AMD’s 5 GHz Turbo CPU in Retail: The FX-9590 and ASRock 990FX Extreme9 Review
by Ian Cutress on August 9, 2014 8:00 AM ESTASRock 990FX Extreme9 In The Box
When I started reviewing motherboards for AnandTech, the motherboard industry was on the verge of USB 3.0 being this new feature, only available through controllers. At the time, due to the difference between USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 headers, cases had not implemented USB 3.0 and the motherboard manufacturers had to add in extra bits and bobs to their motherboards so users could feel the benefit of internal connectors. As time progressed, these extra add-in interfaces migrated into the chassis industry, with most chassis supporting one USB 3.0 header. This relegated any USB 3.0 add-on in the motherboard to those motherboards with two USB 3.0 headers. It is at this point that the 990FX Extreme9 was made, and due to the Extreme9 nomenclature, this bundle is meant to epitomize ASRock’s in-the-box offerings.
In the box we get:
Driver DVD
Manual
Rear Panel Shield
USB 3.0 front panel
Six SATA Cables
Two SLI Cables
The Extreme9 is also one of the last AMD motherboards to support SLI, so the motherboard manufacturers also had to include SLI bridges. I still think the USB 3.0 panel is a good idea for motherboards with two USB 3.0 headers, even today.
ASRock 990FX Extreme9 Overclocking
Experience with ASRock 990FX Extreme9
Overclocking with AM3+ CPUs brought back a small wave of nostalgia. Here we are back at 200 MHz base frequency, and have to deal with 0.5x multipliers. For our testing, we overclocked the FX-8150 CPU similar to our previous 990FX motherboards in order to get consistent data.
Overclocking the 990FX Extreme9 in the BIOS is relatively straightforward, although the level of automatic options in the software is disappointing. We enabled a high load-line calibration, started at 20x200 MHz (4.0 GHz) with 1.200 volts set in the BIOS. Our sample hit 4.6 GHz at 1.325 volts, with +132W power draw over stock.
Methodology:
Our standard overclocking methodology is as follows. We select the automatic overclock options and test for stability with PovRay and OCCT to simulate high-end workloads. These stability tests aim to catch any immediate causes for memory or CPU errors.
For manual overclocks, based on the information gathered from previous testing, starts off at a nominal voltage and CPU multiplier, and the multiplier is increased until the stability tests are failed. The CPU voltage is increased gradually until the stability tests are passed, and the process repeated until the motherboard reduces the multiplier automatically (due to safety protocol) or the CPU temperature reaches a stupidly high level (100ºC+). Our test bed is not in a case, which should push overclocks higher with fresher (cooler) air.
Manual Overclock:
Overclocking on the FX-9590 proved less fruitful. While 5.0 GHz on all cores was stable at stock voltages, at 5.2 GHz temperatures on our setup were already high and caused throttling of the CPU below stock performance levels.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
146 Comments
View All Comments
wurizen - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
the fx series does need to go down in watts, which only comes in a die shrink from what i know. but the thing it has going for it are 8 cores, which intel doesn't even have in their consumer or enthusiast cpu's. u have to go xeon to find an intel 8 core cpu. my theory that amd is not updating the fx series or their chipsets is probably due to the backlash of the of fx series. i forgot when the the fx-8150 came out but it was negative. i don't think amd wants to have another repeat of that so amd is putting their cards back in the deck. they're softly announcing this and that about apu's... and hoping the marketing of apu will be enough to garner positive feedback. bring the image back. that is all it is, i think. what the hell is an apu, anyway? oh, it's the future. this is what amd wants ppl to know. but, we know that apu is not the future. it's just a stop gap for amd. it's just a fancy acronym.i don't think the low performance of amd fx cpu compared to an intel part is also solely amd's fault. i think software developers/coding can also be attributed to it. i mean, if you have this and that code built for intel chips since they're inside (i hate to say it) most of the pc's in the world, then of course, intel will have a lead from the get go. for example, windows 8 is suppose to be better for amd fx cpu's than windows 7. now dig deeper into how programs are run and make it so that an fx chip will shine as much as an intel chip, then we probably have a very well optimized program, which in the real world is probably a unicorn program. so, this unicorn program puts both amd and intel chips thru its paces, equally and optimally and fully. and i think that unless an intel chip has a specific function that makes it run faster (i forgot what it is), then an amd fx 8-core chip with its more logical, fully functional, real cores of 8 will probably be better than intels 4 cores with hyperhtreading. intel has patents for those specific, specialize tasks though and this is why intel is hard to beat and why amd loses to them.
this is why amd is waiting b/c 1)amd knows intel's roadmap and 2)they have apu's and consoles as stop gap 3) they'll return to the desktop performance cpu when the tide, the program/software/patents or whatever it is has leveled out so that amd can put out a competitive product that is truly innovative. and not just tick and tocks 4) the cpu fabs are probably too expensive right now for amd to jump in and do a die shrink (not sure tho; maybe intel has a hand in that too? idk)--like why is intel the only cpu company doing die shrinks every year and half? sounds weird to me. and it's closest competitor is just sitting back. weird right? anyway, im out of theories, i think.
oh, you'd think amd would just put 8 core kaveris without an igpu, right? but, no. i think amd is still not sure the performance gain with that will be enough to wipe out the negativity of the fx-8150 debacle. so, amd is just not doing it.
what do you guys think of my theories?
Death666Angel - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
"but the thing it has going for it are 8 cores, which intel doesn't even have in their consumer or enthusiast cpu's."I stopped reading right there. If you think 8 cores in a 4 module FX CPU are comparable to 4 cores in Intel mainstream CPUs or 8 cores in Intel enthusiast CPUs, you should go back and read up on the architecture differences. The fact that an Intel 8 thread CPU (core i7 with 4 cores and HT) usually beats any FX CPU with 4 modules should be warning enough that you shouldn't draw any conclusions based on that.
wurizen - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
Ive read up on bulldozer architecture. 4 modules with 2 logical and physical cores = 8 cores. Intels hyperthreading arent physical cores but software driven. so an OS sees an i7 with 8 cores even tho 4 of those cores are virtual. AMD has 8 physical/logical cores. Each module or 2 cores do have to share FpU, l2 cache (i think) and another thing. So, the cores are hampered by this but it doesnt take away the fact that there are 8 cores there. And i know its slow even though it has more cores than intel. But by refining it and better software optimization, i am wishing AMD to at least compete with intel enthusiast x99 chipset in the future with half the price. Why? Bc i cant afford intel. Simple as that.mapesdhs - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
Sorry it's not an 8-core at all, not when it has to share resources split int vs. fp. Hence whythis very article shows again and again the older 4770K beating the 959 on threaded loads,
with 60% less power consumption. Convincing yourself that AMD's "8 cores" marketing has
any kind of sensible basis is as bad as believing MHz is an equally useful metric, or MIPS.
Intel's real, old, 6-core, the 3930K, utterly demolishes the 9590, for less power, etc. If you're
on a budget, buy a used 3930K, it'll leave AMD's chips in the dust, and there are plenty of
low cost X79 boards these days, especially on the used market (Gigabyte UD3 only cost me
55 UKP).
Ian.
Budburnicus - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
Noob, 2x ALU per unit DOES NOT equal 2 FULL CPU cores! The ONLY "edge" AMD has gained by this, frankly, AWFUL architecture, is in marketing, because they can somehow LEGALLY call each unit 2 CPU cores - when they do not function as such at all! In fact, HyperThreading provides better real world performance that doubling APU's when the architecture involved has much higher IPC as well as a DEDICATED minimum of 168 GB/s to L3 cache per core, at stock speeds!AMD calling a 4 unit CPU an 8 core machine is essentially the same as intel calling a 4 core i7 an 8 core CPU! HyperThreading is NOT software! read more about CPUs bro.
Budburnicus - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
*than doubling ALUs*Budburnicus - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
EXACTLY! +1Laststop311 - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
you said intel has no non xeon 8 core cpu's. But haswell-e will have 8 core/16 thread. I currently run an i7-980x gulftown x58 system and will be replacing it with 8 core haswell-e. video production speed should sky rocket.mapesdhs - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
That depends on what you're doing, which app, where the bottlenecks reside, etc.If you've already oc'd your 980X then you're starting from a pretty good baseline,
so don't expect HW-E to be that much better (NB: I have a 990X, a couple of 3930Ks,
4820K, seveal 2700Ks, etc.)
What really will help for you is the newer I/O provision, ie. SATA3, PCI Express, M.2, etc.
The non-Intel SATA3 controllers on X58 boards were pretty awful, especially Marvell.
And of course you can at least double your max RAM, which might be holding you back
somewhat if you're a heavy AE user.
Ian.
Arbie - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
I think 'ur' Shift key is broken.