5.0GHZ out of the box clock speeds. Why aren't you using the fastest CPU around...

5.0GHZ out of the box clock speeds. Why aren't you using the fastest CPU around? It literally destroys anything that Intel has put out.

multithreading a shit for all games

AMD are you even trying?

>clock speeds matter more than single core performance

4ghz i3 =/= 4ghz i7

>220W CPU

literal housefire

...

Beaten by a 84W Intel CPU, well, 84W without boost, benchmarks scores are obviously with boost.
But yeah, the FX is barely beaten by a 4 years newer Intel CPU.... AMD sucks.

This thing needs serious cooling thats why.

>AMD kiddys think it's all about clock speeds
top kakkles

>220

someone out there put one of these in a shitty $50 970 board with a stock cooler and started a fire

I run a FX 6350 with a 52€ AIO cooler at 5.2GHz, no problems...

>It literally destroys anything that Intel has put out.

Pretty much

>destroys VRMs
>destroys PSUs
>destroys your power bill
>destroys any chance of getting sex

>OP

>tfw you fell for the fx meme
I'm still mad, I should have bought a used i5

>destroys any chance of getting sex
Jelly ass virginfag detected

I bought a FX back in 2012 for 1/3th the price of a i7, back then Intel had nothing to compete the FX, took them a year to catch up.
Could have waited a year and gotten something slightly faster in single core performance from Intel, but the cheaper FX did the job good for years to come.

The motherboard also needs to be a top-of-the-line AM3 board to handle the wattage.

Funny that they still sell this even it's 3 years old cpu. It's been like 6 years since AMD had good cpu.

Are you trying to kill yourself?

>falling for the eternal vaginal jew

2d > 3d

MORE CORES MORE CLOCK YEAH

So
>destroys any chance of getting sex
Is actually a good thing then

and yet people still buy it instead of an i7. amazon and newegg reviews are filled with "runs too hot pc isn't stable"

...

Mostly guys who doesn't bother to do any research buy it. They don't realize that it is 3 years old.

>yfw I know someone who did this because 'AMD has 8 cores and Intel only had 4"

meme in 2010 was that soon all games will support all 6 cores when I bought x6 1055t. It never happened.

I don't want to burn my house.

>I bought a FX back in 2012 for 1/3th the price of a i7, back then Intel had nothing to compete the FX, took them a year to catch up.
Nothing except i5's and i7's.

Hopefully it'll happen soon!

>over 200w tdp
AMD housefire
Performance wise it roughly matches a 6700k. The 6700k runs at lower wattage and lower clock speed. In terms of IPC, AMD sucks.

Dead socket

fuck yeah

the future has arrived I say

>Why aren't you using the fastest CPU around?
Why aren't you? Are you retarded? Do you think clock speed is all that's important?

You're a fucking moron.

Your IPC is lower though. That 5.2ghz is the equivalent of an i7 under 4ghz.

6 Ghz when

When it was new, even the most diehard AMD fanboy didn't defend that thing. It's a terrible CPU no matter how you look at it.

ARM will get 6 GHz first

I'm sure some defended it.

AMD "cores"
I hate that they did this. It's 4 cores with AMD's version of hyperthreading.

Good Goy. You may have one shekel.

Zen is going to be competing directly with Kaby Lake CPUs, so hopefully they will deliver. If Zen fails then AMD will probably close up their CPU division completely and concentrate on Radeon and APUs which will probably be used in consoles for quite some time.

I thought Zen will be just behind 4690k.

Top kek, Intel already had their Ivy bridge out and still kicks AMD's ass up to this date.

Because my i3 2120 is more than enough for watching porn, TV shows and movies, shitposting and using Excel.

Actually i5 3570k kicked fx 8150 with lower tdp's and better performance.

holy shit i never realized how bad those chips are... My laptop has a 4770HQ and it scores ~575cb, which is only 30% less than that 9590...

The craziest part is that the 4770HQ is a 47W chip while the 9590 pulls 220W!

9590: 3.31 cb/W
4770HQ: 12.78 cb/W

CRAZY!

and the i5 2500k still beats it

>its all about the highest jiggabutz

Are you twelve, or from 1994?

AMD's only chance is to get the edge on power efficiency. People see the brick wall and won't upgrade for a 2% gain.

Depends what i7, there are plenty shitty i7's around with even less IPC then the FX core.
Also, hes FX is probably 4x cheaper too then an i7 under 4GHz.

At Bulldozer release a i5 750 from 2009 and the 8core bulldozers were about even matched, the only thing the FX was good at was media encoding and virtualization since most i5s lack instruction sets for that.

Nigga;
Single core Passmark:
3.9GHz i3-6320: 2,245
4GHz i7-6700K: 2,332
Basically the same score, the 6700K is no doubt OC'ed but listed as 4GHz and 6320 is only at 3.9GHz

i3=i7 single core

Explain? The FX did good when it came out, it hold the best performance on the market for almost a year?

No, wtf? I hope you're trolling, for each two integer cores, there is one floating-point core.

lmaoing at the hurt feelings ITT

kek, got the intel jew joke

>2016
>still falling for the megahertz myth

Yeah, but it took like 9 months for those i5's and i7's to come to the market that could outperform the FX.
I remember crealy because I did a few builds that year.

But the 6700k is almost a 4 year newer CPU?

Yea, I get 13 cb/W but I don't think using low power processors is a fair comparison because the AMD processor in question is a high end desktop consumer part which are not known for being power efficient.

However, the omnipresent i7 6700K which is not the most power efficient processor gets like 10 cb/W. Though it is on a different node.
The i7 3930K which is an older high end desktop part gets 8.4 cb/W..
So in the end it looks bad either way. But not as bad.

At 200W TDP budget, you could overclock your i7 Ivy Bridge,Haslel/whatever to like 5GHz+ and beat it. It also cost a lot of money at release. I don't remember what the price was, but I know it was over 500 dollars.

No, it`s not. Hyperthreading is SMT, or symmetrical multithreading which is one core functioning as 2 cores on the front end. AMD is using cluster multithreading and has 2 physical logic units per module that share resources. It`s more accurate when trolls call them "half cores."

It's gigahertz, not megahertz

See
>top kek
truly my newfriend

oh yeah definitely, I know it's not fair to compare them but its just crazy to see the difference! Lookingn at those 12c24t xeons that are like 45w would be a crazy figure as well.

>At 200W TDP budget, you could overclock your i7 Ivy Bridge,Haslel/whatever to like 5GHz+ and beat it.
Lmao, even custom loops could not run an Ivy Bridge over 5GHz stable, I have one now.

The 990FX chipset is so fucking old. It sucks that the FX procs have to be saddled to it.

Even my thirteen year isn't as delusional as you about this shit.

Hes pretty close to the truth tho.

>Megahertz war

Who said anything about stable? The FX 9590 appears to be anything but stable. Pretty sure you'd still out perform it at 4.5GHz anyway which is babbys first overclock.

You got one thing right.

He specifically chose single core because it otherwise would shatter his argument. Some games might only use single-core, but the OS still needs to run in the background. Shit doesn't magically stop because you run a game.

Appears to be anything but stable? I had one with an AIO cooler boosting up to 5.2 and never had a problem with it.
Yeah, now-a-days there are plenty of Intel CPU's that would out perform it at even 4.5GHz, but those are way newer CPU's.

>check newegg and amazon reviews
>there are recent reviews of people who unironically bought it

How?

How can someone be so retarded?

>I need a new computer
>oh this looks fast!
>buy it and post review

It will work for most every day tasks, people that are buying it in today's market aren't looking at reviews, or running benchmarks on it or using it for anything intensive

According to the numbers I can find, a 4.2GHz i7 3770 will beat the FX 9590 at stock in multi core workload (cinebench). I think that the 3770 has about 300MHz of overclock headroom at that point. I don't know about the FX 9590.

Isn't the i7 3770 from about the same era as the FX 9590? It's not a significantly newer processor, I know that much for sure.

It's more then enaught for most things.

Source? I can only find exactly the opposite benchmarks, the FX beating the 3770 in multicore.

I run an fx 6300 @ 4.3 with a cheap zotac air cooler, a 50 dollar mobo, and a gtx 970. No regerts

It takes like 30 seconds of Google to realize that it is a piece of shit.

Is this bait or what?
A fucking housefire with tons of issues who gets beaten by any 6-year-old Intel i5?

It's not enough for anything, it belongs in the trash.

Here's the cinebench results for FX 9590 in the image I've included with this post is cinebench reference score for a i7 3770. When 3770K is overclocked to about 4.2GHz, the result I'm finding on google is about 730 cb. Although I admit it's pretty hard to find CB scores for this thing overclocked to such specific clocks. Most of the results are for 5-5.5GHz.

Meant as a reply to you.

i3 have to focus on single threaded performance since they only have two cores. Otherwise they would be utter shit.

>220W

Starting housefires with their GPUs wasn't enough, now they're developing incendiary CPUs?

>beaten by any 6-year-old Intel i5?
Sauce?

Oh no wonder, I wasn't checking the 12 core CPU's, their single core performance at the same clock is literar shit.

poast more patlabor

>It literally destroys anything that Intel has put out.
AHAHAHAHAAAAHAA

What? The 12 core CPUs aren't relevant.

FX 9590 is 8 cores and 3770 is 4 cores.

>It's a terrible CPU no matter how you look at it.
yep. It has around the same IPC as AMD's netbook Jaguar cores. It performs worse than Phenom II, chuggs more power and only manages slightly higher clockspeed.
They would have been better off by rehashing Phenom again.

for the cost of a single xeon cpu with 12 cores you could probably build at least 3 fully equipped pcs with a FX 8350 cpu with 8gb RAM, 320GB HDD, motherboard, case and psu. Would probably waste more electricity but only under load.

Piledriver IPC is abysmal compared to anything that Intel has to offer past the Nehalem Architecture. Hell, I bet even that older Core 2 Quads like the Q9650 can go hand to hand with the FX chip, while consuming half the power.

Except for heavily multi-thread optimized software, the FX9590 can't do shit.

Do you read the posts? Because we are comparing overclocked i7-3770 and 9590. Obviously the 12c Xeon is going to shit all over both of them in multi core workload, but that's not in the discussion.

we all knew that the i7 would be better when using all its cores compared to the i3 using all its cores

I don't even understand the purpose of this discussion. The only thing AMD is good at is the price/performance ratio. Intel offers CPUs that are better at everything except price.

You have seen nothing. When you clock it to 6ghz it eats over 350 watt.

It has actually a potential of 8ghz on liquid nitrogen, but then it requires a small nuclear plant to power it.

>>destroys your power bill
I don't understand this. How much of a difference do you really think you will see on a monthly basis?

>tfw you realize Intel is truly the best bang for the buck
AMD is like Ferrari (except with no one giving a fuck about them) all noise cause muh cores muh gigabuttz but performs just ok while Intel is like a Corvette, might look overpriced cause it's a fucking chevy but it's actually quite well engineered, way cheaper in the long run, future proof and faster than italian craps that breaks and overheats all the time, not to mention the triple maintainance costs through electric bill.

>if the product were complete garbage it would be utter shit
Thanks for your explanation, doc
>2 physical + 2 virtual threads < 4 physical + 4 virtual threads
Wow who would've guessed

The original comment I was replying to stated:
>>clock speeds matter more than single core performance

>4ghz i3 =/= 4ghz i7

Clock speeds and single core performance

I've shown you that 4GHz i3 has the same single core performance as 4GHz i7

These discussion is about AMD processors having bad performance combined with bad power consumption.