AMD FX-9590 8-Core CPU Review Last Look Before Ryzen

Jump To:

Our CPU Test Systems

Before we look at the numbers, let’s take a brief look at the test system that was used. All testing was done on a fresh install of Windows 10 Pro Anniversary Update 1607 build 14393.10 64-bit and benchmarks were completed on the desktop with no other software programs running. We tested on five different desktop platforms (Intel Z77, Intel Z97, Intel Z270, Intel X99 and AMD AM3+) in this article, so we’ll just quickly touch on each as all shared common parts (CPU Cooler, Video Card, SSD, Power Supply) and only differed in the board, processor, memory kit and memory timings.

Core i7-7700K Test System Picture

The Intel Z270 platform that we used to test the Intel 1151 processors was running the Gigabyte Aorus Z270X-Gaming 5 with UEFI F5e that came out on 12/28/2016. The Corsair Vengeance 16GB 4000MHz DDR4 dual channel memory kit was manually set to 3000MHz with 15-15-15-36 1T memory timings as we wanted to test with one of the most popular clock frequencies sold today. We used an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Founders Edition video card with GeForce 376.33 WHQL drivers for all of the systems. We also used the Corsair AX860i digital power supply, Corsair Hydro Series H105 water cooler and Crucial MX300 1050GB SSDs on all of the desktop systems.

Intel LGA1151 Test Platform

Component

Brand/Model

Live Pricing

Processor

Intel Core i7-7700K

Motherboard

Gigabyte Z270X-Gaming 5 Click Here

Memory

16GB Vengeance 3000MHz DDR4 Click Here

Video Card

GeForce GTX 1080 FE Click Here

Hard Drive

Crucial MX300 1050GB Click Here

Cooling

Corsair H105 Click Here

Keyboard

Corsair K70 RGB Click Here

Mouse

Corsair M65 Pro Click Here

Power Supply

Corsair AX860i Click Here

Monitor

ASUS VE278Q 27″ Click Here

Operating System

Windows 10 64-Bit Click Here

Intel Z97 Platform:

The Intel Z97 platform that we used to test the Intel 1150 processors was running the ASUS Z97-A motherboard with BIOS 2801 that came out on 11/15/2015. The Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB 2400 MHz DDR3 memory kit was set to 11-11-11-28 1T memory timings.

Intel Z77 Platform:

The Intel Z97 platform that we used to test the Intel 1155 processors was running the Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H (rev 1.0) motherboard with BIOS F16h that came out on 07/11/2016. The Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB 2133 MHz DDR3 memory kit was set to 10-11-10-28 1T memory timings.

Intel X99 Platform:

The Intel X99 platform we picked to use for the LGA2011-v3 processors was the ASUS X99-E-10G WS board with BIOS 0403 and that is the initial release UEFI as no newer version has come out since the introduction of that board in 2016. The Corsair Vengeance 16GB 4000MHz DDR4 dual channel memory kit was manually set to 3000MHz with 15-15-15-36 1T memory timings.

AMD AM3+ Platform for FX-8370:

The AMD AM3+ platform that we used to test the FX-8370 processor featured the ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer  motherboard with BIOS 1.60 that came out on 01/14/2016. The Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB 2400 MHz DDR3 memory kit was set to 11-11-11-30 1T memory timings.

AMD AM3+  Platform for FX-9590:

The AMD AM3+ platform that we used to test the FX-9590 used the MSI 990FXA Gaming motherboard as the ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer motherboard does not support 220W TDP processors. The MSI 990FXA Gaming motherboard  was tested with UEFI v1.4 that came out on 12/24/2014. This board doesn’t allow for memory to run beyond 2133MHz without overclocking, so we tested at 2133 MHz with 11-12-12-30 timings at 1T command rate.

Laptops: 

Just for fun we also included Dell XPS 13 9350 and Dell Dell XPS 13 9360 laptop results! These are retail Dell laptops with clean installs of Windows 10 Pro Anniversary Update 1607 build 14393.10 installed for comparison to the desktop platforms.

Let’s take a look at overclocking and move onto the benchmarks!

Print
Jump To:

  • Timothy Isenhart

    I don’t know what memory was used on the FX 9590 but I have all of the games you tested but my average FPS are much higher than you report. I use 32 GBs of Gskill Ares DDR3 2400 RAM. (11-13-13-31 2T) ( NB 2400/HT 2200) I do notice when people test the FX 9590 the usually use 1866 but the FX 9590 and FX 9370 have an additional memory multiplier for DDR3 2400 and have A.M.P. settings that go up to DDR3 2800. And my AMD system games much smoother and fluid compared to my Intel Core i7 3770K system even when swapping video cards.

    • Yes, I’ve had the same experience with online comparisons. I think that the benchmark sites are either too lazy to optimize their config or taking money from Intel. AMD sued intel for that and won.

      BTW, do you know that if you run AMD, Intel compilers deliberately don’t use common optimizations that work on any CPU? They even admit it.

      For that reason alone, I swore I’d never buy (or recommend, which does a lot more damage) Intel processors, and I told them so.

  • Neacsu Andrei

    Can someone explain to me why the 5GHz FX-9590 CPU-score is significantly lower than my FX-8350 at slightly less than 5GHz?
    Even if I scale down my score (which is correct and works, in contrast to scaling up) to 4.7GHz, I’d get 8913 CPU points.

    http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6717384 on bare metal. http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6717204 on virtual machine (notice the motherboard).

    Both on mine, and on my wife’s FX-8300, I get consistent scores of about 9500 CPU points.

    I suspect something was wrong in the benchmarks, possibly the motherboard.

  • Coach

    Nice article. Thanks Nathan. I think it’s important to have data to look back on that is relevant to the upcoming benchmark data that we will see with Ryzen and the Intel chips. With the 8370 & 9590 data, we will see how much of a step forward AMD will have made in the near future.

    • Coach

      BTW, Microcenter has 9590s @$169.99—-a deal if you want to upgrade your FX platform.

  • YOUDIEMOFO

    I would love to see the comparison of some X79 platforms some time…. I’ve been rocking the Asus RIVE with a 3970X @ 4.5ghz with 32-64gb of RAM @2400mhz. Of which gets roughly 55-65gb/s read, write and copy.

    Looking at these charts makes me feel good of my purchase alsmot four years ago. As I’ve been one to go mostly all out on a motherboard and CPU.

    Just saying I’d love to get some sandybridge love on them there comparison charts.

    • Lindsey Joyce

      exactly bro, i just got a X5675 xeon hexa core unlocked, spent 190 for the P6X58D-E mobo and the cpu was 50 DOLLARS… I get 4.8ghz on all 6 cores on a 240mm arctic cooler, and i blow away 9590FX in every benchmark… and thats for 200 bucks..

  • Confever

    Ryzen gonna be suck. Mark my word for it.
    It may be cheaper, but it’s still gonna be weaker then intel in its price range.

    • tipoo2

      No one is expecting it to beat Intels best in performance. The most optimistic hope is that if it strikes ~IVB IPC, it can offer close enough per-core performance while offering more cores for the price.

      There’s a lot of space between AMD margins and Intel margins, so it could be a win win, we get lower price/performance, AMD gets higher than AMD margins while staying under Intel margins.

    • Gogodoll

      And how that went? Since your comment had sucha scientific toneI would rally like to see your numbers you based your prophecy on so I could calculate how deep insider you are in cpu industry to tell people to mark your words. Or it is some cristal ball case? Obviously broken.

  • Konstantinos

    Are you using different settings for Blenchmark than the official ones? Your times are much longer than those posted on Blenchmark. Even I get 242 seconds on my 6-core X5675@4.17GHz.

    • Nathan Kirsch

      I’m running Blender 2.78a for Windows with the BMW Benchmark (CPU) from Blender.org. I open Blender, load bmw27_cpu.blend and hit f12 to render the animation. Not sure if that is the ‘official’ way to do it, but let me know if now.

      • Konstantinos

        I am new to this benchmark so I downloaded everything and followed the instructions. The official way is found here:

        http://blenchmark.com/article/benchmark-your-cpu-or-gpu

        1. Download the add-on
        2. Unzip the download
        3. Place the map “blenchmark” into the Blender/[version]/scripts/addons folder of your blender copy
        4. Enable the add-on in File > user preferences… > system > Addons
        5. Click on “Render” next to “File” and choose “Benchmark”
        6. Choose your Render Device (CPU or GPU compute)
        7. Hit de button “Start Benchmark”
        8. Watch the BMW being Rendered
        9. Click “Show Result” to see and evaluate your results
        10. Click “Send Results” to send the results to this website!

        If you see here http://blenchmark.com/cpu-benchmarks, all render times are much lower than yours.

        It also helps (as with any benchmark) to set process priority for Blender.exe to “Above Normal” in Task Manager in order to avoid any background process from eating up CPU cycles.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b332f656db97384e1bc5deb337e591799922acb96a3b73ec8eca3b8e00b5ec5b.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/797479d3a643681ecd965eec1acfdd894e8e3a09046a7e712a02553653d5aced.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/20340df74dbe1f54bf878447ccb5dde2afad1ebfbd6dc4ec8961c2f6f42ab5b4.png

        • Nathan Kirsch

          I’m not using the blenchmark add-on, but you can do it that way as well.

      • anon

        Yeah, as Konstantinos clarified, you’re using the wrong way 😀
        https://s30.postimg.org/wllqorc0h/Captura.png

        • anon

          Btw, here CPU X5690@4,5Ghz getting 2:13
          but the GPU 980ti@1306Mhz gets 1:18

          I really got surprised by this fact.

        • Nathan Kirsch

          The results and the way I’m doing it are fine and it properly shows the differences between the processors. You are using the BlenchMark Addon from Blender Cycles and following their instructions. I’m simply not using the add-on. I said what I did in the article, so not sure why you are telling me I’m doing it wrong when I never wanted to use BlenchMark.

        • anon

          My bad I understood you were using blenchmark as well for the bmw test and, because you were pressing F12 instead of the blenchmark procedure, that was the cause the inconsistencies between rendering times.

        • Coach

          I ran Blender with the RyzenGraphic27.blend again while overclocked on my i7-4790k @4.9ghz and scored 70.66 seconds. It was flying! 🙂 The Ryzen was what, 35 seconds or so? Ryzen may not topple all Intel CPUs, but it will make its mark for sure.

      • Konstantinos

        Nathan I agree completely that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing since you are consistent with your settings between processors. It would just have been useful for us to be able to replicate your test on our machines in order to get a feel of the upgrade potential. I’ll try it your way and see what happens.

      • Konstantinos

        So I found the bmw27_cpu.blend on Blender.org, (https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/), loaded it up and pressed F12. The image was different and larger than the one used in Blenchmark.
        The render took 582 seconds on a X5675@4.17GHz. Your test is perfectly reproducible, it was my mistake to assume that your referred to Blenchmark. Thanks Nathan.

  • satrain18

    “AMD board prices have also come way down as you can now purchase an ATX board like the ASRock 970A-G/3.1 for $68.99 shipped (after a $10 rebate) that fully supports the AMD FX-9590 CPU and has USB 3.1 Type-A and USB 3.1 Type-C ports as well as an M.2 PCIe Gen 2 x4 slot for an SSD. Having a 5.0 GHz 8-core processor along with a new motherboard that has USB 3.1 and M.2 drive support for under $270 does sound appealing.”

    Until you realise that the 970A-G/3.1’s second PCIe x16 slot is wired as x4, taking SLI out of the equation(hope you like Radeon and being stuck with just CrossFire).
    It also means that the SSD will be limited to 2GB/s.

    • Nathan Kirsch

      Looks like Ryzen will still have some of the same PCIe limitations. The good news is that Ryzen will have PCIe lanes on the CPU, which is something PileDriver didn’t offer.

    • Coach

      I think that is why AMD is continuing to limit PCIe Lanes in the new AM4 boards—so you buy their GPUs. These days, I’m not going to run SLI or Crossfire. Nowadays, it just doesn’t seem to be worth it unless you know your favorite game will benefit, but that is a lot of money for a few titles/apps that see “some” gain. I had success using SLI 7600gs x2 and then upgraded to 2x 9800GTs. The 2nd 9800GT never really made much of a difference in most applications, whereas my old 7600s basically doubled any benchmark or gameplay. I also crossfired a HD4850 and HD4830 with some success as well. I prefer to spend extra on a better single card.

  • Terry Perry

    Picked up a 6350 6 core Turbo 4.2 for 75$ got a 100 $ Asus M.B. with lights picked up Titan 2 went to D.L. and there it was Titan needs a TRUE 4 Core CPU. in order to work properly. Dug out the I7 4.2

    • tipoo2

      It didn’t detect the FX6000 as a 6 core processor? Weird. Cores/modules can be debated until we’re blue in the face, but most games that check for core counts just count threads, even making dual core HT i3s work in games that require “quads”