Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD FX-9590 or Intel i7 4770k?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 23, 2013 8:57:40 AM

Hey Everyone,

After reading the best CPU's for the money October article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...), I was intrigued to hear about AMD's FX 9590 dropping in price. I decided to check it out on Newegg and found that the prices were comparable between the Intel and AMD chips, but that the main specs of the AMD chip were significantly higher. I am planning on building a gaming rig in the next month or two and I'm really going for the most value for my dollar. In all reality, I was planning on getting Intel's i5 4670k because I've heard that most games aren't able to take advantage of the i7's full capabilities, but now I'm wanting to find out more. Here are both CPU's pages on Newegg:

$339.99 - Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz Quad-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$389.99 - AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Eight-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My questions are:
1). Which processor would provide better gaming performance for the money? Why?

2). How can AMD's numbers (Clock rate, CPU cores) be so much higher than Intel's?

3). Can most gaming take full advantage of AMD processors where it cannot for Intel i7 processors?


Thanks for everybody's input. I appreciate it.

More about : amd 9590 intel 4770k

a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 23, 2013 9:01:39 AM

i7-4770k for the win :)  However getting an i5 will be a more sensible choice.
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2013 9:03:09 AM

Go for i7 one.

Choosing AMD is just personal take, nothing else.

If AMD is that much great, then intel would have the thought to stop its CPU making, instead of motherboard. :) 
Related resources
a c 142 à CPUs
a b å Intel
a b À AMD
October 23, 2013 9:14:52 AM

jimono123 said:
Hey Everyone,

After reading the best CPU's for the money October article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...), I was intrigued to hear about AMD's FX 9590 dropping in price. I decided to check it out on Newegg and found that the prices were comparable between the Intel and AMD chips, but that the main specs of the AMD chip were significantly higher. I am planning on building a gaming rig in the next month or two and I'm really going for the most value for my dollar. In all reality, I was planning on getting Intel's i5 4670k because I've heard that most games aren't able to take advantage of the i7's full capabilities, but now I'm wanting to find out more. Here are both CPU's pages on Newegg:

$339.99 - Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz Quad-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$389.99 - AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Eight-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My questions are:
1). Which processor would provide better gaming performance for the money? Why?

2). How can AMD's numbers (Clock rate, CPU cores) be so much higher than Intel's?

3). Can most gaming take full advantage of AMD processors where it cannot for Intel i7 processors?


Thanks for everybody's input. I appreciate it.


1. They're about equal, but the Intel one definitely has more potential.

2. That AMD FX-9590 microprocessor is a Ford Pinto with a turbocharger strapped to it. They raised the clock speed by providing it with a massive amount of voltage (around 1.5 volts) which gives the microprocessor a 220 watt TDP. Cooling that microprocessor requires liquid cooling. By comparison, the Intel i7-4770K has a TDP of only 84 watts.

3. It's typically the other way around. Most modern games perform better on Intel microprocessors.
October 23, 2013 9:23:50 AM

Pinhedd said:


1. They're about equal, but the Intel one definitely has more potential.

2. That AMD FX-9590 microprocessor is a Ford Pinto with a turbocharger strapped to it. They raised the clock speed by providing it with a massive amount of voltage (around 1.5 volts) which gives the microprocessor a 220 watt TDP. Cooling that microprocessor requires liquid cooling. By comparison, the Intel i7-4770K has a TDP of only 84 watts.

3. It's typically the other way around. Most modern games perform better on Intel microprocessors.


Thanks for the input. I have a few clarifying questions:

1). What do you mean by "They're about equal, but the Intel one definitely has more potential"? What further potential is there?

2). Let's assume I handled the cooling and voltage issue with an increased PSU and CPU water cooler, would the AMD FX-9590 still provide less gaming performance than the i7?

Thanks.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 23, 2013 9:28:21 AM



As you can see, the FX 9590 runs with the i7-3960x, which costs $1000, in BF4 beta.
October 23, 2013 10:00:40 AM

8350rocks said:


As you can see, the FX 9590 runs with the i7-3960x, which costs $1000, in BF4 beta.


Do you have a link or article I can see to get a better idea of what you are referring to? Thanks in advance.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 23, 2013 10:11:33 AM

jimono123 said:
8350rocks said:


As you can see, the FX 9590 runs with the i7-3960x, which costs $1000, in BF4 beta.


Do you have a link or article I can see to get a better idea of what you are referring to? Thanks in advance.


search for gamegpu.ru BF4 beta benchmarks. The site is in Russian, so you might want to use Google Translate...unless you speak Russian :) 
October 23, 2013 12:04:32 PM

i7 4770k. TDP is way too high on the 9590 so you'd have to buy a cooling kit, a bigger PSU, which will make it a lot more expensive than it has too. Which will probably make you broke since the TDP is so high, so will your energy bills if you get the 9590.

If you already have a beast rig then you might want to wait for Steamroller.

If you plan on gaming and recording while you're at it, then AMD is the way to go. AMD is better at streaming, if I recall.

Wait for steamroller or i7.
Or even broadwell for that matter but that'd be way too long a wait.
a c 210 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 23, 2013 1:25:38 PM

Derppppp said:
i7 4770k. TDP is way too high on the 9590 so you'd have to buy a cooling kit, a bigger PSU, which will make it a lot more expensive than it has too. Which will probably make you broke since the TDP is so high, so will your energy bills if you get the 9590.

If you already have a beast rig then you might want to wait for Steamroller.

If you plan on gaming and recording while you're at it, then AMD is the way to go. AMD is better at streaming, if I recall.

Wait for steamroller or i7.
Or even broadwell for that matter but that'd be way too long a wait.


The energy bill difference would be the equivalent of running 1 extra 100W light bulb a 4 hours a day.
October 23, 2013 1:50:17 PM

Derppppp said:
i7 4770k. TDP is way too high on the 9590 so you'd have to buy a cooling kit, a bigger PSU, which will make it a lot more expensive than it has too. Which will probably make you broke since the TDP is so high, so will your energy bills if you get the 9590.

If you already have a beast rig then you might want to wait for Steamroller.

If you plan on gaming and recording while you're at it, then AMD is the way to go. AMD is better at streaming, if I recall.

Wait for steamroller or i7.
Or even broadwell for that matter but that'd be way too long a wait.


Thanks for the help. This is some good feedback.
a b à CPUs
October 23, 2013 2:24:32 PM

I7 is a clear choice here. FX-9590 is basically a joke with it's insane requirements and meager returns.
October 23, 2013 3:34:44 PM

Battlefield and other PC games are being optimized for AMD. My brother bought the FX-9590 and sold his I7-2600k ad he says no contest AMD. But I have no first hand expereince
October 23, 2013 3:52:28 PM

Go For i7 or i5
November 12, 2013 4:29:28 AM

jimono123 said:
Hey Everyone,

After reading the best CPU's for the money October article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...), I was intrigued to hear about AMD's FX 9590 dropping in price. I decided to check it out on Newegg and found that the prices were comparable between the Intel and AMD chips, but that the main specs of the AMD chip were significantly higher. I am planning on building a gaming rig in the next month or two and I'm really going for the most value for my dollar. In all reality, I was planning on getting Intel's i5 4670k because I've heard that most games aren't able to take advantage of the i7's full capabilities, but now I'm wanting to find out more. Here are both CPU's pages on Newegg:

$339.99 - Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz Quad-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$389.99 - AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Eight-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My questions are:
1). Which processor would provide better gaming performance for the money? Why?

2). How can AMD's numbers (Clock rate, CPU cores) be so much higher than Intel's?

3). Can most gaming take full advantage of AMD processors where it cannot for Intel i7 processors?


Thanks for everybody's input. I appreciate it.


The new games will be more optimized for AMD cpu-s. FX-9590 is clear over i7-4770K in games and streaming. Fx-8350 beat i7-3770K in Battlefield 4.
November 15, 2013 6:15:10 AM

Pinhedd said:
jimono123 said:
Hey Everyone,

After reading the best CPU's for the money October article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...), I was intrigued to hear about AMD's FX 9590 dropping in price. I decided to check it out on Newegg and found that the prices were comparable between the Intel and AMD chips, but that the main specs of the AMD chip were significantly higher. I am planning on building a gaming rig in the next month or two and I'm really going for the most value for my dollar. In all reality, I was planning on getting Intel's i5 4670k because I've heard that most games aren't able to take advantage of the i7's full capabilities, but now I'm wanting to find out more. Here are both CPU's pages on Newegg:

$339.99 - Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz Quad-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$389.99 - AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Eight-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My questions are:
1). Which processor would provide better gaming performance for the money? Why?

2). How can AMD's numbers (Clock rate, CPU cores) be so much higher than Intel's?

3). Can most gaming take full advantage of AMD processors where it cannot for Intel i7 processors?


Thanks for everybody's input. I appreciate it.


1. They're about equal, but the Intel one definitely has more potential.

2. That AMD FX-9590 microprocessor is a Ford Pinto with a turbocharger strapped to it. They raised the clock speed by providing it with a massive amount of voltage (around 1.5 volts) which gives the microprocessor a 220 watt TDP. Cooling that microprocessor requires liquid cooling. By comparison, the Intel i7-4770K has a TDP of only 84 watts.

3. It's typically the other way around. Most modern games perform better on Intel microprocessors.


Ironically the haSwell runs hotter lol
November 15, 2013 6:18:47 AM

Oh and u have point 1 backwards. Common sense would indicate. Course it could have been a typo.

As far as speed, they're basically equal give or take. However from a literal perspective, it's not about voltage it's about the chips design. Intel decided to stop working towards higher clocks in exchange for efficiency a long time ago.

Hence the reason a 5ghz amd is neck and neck with a 4ghz intel chip. Different means of reaching the same result.

November 15, 2013 6:19:57 AM

At this point, if u can wait get the amd. If you can wait for next year when intel lets it's updated 1150 chip out the stable.
December 14, 2013 10:46:06 AM

For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.

3. You compare the frame rates from the link that I gave and see what CPU is better for you.

AMD has always been a value-for-money for me and for every budget-stuck gamer all over the world. Though the TDP has always been on the upper side but imagine gaming on a Core i7 4960X at $300( without cooling) and the joy in a gamer's heart it brings at that price is something Intel doesn't want to achieve. They prioritize maximum profit always..
January 2, 2014 5:57:25 AM

definetly AMD FX-9590 it is an octo core processor compared to the quad core intel processor and obviously the AMD FX has higher clock speeds than the intel i7
January 2, 2014 6:00:13 AM

Maybe you will need a better PSU but its really worth it
January 10, 2014 10:25:27 PM

Akashdeep said:
Go for i7 one.

Choosing AMD is just personal take, nothing else.

If AMD is that much great, then intel would have the thought to stop its CPU making, instead of motherboard. :) 


Yeah, no. I think you might have a slight mental retardation, AMD is a competitor doesn't mean they'll just drop out of the race, they'll try and compete. Intel does so by appealing to those without a small budget, which happens to be allot of people. They only stopped motherboard production because it's cheaper to make their pc's with another company's boards. AMD FX-9590 IS better in the gaming side running it's core clock faster and stronger. Intel would sell more and probably even replace AMD completely if they didn't sell cheap ass 1.8GHz dual cores for over $200 THAT IS REDICULOUS!!! They mark up prices over 50% than it costs to make!!!
January 11, 2014 8:51:11 AM

jimono123 - I hope you have made your decision by now and purchased the processor of your choice, since this thread is a few months old. However, I wanted to chime in for those that are just now looking at the AMD FX-9590 as it's price continues to drop! AMD or Intel? It's the age old question that only YOU can answer for yourself! Both companies have state of the art facilities and continue to pour millions of dollars into R&D each year, both companies are widely supported by all Windows PC Manufacturers out there and both companies are supported by ALL software manufacturers. In order to choose a processor that works for you, first you must decide what your budget is. Then you need to look at your current setup, do you have a computer running and AM3+ mobo with an older AMD FX processor, liquid cooling, and a 1000Watt Power Supply? If so, then the obvious answer is to go the AMD route, as it will only cost you the price of the CPU and nothing more. If you choose to go the route of the Intel i7, then you will need a lot more hardware: Mobo, Ram, PSU, HDD, CPU, CPU cooling, GPU, and a case. No matter the choice, if you go with the newest, bestest Intel or AMD processor, it is the norm nowadays to run Liquid CPU Coolers on a high end processor. They are more affordable than ever, cool better than air, and come in all sizes. So don't let people scare you away from the AMD because it runs at a higher wattage than the Intel, think about it, the AMD has to run at close to double the wattage of the Intel chips, it has 4 more cores on-board than the Intel CPUs. I will tell you that for the money, you can't go wrong with AMD, I have been running AMD Black Edition CPUs in my main desktop PC since the first one released almost 6 or 7 years ago. They can be easily overclocked by almost a single Ghz more than they are rated at and can be had typically for under $200. Intel can't beat that. However, I have also had an Intel i7 machine running in my house since the first one came out almost 5 to 6 years ago. I keep both machines upgraded with the latest CPUs, motherboards, ram, and GPUs. Typically upgrading some piece of hardware in each twice a year. I use the AMD machine for media work, CAD, Video Streaming, Encoding and Decoding, Graphics Design, media format converting, and yes, I use it for Gaming. The Intel i7 machine is used strictly for storage of media files (video and audio) and then is used to stream these files to various TV's and computers around the home network. Both machines need to have the fastest access times and the fastest compute processing times in order to do the jobs I require of them. At one time there may be 4 different devices sending large video files to the i7 machine, while there are 2 more streaming different videos from it (one that actually uses the computers graphics card linked to the TV). The AMD machine is capable of playing a Blu-Ray, while burning a DVD, while decrypting another DVD, while playing a 1080p *.mp4 in iTunes, while I am playing Assassins Creed Black Flag - all at the same time (and yes I said I was playing a blu-ray and a different video in iTunes while gaming at the same time). It does all this lag free, and is able to do so because of the powerful AMD FX-9590 CPU running as well as all the other highend hardware that is running at the same time. If you build an AMD FX-9590 machine with an NVidia Geforce FX 5200 GPU with 128Mb Ram (yes Mb not Gb), a 5400RPM HDD, and 4Gb DDR2 Ram, your computer will not be able to take full advantage of the New 8 Core AMD chip you installed.

I know this was lengthy, but after reading the back and forth pitter-patter amongst all the poster's here at Tom's, I felt it necessary as the choice is yours. Do your research, stick with a product that you know and trust, and then support that mfr by purchasing their newest, greatest, bestest ;) , products! You can't go wrong, either way Intel or AMD, i7 or FX, NVidia or Radeon, Seagate or Western Digital, EVGA or XFX or PNY, Plasma or LCD, Gas or Diesel, paper or plastic! Each have their own advantages and have something they do better than the other. Don't base your decision on the popular opinions of those posting on a blog or forum. You should even take what I say with a grain of salt, even though it is fact that I can support, I am simply some guy posting on the internet, you have never met me and therefore you shouldn't believe everything I say! Good luck - I hope you enjoy your new Gaming Rig, either way you go! I'll see you online jimono123...

kcrow11
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 13, 2014 9:13:27 AM

Prithwi2050 said:
For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.


ProUser1 said:
definetly AMD FX-9590 it is an octo core processor compared to the quad core intel processor and obviously the AMD FX has higher clock speeds than the intel i7


Unfortunately, that does not hold true against the i7-4770k see following posts which will have performance benchmarks for both the FX-9590 and the i7-4770k.



vasttman said:


AMD FX-9590 IS better in the gaming side running it's core clock faster and stronger.


Just because the FX-9590 has higher clockspeeds, that alone does not mean it performs better than the i7-4770k.


kcrow11 said:
jimono123 So don't let people scare you away from the AMD because it runs at a higher wattage than the Intel, think about it, the AMD has to run at close to double the wattage of the Intel chips, it has 4 more cores on-board than the Intel CPUs.


Unfortunately, many people do not bother reading “Walls of Text”. I simply skimmed your post. I ignored most of it since my reply is mostly regarding the above fragment of your response. More cores and higher clockspeeds does not always win the day. See following series of posts…
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 13, 2014 9:18:23 AM

The following series of posts have benchmarks are from HardwareCanucks which mostly disproves many, but not all the claims regarding how the FX-9590 out performs the Core i7-4770k. The link to the review is as follows:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Note, I will skip the synthetic benchmarks since they are more or less useless when actual benchmarks are available. Synthetic benchmarks generally do not reflect actual overall performance and in the past I have read that sometimes CPUs (and GPUs) are tweaked to artificially provide better performance in synthetic benchmarks.

I will begin with Productivity benchmarks












a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 13, 2014 9:23:31 AM

The following game benchmarks are only for 1080p resolution, the review from HardwareCanucks also includes game benchmarks for 720p, but I am pretty sure most people are interested in the higher resolution. Additionally, they also have benchmarks of more recent games and are strictly between the FX-9590 and the i7-4770k; that will be in the 3rd and final post. The graphics card used is a nVidia GTX 670 2GB which is mentioned on page 2 of the review; “Test Setups & Methodology”.











a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 13, 2014 9:24:28 AM

These are benchmarks of more recent games (at least as of when the review was written back in July 2013). Again, the graphics card is the nVidia GTX 670 2GB.




















=============================================


This is not a game benchmark, it is a power consumption chart just in case anyone is interested in it.


Best solution

a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 13, 2014 9:53:15 AM
Share

As can be seen from the above benchmarks, despite the fact that the FX-9590 has 8 physical core vs 4 physical and 4 logical cores of the i7-4770k and the fact that the FX-9590's Turbo Core speed of 5.0GHz is 1.1GHz higher than the i7-4770k's Turbo Boost speed of 3.9GHz, the FX-9590 is not a clear winner.

In fact, the FX-9590 looses more often to the Core i7-4770k than it wins. While it can be argued that the FX-9590 can simply be overclocked for better performance, people need to remember that the FX-9590 is simply an overclocked FX-8350 that has been able to reach up to 5.0GHz. Therefore, the overclocking potential could be very limited.

On the other hand, the i7-4770k is simply running at stock speed. While it's overclocking potential is not as good as Ivy Bridge (meaning more Ivy Bridge CPUs can reach 4.5GHz compared to Haswell CPUs), the potential for overclocking is there.

Does the fact that the FX-9590 has 8 cores help in games? Not really. The FX-9590 captured 2nd place in Dirt 3, but if you look at the benchmarks, it got 108.21 FPS vs 107.51 FPS for the FX-8350 and 107.43 FPS for the i7-4770k. From a technical standpoint, the FX-9590 does very well in this game benchmark, but the same can be said of all the CPUs. I can honestly say that I really doubt I will notice the difference between 108.21 FPS and 94.21 FPS achieved by the A8-3850 APU. I will point out that this is the only game where the FX-9590 outperforms the i7-4770k.

The FX-9590 basically looses all the other gaming benchmarks from a technical standpoint. But in some cases the performance is very close where you need benchmarks to tell that it in fact does loose to the i7-4770k. In these cases, I think it is fair to say they provide equal performance.
a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 13, 2014 9:55:09 AM

Hopefully, this thread can be used for reference in any future topics regarding the FX-9590's performance....

Or lack there of....
January 21, 2014 1:20:43 AM

jaguarskx said:
Hopefully, this thread can be used for reference in any future topics regarding the FX-9590's performance....

Or lack there of....


Posting pictures doesn't prove anything. See my link and then talk sense. Request from my side..

a b à CPUs
January 21, 2014 1:34:10 AM

Prithwi2050 said:
For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.

3. You compare the frame rates from the link that I gave and see what CPU is better for you.

AMD has always been a value-for-money for me and for every budget-stuck gamer all over the world. Though the TDP has always been on the upper side but imagine gaming on a Core i7 4960X at $300( without cooling) and the joy in a gamer's heart it brings at that price is something Intel doesn't want to achieve. They prioritize maximum profit always..


Performance per dollar AMD have always been a clear winner.
You would be better with a 8320 with better cooling.
The only point the 9590 will win over core i7-4770k is when you run only integer instructions(such a streaming, but then again you arent going to stream your desktopbackground are you?).

To be clear on the whole core thing.
4770k have hyper-threading which lets 2 threads run on the same core, so you would get 4c/8t.
9590 have 4 modules which contains 2 core each. These 2 cores share the resources from the modules. so they have 4m/8c/8t. It's the physical version of "hyper-threading".

Remember when the 9590 first came out with the $1000 dollar tag?
the 9590 are in no way competing with the 4960x or any extreme processors from Intel.
January 21, 2014 8:12:13 PM

vmN said:
Prithwi2050 said:
For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.

3. You compare the frame rates from the link that I gave and see what CPU is better for you.

AMD has always been a value-for-money for me and for every budget-stuck gamer all over the world. Though the TDP has always been on the upper side but imagine gaming on a Core i7 4960X at $300( without cooling) and the joy in a gamer's heart it brings at that price is something Intel doesn't want to achieve. They prioritize maximum profit always..


Performance per dollar AMD have always been a clear winner.
You would be better with a 8320 with better cooling.
The only point the 9590 will win over core i7-4770k is when you run only integer instructions(such a streaming, but then again you arent going to stream your desktopbackground are you?).

To be clear on the whole core thing.
4770k have hyper-threading which lets 2 threads run on the same core, so you would get 4c/8t.
9590 have 4 modules which contains 2 core each. These 2 cores share the resources from the modules. so they have 4m/8c/8t. It's the physical version of "hyper-threading".

Remember when the 9590 first came out with the $1000 dollar tag?
the 9590 are in no way competing with the 4960x or any extreme processors from Intel.


No problem, dude. You buy the 4960X with that shitty $1000 price tag. I am better off with that $300 FX 9590. I will have low frame rates in some games(as a 4960X is 10-20% better) but I don't mind it when I can save $700. Not everyone is rich in this world. You can never understand the joy of enjoying games being from a poor middle class family. Intel doesn't. But with AMD a whole lot of middle class enthusiast gamers emerged. That's my point. Intel has never ever looked at price/performance. They are only interested in the derivatives of price i.e, PROFIT..

And also this thread was about price/performance, so I would rather plead you to talk sense..
January 22, 2014 4:43:13 AM

And also this thread was about price/performance, so I would rather plead you to talk sense..

FX8320 $140 when I bought it. it @ 4.4GHz along with a Radeon 7870($180) and 8GB of 1866 DDR3 and I have been running every game at it's highest settings at 1080p with 40+ fps.
we'll see if this keeps up when Witcher 3, DragonAge: Inquisition, Watchdogs, all the next series of games are released.
January 23, 2014 1:14:11 AM

Gotta love a good ol' AMD vs. Intel flame thread!

The video at the end is worth watching.

Don't call me a fan boy, I have built PCs for my friends with really tight budgets ($375-400 and max out Skyrim), AMDs were the definite CPUs of choice for that budget. Whatever works best is what I always go for and what I hope that that's what others go for as well but fan boys will fan boys.


I am running the i7 4770k at the moment and it has been great. I got mine for about $330.

4770k:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=E...

9590 Black (w/ cooling is $400):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

With a difference of price that small and the fact that neither will be a bottle neck for at least the this generation of GPUs (AMD 8XXX and Nvidia 7XX) and, both handle multi-threaded tasks almost comparably (i7 comes out on top by a little most of the time). I think it comes down to preference.

At this point the Intel will run you a smaller electric bill, not by much but for some people, and I have known some, every little bit counts. And it looks like at least for the most part the 4770k wins but not by leaps and bounds. I think (See jaguarskx's posts) that quite a few programs/games are optimized for Intel. Intel seems to have better tolerance of poorly threaded tasks (No proof of that so don't take my word for it, worth looking into) and definitely pulls ahead in single-threaded tasks.


Single threaded benchmarks: (this isn't a be-all end-all, just a good visualization and reference)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

I am wary of bench marks like the BF4 Beta, when it hasn't been fully optimized and it becomes harder to verify. I have seen many benchmarks and in game performance to the contrary, many more. Jagurskx posted quite a few good ones. If you wan to find a lot of benchmarks, check youtube or google it.

"The new games will be more optimized for AMD cpu-s. FX-9590 is clear over i7-4770K in games and streaming. Fx-8350 beat i7-3770K in Battlefield 4."- Cristto, So what? The 3770k lost out to 8350 in a beta, what does that have to do with the 9590 and the 4770k? Yes in that bench the 9590 dominated but what difference does that make? Neither created a bottle neck and you can't call winner based off of one game much less a single beta. The 9590 appears to be just an 8350 on crack. The rest of the benchmarks here and others that I have seen in the past show the 4770k to out perform the 9590 in the vast majority of games, at least those shown in this thread. As a few have mentioned, more cores+more Hertz doesn't always = more performance. I could over clock a phenom ii x6 4.5GHz and my 4770k (in game it stays at 3.9GHz) would out perform it anyways. Liquid cooling isn't too expensive, it's not cheap but for $65 you can get a refurbished (*GASP*!) corsair H80i, not sure that would be enough but it's a solid cooler either way.

H80i:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


I found these interesting:


AMD FX 8350 vs Intel 3570K vs 3770K vs 3820 - Gaming and XSplit Streaming Benchmarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE

Gaming CPU Hierarchy:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...

Neither will be a bottle neck for a long time and either way you won't be buying a piece of shit.


January 23, 2014 11:29:56 PM

Quote:
No problem, dude. You buy the 4960X with that shitty $1000 price tag. I am better off with that $300 FX 9590. I will have low frame rates in some games(as a 4960X is 10-20% better) but I don't mind it when I can save $700. Not everyone is rich in this world. You can never understand the joy of enjoying games being from a poor middle class family. Intel doesn't. But with AMD a whole lot of middle class enthusiast gamers emerged. That's my point. Intel has never ever looked at price/performance. They are only interested in the derivatives of price i.e, PROFIT..

And also this thread was about price/performance, so I would rather plead you to talk sense..


2 things. No way does the AMD 9590 beat the i7 4960x. It has a $1000 price tag for a reason, it is a professional work station CPU that no average consumer would use, no other consumer CPU compares with the 4960x, so stop talking about that.

Secondly, you are getting all defensive because jaguarxks showed you solid bench marks of the i7 4770k winning, remember the i7 4770k is only £20 more, for the clear beat in gaming performance, multi core performance e.t.c you mot likely would get it especially when the 9590 is just an oced 8350.

Also this eight core high clock speed thing is stupid. Your 8 cores aren't true eight cores, they are two cores per module sharing cash and other attributes, almost like physical hyper threading as said before. Also nice tdp of over 200 at a 1.5 voltage, lots of heat output and power consumption there whilst the i7 sits below 80.

I have NOTHING against AMD, intel are better in every way apart from price but if you're going to build a pc you do it properly by spending more on quality parts. It's just ignorant people like you that irritate me, you have no solid benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2014 11:34:00 PM

finnbh said:
Quote:
No problem, dude. You buy the 4960X with that shitty $1000 price tag. I am better off with that $300 FX 9590. I will have low frame rates in some games(as a 4960X is 10-20% better) but I don't mind it when I can save $700. Not everyone is rich in this world. You can never understand the joy of enjoying games being from a poor middle class family. Intel doesn't. But with AMD a whole lot of middle class enthusiast gamers emerged. That's my point. Intel has never ever looked at price/performance. They are only interested in the derivatives of price i.e, PROFIT..

And also this thread was about price/performance, so I would rather plead you to talk sense..


2 things. No way does the AMD 9590 beat the i7 4960x. It has a $1000 price tag for a reason, it is a professional work station CPU that no average consumer would use, no other consumer CPU compares with the 4960x, so stop talking about that.

Secondly, you are getting all defensive because jaguarxks showed you solid bench marks of the i7 4770k winning, remember the i7 4770k is only £20 more, for the clear beat in gaming performance, multi core performance e.t.c you mot likely would get it especially when the 9590 is just an oced 8350.

Also this eight core high clock speed thing is stupid. Your 8 cores aren't true eight cores, they are two cores per module sharing cash and other attributes, almost like physical hyper threading as said before. Also nice tdp of over 200 at a 1.5 voltage, lots of heat output and power consumption there whilst the i7 sits below 80.

I have NOTHING against AMD, intel are better in every way apart from price but if you're going to build a pc you do it properly by spending more on quality parts. It's just ignorant people like you that irritate me, you have no solid benchmarks.

Also when the 9590 came out it also had a pricetag of $1000.
The 4930k is slightly worse than the 4960x but it have a much lower price.
AMD have never been able to put up against intels extreme processors.

a c 446 à CPUs
a c 110 å Intel
a c 111 À AMD
January 24, 2014 12:48:29 AM

Prithwi2050 said:
jaguarskx said:
Hopefully, this thread can be used for reference in any future topics regarding the FX-9590's performance....

Or lack there of....


Posting pictures doesn't prove anything. See my link and then talk sense. Request from my side..



I did click your link and it was not comparing the FX-9590 to the Haswell generation i7-4770k. In fact the review you linked to was against the Ivy Bridge-E i7-4960X. Yes, it is more expensive than the i7-4770k and technically more powerful. However, if you bothered to read the title of this thread, the OP wanted to know how the FX-9590 compares against the Haswell i7-4770k.

The review you provided did not address that question. Additionally, it was also a very shallow review which did not have very many benchmarks and compare just two CPUs. It was only 3 pages long.

On the other hand, the link to the review which I provided is much more in depth with much more benchmarks and also a variety of CPUs. Did you even bother to read the review? Here's the link again.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...


I actually find your remark ironic. You say pictures do not prove anything, yet the link to the review you provided also has pictures to provide benchmark results. Additionally, how do I talk sense to someone that wishes to deny to the acknowledgement of benchmarks which disproves that person's opinion?

I joined this forum years ago to help people by trying to provide unbiased advice to help other make the correct decisions for themselves as well as providing evidence to back up that advice when possible. I am not here to fan the flames of people's disillusionment.
January 24, 2014 8:47:52 AM

As I always say, there is no point in arguining with a fanboy, it's not as bad as an apple fan boy but either way they are blind to try different things, they cut of their nose to spite their face when they could buy intel for only a small price increase.
January 28, 2014 5:07:10 AM

I have never used Intel for my gaming rig but everyone seems to forget that (for whatever reason) all the newest consoles are built with AMD hardware
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2014 5:15:12 AM

paunchy225 said:
I have never used Intel for my gaming rig but everyone seems to forget that (for whatever reason) all the newest consoles are built with AMD hardware

no one is forgetting, because it doesn't really mean anything.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2014 5:15:14 AM

double post FTW
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2014 8:33:59 AM

@vmN It 'may' mean something in the future but since its x86 cores its win win for everyone intel or amd, I think it makes more sense to get an amd gpu atm though but we'll see, PC gaming is getting stronger and stronger all the time eg I've converted 3 friends in the last few months to go PC instead of xbone/ps4 by simply showing them dayz videos and it running on my apu budget build!
What needs to end right now is the myth that you 'need' a fortune to game on pc, I blame intel and oem pc makers firmly for that with their imbalanced i7 and gt630 style rubbish.
Sorry for venting in your thread op :) 
February 23, 2014 2:49:02 PM

kcrow11 said:
jimono123 - I hope you have made your decision by now and purchased the processor of your choice, since this thread is a few months old. However, I wanted to chime in for those that are just now looking at the AMD FX-9590 as it's price continues to drop! AMD or Intel? It's the age old question that only YOU can answer for yourself! Both companies have state of the art facilities and continue to pour millions of dollars into R&D each year, both companies are widely supported by all Windows PC Manufacturers out there and both companies are supported by ALL software manufacturers. In order to choose a processor that works for you, first you must decide what your budget is. Then you need to look at your current setup, do you have a computer running and AM3+ mobo with an older AMD FX processor, liquid cooling, and a 1000Watt Power Supply? If so, then the obvious answer is to go the AMD route, as it will only cost you the price of the CPU and nothing more. If you choose to go the route of the Intel i7, then you will need a lot more hardware: Mobo, Ram, PSU, HDD, CPU, CPU cooling, GPU, and a case. No matter the choice, if you go with the newest, bestest Intel or AMD processor, it is the norm nowadays to run Liquid CPU Coolers on a high end processor. They are more affordable than ever, cool better than air, and come in all sizes. So don't let people scare you away from the AMD because it runs at a higher wattage than the Intel, think about it, the AMD has to run at close to double the wattage of the Intel chips, it has 4 more cores on-board than the Intel CPUs. I will tell you that for the money, you can't go wrong with AMD, I have been running AMD Black Edition CPUs in my main desktop PC since the first one released almost 6 or 7 years ago. They can be easily overclocked by almost a single Ghz more than they are rated at and can be had typically for under $200. Intel can't beat that. However, I have also had an Intel i7 machine running in my house since the first one came out almost 5 to 6 years ago. I keep both machines upgraded with the latest CPUs, motherboards, ram, and GPUs. Typically upgrading some piece of hardware in each twice a year. I use the AMD machine for media work, CAD, Video Streaming, Encoding and Decoding, Graphics Design, media format converting, and yes, I use it for Gaming. The Intel i7 machine is used strictly for storage of media files (video and audio) and then is used to stream these files to various TV's and computers around the home network. Both machines need to have the fastest access times and the fastest compute processing times in order to do the jobs I require of them. At one time there may be 4 different devices sending large video files to the i7 machine, while there are 2 more streaming different videos from it (one that actually uses the computers graphics card linked to the TV). The AMD machine is capable of playing a Blu-Ray, while burning a DVD, while decrypting another DVD, while playing a 1080p *.mp4 in iTunes, while I am playing Assassins Creed Black Flag - all at the same time (and yes I said I was playing a blu-ray and a different video in iTunes while gaming at the same time). It does all this lag free, and is able to do so because of the powerful AMD FX-9590 CPU running as well as all the other highend hardware that is running at the same time. If you build an AMD FX-9590 machine with an NVidia Geforce FX 5200 GPU with 128Mb Ram (yes Mb not Gb), a 5400RPM HDD, and 4Gb DDR2 Ram, your computer will not be able to take full advantage of the New 8 Core AMD chip you installed.

I know this was lengthy, but after reading the back and forth pitter-patter amongst all the poster's here at Tom's, I felt it necessary as the choice is yours. Do your research, stick with a product that you know and trust, and then support that mfr by purchasing their newest, greatest, bestest ;) , products! You can't go wrong, either way Intel or AMD, i7 or FX, NVidia or Radeon, Seagate or Western Digital, EVGA or XFX or PNY, Plasma or LCD, Gas or Diesel, paper or plastic! Each have their own advantages and have something they do better than the other. Don't base your decision on the popular opinions of those posting on a blog or forum. You should even take what I say with a grain of salt, even though it is fact that I can support, I am simply some guy posting on the internet, you have never met me and therefore you shouldn't believe everything I say! Good luck - I hope you enjoy your new Gaming Rig, either way you go! I'll see you online jimono123...

kcrow11


You're a prime example of how everyone should be like on the Internet.
February 23, 2014 3:50:32 PM

vmN said:
Prithwi2050 said:
For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.

3. You compare the frame rates from the link that I gave and see what CPU is better for you.

AMD has always been a value-for-money for me and for every budget-stuck gamer all over the world. Though the TDP has always been on the upper side but imagine gaming on a Core i7 4960X at $300( without cooling) and the joy in a gamer's heart it brings at that price is something Intel doesn't want to achieve. They prioritize maximum profit always..
Performance per dollar AMD have always been a clear winner.
I agree that AMD's market is the mid-range because of their value, but at the high-end, especially with 220W TDP CPUs, there has to be mention of energy consumption costs in the performance/dollar argument.
February 23, 2014 4:25:00 PM

11777683,0,1424233 said:
Hey Everyone,

After reading the best CPU's for the money October article (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o...), I was intrigued to hear about AMD's FX 9590 dropping in price. I decided to check it out on Newegg and found that the prices were comparable between the Intel and AMD chips, but that the main specs of the AMD chip were significantly higher. I am planning on building a gaming rig in the next month or two and I'm really going for the most value for my dollar. In all reality, I was planning on getting Intel's i5 4670k because I've heard that most games aren't able to take advantage of the i7's full capabilities, but now I'm wanting to find out more. Here are both CPU's pages on Newegg:

$339.99 - Intel Core i7-4770K Haswell 3.5GHz Quad-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

$389.99 - AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Eight-Core Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

My questions are:
1). Which processor would provide better gaming performance for the money? Why?

2). How can AMD's numbers (Clock rate, CPU cores) be so much higher than Intel's?

3). Can most gaming take full advantage of AMD processors where it cannot for Intel i7 processors?


Thanks for everybody's input. I appreciate it.[/quot


Why Xbox One and PS4 used AMD chips(CPU) on their game consoles. I guess you know the answer to your question.

February 24, 2014 4:00:56 PM

Hey jimino123,

Here's some general info concerning your choices I hope that will help:

FX-9590: high energy consumption, high temps which require h20 cooling, which if I'm not mistaken is recommended if not even required by AMD, FX CPU memory controller coupled with AM3+ chipset hardware limitations; supported ram, PCI-e 2.0, dead-end upgrade path (minus peripherals). Beefy PSU required, especially depending on what GPU setup you have... Overpriced for performance return(s).

4770K: low energy consumption, low temps, superior memory controller and (Z87) chipset that is a foreseeable viable upgrade path for both CPU and peripherals. Excellent price for performance gains.

Not a fan-boy here... I still run a Phenom II X4 965 BE on 790FX MSI board and a GTX 760 4gb card and have a MSI GT60 laptop with an i7-3610 CPU. So, I am unbiased as far as "fandom" goes. However, when doing research over the last year myself, as I am planning on upgrading to a new CPU/mobo path, there is no doubt that the i7 Z87 is the way to go, especially the 4770K. I'd even say that it's superior to the 4930K ivy-bridge (X79) for gaming on many levels, to include price.

Your call, but Intel is the smarter choice and bang for buck from what you are looking at...
a b à CPUs
February 24, 2014 5:52:20 PM

jimono123 said:
Pinhedd said:


1. They're about equal, but the Intel one definitely has more potential.

2. That AMD FX-9590 microprocessor is a Ford Pinto with a turbocharger strapped to it. They raised the clock speed by providing it with a massive amount of voltage (around 1.5 volts) which gives the microprocessor a 220 watt TDP. Cooling that microprocessor requires liquid cooling. By comparison, the Intel i7-4770K has a TDP of only 84 watts.

3. It's typically the other way around. Most modern games perform better on Intel microprocessors.


Thanks for the input. I have a few clarifying questions:

1). What do you mean by "They're about equal, but the Intel one definitely has more potential"? What further potential is there?

2). Let's assume I handled the cooling and voltage issue with an increased PSU and CPU water cooler, would the AMD FX-9590 still provide less gaming performance than the i7?

Thanks.


Prithwi2050 said:
For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.

3. You compare the frame rates from the link that I gave and see what CPU is better for you.

AMD has always been a value-for-money for me and for every budget-stuck gamer all over the world. Though the TDP has always been on the upper side but imagine gaming on a Core i7 4960X at $300( without cooling) and the joy in a gamer's heart it brings at that price is something Intel doesn't want to achieve. They prioritize maximum profit always..


Prithwi2050 said:
vmN said:
Prithwi2050 said:
For me the 9590 is the clear winner because it actually competes with the Intel flagship 4960X. See reviews here:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170023-amd-vs-inte...

1. At $399 with COOLERS it's clearly value-for-money which was never Intel's cup of Tea. It competes with the Intel flagship 4960X which has a $1000 price tag without COOLERS.

2. The 4770K is no match for that Vishera based 9590. The former lags the latter in almost every aspect. And also the 4770K has got 4 cores. Doesn't really match up.

3. You compare the frame rates from the link that I gave and see what CPU is better for you.

AMD has always been a value-for-money for me and for every budget-stuck gamer all over the world. Though the TDP has always been on the upper side but imagine gaming on a Core i7 4960X at $300( without cooling) and the joy in a gamer's heart it brings at that price is something Intel doesn't want to achieve. They prioritize maximum profit always..


Performance per dollar AMD have always been a clear winner.
You would be better with a 8320 with better cooling.
The only point the 9590 will win over core i7-4770k is when you run only integer instructions(such a streaming, but then again you arent going to stream your desktopbackground are you?).

To be clear on the whole core thing.
4770k have hyper-threading which lets 2 threads run on the same core, so you would get 4c/8t.
9590 have 4 modules which contains 2 core each. These 2 cores share the resources from the modules. so they have 4m/8c/8t. It's the physical version of "hyper-threading".

Remember when the 9590 first came out with the $1000 dollar tag?
the 9590 are in no way competing with the 4960x or any extreme processors from Intel.


No problem, dude. You buy the 4960X with that shitty $1000 price tag. I am better off with that $300 FX 9590. I will have low frame rates in some games(as a 4960X is 10-20% better) but I don't mind it when I can save $700. Not everyone is rich in this world. You can never understand the joy of enjoying games being from a poor middle class family. Intel doesn't. But with AMD a whole lot of middle class enthusiast gamers emerged. That's my point. Intel has never ever looked at price/performance. They are only interested in the derivatives of price i.e, PROFIT..

And also this thread was about price/performance, so I would rather plead you to talk sense..



You could spend a couple more dollars and buy a 4770k, throw an overclock on it and get better framerates across the board while using less power. Why would you limit yourself to a 4960x or 9590? It makes no sense. The 9590 is a massively overclocked FX 8350. Hell you would be better off getting an FX 8320 and overclocking that if its value per dollar you're after.

The 4960x is not meant to be compared. It costs $1000 because IT"S THE BEST. Those who want the best will pay the premium. The CPU market isn't the only retail space where this quandry exists.Value per dollar goes out the window when your looking at extreme top of the line just the way it is.
February 25, 2014 7:30:23 AM

jaguarskx said:
Hopefully, this thread can be used for reference in any future topics regarding the FX-9590's performance....

Or lack there of....


Intel is a terrible company. I can't do business with them on a matter of principle. They have done so much to destroy IC innovation to preserve market share, it's despicable. If it wasn't for AMD Intel would still be telling it's customers, they don't need 64bit.

AMDs new architecture highlights how the in the business of getting computing done, it's more than just the CPU. I wouldn't worry about the CPU so much in gaming because the real work is done in the GPU. AMD has technology that let's CPU GPU work together in ways Intel will never be able to do.

Now, if you are looking to encode a single thread of an MP3, intel is for you!
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2014 8:13:43 AM

All bigger companies are terrible.
AMD have been holding Intel down for quite some time, and they can simply keep doing it because of the original deal.

Look at AMDs entire 83xx and 9xxx line, they are based on the exact same CPU.

They have also been focusing on whats looks nice on the paper. Like 8 "cores", higher clockspeed qnd way to big l1 and l2 cache.

Which architecture shows that exactly? None.

How exactly are a AMD gpu working better with a AMD CPU than a Intel CPU?







!