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
TiGr1982 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
No, no FX in the future - at least, not on Bulldozer-derived microarchitectures.Just APUs till 2016 at least.
will1956 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
i've gotten the sabertooth 990FX GEN3 R2.0 and its got pcie 3 x16 with a 8350 and a sapphire 7870 ghz (both OC'ed) and its pretty good although rather greedyTiGr1982 - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
It's nice that this kind of boards exist, but, sadly, PCI Express 3.0 is a rarity rather than a norm on AM3+.AMD only has PCI Express 3.0 as a standard on FM2+ with Kaveri APU.
roadapathy - Saturday, August 9, 2014 - link
I see by the comments below that I'm among the rational. AMD is stuck on the 32nm fab process making for a dismal performance experience for us all! My AMD 6-core could boil water. This is great for the cold midwestern American climate but the Summer is unbearable with AMD CPUs. I had waited over 2 years for a 22nm AMD 8 core FX that never appeared. Meanwhile, I'm running the "lower" 95watt CPU. I can't even imagine how it would be with the 220watt. How ridiculous!!RussianSensation - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
Exactly!! Someone understands. If AMD could move to 14nm, they could increase the number of modules 50%-100% and lower the power usage at the same time. When you CPU is on 32nm while Intel is soon to launch 14nm Broadwell, the chance of AMD competing in performance or performance/watt is 0%.Death666Angel - Sunday, August 10, 2014 - link
But more cores aren't really the issue for AMD, are they? In multi-threaded stuff they are already doing fine. What they need is better IPC. Even at 5GHz they barely beat i3s of the current generation. Unfortunately the FX-9590 isn't in bench yet, but the FX-8350 even loses to a chip on 32nm (i5-2500k) in most benchmarks except some multi threaded ones. Put an i7-2600k in its place and it loses even more consistently. That is not just a lithography disadvantage, that is a straight up embarrassment from the CPU architecture standpoint. And the fact that they aren't releasing any more FX CPUs based on newer architectures is a slap in the face of any PC enthusiast.TiGr1982 - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
Indeed; placed my response too.Budburnicus - Wednesday, January 14, 2015 - link
exactly! AMD has HORRIBLE IPC which results in horrible efficiency - ALSO bear in mind that the 3 year old i5 and i7 parts are 32nm fab, and are 95 watt TDP parts - which can easily be clocked at 4.7 Ghz and totally SPANK this CPU in every way!AMD need a totally new architecture to go with a new fabrication, otherwise it will remain meaningless and eat more power. IPC is incredibly important - just because this FX 9590 is much newer than an i7-2600K and therefore has more and newer instruction sets, does NOT mean it performs better! It performs far worse in fact - whilst eating more power - using the same fab size!
TiGr1982 - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
It's not the manufacturing tech itself - their Bulldozer-derived microarchitecture has drastically slower IPC (Instructions Per Clock). If you you emphasize lithography, then let's compare FX Piledriver from late 2012 on GF 32 nm lithography and Sandy Bridge LGA1155 Core i7 from early 2011 on Intel's 32 nm lithography.Guess what? Sandy Bridge is around 50% faster in single threaded tasks than Pilderiver. At the "same" lithography. Despite the fact that Sandy Bridge i7 has just 9 MB L2+L3 cache, while Piledriver has 16 MB L2+L3 cache. So, AMD's chip has almost twice the amount of cache than Intel's chip and is still 50% slower. So, first, the case with AMD FX is mainly a problem of inappropriate microarchitecture, and only then comes the lithography lag.
So, even if a Cinderella's fairy comes up and magically moves FX Piledriver to Intel's 22 nm or even 14 nm, the resulting tiny Piledriver shrink will still be a Slowpoke in single thread duties - because it is its microarchitecture that prevents it from doing better.
roadapathy - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
I don't have a complaint about the architecture itself because of the price points. Intel CPU, motherboard and the RAM are all much more expensive! I'd be satisfied with AMD FX series (or the new Kavari) on the 20nm fab process.