AMD FX 9590 & i7 4770k Owners REPORT IN! Benchmarks - No Opinion, Just Numbers!

[islanq]

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.

 

 

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:

 

 

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:

 

3DMark

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1729428

 

Score: 10739

Graphics: 16455

Physics: 8349

Graphics Test 1: 79.06

Graphics Test 2: 65.34

Physics Test: 26.51

Combined: 15.73

 

AIDA64 Extreme v4.20.2800

 

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

 

CineBench R15.0

 

 

CPU: 693cb

 

 

PassMark PerformanceTest 8

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

And the worst is that I still get

 

 

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). 

 

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

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.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

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.

[klepp0906]

A) if your only reaching 4 degrees higher when stressing than gaming - your not stressing. Time to use a different program. Run IBT on very high and get back to us.

B) 59 isn't not lol. My 4770k currently hits 88 and that's with a very very high end water setup. My 9590 at 5000 hits over 80 in which it begins to throttle. Hits about 70 at 4800. This is with a H100i and liquid metal TIM.

THAT is hot. Takes almost 1.5v to be prime stable however.

Either way, in order to get that chip to perform like a stock haswell you will need to OC it a bit. An overclocked haswell, your just not gonna touch unfortunately.

If that was your goal you should have went intel - it hasn't changed for awhile now. AMD is for fans or for people looking to save a few bucks (although even that is losing it's merit)

I can honestly find very little reason why anyone would go amd at this point. I feel bad for them. With that said, real world wise it's a damn powerful chip and you won't be missing anything. And with amd optimized apps u will even pull ahead a bit.

[Farchord]

A) if your only reaching 4 degrees higher when stressing than gaming - your not stressing. Time to use a different program. Run IBT on very high and get back to us.

B) 59 isn't not lol. My 4770k currently hits 88 and that's with a very very high end water setup. My 9590 at 5000 hits over 80 in which it begins to throttle. Hits about 70 at 4800. This is with a H100i and liquid metal TIM.

THAT is hot. Takes almost 1.5v to be prime stable however.

Either way, in order to get that chip to perform like a stock haswell you will need to OC it a bit. An overclocked haswell, your just not gonna touch unfortunately.

If that was your goal you should have went intel - it hasn't changed for awhile now. AMD is for fans or for people looking to save a few bucks (although even that is losing it's merit)

I can honestly find very little reason why anyone would go amd at this point. I feel bad for them. With that said, real world wise it's a damn powerful chip and you won't be missing anything. And with amd optimized apps u will even pull ahead a bit.

 

Strange. I'm running the same CPU, with a air cooler (Zalman CNPS12X tower cooler), and running Prime95 for a good 10mins yields temps no higher than 62C (Stock speeds, except for the RAM, I'm using XMP profile to reach 1600mhz)

[klepp0906]

That's due to the fact prime doesn't even get cooking/to the hot ffts for an hour or so. I made this mistake at one time. Thinking my prime temps were excellent compared to my IBT temps and such. I just didn't let it run long enough.

At it's hottest it should be within a few degrees of IBT on maximum. With that said, the newest version of prime (28.5) will actually overtake IBT and I don't recommend it at all. It's far too drastic of a synthetic load which will take CPUs that are stable for all intents and purposes and spit them out within a few minutes.

X264v2 on high priority for a couple dozen runs for CPU stability and hyper PI for dialing in memory and id be willing to bet you will never see a crash. (Lest you run 28.5 of course)

In the name of having all stressors pass I upped the voltage but at the cutting edge of the architecture no voltage (went up to .075 higher than what was stable on all others) made it stable on prime 28.5.

At that point I wrote it off.

Another thing to consider (depending on whether or not we are discussing 9590 or 4770 at this point) is ensuring turbo core is off. Otherwise your temps will be DRAMATICALLY lower than if you were running all cores at the same clock speed. I wanted 5.0 stable on my 9590 rig badly but not at the expense of keeping turbo core on.

This left me with needing 1.54+ for stability which left me going over tdp with a h100i and 2 extra fans in push/pull on a lapped chip with liquid metal TIM.

TLDR - if you plan on overclocking an overclocked chip such as the aforementioned, go custom water or dieeeeeeeeee! :p