Ok, I know everyone's tired of the countless AMD vs. Intel debates that spring up here every few weeks or so, but here's one based solely on performance.
Now, before anyone says, "use the search bar" or "AMD's better for being on a budget, Intel's better for performance," please know that I would like a little more in-depth explanation. I have read in many places that Intel is better in the performance category than AMD, but everything I'm reading about the FX-9590 seems better than Intel's highest offering, the Extreme Edition Core i7-4960X.
A quick comparison:
It looks like the only category Intel wins in is wattage. This series of benchmark tests shows that the FX-9590 does not perform as well as similar Intel processors in categories like single core performance and cinebench tests, however. But for a $700 price gap, the FX CPU does pretty well against the i7. Is there any reason for me not to choose the FX-9590 if I'm going to build a PC?
Now, before anyone says, "use the search bar" or "AMD's better for being on a budget, Intel's better for performance," please know that I would like a little more in-depth explanation. I have read in many places that Intel is better in the performance category than AMD, but everything I'm reading about the FX-9590 seems better than Intel's highest offering, the Extreme Edition Core i7-4960X.
A quick comparison:
price: AMD $349.99, Intel $1049.99
base frequency: AMD 4.7 GHz, Intel 3.6 GHz
turbo frequency: AMD 5 GHz, Intel 4 GHz
cores: AMD 8, Intel 6
cache: AMD 16 MB, Intel 15 MB
wattage: AMD 220W, Intel 130W
It looks like the only category Intel wins in is wattage. This series of benchmark tests shows that the FX-9590 does not perform as well as similar Intel processors in categories like single core performance and cinebench tests, however. But for a $700 price gap, the FX CPU does pretty well against the i7. Is there any reason for me not to choose the FX-9590 if I'm going to build a PC?