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 ESTThe AMD FX-9590
The analysis in this review shows that even a year after the OEM release of the FX-9590, and almost two years from the architecture coming to market it remains AMD’s performance part. If power consumption is not a concern, as a CPU compute and an AMD gaming CPU (especially when considering SLI) the FX-9590 is the best choice at stock speeds. On that basis alone, it makes sense that AMD should actually release it as a retail part, assuming they have enough stock. One might argue that a user could buy an FX-8350 and overclock, but if our sample CPUs were anything to go by, a user needs a fair bit of luck. The FX-9590 guarantees a 5.0 GHz turbo with a warranty.
With the retail release of the CPU, that warranty might be based on using the water cooling provided for the lifetime of the CPU. One might argue that AMD had trouble finding enough dies that could reach the frequencies and voltages for the FX-9590, and hence the delay combined with selling the SKU in select markets only.
The FX-9590 is the same Piledriver architecture as the FX-8350, which in turn was used in the A10-5800K/A10-6800K APUs, codename ‘Trinity’ and ‘Richland’ respectively. Since then, AMD has launched the Steamroller architecture modifications in the form of Kaveri APUs. The difference between a PIledriver APU and a similar frequency Steamroller APU, if we put aside the move from 32nm SOI to 28nm SHP, is around 10% for CPU performance. If that was shifted into a four-module, eight-thread CPU, it would surely be AMD’s performance part. The issue here is that AMD has almost discarded the high CPU performance arena in favor of integrated graphics. From Trinity to Kaveri, the IGP inside those APUs has improved considerably, indicating where AMD is investing its research dollars.
AMD clearly still cares about the performance market, otherwise this retail FX-9590 with water cooling would have never been pushed through to retailers. The high power consumption, the lack of a modern chipset, and the comparison to Intel CPUs in single threaded benchmarks are the main barriers to adoption. If AMD is to return to the performance market, the power consumption has to be comparable to Intel, or if it is slightly higher, the chipset has to offer something Intel cannot. Any suggestions for what that feature should be should be submitted on a postcard/in the comments.
ASRock 990FX Extreme9 Conclusion
One of the big issues surrounding AMD motherboards is their price sensitive nature. With an Intel based product, a $250-$400 motherboard is common enough to signify the expense in research or extra features. Because the AMD ecosystem, even in the high performance segment, is a cost sensitive market there is little room to move. For example, this year sees the first overclocking based motherboard for AMD APUs since the AM3+ era. So at $170, the Extreme9 could arguably be described as ‘limited’ compared to Intel standards.
The motherboard itself has specified support for 220W CPUs, something other motherboards either fail to mention or advise against completely. The native SATA 6 Gbps ports were ahead of Intel at the time, plus ASRock adds in another SATA 6 Gbps controller for good measure.
The eight USB 3.0 ports makes the Extreme9 have more USB 3.0 ports than almost every other 990FX/AM3+ motherboard ever released. This is combined with plenty of legacy support, such as separate PS/2 connectors, a PCI slot, an IEEE1394 port and an IEEE1394 header. The Intel NIC is paired with a Realtek ALC898 codec, with the PCIe layout aimed at 3-way GPU users for both Crossfire and SLI.
Aside from an updated chipset, if we were building a high-end AM3+ motherboard in 2014, I would insist on WiFi support and an upgraded audio codec to the ALC1150 at the minimum. We cannot get around the lack of PCIe 3.0 support, although moving the CPU modules from Piledriver to Steamroller along with the IO support might help with that. If we are being greedy with what we would like, I would add in M.2 support as well.
There is plenty to speculate if AMD had kept updating their high-end performance CPU line, even if the socket was not updated. As it stands, users who want SLI either look back to 990FX or invest in Intel. Users who want high multithreaded CPU performance either look back to 990FX or invest in Intel. Users who do not want processor graphics either look back to 990FX, buy an APU with the graphics disabled, or invest in Intel. AMD clearly does care about the performance market, or at least someone senior in the company does.
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.