If architecture matters, why does the fx 9590 win?

[Con6612]

Looked at numbers wrong, stop replying to this thread. Sorry for getting you all riled up or something

 

[13thmonkey]

Does it really?

seems 50:50 against a 3770k
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=551

And against a more modern processor 6700K:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1543
It loses across the board.

A lesser modern processor 6600k:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544
And is loses very often, most wins are on compression.

And an i3:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1783
wins on multicore, loses on single core.

Add to that the fact that it's a 220W processor, vs 50-70W processors, needs semi exotic cooling, vs a block of copper and a fan. Any mobo can run it, vs needed one with excellent power delivery and it's a no brainer which way to go.

 

[DSzymborski]

I would show you but I'm on a crappy iPad, so it's annoying to upload screenshots and link them.

We have quite a coincidence; it just happens to also be annoying to discuss topics when a poster makes an argument about supposed benchmarks but doesn't provide any indication what they're specifically referring to.

 

[bicycle_repair_man]

Unless the benchmark is relevant to what you do, the result is irrelevant. I don't care about video encoding benchmarks because I don't do video encoding. I don't care about gaming benchmarks for Ashes of the Singularity because I won't play that game.

 

[Wayfall]

The architecture is old.

Programs and game that are new were built around new architecture so work efficiently with new hardware.

A decent i3 can beat a FX CPU easy due to new architecture.

The FX 9590 is around three years old as it released back in 2013, technology has advanced very fast since then CPU and GPU wise. FX CPU's are starting to become a bottleneck with new Hardware now sadly. Their cheap CPU's for a reason.

AMD's FM2+ and AM3+ are becoming dead sockets as well, AMD really need to release the ZEN CPU's soon. Due to them not releasing new CPU's Intel have taking hold of the CPU market with their powerful Skylake CPU's which are only just slightly higher in price than their Haswell architecture but astoundingly more powerful that any FX CPU.

 

[TonyRoma]

AMD FX9590 wins.... for being the HOTTEST lmao! No one with any sense would pay the asking price for it over a similar priced Intel CPU.

 

[13thmonkey]

Programs and game that are new are built around new architecture so work efficiently with new hardware.

Not to any great degree, some specialist functions perhaps, but that's all, GPUs and the DX version it's far more visible, there have been encryption extensions on CPUs recently, but that's all.

 

[Wayfall]

TonyRoma
'AMD FX9590 wins.... for being the HOTTEST lmao! No one with any sense would pay the asking price for it over a similar priced Intel CPU'

I'm sorry but it doesn't, compare any Haswell or Skylake CPU to the FX range and there is a huge difference. There is a reason why FX CPU's are so cheap you know..

Also since the new Nvidia GPU's have come out I have seen quite a few people post about low GPU usage and frame-rate and the common factor was the CPU.
It can not handle the new tech's speed.

You can also see by trying them with new games, The FX CPU's are certainly not efficient with new games with their power as they were made to work with hardware in 2013-2014.

Getting an FX CPU is just a mistake.

 

[13thmonkey]

AMD FX9590 wins.... for being the HOTTEST lmao! No one with any sense would pay the asking price for it over a similar priced Intel CPU.

Some of us get the joke...

 

[TonyRoma]

'AMD FX9590 wins.... for being the HOTTEST lmao! No one with any sense would pay the asking price for it over a similar priced Intel CPU'

I'm sorry but it doesn't, compare any Haswell or Skylake CPU to the FX range and there is a huge difference. There is a reason why FX CPU's are so cheap you know..

Also since the new Nvidia GPU's have come out I have seen quite a few people post about low GPU usage and frame-rate and the common factor was the CPU.

It can not handle the new tech's speed.

You can also see by trying them with new games, The FX CPU's are certainly not efficient with new games with their power as they were made to work with hardware in 2013-2014.

Getting an FX CPU is just a mistake.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I meant hottest in terms of temperature, not desirability. Simple fact is that particular AMD CPU (FX9590) will keep your home warm in winter, AMD even recommend water cooling. I know this, I work in the industry, I've heard first hand from AMD about the recommendations. I wouldn't touch that CPU if it was half the price.

 

[Ecky]

Maybe in terms of heat output, but Intel CPUs win even in raw temperature, if you assume AMD's temperature numbers can be compared 1:1 with Intel's (which they can't). Try running an FX9590 at 99c - you can do that with a modern Core CPU.

 

[Wayfall]

Intel CPU's with a good cooler can stay at around 30C idle - 40-70C at load depending on the intensity of the task at hand and the ambient room temp but also humidity.

 

[13thmonkey]

OK, we appear to have had a sarcasm failure in the thread.

Tonyroma is clearly saying that the only thing that 9590's win at it being very hot which (for those that need to know) is a bad thing (just so we are clear on that). He then goes on to say that there is no reason to buy AMD over intel at a price point because the performance is not there.

So the last few posts have been arguing about a nonexistent statement.

 

[TonyRoma]

Sorry if I muddied the waters.

 

[13thmonkey]

not your fault.

 

[13thmonkey]

Closing this down now, the answers are here, the OP isn't, it's at risk of turning into AMD vs Intel if we leave it alone, and so far it hasn't so lets leave it there.