Intel Core i7 3930K vs AMD FX 9590

The i7-3930k for sure. AMD just doesn't come close in IPC and single threaded performance, so the extra clock speed is just a huge waste.

The FX-9590 isn't available directly for custom builds:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Won-t-Sell-the-5-GHz-and-4-7-GHz-FX-9590-and-FX-9370-CPUs-to-Consumers-360900.shtml

How can you base it off a CPU that hasn't been released?

@mastrom101, from what I could find, technically it has been released, but not to consumers.

AMD for me, best geared for the new gen console ports that will be written for 8 core AMD CPUs.

Intel has the edge atm, but not next year when the new console ports are out, all new consoles are AMD based and games developers will be developing for AMD not Intel.

PS4 & Xbox1 are AMD BASED architecture using proper 8 core CPU's, and Radeon Graphics, although Nvidia I'm hoping will run the ports just fine, but not Intel.

it's hard to talk about the AMD because it hasn't been released. however if the 9590 does cost more than £200 and not beat a i7-3770K let alone a i7-3930K it will have lost its value for money bonus which is one of AMD's biggest selling points as the 8350 cost less than a i-5 3570k by about £5-£15.

Stop spreading AMD PR and wait for benchmarks. I love how some of you think amd's magically going to start dominating Intel :lol:

OP the 4930K will be out in 2 months and its a monster

the 9590 is just an overclocked 8350. Nothing new really.

Your name is telling of your bias, no need to call others liars or PR pushers, when you're the one that's doing exactly that, everything the gentleman said was accurate, so stop your ridiculous comments.

Obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you're calling me biased based on my name alone.

I hate to say it, especially as a large AMD fan, but Intel outdoes AMD with high end processors. Between the FX 9590 and i7 3930k, the i7 is better. The New FX 9590 may have 8 cores, but with 4MB lower L3 cache than the i7. The i7 also has 12 threads as opposed FX, which has 8. So, while the 8 cores is better than the six cores, each core has less to work with in the FX. Arguably the FX chips will work better with many next gen games, but the jury is still out on how much those games will be optimized. Although, it is important to know that with the FX, your motherboard will likely be compatible with the next set of processors, as the AM3 socket type will likely be around for awhile. The i7 is around 400 dollars less though.

There are already games that utilize up to 8 cores and Amd gets killed in them. Just because games will be more multithreaded doesnt mean having more cores means everything.

Oh, i agree wholeheartedly. AMD put the 8 cores and high clock speeds on because that's what the average Joe will look at. The quantity of FX doesn't outweigh the quality of The i7 chips.

Wrong, the Richland IPC improvements are part of the architecture there...hence "Vishera 2.0" nomenclature.

all the new consoles are going for amd 8 cores and all the games will be counting amd cpu's not intel u can see bf4 has partnership with amd, most of the new games that are coming q4 2013 and 2014 are using up to 8 cores like bf4, even the fx-8350 is equal to the i7-3770k only 1-2% difference in performance on bf3 because these best games like bf4 and new generation games can make use of the extra cores, with the i7 uses only 4 cores which would max last 1 more year and barely survive due to the next games that are coming which i saw, tbh intel is a rip off giving u 8 cores for 1000$ and seen some go to 4000$ it's era will end soon because they couldn't keep up, an 8 core is needed now for the next gen gaming that are coming soon and they are lacking behind with their 4 core which is overpriced too, amd said that it will be at the top again and it seems like it will , best choice right now is to wait for the new fx-9000, dont believe the prices right now because they will drop by minimum to 50% trust me on that, if u have a great rig and u want future proof get the fx-9000 for better performance and price instead of buying an intel 1000$ minimum for 8 cores when ur GPU is half that price ... just being honest and for intel haters i have 2 words for you !! It's!!!!!!!!! ( face palm ) xD
edit: i haven't found an 8 core with 1000$ from intel lol rip off

I do believe I saw someone post a Cinebench benchmark. Wasn't there that whole scandal where intel paid off a bunch of benchmarking program makers to generate 386/SSE instructions rather than the newest instruction set that is supported by AMD processors? I found a massive thread detailing this and how the use of CPUID spoofing made the programs use the fastest available instruction set, making this "huge" gap that has been claimed by intel fans (and intel) into nothing more than hot air.

But I digress.

I'd choose neither. Intel processors are FAR too overpriced, and the 9590 does appear to be a power guzzler.

I'm sticking with my 965 BE.

Well, first off, during E3 it was explained that each console asked Nvidia if they could sport their product, and Nvidia said they didn't want or weren't ready to give our their tech for console ported games. They also sais they would have liked Intel processors in their systems, but Intel denied them as well.

Now, on to the comment about AMD having an edge because they're in consoles. Games that are made for xbox/ps3 and the new gen, were and are made just for the hardware in the consoles. Thats why, in the xbox 360/ps3, graphic intensive games worked in lower end hardware(in the 360/ps3) compared to our pc's. Because when thew games being made, its made specifically to run on the consoles hardware. When a PC game is made, it has to be made so that it can run on a wide range of hardware, from Nvidia to AMD. Just because AMD is inside the new consoles, doesn't really give them an edge. People aren't going to run and buy AMD based hardware for their PC's now because its in a console, and AMD isn't all of a sudden going to start beating out Intel in performance just because they're in a console. We can't assume that AMD is going to start making processors for our PC's that out-perform Intel processors just because they're in consoles, thats just silly. And don't get me wrong, I think AMD is an awesome, affordable product in which certain pieces of hardware will allow you to do what you want. Such as an FX-8350, and a 7990. A 7990 is awesome, and is just about on par with a 690, even though the 690 runs a LITTLE smoother because of Nvidia's tech. So, I can't agree that AMD has an edge on future PERFORMANCE because its in a console. Yes they'll make some extra coin when people buy the consoles, but that won't affect how Intel is still making superior products, and I would assume will continue to. And I don't think AMD will suddenly become #1 product because of the extra money trhey make from people buying consoles. Game developers will be making games for the XBOX ONE, and the PS4, just like they made games for the 360 and ps3. Intel didn't have the edge because AMD wasn't in the 360, they had the edge because their products perform better. Developers will still be making games for PC. And even if they didn't make games for the pc, Intel will still be a superior product(we can assume, because they have been.... for a long time) and I for one will still spend the extra money on an Intel based machine even if I'm not going to be gaming. But as I said, AMD is still a viable option. But in no way going to shoot past Intel because its 1) in a console, 2) Can overclock higher than an Intel chip(becauseeee, an 8350 at 5.1ghz is still outdone by an i7 based processor clocked at 4.5ghz). If AMD beats out Intel in sales, its because they're so much cheaper, which is cool. But they aren't going to make a superior product because they're suddenly inside a gaming console. PC for life!

well we all know AMD is better at multithreading. its no secret! i think Rome270AD's point was, the game developers will start making games more threaded, hence amd will perform "better". even the currect 8 core will have longer life for this. this is why the gap between gaming performance between intel and amd is getting smaller on well threaded games. when games developers are forced to code in 8 core in one platform, they will obviously do the same when they port it into PC. hence amd cpu will be more competitive (if not in absolute terms).

AMD products are awesome, especially for the price. FX-8350 is what, $200? But, an Intel Hexacore(6 core) Sany-E(not normal sandybridge) i7 3930k, 500$ roughly. It still benchmarks on Toms Hardware over any other processor in its class, I'm not sure about the higher end version, 3960x, even the new Haswells. But, a new hexacore will be coming out soon, on the haswell based tech. They don't need to make 8 core processors, because their 4 cores still beat out AMD's 8 cores. I like AMD, my bdudy has an 8350 with a 6950 inside, and its great.

I can't say AMD is better at multhithreading.... There are benchmarks on THIS site with the 8350 vs an i7 uhh 3770k or 2600k in single and multithread and the i7 is beating it by like 8-10%? And I don't think they will be forced to make PC games that use 8 cores just because they're making games for consoles that utilize an AMD chips 8 cores. As of right now, making a game for a console is one thing, and making a game for a PC is another. Two different processes, unless what you're tryign to say is, since they're now making games for consoles in a different way, because of 8 core AMD chips, that they'll just start making games for PC's the same way instead of it being two different processes? And lets say they do maker games that use 8 cores, are we going to assume t hat Intel just stands back and doesn't make a new processor to compete and utilize the same thing? We have to assume Intel will do that. BUT if AMD comes out on top, we'll all just flock to them

I like AMD, not an Intel fanboy or anything. I still have a system with a Phenom II x4 in it, and I LOVED the Phenom processors, they were awesome. But looking at benchmarks on here, and a few others sites, AND 3dmark vantage Intel is winning out on all the above. AMD's on board graphics OWNS Intels though. An example, an 8150 3dmark vantage scores, 30,000. An i7 2600k, 80,000. The Intel Hexacores 3dmark scores are over 110,000. Nothing comes close to that. But, as you say, they will up the core usage for games. Maybe not 8 cores, but I could see them making games that utilize 6 cores total FOR PC. All we can do is wait and see who will win. The question is, will AMD's prices go up if they start beating out Intel? Or will they be awesome and stay affordable lol

aaa. i meant in terms of performance/price. either way, what you say is correct. obviously console will not increase the synthetic performance. its just better utilization of the hardware. i merely suggested them getting more competitive.

i am not games developer, but it usually works like this> the developers make a game in console and then port it to PC. or the otherway round. obviously this is a gross stereotyping coz not all games are this way. but some parts of all games are this way. its a cost cutting measure. AMD will not force developer to use 8 cores, but amd will certainly encourage them. and since amd is not high on single thread performance, they will have to make it more threaded to use all of its newly added GPU power. its all speculation. hell if i know. but it is the more likely course

I can agree with that, if AMD keeps their affordable prices that they will indeed become competitive if not better. But if they become the "flahship" of processors like Intel is right now, they're bound to raise prices. If Intel doesn't make some crazy 8 core processor that costs $2,000 lol


Well, I just came accross this info 5 minutes ago. Our convo about how games are going to be made to utilize an 8 core processor, well Intel is coming out with Haswell-E based 8 core processors . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcOkoWgw2_s we had to know they would go do that lol.