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
NeatOman - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I have a FX-8320 @4.5Ghz, and never goes over 75c. I got it because it was $215 for both the CPU and a very good motherboard, and paired it with two HD 7850's. With that said, an overclocked i5@4.4Ghz is better then anything AMD can do over clocked even @5Ghz (for the most part) and at times far out classes it. But, an i5 and good motherboard will cost about $350 and $400+ for i7.. Almost twice. FYI, I live in Illinois and the electricity here is very very cheap.colinstu - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
a $300+ AMD chip?! LOL. Who the heck would buy this? It's not efficient, it's definitely not fast compared to $100 cheaper intel offerings (or similarly priced offerings in some of the other benches).swizeus - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Second your opinion... It has been 3rd generation (or more ?) since FX gone out the door and AMD should have a solution to at least match Intel's performance by now, but why this ? It is pointless to have a power hungry beast that lost in the match with a processor that is halved in TDP in an Unzipping archive operation, not to mention electricity bill and the noise to cool down 220Watt TDP Processor... Not worth itRussianSensation - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
The amount of generations or the time span doesn't have any correlation with AMD catching up. Take an i7 4790K and manufacture it in 28-32nm node and see how awful it is. In other words, unless AMD can manufacture chips on the same node as Intel, it has no chance of competing whatsoever even if by magic their CPUs had identical IPC and clocks to Intel's. The delta in performance and performance/watt will only grow once Intel launches Skylake on 14nm next year.Budburnicus - Wednesday, March 11, 2015 - link
Umm a 4790K even at 32nm would still spank this chip across the board. How "awful" indeed...I mean forget the 4790K for a second, the 2600K at STOCK will beat this CPU out in nearly everything. and basically any i7-2600k on any board that supports overclocking WILL easily hit 4.2-4.4 - hell I had mine at 4.4 with a STOCK POS Intel Heatsink (POS in terms of its ability to cool, it is actually more than effective enough with how little heat the CPUs generate) - And at those speeds the 2600K beats out any and every AMD consumer CPU at almost everything, and what few benchmarks it will be behind in, it will not be by too much. And those benchmarks would include only VERY highly multithreaded applications of computational power - basically, server-type stuff. Certainly not in gaming!
Then there's the NEWER Intel CPUs like the i7-5930K (which I also own) which aren't too much more expensive than this flop, and will beat it out in absolutely anything and everything - at stock clocks again! With the exact same CoolerMaster Hyper 212 EVO I have on my i7-2600K machine (AWESOME cooler for the money, though I will probably replace the one currently on the 5930, as it does not provide the maximum OC headroom possible like it does on my 2600 machine) - with dual fans, I have all cores running totally stable at 4.4 GHz with 105.7 Bclock!
AMD really needs to dump this architecture for the consumer class entirely (though I admittedly am not too familiar with Server-class CPU benchmarks, from what I have read the newer Intel Xeon are spanking the current Opterons, but IIRC they still represent good value for money in the high end workstation and server classes - though Enthusiasts generally seem to stick with the Xeons as they like to be able to game at insane speeds and resolutions as well as do encoding, editing, CAD, etc. As I have seen quite a few "ULTIMATE Rig builds" where money is no issue, by people like NCIX, Linus Tech tips, PCper, and others on YouTube, but I have yet to see an ultimate Opteron machine)
So, yeah... All that speaks volumes to people who look at information objectively and without bias. IF AMD were to come out with a new chip tomorrow which not only spanked everything Intel has ever made, but also made it cheap like the original SandyBridge parts - and therefore changed the game, DAMNED right I would be coveting a brand new AMD rig, and would likely sell off my 2600K machine, despite my deep love for it (and the fact that it games slightly better than the 5930 due to higher core speeds by a decent bit) to try to fund such a build ASAP!
But as it is? You would have to be a blind fanboy to buy a CPU like this for a brand new build, as it does not perform well and eats power like crazy, requiring AMD to bundle a friggen AIO water-block with it! And even with the best of the best, it will BARELY overclock! So the stock speed benchmarks will never be too far from a sustainable, stable, overclock - a FAR different story from the i5-i7 2000-5000 K series CPUs - as I said, a pretty average overclock on an i7-2600K is 4.2 GHz, a full 1 GHz above stock speeds, as the 3.8 GHz turbo only works when a single core is under load, and even then it will still beat out tthis 5950 in most ways!
lurker22 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
Is AMD even trying anymore? That power draw is PATHETIC in the year 2014xdrol - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I think the fact that this very processor is still 'the' flagship shows that no, they are not even trying.TiGr1982 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
No, they actually don't. This is just cherry-picked and overclocked FX-8350 from October 2012 with all the associated power draw and heat growing superlinearly because of the much higher operating voltage.However, AMD does develop their CPU side of the business, but since Kaveri this January the results go only into APUs (same will happen with Carrizo coming next year).
AMD APUs are actually very fine in their class, they are just in a shy situation regarding these factory overclocked 220W FXes. The rest of their lineup is fine.
StrangerGuy - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
300W alone for a CPU, holy mother of god. An entire Haswell gaming rig with 750 Ti would probably draw less power.BTW $250 is insane for any motherboard let alone an AMD one. That's an i5 4590 and a budget mobo right there already.
Daniel Egger - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
> 300W alone for a CPU, holy mother of god. An entire Haswell gaming rig with 750 Ti would probably draw less power.Don't know where you got that 300W from but yes, a decent Haswell system with 750 TI will not just probably but definitely draw less power than 300W. Mine takes around 35W idle and up to 120W in games.