Closed

First Pre-Built Desktop With AMD's $900 FX-9590 Spotted

Mouse Computer Japan appears to be the first manufacturer to embed the pricy AMD FX-9590 CPU into one of its systems.

First Pre-Built Desktop With AMD's $900 FX-9590 Spotted : Read more
37 answers Last reply
More about pre built desktop amd 900 9590 spotted
  1. so its pretty much a rebadged cpu selling for $900?
  2. so its pretty much a rebadged cpu selling for $900?
  3. Excessively overclocked, overpriced, excessive-TDP unavailable CPU. Sounds great.
  4. Actually I'd love to get my hands on one o those chips, so I could see if there's any headroom. I'd do a crazy mod with it!!!
  5. stupid and for under 180 dollars you can get an fx 8320, get a liquid cooling kit and do the same thing.
  6. ...but is it any faster than a Celeron?
  7. It's sad how nowadays, I am not at all interested about AMD non-APU CPU news.
  8. Lol to whoever pays the premium for this. I see it at half the price after both people actually blow 4500 on it. I've always favored amd but let's be realistic.
  9. Cant be many buyers with a price tag like that.
  10. At $300-$500 this would have been interesting as AMD's version of the monster cpu. But at $900 it is a joke... And it will probably make them a lot of money with OEM's so at least that is good because god knows they need it...
  11. If HP or Dell offered this CPU, it would be a space heater using the cheap ass heat sink they will use on it.
  12. The ideal situation would be that these have been binned throughout the 83xx series' production and can use less power.

    The reality is obviously far less palatable. An 8320 or 8350 system with water cooling is far more attractive and available for far less. Watch even the 9590 bottleneck that 8990.

    Tests of such hardware would be very interesting, regardless of my reservations.
  13. Erm just to remind folks I threw out a AMD S939 FX57 a few days ago. They retailed initially for $1000 back in 2005.

    So allow for inflation...
  14. So the Masterpiece (!) uses an MSI 990FXA-GD80 that hasn't been announced yet? Really?

    Because here's a link to a review of the same board and it's dated July 18, 2011.

    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_990fxa_gd80_review,1.html

    What a joke.

    Anyway, it's also funny how this 'Masterpiece' is made with... common off the shelf parts and a CPU that's just overclocked and overpriced.
  15. $4,500 allows you to buy a couple of Core i7-4770K machines that are loaded to the gills. Take your pick.
  16. ronch79 said:
    So the Masterpiece (!) uses an MSI 990FXA-GD80 that hasn't been announced yet? Really?

    Because here's a link to a review of the same board and it's dated July 18, 2011.

    http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_990fxa_gd80_review,1.html

    What a joke.

    Anyway, it's also funny how this 'Masterpiece' is made with... common off the shelf parts and a CPU that's just overclocked and overpriced.


    The article says "MSI 9990FXA-GD80" which hasn't been announced. See the extra 9?
  17. FX9590 is now rebranded by the Toms Armchair experts as a overclocked FX8350 yet nobody knows for sure without reviews, we saw the A10 6800K clock for clock run higher clocks on far less power and heat than the 5800K it replaced. The FX9590 while its running at 4.8-5ghz turbo is not limited to those clocks and some having privy to this chip call it a world record breaker on air or exotic cooling so it must overclock a lot well beyond what the silicon of the 8350 can handle. The unofficial leaks also show it running between the 4770K and 3930K in various performances and that is not surprising knowing that higher frequency will mitigate the IPC penalties a lower clocked unit will suffer.

    For exteme overclockers I think the FX9590 is going to be a legitimate appeal but to the working class this chip like the Phenom TWKR's is not for you.
  18. If this cpu wil be 180€ it's a nice comeback and smart move of AMD. Single thread is the most important to have that fast feel on a system. That's why the new Ceo decided not to make the 20 core Opteron, but instead more GHZ/core. Cores are very welcome don't get me wrong the more the better (if you need them) but in 2013 the minimum per core should be 5Ghz.
  19. Why?. And only a 120mm rad no way that thing stays cool.
  20. Bad move AMD, at $500 you would have given Intel a headache straight away
  21. AMD, don't get too arrogant because the FX-8350 did well. =(
  22. horrible system, for that price, even without the insane price markup the company does, you you could build an intel based system for a fraction of the cost and get the same or better performance.

    That CPU is just a factory overclocked FX-8350 Which even when pushed to 5GHz, struggles to keep up with a non overclocked core i7 3770k (and is still when it comes to general computing and gaming by a stock 3070k. Even at high clock speeds, the 8350 does not reach the single threaded performance of a stock 3770k and so for games and applications not taking full advantage of 8 threads, you still end up with sub par performance.

    Only difference is with the fx-9590, you are spending nearly 3 times the price the less performance, twice the power consumption, and still have sub par single threaded performance.

    If you can afford to spend $900 on a CPU, then go and buy a core i7 3939k for $300 less (which will be faster in both single threaded and multithreaded performance at stock speeds (with room to overclock) than the FX-9590 which is already pretty much at the max it can handle.

    The way you tell when a CPU has reached it's max overclock is when you start to get exponential increases in power consumption with relatively little additional clock speeds.
  23. LOL wut? 4 GRRR for an AMD system. Jokes.
  24. razor512 said:
    horrible system, for that price, even without the insane price markup the company does, you you could build an intel based system for a fraction of the cost and get the same or better performance.

    That CPU is just a factory overclocked FX-8350 Which even when pushed to 5GHz, struggles to keep up with a non overclocked core i7 3770k (and is still when it comes to general computing and gaming by a stock 3070k. Even at high clock speeds, the 8350 does not reach the single threaded performance of a stock 3770k and so for games and applications not taking full advantage of 8 threads, you still end up with sub par performance.

    Only difference is with the fx-9590, you are spending nearly 3 times the price the less performance, twice the power consumption, and still have sub par single threaded performance.

    If you can afford to spend $900 on a CPU, then go and buy a core i7 3939k for $300 less (which will be faster in both single threaded and multithreaded performance at stock speeds (with room to overclock) than the FX-9590 which is already pretty much at the max it can handle.

    The way you tell when a CPU has reached it's max overclock is when you start to get exponential increases in power consumption with relatively little additional clock speeds.


    looks more like an opinion or thumbsuck and probably far off the reality. In the absence of anything official I think anything relating to power usage on this part is purely speculative opinion.

    Phenom II TWKR's had exagerated TDP's for overclocking purposes and I assume the same is in this part, it may run off a 140W TDP like the 8350 but has a max TDP around 220W. The last unofficial link from WCCTech had it matching or beating a 4770K competing against the 3820 and 3930K in some workloads and the same holds true, while the modular architecture suffers penalties in IPC throughput the higher the clock the more it is mitigated. The 6800K improved single and multithreaded performance over the 5800K on minimal bumps but more impressively uses around 25-30% less power both running at 4.1ghz, S/A reported that AMD stumbled onto a secret but such article was closed to public viewing, and perhaps in a few regards AMD have found the reigns on stable operation at higher clocks.

    Its all speculative so don't get all wound up and so what if a OEM sells it for $900.
  25. Wanted to know the performance of those chips , is it at par with the i7-3960X and i7-3970X ?
  26. sykozis said:

    The article says "MSI 9990FXA-GD80" which hasn't been announced. See the extra 9?


    Seems like a typo to me...

    Also, this chip is already available on Aria PC
  27. Potentially great hardware in such a PLAIN wrapper. Ugh.
  28. Think this would have been better in a 600T limited edition AMD chassis with a ASUS crosshair V formula Z, AMD branded RAM and a single GTX780 or HD7970 GHZ edition ASUS TOP card topped off with a H100i
  29. AMD will sell this CPU at the price people would pay, in few weeks the price would drop by 1/2 and then again until it would be at same price point of current 8350.
  30. 06yfz450ridr said:
    Why?. And only a 120mm rad no way that thing stays cool.


    well my 212 Evo can handle my 8350@4.7ghz and lately 4.5ghz because its summer. so unless then CLC is worse then the 212 it certainly can handle it
  31. jee_are said:


    Apart from distorting results by not running Intel chips at stock in a review, I mean listen to how stupid this sounds, they ran a overclocked Intel Extreme and i7 Socket 1155 and 1150 part compared it to a stock FX9590:sarcastic: and they call themselves reviewers. So it consumed 317w under load at 5ghz and a i7 3960X at 4.8ghz (probably unstable as $#@#) uses like 420w:sarcastic: In the gaming benches, beats by a little, equals or loses by such miniscule amounts to the top end Intel Extreme:sarcastic:
  32. sarinaide said:
    jee_are said:


    Apart from distorting results by not running Intel chips at stock in a review, I mean listen to how stupid this sounds, they ran a overclocked Intel Extreme and i7 Socket 1155 and 1150 part compared it to a stock FX9590:sarcastic: and they call themselves reviewers. So it consumed 317w under load at 5ghz and a i7 3960X at 4.8ghz (probably unstable as $#@#) uses like 420w:sarcastic: In the gaming benches, beats by a little, equals or loses by such miniscule amounts to the top end Intel Extreme:sarcastic:



    Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that the FX chip is also overclocked. It just doesn't have much headroom. They were not able to push it passed 5GHz (which is the Turbo clock rate, default is 4.7) as anything above was unstable and would have required a more hardcore cooling solution. I think we can agree that most games are not CPU bound (at least not with these chips) and that more CPU intensive metrics (e.g. media encoding) paint a better picture of a CPU's capabilities. If you look at these results you'll find more chips included in the benches at stock and overclocked.

    Cheers
  33. does the .8-1 ghz boost over a 8350 really make that much of a difference ? this has to be asked , PLEASE TOMS do a CPU comparision. Since I built my system on a 8350 there is no other upgrade route for me currently so inquiring mind would like to know! if in a year's time when this chip gets massive price cuts I want to know if the upgrade would be worth it. Assuming my main board doesn't support the steam roller chips that will likely be out then (I do have an asus sabertooth MB so it might very well support some steamrolers with a future bios update). but just in case , would really like to see actual numbers on this one.

    for those that don't know the 8350 is 8 core , and clocks at 4.0 ghz to 4.5 on turbo core.
  34. jee_are said:
    sarinaide said:
    jee_are said:


    Apart from distorting results by not running Intel chips at stock in a review, I mean listen to how stupid this sounds, they ran a overclocked Intel Extreme and i7 Socket 1155 and 1150 part compared it to a stock FX9590:sarcastic: and they call themselves reviewers. So it consumed 317w under load at 5ghz and a i7 3960X at 4.8ghz (probably unstable as $#@#) uses like 420w:sarcastic: In the gaming benches, beats by a little, equals or loses by such miniscule amounts to the top end Intel Extreme:sarcastic:



    Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that the FX chip is also overclocked. It just doesn't have much headroom. They were not able to push it passed 5GHz (which is the Turbo clock rate, default is 4.7) as anything above was unstable and would have required a more hardcore cooling solution. I think we can agree that most games are not CPU bound (at least not with these chips) and that more CPU intensive metrics (e.g. media encoding) paint a better picture of a CPU's capabilities. If you look at these results you'll find more chips included in the benches at stock and overclocked.

    Cheers


    Even the encoding reviews workbenches the 9590 did well reletive to the i7's although the big stumbling point is the price, if they costed around the $250 and $400 mark respectively they may have sold by the boatload all things said OEMs sell and is it wrong for AMD to sell to make profit even if off OEM only?
  35. daglesj said:
    Erm just to remind folks I threw out a AMD S939 FX57 a few days ago. They retailed initially for $1000 back in 2005.

    So allow for inflation...
    They were $1,199 at TigerDirect. I've still got the catalog. And, I'm holding on to my FX60(939) rig because that was the last time AMD was on top. I keep it for old school games that don't run well on new rigs.
  36. No thanks, my wallet likes my money just fine for now.
Ask a new question

Read More

Computers Prebuilt Systems CPUs