AMD FX-9590 ‘Centurion’ 5GHz CPU Benchmarks Leak

Updated: July 8, 2013

So, Hells Bells. It seems the speculation can now be put to rest, as a VR-Zone Forum member named “MacClipper” was able to get his wee mittens on a retail sample of AMD’s highly anticipated FX-9590 ‘Centurion’ CPU.

It has now been confirmed that the new CPU will ship with 8-Cores and while in Turbo Mode, run at 5.0GHz. What we can see so far is that the FX-9590 is based off the same HKG process as fellow products, Piledriver and Bulldozer, which essentially makes it just an advanced FX CPU that features more horsepower and requires more power to run.

The AMD FX-9590 is made up of an 8-core processor that has 8-threads and 8 MB of cache. Out of the box the CPU is not clocked at 5.0GHz, but at 4.7GHz and with Turbo Core 3.0 Technology the CPU reaches 5.0GHz.

Leaked prices are showing in the $800.00 range, which pits it neck and neck with Intel’s X79 platform CPU the I7-3960X one of Intel’s fastest desktop solutions. This means AMD had better be putting out some really kick-ass performance with the FX-9590 or it will just be a joke.

Some very interesting things need to be taken note of such as the fact that the CPU when in its idle state runs at 1.4GHz at 0.875V, but when it goes Into Turbo Core 3.0 Mode at 5.0GHz the FX-9590 requires an outrageous 1.513V to run stable.

There are only a few motherboards that will even be able to support this natively so that will narrow down the amount of folks who can even upgrade at all. With that said, requiring that much power will create a hell of a lot of heat and necessitate adequate cooling that most air based solutions will fall short of making liquid cooling almost a must with the 9590.

AMD’s FX-9590 features the same die size as the older FX-8350 and it seems the only real difference between the two are the fact that the FX-9590 comes from a higher bin and obviously comes with higher speeds all around. Mr. MAcClipper tested the new AMD FX-9590 on a ASRock 990FX Extreme motherboard that ASSRock considers to be their flagship motherboard for the AMD AM3 desktop platform and since he tested with it, it must be one of the boards that actually supports the new FX CPU.

At the end of the day it is totally cool to see AMD still trying to get in the ring and fight Intel, but the Gigahertz race went the way of the floppy disc and with a price of $800.00 along with the extreme voltage requirements its hard not to think AMD is having and April Fools joke on their fans. I wanted AMD to come out and really do some damage, but alas AMD comes across like fake tits in this one. Nice to look at, but nothing real that is how the AMD FX-9590 is looking from initial results. Thanks for reading Tech Of Tomorrow where if you have something to say, say it as we value your input and thoughts on all things Tech, Peace.

Additional FX-9590 Benchmarks

Source: Guru3D

Alex

Damn, this is one helluva fast CPU. This CPU and radeon 8*** GPU’s will be da real shit !
- Dope_Pegasus
  
  radeon 9*** you mean, radeon 8*** is OEM only
  - Alex
    
    What ?
    - Joseph
      
      Rebranded 7000 series chips have be released as the 8000 series for OEM. Because of this, the newest series for Radeon will be 9*** and might be released late October/early November from what I have read
    - Nikhil
      
      only builders have access to the HD 8XXX series, which is just a rebranding of the HD 7XXX series
- marclar
  
  Bro this CPU is slow as shit. I7 extreme costs roughly the same and is kickin it’s butt on stock clocks. i7 extreme gives 10 points in cinebench. Imagine if it was overclocked now… Also it runs cooler and draws less power.
Νίκος Γκίρης

nc stats, but 220 watts??? omg!!!!
- lehpron
  
  Why is anyone surprised, do you not understand that overclocking increases wattage? It goes up exponentially with frequency, approximately the square of the frequency change. So if a stock part was around 130W, scaling it up 20% from 4GHz makes about 44% more energy usage, or around 200W. It isn’t unreasonable.
  
  Add that TDP isn’t actual and just a bracket meant for multiple SKU’s a different frequencies, there is no reason to get crazy over this.
  - Hugh
    
    You’ve got that backwards. Power scales with the square of voltage and linearly with clock speed. So the 1.5 volts that it takes to get to 5ghz is the problem not the 5ghz itself.
    - JimP
      
      It takes 1.5 to 1.6 to OC a 3970X to 5GHZ.
      A 3970 uses 25 watts per core for 3.9
      A 9590 uses 27.5 watts per core for 5ghz.
Indra Emc

220 watts and 1.5 volts ?
Mother of TDP and Mother of Vcore……

AMD still didn’t understand that “Clock speed aren’t everything”
- Long
  
  Isn’t that how AMD’s been marketing on? High clock speeds for CPU and high Bandwith on their GPU?
- TwinShadow
  
  AMD knows that also these Chips are not for Retail Wait for Steamroller
- AMD FTW
  
  you do know their is a million dollar “sport” called overclocking in case you didn’t know.
Steven_Wontonz

why is it 9k series when they used the same structure as the vishera/ piledrivers. Is this a marketing ploy? Sounds like a factory overclocked cpu with a super high wattage requirement
Josh Walker

Bulldozer all over again… Can’t wait to get a 9590 on eBay for like £40.
- TwinShadow
  
  Good luck its not for retail
  - Drew
    
    its on newegg as we speak… http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347
  - http://www.hectormadrigal.com/ Hector Madrigal
    
    It’s on Amazon for around 790 bucks.
Joseph

Maybe this will drop the 8350′s price down a little bit
- PDVWallE
  
  In Europe, you can get a 8350 for around 110 Euros now.
  - Joseph
    
    Cheapest I can find in the US is about $185ish. Lower is always better though
  - softilol
    
    WHERE? I NEED TO BUY SOME
- Wreaker
  
  Probably not a price drop becuse the 9590 since it won’t be available for retailers, only OEM and Builders.
Amr Mhish

ok if this is real what about the motherboard ????the voltage and the bandwidth
i really hope AMD will pull this through
Griffin Brown

220 F***ING WATTS! WTF? But, yeah, nice CPU. Lower the price to like $600, or $500 would be ideal, and it might really sell, but not for $880!
Tyler Vieira

I wonder why they didn’t compare it to like the 3930k or 3960x becuase those are in its price range hmmmmm
Ian McConvey

LOL! 5ghz and 8 cores and it only manages that in Cinebench? and £800? omfg AMD you make me lol.
- Hunkashoo
  
  And people still try to say you get more for your money with AMD.
  - Andrejs Silvans
    
    To be honest, most people that think they know these things but actually don’t, say that they see benchmarks and omg intel is so much faster. But in reality most people have no clue that 95% of games can be run on Pentium 4 with a decent graphics card. The only people that should actually be looking at these benchmarks are people like me who render videos and things alike. I bet my i5 2500k@ 4.2ghz still outperforms any stock amd processor out there xD
    - TwinShadow
      
      Have you every used a AMD chip for rendering you would be surprise, also how would you know how good they are besides looking benchmarks
  - Khai Jeff
    
    Amd still got the best cost/performance ratio. It’s just these fx-9000 that are completely off.
razor

Something tells me it’s just a ploy to steal Intel’s thunder. It’s just a way for AMD to make noise for its new steamroller cpus.
- lehpron
  
  This “ploy” must be enough of a threat to Intel’s bottom-line for the response to be a Haswell refresh next year instead of Broadwell. These companies aren’t stupid or don’t plan just because we don’t understand, we just happen to not have access to the big picture data.
  
  Enthusiasts especially tend to be conceded. Look how many respond to this AMD processor as if overclocking in general defeats its purpose, but the majority of the world doesn’t subscribe to our ideas– AMD is doing what works for them, it doesn’t matter if we don’t understand.
  
  Clearly whatever AMD is doing is causing Intel to react, a Haswell refresh only means one thing: Higher frequency models. But Intel can take advantage their smaller dies and increase frequency without needing another TDP bracket. A 4GHz Haswell base clock could still fit in 84W TDP, a 5GHz model would probably require 95W TDP.
  
  No doubt for AMD this isn’t random ploy, considering the Haswell refresh reaction, I’ll bet Steamroller will allow AMD to push higher frequency models too, especially via their 28nm lithography. They can keep the same TDP and raise the frequency by as much as 15%, that would be like the 4.4GHz FX-9370 but instead at 125W TDP.
  
  The shrink could also allow for a 10-core model to appear in the same TDP as the 8-cores now, but there are no rumors for that, yet.
CLAMPS

WORST PART OF THE BENCHMARKS IS THEY USE OLD I 7′S? WTF LAWL
- Cody McCormick
  
  I am running an i7-920 @ 4.2GHz w/HT enabled. I would love to see how it stacks up against this proc.
  - Cody McCormick
    
    Ran Cinebench and got 7.12pts not bad I guess for an old proc.
    - Aditya Raja Gummadavelly
      
      Haha I have the same processor at the same speed and got the same score in Cinebench!
      - Cody McCormick
        
        Win!
      - 4ux0r
        
        Cinebench R11.5 my 4770k @ 4.6Ghz got 10.06pts
        
        350$ cpu vs 800$ cpu its ajoke
- marclar
  
  Just a note… They didn’t use old i7′s to compare with the 9590 those are static results when you install cinebench so you can see atleast where you’re standing there… These results come with installation.
snake8989

Overtaken ! !
jake

This CPU is more guided for extreme overclockers.
- Hunkashoo
  
  It actually has no room for overclocking so it’s good for nothing.
  - matt
    
    he meant extreme overclockers, if you could read. Like liquid nitrogen overclockers.
    - Hunkashoo
      
      It’s simply an 8350 with less defects. Therefor it’s already close to it’s max out. An Intel i7 Extreme would be far better for extreme overclockers, if you could read.
      - NarooN
        
        You’re still wrong. Last time I checked, someone took an FX-8350 and got it well past 8GHz, hence “extreme overclocking”. So explain how these have no OC’ing headroom if people have taken everyday 8350′s and got them that high with conventional extreme OC methods, if these are just cherry-picked chips?
connor

wow, thats sad, a core i7-3930k gets abouyt 10 on that cinebench 11.5 benchmark at stock speeds. plus it uses less power and the overclock potential is higher under normal cooling circumstances. the only benefit of this cpu is that the platform is cheaper, but that might not at all be a benefit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A30-VbDzQs my reference to the cinebench comparison
Greg Reavis

That’s a lot of power but if I had that kind of money I would just buy a i7 3960x and a bitchen motherboard because at the end of the day it will cost about the same, stay a lot cooler, and suck a hell of alot less power out of the wall.
Foxiol

In the web site that I´m used to buy all my PC related stuff at Spain they already have both CPU´s listed with its prices.

There will be 2 versions FX9370 at 4.4Ghz (Turbo up to 4.7Ghz) priced at 299€ and the FX9590 at 4.7Ghz (Turbo at 5.0Ghz) priced at 799€.

The FX8350 costs 169€ right now. If the FX9370 is “way ahead it”, I´ll probably get it instead of the 8350.

It also says: “You can only buy this CPU if you buy an specific motherboard and cooling solution with it” “Check the official web site to check which motherboards are supported”.
erodz1892

does this equals the 3770K?
- Ultimate_PIMP
  
  http://us.hardware.info/reviews/2680/21/intel-core-i7-3770k–i5-3570k–i5-3550-ivy-bridge-review-benchmarks-cinebench-115
- striker pc
  
  I think no sir… its amd new vishera flagship $800 vs intel flagship Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 150W Six-Core that cost $1,099.99…
Razor

You could call that cpu , Overclocked right out of the box .
benny

dam man im down to buy it but it heats to much, how do i cool it
PCiB

amd has to cut the crap they are currently doing.They have to get over their compatibility thing and make a new socket and a cpu that can benefit from that.
The ghz race has been won by amd but as many of you know this is not all there is to it. In my opinion amd is currently good at the mid range segment bringing top of the line bang for the buck. As for their video cards i have nothing against them i personally think they make a good job in that segment but for the cpu market they still have a looong way to go to do some real damage to intel.
One more thing. While intel announced pcie 4.0 which will be most probably useless and just some marketing thing amd didnt even release a cpu that natively supports pcie 3.0 and the only mobo that has it on the amd line is the sabertooth 990fx gen 3 from the people over at asus.
- Twinshadow
  
  its funny b/c Gpus don’t use the full bandwidth of 3.0 and Intel just started supporting more then 2 native Sata 3.0 were AMD supported 6
Danijs

Just buy 8350, get decent CPU cooler, oc that thing to 5 Ghz and u have same perfomance.
- Leonardo
  
  Yeah that’s what i did. Had one of the first 8150s on the market when it “flopped”. Got a koolance water cooling system for my whole rig and had it clocked @ 5.2 Ghz. CPU Benchmark score was 12476. Which by standards.. is right up there with the $999 Intel CPU. I pushed it to 5.6 at one point but i took it down shortly after. Mostly because i was afraid it would fry. This is just their way of selling something that people might not be able to do themselves. I give props to them though.
- Leonardo
  
  Oh and cinebench i had 11.07
DC

220Watt omfg but look at the benchmakrs
- Kj
  
  Yeah, they are very bad, doesnt come close to the old 2011 intel cpu’s
Ultimate_PIMP

You need to try to overclock this thing. No one has attempted yet and i really wanna see how high it can go.
Angelo Garcia

I love all the people bitching about TDP….I have a 1600W PSW so this thing would be great on mine. This thing kicks my i7-4770k’s ass. :3 Looks like I’m switching again ^.^
- Cookout_
  
  You would actually buy this? There must be some mental instability.
  - striker pc
    
    no, there would be no mental instability, amd is pushing into a maximum limit to fight the current flagship of Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 150W Six-Core that cost$1,099.99… its a war between the two major high price value chips
    - Cookout_
      
      I have an i7 3770k @ 4.6ghz. I can almost guarantee you that it will mop the floor in any benchmark vs this new flagship AMD cpu. I was the one trying to defend AMD for a long time, but they dun’ goofed.
- striker pc
  
  no, there would be no mental instability, amd is pushing into a maximum limit to fight the current flagship of Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 150W Six-Core that cost$1,099.99… its a war between the two major high price value chips.
Brandon Leslie

When will they support PCIe 3.0?
- TwinShadows
  
  When GPUs start using the full Bandwidth of 3.0
Cody_h4x

I have a stock 2600k and just scored 9814 as physics on Firestrike this is pathetic…
NarooN

I’m pretty sure this is geared towards OEM’s and system vendors only, not meant for mainstream retail consumption. Even AMD knows this would never be successful in retail. You can just take an FX-8320 for like $150 USD and easily OC it to 5.0Ghz if you have a decent board and cooling, and it’ll put up the same performance as this.

Anyone who is already an owner of a Vishera octocore should just wait for Steamroller FX’s arrival in Q1/Q2 2014. This is ridiculous, and AMD should’ve never hyped this thing up so much. Now everyone’s just gonna sling even more mud their way.
Cristy

Seems like AMD wasted some more time&money!
Kilono

If you look up on youtube fx 8350 cinabench, a guy manages to get a score of 8.76 at 5ghz, also at a clock of 5.2ghz 1.560V he did a score of 9.04. This is just shit, better buy an fx 8350 and with $300 you make a heavy watercolling up to 5ghz as well and still it will not cost you $900 OR just buy an xtreme from intel which is x10 faster than this1.
Aditya Barve

buy a fx 8350 get corsair h100i and oc it to 5ghz and booom i got a fx 9590
money saved
come on amd go something more we also have common sense we are not fool.bring some high performance cores
lehpron

Since this thing is going to see sales mainly via pre-built systems, very few are going to overclock them further (let alone overclock Intel for the sake of comparison). Branding it FX and making it unlocked is just marketing and you guys should have seen right though that. The majority of customers of this processor will be non-overclockers, they won’t care if overclocking Intel even a tiny bit beats AMD, they only care if a stock Intel can beat it or not for the price.

The primary threat to FX-9590 is i7-3930K, nothing else.
Adamochi

AMD should’ve come out with a phenom II x6 @ 4ghz.
That’s what I’m running AIR cooled at only 1.4v (TDP 122.4W) and my cinebench score is 7.17, i score 7.47 @ 4.2ghz 1.5v (TDP 136W)
- eastyy
  
  always thought what would have happened if they just took the phenom and improved that instead.Almost seemed like with the bulldozer they almost went a step backwards in some of it
person12345

I find it interesting that no relevant CPU’s were compared in the tests, i guess that means it didn’t match up.

If yall didn’t notice, the comparisons were with the 1st Gen i7s and 3-4 year old Xeons.
eastyy

so in a nutshell have they just took a 8350 and overclocked it ?
sley

i have an i7 3770k @ 5ghz with 4.25vcore and amd brings an 8 core @
5ghz with more vcore and slower than my i7 and more watts
Infinizen

I think there are a lot of people missing the point. The 9590 is not intended to be a mainstream offering. At $800 and with serious watercooling required absolutely nobody but extreme overclockers with a lot of time and money are going to buy this thing. I doubt AMD is expecting the average PC gamer to shell out $800 for a moderate improvement in performance when you can get an 8350 for $200 or less. These are nothing more than top bin 32nm parts that they’re hoping LN2 overclockers will buy at a (still absurdly high) markup.
- matt
  
  I think that is a great point and sums this whole thing up quite well.
Mr Douche

Not inclined to believe those benchmarks… The cinebench one tells us that the AMD chip is 4 cores and 8 threads… WRONG!!! AMD already has an 8-core CPU out, why would they go back to 4 and run dual threads on each CPU? THEY WOULDNT! if they decided to add dual threads per core tech then it would be 8 cores for 16 threads!
- Jun Hong
  
  So, the thing is that all of AMD’s “8core” chips are actually more of 4 cores and 8 threads. There are only 4 core modules in each chip. and inside those modules, there are two resource sharing “cores” So they do thecinically do have 8 cores. But not so much.
- NarooN
  
  A much more accurate way of labeling an FX processor would be to say, for example, an octocore FX chip is a “4M/8T” part. 4 modules = 8 threads since each module has two physical integer cores…the thing is, the way Bulldozer and Piledriver work, both cores inside a module share resources, especially so because they both share the same decoder. This is a nice way to fit more cores on a die, but at the same time, due to the shared decoder of this CMT (clustered multi-threading) design, you get roughly 80% of a full CMP (chip multi-processing, i.e. Phenom II x6 with six cores and six threads or a Core i5 with four cores and four threads) design.
  
  When Zambezi first came out, a lot of applications and even Windows itself was having a tough time trying to figure out just what the hell this architecture was. So that was a major contributor of the skewed and horrible benchmarks, among many other things, but what I’m getting at is that programs like CPU-Z and whatnot would report “4 cores, 8 threads” sometimes.
  
  In reality, it’s not hyperthreading (SMT – simultaneous multi-threading), but just a slightly-less efficient version of CMP, which AMD calls CMT ever since Bulldozer’s introduction. So yes, there are 8 physical cores on an FX octocore, but digging deeper, there are 2 physical cores that are inside a module, and there are four total modules there.
  
  So really, “4 cores / 8 threads” isn’t /wrong/, but it’s also not totally /right/ either.
  - Omar Rodriguez Diaz
    
    wall of text crits Mr Douche for 1000000!
    nice explication thoug
KidrocksBodyDbl

Said it before and I will say it again….. unless you plan on A) A nuclear meltdown or B) Nitrogen bath of everything including MOBO and PS AMD should be CAMD….. Cries after melt down. Peace out!
JimP

Because you always get so much for your money with AMD, people just cant’ help themselves comparing it to MUCH more expensive CPU’s. Where is the 3970X on the charts above? Why a $1600 Xeon? A server chip at that.

I think they should always list the price of the CPU’s on the charts when they bench them and only compare with the same (or very close $) processors of Intel$.

Funny the 3970X didn’t even show up? What’s up? (Like i didn’t know).

Why not show the “Cray” Bench along side the 3970X? If money isn’t important.

If it is , and I think it is for the 99% (or 47% as some say) of us. Then money equals performance, otherwise you have no standard.

Another thing that creams my corn is: 220watts for 8 cores isn’t so bad when you consider the Intel 3960/3970 that is 150watts for ONLY 6 cores and much slower on clock.

However it is OK for a GeForce GTX 780 to pull a 250 WATT TDP!, but not a CPU? And did we have to have a SPECIAL cooling or a brand new Motherboard? NO!
At 150 watt TDP for 6 cores (Intel), that is 200 watts for cores 8 at the same rate.
So the 9590 is only using 10% more power to go to 5GHZ, as opposed to 3.9 on Intel. That is impressive.
Truedeal

AMD cannot be serious with this.

I have nothing to say, I am very disappointed.

” Lets make a new “very competitive” cpu, overclock it to “5.0″ ghz, which it doesn’t even apply to all cores, give it a htpc TDP, and sell it for twice the price of one too! Then expect it to do well in the market when someone can just get a 8350 and overclock 5.0 ghz on ALL Cores for not even half the price at lesser or equivalent TDP for more performance.” lel.

Lets make no architectural changes and increase clock speed, and put it in a shitty box to reiterate to the buyer that they got ripped the hell off.

That AMD logic.