Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

ASRock 990FX Extreme9 Mobo Supports AMD FX-9000 CPUs

Last response: in News comments
Share
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2013 12:50:17 PM

A 1200W PSU is the minimum requirement for a factor overclocked FX-8350? This is just absurd. Did AMD not think this through prior to submitting such absurdities as "minimum requirements?
Score
-5
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2013 1:01:29 PM

I hope their are good warranties on them. Else, I smell something burning :p 
Score
3
Related resources
July 30, 2013 1:52:11 PM

What an amusing page. AMD's minimum recommended graphics card for the 9590 is the 7990, despite the fact that Piledriver, even at 5GHz, will still limit it. Their benches do show a decent increase in performance over the 8350 but no indication of how much power is being used. Super PI should never be used without the Stilt's x87 patch, if it's to be used at all.
Score
1
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2013 1:52:40 PM

If nothing else you have to admit the 9xxx chips are intriguing. AMD released an expensive limited availability power hungry aggressively overclocked part. Might not be as fast as some of the Intel chips but far more interesting to talk about.
Score
4
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2013 2:01:31 PM

If nothing else you have to admit the 9xxx chips are intriguing. AMD released an expensive limited availability power hungry aggressively overclocked part. Might not be as fast as some of the Intel chips but far more interesting to talk about.
Score
-1
July 30, 2013 2:41:05 PM

i run 5.15GHz on my 8350 w/ a 800w PSU and 1460mv....

Score
2
July 30, 2013 7:14:44 PM

they would have do it better on Radeon 7970 @ 1-3GHz-1.5GHz than this garbage cpu.
Score
1
a b V Motherboard
July 30, 2013 11:44:52 PM

slomo4sho said:
A 1200W PSU is the minimum requirement for a factor overclocked FX-8350? This is just absurd. Did AMD not think this through prior to submitting such absurdities as "minimum requirements?


The HD7990 needs about 700W under load, the FX9590 needs around 300W under load so yes a 1200W for an enthusiast machine is rather the norm today. Since this is an enthusiast build the costs are irrelevent as it is designed for a specific class of person, one not being yourself evidently.

silverblue said:
What an amusing page. AMD's minimum recommended graphics card for the 9590 is the 7990, despite the fact that Piledriver, even at 5GHz, will still limit it. Their benches do show a decent increase in performance over the 8350 but no indication of how much power is being used. Super PI should never be used without the Stilt's x87 patch, if it's to be used at all.


This is a pre build enthusisast machine, why would you not want to throw the expensive equimpent into it? It is the requirements the builder finds optimal for maximum performance so the hardware is reflective of the fact that this is a pure enthusiasts build.

Benches questionable or not show the FX9590 competitive witht the 3930K in gaming so that rules out the bottleneck suggestion and ultimately they run whatever bench suite they want to. I don't understand why SuperPi is not allowed, its synthetic so has no real world application but then neither does cinebench, 3Dmark, maxmem etc etc its almost like you have a negitive attitude about AMD and that is biasing your point of view. So they used the stilts fix which removes the limiting microdes in SuperPI against all AMD CPU's, this is not a cheat it is proof that there may be plenty synthetics that actually are hamstringing AMD parts through microcodes, makes you wonder doesn't it.

tomfreak said:
they would have do it better on Radeon 7970 @ 1-3GHz-1.5GHz than this garbage cpu.


You know what else is garbage?,.... your opinion.

Score
0
July 31, 2013 3:24:49 AM

In any case I don't see the point. By the time you buy the equipment necessary to power this CPU and accessories, while factoring in the heat this thing will throw out... perhaps it would be better to buy an Intel chip that uses less power.

We're seeing the AMD version of Netburst and it's not pretty. They've started going back in the wrong direction with these chips.

Hostile much over a CPU, Sarinaide? :)  It's one thing to state facts, but please hold off from directly attacking other users because you don't like Intel.
Score
0
July 31, 2013 4:26:18 AM

I hate article Nazis. Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one. To the dude trying to one up everyone, your opinion is the one we could care less about. People come to Toms for the good atmosphere and people like you just take up space.
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
August 1, 2013 11:24:44 AM

Only 8.55 for CB11? How lame. Even a 5GHz 2700K gets close to 10 for that test,
and a 3930K (which costs a lot less than the FX9K) gets more than 11 @ stock
and almost 14 if oc'd to 4.7.

These chips from AMD might be interesting if they were sensibly priced and
had a reasonable TDP, but they're far too expensive and unbelievable power hogs.

A 3930K with an air cooler is staggeringly cheaper and a lot faster. AMD would
have been far better off creating a shrunk Ph3 that combined two 1100Ts somehow...

Ian.

Score
0
a b V Motherboard
August 2, 2013 12:55:28 AM

mapesdhs said:
Only 8.55 for CB11? How lame. Even a 5GHz 2700K gets close to 10 for that test,
and a 3930K (which costs a lot less than the FX9K) gets more than 11 @ stock
and almost 14 if oc'd to 4.7.

These chips from AMD might be interesting if they were sensibly priced and
had a reasonable TDP, but they're far too expensive and unbelievable power hogs.

A 3930K with an air cooler is staggeringly cheaper and a lot faster. AMD would
have been far better off creating a shrunk Ph3 that combined two 1100Ts somehow...

Ian.



1) you compare a stock FX9590 to overclocked i7 1155 and 2011 CPU's, how about apples vs apples instead of convoluting your assesment. Get the right cooling to push the FX9590 by the same overclock that you achieved with Intel and again the FX performance will increase exponentially as clockspeed overcomes the arch limitations.

Granted that nobody has ever made the claim that AMD enthusiast parts are more efficient than Intel but yet it is a continual attack point. You mention a 5ghz 2700K or 3770K and a 4.8Ghz 3930K but you provide no metrics or any of the reviewed article on the FX9590 or other parts to back up what everyone knows. I can give you equipment to measure a 2700K and 3930K's power usage and heat at those clocks and come back and talk power, power is not linear either and those intel chips at those clocks cook and consume

2) Not all CPU's are the same like not all motherboards are the same, most i7 3930K's top out at 4.4ghz and consume a lot of power and give off a lot of heat at that clock, similarly not all motherboard vRM's can push high overclocks so to say 4.8ghz on what board though. This brings me to the other issue, a 3930K on a legitimate X79 board costs as much as $1200, the Extreme 9 and 9590 are barely over $1000. Granted I agree the pricing is wrong on the chip but who is to blame AMD for making money, its a business after all.


Score
-1
a b V Motherboard
August 2, 2013 2:35:39 AM


sarinaide writes:
> 1) you compare a stock FX9590 to overclocked i7 1155 and 2011 CPU's, how

Oc'ing the FX9K just makes it even worse. :D  Fact is it's far too expensive
for a chip that costs too much.


> right cooling to push the FX9590 by the same overclock that you achieved

Nonsense.


> ... performance will increase exponentially ...

And that's the most unbelievably stupid lie I've seen in years.


> with Intel and again the FX performance will increase exponentially as
> clockspeed overcomes the arch limitations.

Then its power usage goes through the roof. :D 


> more efficient than Intel but yet it is a continual attack point. You

It's a valid attack point when a chip with such poor performance uses
that much power. Its efficiency is awful.


> mention a 5ghz 2700K or 3770K and a 4.8Ghz 3930K but you provide no

See my previous posts on other threads, I've posted dozens of performance
links in the past.


> back up what everyone knows. ...

Nah, you mean back up what you so desparately want to believe. :D  You're
breaking the 1st Rule, so typical of AMD fanboys.

I'd like nothing more than for AMD to release a good CPU (my first proper
CPU purchase was a 6000+), but this FX ain't it by a mile.

The only interesting CPU they recently brought out was the Athlon II 760K.
Good value chip IMO.


> ... I can give you equipment to measure a
> 2700K and 3930K's power usage ...

I already have the kit.


> clocks cook and consume

No they don't. :D  Good grud, I'm only using a boring TRUE with my
2700K. No need for a 'certified' cooler that needs special mention
because it can handle the FX9K. Likewise, no need for watercooling
with a 3930K to get a good oc, decent air cooler will reach 4.7 no
problem (mine does).


> 2) Not all CPU's are the same like not all motherboards are the same,
> most i7 3930K's top out at 4.4ghz ...

Absolute nonsense. Shows how little you know about the 3930K if you think
that's true.


> a lot of heat at that clock, similarly not all motherboard vRM's can
> push high overclocks so to say 4.8ghz on what board though. ...

Again my point. The FX9K is so expensive, I'd rather get a 3930K which is
faster even at stock, and use the spare cash on a better mbd/GPU.


> ... This brings
> me to the other issue, a 3930K on a legitimate ...

Legitimate? What kind of bizarre AMD fanboy parallel dimension did you
pull that word from? :D 


> ... X79 board costs as much
> as $1200, ...

There's being misleading and then there's outright lying; why you've opted
for the latter is beyond me.

There are plenty of good X79 boards for less than a quarter of that,
while even the top-end enthusiast R4E is less than half that much.


> ... the Extreme 9 and 9590 are barely over $1000. ...

Rubbish. A 9590 is 659 UKP here, while the Extreme9 is 160 UKP, total
819 UKP (approx. $1270 US).

A 3930K is 445 UKP here (I'm excluding cheaper sources, though they do
exist), and a VERY good mbd such as the ASUS Rampage IV Formula is 284 UKP,
total 720 UKP; that's a huge saving. Heck, even with an uber top-end
board such as the P9X79E-WS (368 UKP) it's still less. :D  But a
perfectly decent board such as an Asrock X79 Extreme9 (271 UKP, total
716) or GA-X79-UD5 (225 UKP, total 670) would also give very good results.
Numerous other options aswell, and I didn't even bother hunting for the
cheapest sources.

Sorry, you're wrong, period, but more importantly what you can't evade is
the simple fact that even at stock speed, a 3930K with a good X79 board
is much cheaper and 20% faster than a 9590 and Extreme9.

For reference, my own 3930K was 400 UKP, mbd was 273 UKP (ASUS P9X79 WS),
total 673 UKP - less than the cost of a 9590 on its own.


> ... Granted I
> agree the pricing is wrong on the chip but who is to blame AMD for making
> money, its a business after all.

AMD is to blame, so that's what I do. And since when has AMD made money?

I would dearly love to shout proud about something AMD has done, but the
9590 isn't remotely worthy of praise in any respect.

Ian.

Score
1
a b V Motherboard
August 2, 2013 3:46:00 AM

It's easier to just use the quote tab, this is a mess to make sense of.

On the motherboard issue;

ASRock 990FX Extreme 9 is $180 before rebates, the FX9590 has to be bought in bundle for $900 before rebates, can probably get the two for around $1000. The FX9370 is only $400 or so as a alternative without much trade off in performance. The boards are cheap for high end albeit and if you read I do think the price is wrong on the chips themselves but that is more business related. AMD with OEM's will make money off these parts irrespective of what you are inclined to believe.

Rampage iV Extreme is around $450 and the i7 3930K is around $580 then you need a Quad Channel kit which depending on latency timings and speeds and capacity will set one back a significant amount of money compared to a dual channel 1866 kit which is sufficient for the AMD setup

Ultimately both cost over 1K and these platforms target a specific end user.
Power and Overclocking.

AMD has never expressly claimed efficiency so making out to be shocked about its power numbers is something a person looking to criticise would do. The FX was never intended to be efficient but it is a pure enthusiast part. We will be getting ours soon and will be putting it under LN2 and Phase/Vapor change cooling which is one of the enthusiast markets this chip targets. for a everyday user and gamer this chip is not intended for you but common sense would dictate that point. That said while its not optimal for a day to day user it offers a high end AMD setup and according to the limited reviews actually holds its own again Intel's higher end bracket, most benches showing it competing against the 4770k/3770K and other metrics going up against the 3960X albeit to safely operate the 9590 it takes someone with knowledge on cooling it hence why its sold primarily to OEMs.



Score
-1
a b V Motherboard
August 2, 2013 4:14:23 AM

I quote how I like.

First, rebates are utterly irrelevant. And now you have to throw in RAM pricing. :D 


> ... OEM's will make money off these parts irrespective of what you are inclined to believe.

I'm sure they will, because plenty of people are clueless about these issues.


> ... which depending on latency timings and speeds and capacity will set one back a significant
> amount of money compared to a dual channel 1866 kit which is sufficient for the AMD setup

The bias in your comments is unbelievable, an assumption at every stage that the X79 requires
premium parts (wrong), while medium level items are fine for AMD.

And you don't need to use a quad -channel kit, that's nonsense. Two matched dual-channel
kits will work just fine, and since the bandwidth is higher anyway then a higher clock isn't
necessary to provide the same performance. Infact, a quad-channel 4x2GB kit here is the
same price as a dual-channel 2x4GB at the same 1600 speed. But check the prices I
quoted, this means even with a native quad-channel kit, the 3930K setup is still cheaper than
the FX config.


> Ultimately both cost over 1K and these platforms target a specific end user.
> Power and Overclocking.

Fact is you made false claims but refuse to admit it. X79 boards don't cost $1200, the FX9K
will not give 'exponentially' better performance when oc'd, etc.


> ...AMD has never expressly claimed efficiency so making out to be shocked about its power
> numbers is something a person looking to criticise would do. ...

I don't seek to criticise, I'm merely pointing out the blatantly obvious, that the FX is far too expensive
and uses way too much power for the lame performance it provides. A stock 3930K is 20% faster,
costs far less, uses less power, etc.


> ... The FX was never intended to be efficient ...

Really? So you think that isn't deserving of criticism? :D 


> but it is a pure enthusiast part. We will be getting ours soon and will be putting it under LN2 and

LN2!! 8D I rest my case (QED). Sheesh...


> and gamer this chip is not intended for you but common sense would dictate that point. ...

Sorry but the simple logical conclusion is that if one has such a budget, then an FX build with
this chip and mbd makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why on earth would anyone spend
more to obtain less performance?? Because that's what you're suggesting people
should do.


> ... That said while its not optimal for a day to day user it offers a high end AMD setup and according to the

It's a sad day indeed when this kind of overpriced, underperforming hw is what people feel has to
be described as 'high-end' from AMD. What has the tech world come to. :\

I'm just amazed you're trying to defend the indefensible so much. How bizarre...

I really do want AMD to produce something good, because we need the competition - Intel is
treading water and it's current chip pricing is whacko. But chips like the 9590 are not the answer.


Btw, the R4E is a top-end X79 board; one doesn't have to use anything like such a high-end
board as that to get good oc'ing results with a 3930K. I note your bias once again, choosing to
highlight the most expensive X79 option for your comparison. I gave numerous examples of
other X79 boards that cost way less.

Ian.

Score
1
a b V Motherboard
August 2, 2013 5:26:34 AM

mapesdhs said:
I quote how I like.

First, rebates are utterly irrelevant. And now you have to throw in RAM pricing. :D 


> ... OEM's will make money off these parts irrespective of what you are inclined to believe.

I'm sure they will, because plenty of people are clueless about these issues.


> ... which depending on latency timings and speeds and capacity will set one back a significant
> amount of money compared to a dual channel 1866 kit which is sufficient for the AMD setup

The bias in your comments is unbelievable, an assumption at every stage that the X79 requires
premium parts (wrong), while medium level items are fine for AMD.

And you don't need to use a quad -channel kit, that's nonsense. Two matched dual-channel
kits will work just fine, and since the bandwidth is higher anyway then a higher clock isn't
necessary to provide the same performance. Infact, a quad-channel 4x2GB kit here is the
same price as a dual-channel 2x4GB at the same 1600 speed. But check the prices I
quoted, this means even with a native quad-channel kit, the 3930K setup is still cheaper than
the FX config.


> Ultimately both cost over 1K and these platforms target a specific end user.
> Power and Overclocking.

Fact is you made false claims but refuse to admit it. X79 boards don't cost $1200, the FX9K
will not give 'exponentially' better performance when oc'd, etc.


> ...AMD has never expressly claimed efficiency so making out to be shocked about its power
> numbers is something a person looking to criticise would do. ...

I don't seek to criticise, I'm merely pointing out the blatantly obvious, that the FX is far too expensive
and uses way too much power for the lame performance it provides. A stock 3930K is 20% faster,
costs far less, uses less power, etc.


> ... The FX was never intended to be efficient ...

Really? So you think that isn't deserving of criticism? :D 


> but it is a pure enthusiast part. We will be getting ours soon and will be putting it under LN2 and

LN2!! 8D I rest my case (QED). Sheesh...


> and gamer this chip is not intended for you but common sense would dictate that point. ...

Sorry but the simple logical conclusion is that if one has such a budget, then an FX build with
this chip and mbd makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why on earth would anyone spend
more to obtain less performance?? Because that's what you're suggesting people
should do.


> ... That said while its not optimal for a day to day user it offers a high end AMD setup and according to the

It's a sad day indeed when this kind of overpriced, underperforming hw is what people feel has to
be described as 'high-end' from AMD. What has the tech world come to. :\

I'm just amazed you're trying to defend the indefensible so much. How bizarre...

I really do want AMD to produce something good, because we need the competition - Intel is
treading water and it's current chip pricing is whacko. But chips like the 9590 are not the answer.


Btw, the R4E is a top-end X79 board; one doesn't have to use anything like such a high-end
board as that to get good oc'ing results with a 3930K. I note your bias once again, choosing to
highlight the most expensive X79 option for your comparison. I gave numerous examples of
other X79 boards that cost way less.

Ian.



If you read over again I made no such claim that a X79 board is $1200 I said for a suitable X79 board and 3930K

Quote:
a 3930K on a legitimate X79 board costs as much as $1200


Just to prove it to you.

Again not all boards provide stable overclocks and not all chips overclock to the same, the Extreme 9 990FX is a high end AM3+ board and relative to a X79 board its cheaper so the cost difference is mitigated. I do see you are in the UK and prices differ depending on reseller but working off the US pricing which is generally cheaper the systems work out similar if one choses the FX9590 instead of the step down.

Why would anyone build a extreme system based on mid level parts? The 2011 Socket is enthusiast level and mid to low level compromises outright performance, also lower end 2011 boards suffice but don't overclock the same as higher end boards along with skimped out features bringing mainstream to enthusiast is a compromise that has backfired as most will buy a 1155/1150 with i5 or i7 as most users are gamers and the 2011 offers very little over the mainstream, so again I stated the FX9590 on a EXtreme 9 is a only surpassed by perhaps a UD7 or Crosshair V Formula Z appart from that the system listed in this article is as high end as it comes for AMD platforms.

At the high end, who is ever concerned about power efficiency when running Titans, 690's or 7990's, watercooling and other high end equipment. So again I say this is a pure enthusiast part and the average joe is not suited to this when a i5 or 8350 is plenty

Score
-1
!