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

By: Truedeal

Truedeal — Sun, 04 Aug 2013 03:21:00 +0000

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.

By: Omar Rodriguez Diaz

Omar Rodriguez Diaz — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:31:00 +0000

wall of text crits Mr Douche for 1000000!
nice explication thoug

By: NarooN

NarooN — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0000

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.

By: NarooN

NarooN — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:28:00 +0000

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?

By: Hector Madrigal

Hector Madrigal — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:20:00 +0000

It’s on Amazon for around 790 bucks.

By: JimP

JimP — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:35:00 +0000

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.

By: JimP

JimP — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:08:00 +0000

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.

By: Hunkashoo

Hunkashoo — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:22:00 +0000

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.

By: AMD FTW

AMD FTW — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 05:19:00 +0000

you do know their is a million dollar “sport” called overclocking in case you didn’t know.

By: Jun Hong

Jun Hong — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:17:00 +0000

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.