AMD FX 9590 (200 euro) Or i7 4770K (280 euro) ?
- Thread starter noelbuker
- Start date
Solution
- Oct 17, 2011
- 3,166
- 8
- 27,115
Depends on what you're planning on using the PC for. If you don't need the absolute top-of-the-line CPU, then no, don't spend the extra 80 euros to buy it; save it for other parts. If you need the extra performance, then spend the money for it.
Personally, though, I don't see either Intel chip "blowing" the FX away. While that i7 is shown having superior single-core benchmarks, it's even on the multi-core benchmarks. And based on the average performance, if the FX 9590 costs 200 euros, then the i7 should cost about 235 euros, not 280. And if anything, the price comparison is even worse compared to the FX-8320 (non-OC'd): the i7's benchmarks average out to be about 47% higher, but its relative cost is ower twice as high (280 euros vs. 125 euros). Sorry, but if I'm going to pay twice the cost, I expect twice the average performance.
Note that I'm not even considering the fact that the Intel chips come with built-in graphics. Sorry, but the majority of people that want/need the level of CPU performance that an i7 brings also want/need a level of graphics performance that Intel HD 4600 graphics cant provide. Which means that the money you can potentially save with an AMD processor can go towards a better GPU, as an i7 with a "budget" discrete GPU isn't going to provide the performance boost over an FX with a mid-/top-range GPU.
Personally, though, I don't see either Intel chip "blowing" the FX away. While that i7 is shown having superior single-core benchmarks, it's even on the multi-core benchmarks. And based on the average performance, if the FX 9590 costs 200 euros, then the i7 should cost about 235 euros, not 280. And if anything, the price comparison is even worse compared to the FX-8320 (non-OC'd): the i7's benchmarks average out to be about 47% higher, but its relative cost is ower twice as high (280 euros vs. 125 euros). Sorry, but if I'm going to pay twice the cost, I expect twice the average performance.
Note that I'm not even considering the fact that the Intel chips come with built-in graphics. Sorry, but the majority of people that want/need the level of CPU performance that an i7 brings also want/need a level of graphics performance that Intel HD 4600 graphics cant provide. Which means that the money you can potentially save with an AMD processor can go towards a better GPU, as an i7 with a "budget" discrete GPU isn't going to provide the performance boost over an FX with a mid-/top-range GPU.
Stardust342
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2012
- 258
- 0
- 18,860
Stardust342
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2012
- 258
- 0
- 18,860
you realize it won by .1 points in the performance summary chart?
That one lost by .8 points in the performance summary chart.
Do you read those or just spread your fanboyism?
iam2thecrowe
Glorious
- Jul 4, 2010
- 10,591
- 21
- 44,965
realize the 9590 doesnt come with a cooler, and watercooling is required. so its not really much cheaper after you factor that in.
There are some things you need to know before making this decision.
The FX-9590 doesn't come with a cooler and will need a really beefy one to keep it running at 5GHz, let alone 4.7 - you'll want something like an H100 or a Noctua NH-D14. Additionally it will require a good motherboard, not all 990FX boards are sufficient for the 220W chips. The FX-9590 will also likely require some fiddling about to get it running properly.
Additionally, while the i7-4770K is bested in some cases by the FX-9590 out of the box, it has headroom for a >20% overclock. The FX-9590 @ 5GHz trades blows (depending on use) with the 4770K @ 3.5GHz... the 4770K can easily be overclocked to around 4.5GHz without trouble.
If you can afford the i7-4770K, I would say go for it since to cool the 9590 you'd be spending a good chunk on good cooling anyways. If the budget is tight, look into an FX-8320 or 8350. Alternatively you could get an i5-4670K and overclock that (if you're lucky to not get a gimp 4670K). Really it depends what you're doing with your system to some degree... it may be worth looking into the Xeons, sometimes you can find a Xeon 1230 V3 (basically an i7 without integrated graphics, and not overclock-able) for about the price of an i5.
Basically, if you need high multi-threaded performance:
i7 4770K > FX 9590 > FX 8350 > 4670K = FX-8320
For single-threaded performance, the Intels are far ahead of the FX chips. For general use computing, some gaming, some editing, etc... I would say
i7 4770K > FX 9590 > 4670K >= FX-8350
The FX-9590 doesn't come with a cooler and will need a really beefy one to keep it running at 5GHz, let alone 4.7 - you'll want something like an H100 or a Noctua NH-D14. Additionally it will require a good motherboard, not all 990FX boards are sufficient for the 220W chips. The FX-9590 will also likely require some fiddling about to get it running properly.
Additionally, while the i7-4770K is bested in some cases by the FX-9590 out of the box, it has headroom for a >20% overclock. The FX-9590 @ 5GHz trades blows (depending on use) with the 4770K @ 3.5GHz... the 4770K can easily be overclocked to around 4.5GHz without trouble.
If you can afford the i7-4770K, I would say go for it since to cool the 9590 you'd be spending a good chunk on good cooling anyways. If the budget is tight, look into an FX-8320 or 8350. Alternatively you could get an i5-4670K and overclock that (if you're lucky to not get a gimp 4670K). Really it depends what you're doing with your system to some degree... it may be worth looking into the Xeons, sometimes you can find a Xeon 1230 V3 (basically an i7 without integrated graphics, and not overclock-able) for about the price of an i5.
Basically, if you need high multi-threaded performance:
i7 4770K > FX 9590 > FX 8350 > 4670K = FX-8320
For single-threaded performance, the Intels are far ahead of the FX chips. For general use computing, some gaming, some editing, etc... I would say
i7 4770K > FX 9590 > 4670K >= FX-8350
Stardust342
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2012
- 258
- 0
- 18,860
CPUboss takes random benchmarks from various web sources, specifications, along with other things from various sources (power consumption, overclock speeds, etc.) and has some algorithm that comes up with a score. The i3s are not better than the FX eight core chips unless you're looking only at single core performance, which is an increasingly small amount of workloads.
What are you going to do with your computer?
The MAIN reason not to get the FX 9xxx series is the power consumption. It consumes massive 220W compared to the i5/i7 84W counterpart!! Let me tell you:
- FX 9xxx CPUs doesn't have included heatsink.
-More power consumption means more heat, and with that 2.3x more consumption/heat you'll likely need watercooling, which is over 80$.
-More heat means shorter life. The FX-9590 CAN die much faster than the i7-4770K.
-FX CPUs don't have integrated graphics, for those who don't need graphics power.
If you can afford 280 euros, then buy the i7-4770K or 4790K. If you can't then get the i5 4670K.
The MAIN reason not to get the FX 9xxx series is the power consumption. It consumes massive 220W compared to the i5/i7 84W counterpart!! Let me tell you:
- FX 9xxx CPUs doesn't have included heatsink.
-More power consumption means more heat, and with that 2.3x more consumption/heat you'll likely need watercooling, which is over 80$.
-More heat means shorter life. The FX-9590 CAN die much faster than the i7-4770K.
-FX CPUs don't have integrated graphics, for those who don't need graphics power.
If you can afford 280 euros, then buy the i7-4770K or 4790K. If you can't then get the i5 4670K.
ksham
Splendid
- Mar 29, 2013
- 8,398
- 1
- 29,960
@i7Baby: cpuboss is not a credible source. They do NOT perform their own benchmarks. So I would not recommend using them.
As for this topic, the FX-9590 does run incredibly hot at stock (without overclocking). So much that you will need either a very high end air cooler or custom water/liquid cooling. Along with that, you will need a very solid motherboard with great power phases (VRMs), because otherwise, the CPU will use so much power that it can literally burn off the MOSFETS on the motherboard. So when you factor in all those charges and the hassle of managing its crazy power consumption, it is really not worth it.
As for this topic, the FX-9590 does run incredibly hot at stock (without overclocking). So much that you will need either a very high end air cooler or custom water/liquid cooling. Along with that, you will need a very solid motherboard with great power phases (VRMs), because otherwise, the CPU will use so much power that it can literally burn off the MOSFETS on the motherboard. So when you factor in all those charges and the hassle of managing its crazy power consumption, it is really not worth it.
Believe it or not, I'm pretty sure the guys running CPUboss are aware of how their application works. When someone is asking for advice on what CPU to get, I must say it's rather disappointing that you'd base your factpinion based on the number at the top of a CPUboss page.
And in case you want some evidence of CPUboss not being reliable information:
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-FX-9590-vs-AMD-FX-8350#differences
Notice how even though the FX-9590 has higher power consumption, it says that it has a lower home annual energy cost than the FX-8350. You can also take a look at the benchmarks section and notice they have links under each one showing where the results are from - often times the results of each processor come from a different review. Different testing conditions are not good for comparison. Finally, the rating out of 10 that CPUs are awarded changes depending on which CPUs you're comparing. If you compare the FX-8320 to the FX-8350, the 8320 gets 7.9 and the 8350 gets 8.2. Meanwhile, if you compare the FX-9590 to the 8350, the 8350 gets 8.4.
CPUBoss has too many inconsistencies and does not get all its comparison points from the same sources, and in some cases compares a result from a review to a number conjured up by a formula. You can not go by CPUBoss, esp not the rating at the top of the page, as accurate basis to compare CPUs especially when a large part comes down to how one will use their system. The only thing on a CPUboss page that's even remotely useful for comparison is the Passmark scores (and like all benchmarks is still just rough since it only tests certain capabilities of a CPU and they will perform differently in different applications).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Laptop Crashing During Teams Calls or Video Editing in Premiere
- Started by bigdumbalski
- Replies: 1
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Started by PizzaInGame
- Replies: 7
-
[SOLVED] Is it safe to use a recapped PSU for a long time ?- Started by zwtch_17
- Replies: 5
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram