AMD FX-9590 or Intel i7 4770k?

i7-4770k for the win However getting an i5 will be a more sensible choice.

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.

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.

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

search for gamegpu.ru BF4 beta benchmarks. The site is in Russian, so you might want to use Google Translate...unless you speak Russian

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.

I7 is a clear choice here. FX-9590 is basically a joke with it's insane requirements and meager returns.

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

Go For i7 or i5

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.

Ironically the haSwell runs hotter lol

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.

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.

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-intel-the-ultimate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x

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..

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

Maybe you will need a better PSU but its really worth it

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!!!

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

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.





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




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…

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-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

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