Jump to content



Photo
9590 amd intel 4470 benchmarks

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 islanq

islanq

    BMW / Porsche Driver

  • Joined: 14-February 04
  • Location: Sacramento, CA

Posted 17 February 2014 - 06:53

Hello guys, long time NeoWin member here, just getting back into the forum. So, here is the dilemma.

 

After seeing the new FX 9590 come down in price I picked one up (replacing an FX 6300+ @ 4.8GHz). One of the things I that made me cringe about my 6300 is when i'd bench with 3DMark i'd always get this at the end.

 

BsyrSdp.png

 

Pretty aggravating when you have two GTX 770's running in SLI, right? Kind of like, "Damn have great cards and I feel like the CPU is holding me back..."

 

So happy as a clam I get my new shiny 9590 and also some Corsair Dominator Platinum (CMD16GX3M2A2133C9) @ 2133Mhz. 

 

You figure happy ending right? Well, I have mixed emotions. Here's why. 

 

The setup:

 

rJkht5x.png

 

Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0
CPU: AMD FX™-9590 Eight-Core Processor
Memory: Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (8x2) 9-11-11-31 @ 2133
GPU1: GTX 770 - MSI N770 (MS-V282)
GPU2: GTX 770 - EVGA e-GeForce GTX 770
Main HDD: Samsung 840 Series 120GB
Monitor: Asus VG248
 
Benchmark Scores:
 

 
Score: 10739
Graphics: 16455
Physics: 8349
Graphics Test 1: 79.06
Graphics Test 2: 65.34
Physics Test: 26.51
Combined: 15.73
 


 
CPU Queen: 39442
CPU PhotoWorxx: 13206 Mpixel/s
CPU Zlib: 404.6 MB/s

CPU AES: 15769 MB/s
CPU Hash: 4786 MB/s
 

Mem. Copy: 20602 MB/s
Mem Latency: 63.2 ns
Mem Read: 25668 MB/s
Mem Write: 16796 MB/s
 
 
 
CPU: 693cb
 
ymIr508.png
 
 
CPU Mark: 10036 Composite Average.
CPU Int. Math: 25683 M/ops
CPU Floating Point Math: 8907 M/ops
CPU Prime Nums.: 31.3 Millions of Primes/s
CPU Extended Ins.: 39.3 Million Matrices/s
CPU Compression: 16076 Kbytes/s
CPU Encryption: 1973 MB/s
CPU Physics: 701 Frame/s
CPU Sorting: Thousand Strings/s
CPU Single Threaded: 1465 Millions of ops/s
 
nTXhC6E.png
x6vHfGD.png
pjKir6r.png
 
Memory Mark: 1450 Composite Average
Memory  Database Ops: 51.6 Thounds of ops/s
Memory Read Cache: 16078 Mbytes trans/s
Memory Read Uncached: 6849 Mbytes trans/s
Memory Write: 5495 Mbytes trans/s
Memory Available: 11863 MB Available
Memory Latency: 60.5 ns
Memory Threaded: 23082 Mbytes trans/s
 
Z1Pae8j.png
BMDw7dR.png
 
 
 
 
And the worst is that I still get
BsyrSdp.png
 
 
So, basically I'm at the point where I feel like I should be REALLY happy with my setup and I'm only like, "meh" at the new performance...
 
I would like for i7 4770K owners as well as current FX 9590 owners to please duplicate some of the benches (stock speeds or minor OC plz) because for the $330 ballpark I could go the intel route which doesn't run as hot and "outperforms" on most review sites for the same money. I'd like to see what some REAL hardware enthusiast put down on paper for their numbers.
 
Side note: My new CPU gets hot, on a corsair H80 liquid cooler running the high profile i'm approaching about 55C while gaming, and 59C while under full CPU benchmark load.
 
Thanks guys, and again, plz no side comments that don't directly pertain to performance (ie: OPINIONS). 
 



#2 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5 (Android 4.4.2)

Posted 18 February 2014 - 10:04

Synthetic benchmarks are useless when it comes to measuring gaming performance. Your CPU gets a high score but it gets outperformed by cheaper Intel CPUs in some games. In other games, choosing a $300+ CPU over a $200+ CPU is unwise (see here). I have an Intel Core i5-4570 which I paid $214.99 + tax for. It's not expensive and it's just as fast as a Core i7-4770K when it comes to gaming. Only a few games require such a high end CPU for maximum performance at 1920x1080. And even then, it isn't worth paying $100+ more.



#3 alwaysonacoffebreak

alwaysonacoffebreak

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 03-January 12
  • Location: Estonia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Sony Xperia ZL

Posted 18 February 2014 - 10:37

It's an 220W CPU, what did you expect on the temp side? It needs an high-profile liquid cooler such as H100 or better. At least that's what I run it on.

 

Memory benches - you don't say? Intel goes on quad-channel while AM3+ is still on dual so of course the bandwidth will be smaller. Also download Sisoft's Sandra and run those - it's one of the remaining benchmark suites left that's unbiased on one way or the other. (*cough* Cinebench *cough*)

 

CPU on games is pretty much not the factor these days, only a couple of games are CPU bound like Civ5, others are more demanding on the GPU and the CPU leaves an 1-2FPS difference in games for Intel, doubt you'll even notice when your FPS is around 80-100 at that point.

 

The final thing is, you gotta understand that your CPU will eat everything that will come out of your wall socket and be prepared for the bill also if you decide to keep it find an high-end cooler for it, as I said, it's 220W man - it WILL get hot - you need something good to keep that beast under control - even the water cooler that comes with the 9590 in the box is not enough in most cases.

 

Also, it's already been said that this CPU is more of an niche for AMD fans anyway, AMD just pushed to limits on PD and released it although it's just an cherry picked 8350. This CPU is not meant to be an "blow" at Intel, at least that's how I take it.

 

Oh and I bought it when it was on €270, currently it sits on 320 here and for that money, I wouldn't even take it anymore even though I am an hardcore AMD guy. But all in all I'm happy with it.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!