Hey guys. This will be quite a long topic so just bare with me. TDP will be excluded at first but I will get to that later on, don't worry.
This whole thing is purely my opinion and nothing else.
Most of the benchmarks are done within Windows but I will also include some benchmarks from Linux, since the OS itself can not show the pure performance of an CPU if it is not optimized for it.
Whenever possible I will be comparing the 4770k vs the 9590.
First off lets start with CPU Zlib
This integer benchmark measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. CPU ZLib test uses only the basic x86 instructions but is nonetheless a good indicator of general system performance.
As we can see the 9590 can easily keep up with any CPU from that time (We should also consider that Piledriver arch is already 2 years old)
Next up - CPU Hash
And once again we can see that the 9590 can easily hold it's own ground.
We need to consider that these two benchmarks take full advatange of every core/thread they can.
Next up FPU benchmark.
While better than the 8350 it still lacks power to compete with Intel. If you keep up with the reviews you should already know the the FPU unit in BD and forward is actually weak.
Next up Cinebench (I should note that I am a little biased at this bench, since Maxtron only uses Intel compilers that are said to cripple AMD hardware to some point.)
But it still uses every thread it can take so I'm guessing at this point that the 5GHz clock is helping the 9590 and it actually can keep up. Not bad I'd say.
Next up, CIV V (Very CPU bound game)
Here you can easily see the weak point for AMD FX series. If the game is CPU bound rather than GPU it'll lose even to an 2600k.
Now to the very weak point for the BD arch and its newer brothers, single threaded performance.
You can easily see how it falls flat of every Intel CPU there is, even the i3's. This inculdes Prime, it's the same in that benchmark, it just can't handle its performance there, atlhough once again I should mention my bias against Prime, it's and x87 arch, already dead but for some reason people still keep taking it as an performance suggestion.
Next up MediaCoder x64
When it comes to media decoding it's easy to see that the new arch has paid off easily. The more "cores" the better of you will be.
The same goes for x264 media and truecrypt (I guess thats dead now huh?).
My point is, when ever you have enough threads/cores in your program support the FX can easily hold its own.
Now, lets get to gaming. First off, Dirt 3.
As we can see (we know that Dirt 3 is AMD optimized) it has no problem going ahead of most Intel CPUs. But what about games that are not optimized for both CPUs? We will find out now.
This what happens
It just falls flat. Thats it.
Anyway, back to newer games (that use newer engines) the FX can easily keep up thanks to devs that actually put multi-threaded support in.
As we can see here. 1 FPS short...well, should really matter.
Now lets see some figures for power consumption and after that I will say my own opinion.
With a TDP of about 220W, it the FX-9590’s chart-topping performance shouldn’t come as any surprise.
On idle, it has no problem. Sure the 4770k is about 20W lower but we need to understand the Intel CPU is on 22nm and AMD is stuck on 32nm thanks to GloFo. On load, oh well, that is another story. If you want a space heater (like me) you should get one If not, keep to an Intel CPU.
Now lets get to the point I said earlier about TDP.
Sure, the TDP of 220W of the 9590 is big but that doesn't mean it will draw it all the time. It will, sure, under load and even more than the 220. But imho this chip is meant for AMD enthusiasts as well.
220W TDP - lets get to that. I personally have around 9-10 light bulbs in my house, all of them 100W bulbs and most of the time 4-5 are always on. I don't see a big problem. Also, most of our newer gen GPU's take way more than that, why shouldnt we complaing about that? Sure, AMD is the only one with that TDP but Intel just came out with an 140W part...before that people were furious about AMD releasing an 125W part but now, no one blinks an eye. (leaving perofmance aside)
While we might not see a new CPU from AMD for 2 years (said to be working on a new arch with Jim Keller) I think the Piledriver can keep up with Intel. I saw some of the benchmarks of DC (Devil's Canyon) and I am impressed but..still the same as always. Not a very big improvement that enthusiasts are after.
I have and I will always admit that Intel has it's own strong points but so does the FX. The more multi-threaded you go the better off you'll be with an FX even with a bigger TDP.
Final words: I will be happy to discuss any of this until you can keep an open mind. If you are so stuck on your opinion, please don't even..