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
thejshep - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
But even if you more than double the wattage of an i7, you're still not approaching the wattage this cpu takesSkillztech - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
Cause it is totally intel biasedSkillztech - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
No need to over clock this chip at all, totally powerful. intel and the low voltage low power chips just suck at the same price range.TiGr1982 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
This FX-9590 is actually the last year's product. E.g., in Canadian Canada Computers this SKU (in the version without any cooler) lays on the shelves for months and almost nobody buys it. At the same time, they have a big turnaround of Haswell Intel i7's, which speaks for itself."Re-release" of this SKU happens because AMD has nothing better to offer, so they hope to get some public attention which it better than zero public attention :)
I'm not an old man (age 32 now), but I remember the times (2005) when even Alienware top laptops were based on AMD Turions (rebranded Athlons 64) - simply because these were better than Intel's Pentium M at the time.
And, in contrast, in around last three years since Bulldozer release AMD CPU business looks poorly.
Yes, I know, APUs, OpenCL, HSA. But the CPU side of things at AMD is sad.
Da W - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
AMD should just drop Bulldozer. That's probably what they're doing.Skillztech - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link
8 cores high multi tasking and usage with high end core hungry software leaving intel in the dust. Plus the ability to game awesome. A real CPU.Budburnicus - Saturday, January 10, 2015 - link
Intel's i7-2600K SPANKS this POS in every conceivable way! AND it is THREE years old! This is even at stock clocks, just TRY comparing this CPU in any overclock to an i7-2600K at 4.4 Ghz (and overclock that basically ANY 2600K can handle - I have mine at 4.7 and 102.3 Bclock)And with EVERY benchmark available - the 4.4 Ghz OC,ed i7-2600K will COMPLETELY blow this POS out of the water! (BTW Not only is 4.4 easy to hit, but the TDP never goes above 125 - even with my 4.7 OC, as stock TDP is only 95w!)
I USED to be an AMD "Fanboy" back in the days of Intel's Pentium 4 "Net Burst" architectural FLOP! And the Athlon XP' superior gaming performance and performance per dollar - with better overclocking!
But since PileDriver FIRST came out, I have only shuddered at the thought of this architecture even existing, let alone being pushed farther and farther! Intel KNEW Net Burst was horrible, and dumped it ASAP for first Core and then Core2 architectures - which were very competitive in all ways for their day.
On the eve of SandyBridge, once benchmarks became available it was OBVIOUS that the SandyBridge Architecture was game changing, especially since the about $350 (at release) i7-2600k - and even the $250 i5-2500K completely SPANKED even Intel's own i7-900X extreme edition CPUs whicbh cost about $1000!
Ever since AMD swallowed ATI it seems they really dropped the ball (in both courts!) Continuing this HIGHLY inefficient chip design - which is ACTUALLY only a Quad core - with just 2x the ALU's per core serving as a full "dual core" processing unit - they left out MANY components that make up a FULL core, and most importantly, while L2 cache is slightly larget than Intel's chips for the most part, the caches are MUCH slower! And a "Dual Core Unit" has twice the ALUs vying for L2 access, where L3 cache is INCREDIBLY slow at something like 200 GB/sec to ALL cores - where Intel's i7-2600K has 168 GB/sec DEDICATED PER CORE! And that is at stock speeds too!
So you have REALLY got to ask yourself, when a 3 year old Intel part - which by now is not only cheaper - but FAR more power efficient, is MUCH faster, at stock clock, than a BRAND new AMD part - which takes well over twice the power and puts out over twice the heat, WTF is th point in buying AMD?
Especially when one considers that on a CHEAP Z68 or Z77 chipset board - this three year old i7-2600K can EASILY hit 4.4 Ghz - and it will STILL be more power efficient than the AMD part - as well as multitudes faster in EVERY way that truly matters - this just seem sad for AMD...
They are eating more power, and crapping less performance - even per $! Unless you really want a bargain basement gaming PC - then an A10 APU with a cheap GFX card will be cheaper than an Intel build with similar performance (but we are talking $500 and less for a entirely new build!)
So this FX just represents a sad bit of AMD history, sure the hardcore "fan-boys" will cling tightly to their AMD parts they have invested money into - but (and there is always that BUT) everything about this new FX chip is far behind, and the ONLY reason one should even consider purchasing one is if they already own a good Socket AM3+ mobo - for new builds? AVOID AMD FX CHIPS LIKE THE PLAGUE!
SlowSpyder - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
For those who are running their CPU's at 100% load 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, this isn't the right CPU. That's likely a quite small population of people. There are cons to the FX 9xxx CPU's to be sure, but I don't think what are often over-blown energy usage costs are one of them.MatthiasP - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
The real problem is, there is not a single pro for this processor.SlowSpyder - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
For someone looking to build a new system, probably not a lot of pros. For AM3+ owners looking for an upgrade from a lower part and guaranteed clocks, there could be some value in this processor.