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
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.