FX 8320 has downsides that need to be mentioned, however. First off, the FX 8320 is slower than most i5s in games and falls especially hard in lightly threaded games like Skyrim. Like games, lightly threaded workloads will also choke on the FX 8320. The stock TDP and the power consumption at stock clocks are both pretty high, and they can both sharply increase when you overclock, so be prepared for that. While we are on the topic of overclocking, dont get any CPU based on the premise that you will get impressive overclocks. Those people may just have gotten a better chip than you and yours could be exceptionally bad or good. Its all based on luck, really.

While the AM3+ motherboards are cheaper, they are old and a lot of features you might take for granted are going to be on the higher end 990FX boards. That being said, the uATX solutions for AM3+ are pretty poor and mITX AM3+ motherboards simply don't exist, so you are going to need at least an ATX Mid case.

If you are ok with the downsides, then go ahead with the FX 8320. Where it does perform well its a perfectly good CPU.

I would get the i'7 but I think the AMD is the better buy for now. I am still thinking about the 9590

AMD is the better buy if you are on a tighter budget. If not, then not really. And as said, the FX 9 series is not really worth the cost.

If you look at it from an actual arch standpoint, Intel has a better arch, that is why their old top end FX 8350 is cheaper than a i5 4670K.

Same with the motherboard. Overall Intel has better features on the board and that is why they have a bit higher price.

But the 9590 is not worth that much. That clock speed means nothing overall:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1733593/amd-9590-finally-reviewed.html

That thread has three benchmarks geared towards multitasking and a stock 4770K beats the 5GHz 9590.
That's why if you want AMD, just get the FX 8350 and a good water cooler like the H100i, or a custom Swiftec kit, and OC it to 9590 levels.

Or just get a 4770K and be done with it along with a nice Z87 board.

 

[g335]

i just don't see the value in the 8350 when the 8320 can be had for less and will at the least clock up to 8350 speeds. With either chip your going to want a hyper 212 to keep things quiet.

I agree, but this thread isn't comparing the 8350 to the 8320, nor is it asking for the better value chip. The op wanted to hear of our experiences with the 9590 and 8350.

In a nut shell, our time has been great whether we bought a 8320 and overclocked it to meet/beat the 8350 or the 9590 or bought a 9590 to start with and found little headroom over its ridiculous stock speed. AMD's FX's are great processors with a value that can't be beat. Intel may have the upper hand in gaming, but that upper hand comes at a higher cost which may be worth it to some people, but personally I switched from a Core 2 Duo back to an AMD 3 years ago and I don't think I'll ever go back to Intel again.

For the insane price of the 9590 you would be better off with the 4770k or a xeon e3-1230v2/3

To me it just seems that being $369 with an included kuhler 920(?) Water cooler, the 9590 is tailored to be an upgrade for those running older FX chips on a 990 mobo, not so much as a build a system around it chip. The '9' series seems to be the flagship series of FX chips and probably the last, and I wonder what AMD has up their sleeves for the next series when they stop chasing Intel and stick to them for a change.

I have owned an 8350 for almost a year now, and it's been fantastic. Bone stock, it kicks some serious butt. However, I recently bumped it up to the exact speeds that the FX-9370 runs at. (Base 4.4GHz; Turbo 4.7GHz) Given that the caches and all the other components are pretty much exactly the same, I have essentially overclocked my way to the 9370.
The difference is only noticeable when you watch your FPS counter, (I can't really see a difference between 150FPS and 180FPS unless I look at the counter.) I'm using a Corsair H60 water cooler and my temps never go above 58C, which is well within spec for this chip (and that's only under a torture test with Prime95 and Furmark on SLI graphics (everything pretty much pushing out maximum heat).) I'd also like to point out that I was able to get a rock-solid overclock at 4.4(4.7) without adjusting the voltage at all. I'm running at the stock voltage settings. (Which means that I have FX-9370 performance with a 147W thermal ceiling instead of 220W)
On top of all that, I saved about $50 over buying an actual 9370. I do recommend getting a motherboard with a 990FX chipset though, that way you'll be able to take advantage of all the features that Piledriver has to offer.

P.S. I tried to overclock to the 9590's clock speeds, but I couldn't keep my system stable at those clocks, your mileage may vary, but personally I'm very happy with my 4.4GHz(4.7GHz) that I have now. I'd certainly rather have nearly the performance of Intel's I7s for only $200 than waste my money on high end Intel processors. You can push the savings to getting a better graphics card, or an ssd or whatever.

TLDR: Love AMD, get the 8350 and a decent cooler (air or water works fine) and overclock the nuts off of it, you'll save a bunch of money which you can then invest in better graphics card(s) without any difference in performance from the pricier processors, and actually a significant decrease in power consumption (if you get your overclock settings right.).

8350 with decent overclock and cooler to match, good video card.. and 16-32GB of 1866/2133 RAM or you'll be takin a nap waiting on the rendering and 3d design stuff

Its not really a good idea to make an active attempt to seek out personal reviews because people (especially on here) love to justify their purchases wheter it be from Intel, AMD or NVIDIA. What you want to ask an comparison question because you can get the ups and downs about processors and not just the silver lining.

The FX 8350 IMO has bad value, so lets ignore that and look at the more competitively priced FX 8320. The FX has 8 integer cores, so it will be faster than any i5 in higly paralell and/or integer tasks like the ones you mentioned that you will use. It can overclock easily into the 4 GHz's and you can sometimes push it into the 5 GHzs. The AM3+ platform and the FX CPUs are cheap and have good value.

The FX 8320 has downsides that need to be mentioned, however. First off, the FX 8320 is slower than most i5s in games and falls especially hard in lightly threaded games like Skyrim. Like games, lightly threaded workloads will also choke on the FX 8320. The stock TDP and the power consumption at stock clocks are both pretty high, and they can both sharply increase when you overclock, so be prepared for that. While we are on the topic of overclocking, dont get any CPU based on the premise that you will get impressive overclocks. Those people may just have gotten a better chip than you and yours could be exceptionally bad or good. Its all based on luck, really.

While the AM3+ motherboards are cheaper, they are old and a lot of features you might take for granted are going to be on the higher end 990FX boards. That being said, the uATX solutions for AM3+ are pretty poor and mITX AM3+ motherboards simply don't exist, so you are going to need at least an ATX Mid case.

If you are ok with the downsides, then go ahead with the FX 8320. Where it does perform well its a perfectly good CPU.

I would get the i'7 but I think the AMD is the better buy for now. I am still thinking about the 9590

AMD is the better buy if you are on a tighter budget. If not, then not really. And as said, the FX 9 series is not really worth the cost.

If you look at it from an actual arch standpoint, Intel has a better arch, that is why their old top end FX 8350 is cheaper than a i5 4670K.

Same with the motherboard. Overall Intel has better features on the board and that is why they have a bit higher price.

But the 9590 is not worth that much. That clock speed means nothing overall:

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1733593/amd-9590-finally-reviewed.html

That thread has three benchmarks geared towards multitasking and a stock 4770K beats the 5GHz 9590.
That's why if you want AMD, just get the FX 8350 and a good water cooler like the H100i, or a custom Swiftec kit, and OC it to 9590 levels.

Or just get a 4770K and be done with it along with a nice Z87 board.

Hello Everyone

I looked at the i7 4770K again and many places have it on sale for about 309 dollars now but the mb for this is so expensive. For 300 dollars I can have the AMD 8350 and a good mb but for 300 dollars with intel, I can only have the i7 4770K.

If the 8350 is good and performs pretty quickly with gaming and graphic design, 3D rendering and design, I'll get that.

 

[CooLWoLF]

Since you are looking to have an all-around CPU (gaming, rendering, etc) then an overclocked 8350 is the way to go. If you were just gaming, the i7 4770K would be the way to go. Hope that helps.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Hello Everyone

I looked at the i7 4770K again and many places have it on sale for about 309 dollars now but the mb for this is so expensive. For 300 dollars I can have the AMD 8350 and a good mb but for 300 dollars with intel, I can only have the i7 4770K.

If the 8350 is good and performs pretty quickly with gaming and graphic design, 3D rendering and design, I'll get that.

As I said, it is all about the performance offered for the price. The reason the 8350 is so much cheaper is because it does not equal the overall performance of the 4770K.

In terms of motherboards, the Z87 boards range from about $150 to $400, $400 being the super top end.

And as I said, if you are on a budget the 8350 is not a bad choice, it just is not the overall best performer if you compare them.

I personally went with a i5 4670k. I did put a lot more into the motherboard than I normally do but I wanted a really nice motherboard.