Thanks for video! The fact that Fx9590 was able to match stock 2700K/Fx8350@4.8GHz in Cinebench, but struggles to beat even Fx8350, clearly shows that Bulldozer/piledriver's problem was not core performance, but memory/cache performance...
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 depends on how you define "core". 386 CPU didn't had FPU or decoder, but was definitly not a 0-core CPU... and exact core composition really doesn't matter, if you match single core and all core performance
@@남기헌-l8y Simply NO. You may exclude FPU with some mental gymnastics. But you can't exclude fetch or decode stage (or dispatch in suprescalar architectures). Those stages were also shared and are absolutely the core (pun not intended) functionality of a CPU core. I would go even further and call it a failed multithreading attemt (what intel calls hyperthreading). If they would "only" allow to schedule all instructions on any integer cluster, it would be a full multithreading and actually improve singlethreaded performance and therefore lowering the relative improvement of multithreaded applications ("only" is in quotes because it's not a trivial change)
Yep, proper FSB hard OC to about 20-25mhz more will show a big difference, otherwise going higher than 4.2-4.4ghz will not do much. But with hard FSB and memory OC those 5Ghz can show very good results. Too bad not many motherboards will be able to boost bus by a lot. But yeah, a typical fx oc mistake is to oc the memory, core clock and NB without touching the bus.
In some way it had the same issues as NetBurst. It even had a similar design philosophy. Long pipeline, high clock. Some weird core-and a-half NetBurst had a "full" ALU and a set of simple ALUs that could do two operations per clock, but 64-bit SSE units. Which is not what you want for 128-bit instructions. FX had two integer clusters with shared FPU and decoder units. That FPU block could be split into two 128-bit units or run as a single 256-bit unit. If the design had better throughput it would've been decent. And the later Excavator design, which wasn't widely available on desktop showed decent improvements. They released a couple Athlons on the architecture and those were competitive in their market. Sitting between Pentiums and i3 at the time, which seems right for the market they aimed at. And tose Excavator Athlons were 2 module/4 thread CPUs, a full 4 module/8 thread or even 6 module/12 thread CPU would've placed itself among the lower i5 chips without issue. I have a Pentium 4 here and could gain 15% performance just by increasing the FSB, even when keeping the CPU itself at the same clock. Both were bandwith-starved architectures. But both were good with the right kind of tasks. Which were tasks that are predictable and keep the pipeline filled. Stuff like video encoding or 3D rendering.
@@RuruFIN I only upgraded to Zen 3 with a Ryzen 5 5600 this year and i was stuck on the K10 architecture before that (That's the Phenom II generation) Let's just say that i IMMEDIATELY noticed the massive boost in performance compared to the Phenom II 1055t!
zen+ was not really good either i upgraded from i7 4790k to ryzen 7 2700x and my performance was worse in gaming i think zen2 was the real deal@@RuruFIN
zen+ was not really good either i upgraded from i7 4790k to ryzen 7 2700x and my performance was worse in gaming i think zen2 was the real deal@@RuruFIN
I had one of these. Got it for like $100. It’s still alive and being used for my nephews pc to play some older games and they don’t run as hot as you think they do.
One thing a lot of people overlook about the FX series was the price. The 8350 was $140 cheaper then the 2700k, which allowed gamers to buy a really good mobo and ram. So yes, the performance was not equal, but it did give for budget friendly builds.
The problem was that most games back then didn't utilize more than 2 cores, so even an i5(3570k launched 6 months earlier) would trash it and the price difference was 12$. The FX only redeeming quality was good performance in productivity tasks for cheap, but for games it was horrible. Sure, later these CPUs started to shine once games would use more than 2 cores and would actually keep up or even beat the core i5/i7s, but that came a bit too late.
For all the universal hate they get.. it's basically a meme to shit on FX processors.. these CPUs got me into higher end PC gaming and it's how I learned to build my own rigs. They used to be so cheap used and I never felt I was missing out when using them (shout out to my eBay build FX 8320 and 750ti combo whole PC was like 215 bucks lmao). Now a days they cost way too much and time hasn't been kind at all, but I'll never forget em.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 Settling out of court does not actually admit to failure this time. It closed the case, paid some money in California only. They moved on rather than keep fighting those who cannot understand that a "core" is.
strange that your 9590 required such high vCore. general things to know for FX platform, use multiplier + BCLK for OCing. not multiplier solely. HT Link at 2600mhz - 2700mhz (Use BCLK) (will be 2600 by default on 990FX) & NB at 2400mhz-2600mhz (use BCLK) (NB VID is safe up till 1.35v, NB Voltage itself is safe till around 1.2v) NB freq is directly tied to IMC & L3 Cache performance. shut off Core Performance Boost, APM, CStates, HPC, C1E like you mentioned. in terms of memory FX stops scaling past low 2000mhz Memory, so shoot for 1866-2133mhz C9 360mm Radiator/AIO equivalent or better is required for beyond 1.475v
Other general tips is that you want to start using higher LLC past 1.475v or 4.8ghz onwards, whichever comes first thanks to the bin. vDroop and overshoot becomes a killer as you start pushing 5ghz.
Had a FX-8150/990FX Sabertooth/240AIO system a couple of years ago, did mess about with OC on it and HT,NB and RAM tuning does indeed make a bigger impact than just increasing the multiplier. I think i had it running at 4.75Ghz 1866Mhz CL9, remembering it didn't give much boost to performance beyond 4.75Ghz, but meesing around with the Ram and north brigde and ht and stuff following guides did make a significant difference both to stutters and higher fps in games.Retired the Bulldozer when the Pcie slot gave away from the motherboard -.-
yeah Bulldozer was much more sensitive to NB & IMC then people like to act like, the difference in 1% lows between 2600HT/2200NB - 1600mhz C8 and 2700HT/2600NB - 2000 C9 is massive and can be anywhere from 8% to 20% uplift in gaming workloads, by its nature Bulldozer is cache starved. so increasing core clocks, which in turn increases L1 & L2 cache hit rate + NB increasing L3 Cache hit rate + actually saturating the IMC has a stark uplift over stock or even core OC alone. @@bafon
not really 9590 with a real pig for power and a real furnace to heat your room up so it's not surprising that his 9590 is high on the vcore I owned a 9590 so i know they were no better or worse with the power saving features on or off they sucked both ways and even with the power saver features turned on they still roasted you in your home when gaming the power saving features only saved power when the system was idle not doing anything at all and they didn't have much power when pushed
I finally upgraded from fx8350 4.8ghz dec 2022. But was paired with rx 580. So it wasn't really bad for me. Honestly lasted 8 years of solid play. Im on a 5600x now still with the rx580. Waiting to upgrade GPU still. Prices are always a concern for me.
RX 6600 on the used market is really damn cheap. Probably the best value there is right now for the lowest budget possible. I got my 6700 XT for 275€ which is the best 1080p card for the price right now. Also using a 5600x which I purchased from the same fella for 100€. You can get great deals on the used market and you absolutely can lower the 6600 price by quite a bit by selling your RX 580.
I also got a rx 7600 and it can play maxed out in 1080p. But my 5600x is overclocked and has ReSize Bar enabled in bios (SAM or amds smart memory) PBO on with Curve Optimiser at -30 all cores. 3600mhz ram low Cas. Think all of that helps 🤔
I am using my FX-8300 and i am quite happy about the performacne. I play in 2k and i have rx570 8GB GPU. Have no idea when a game will get me to change it. So far all games i want to run feels good. I am wondering when it will be useless ^^ I did acualy upgrade from FX-6100 and the change feels worth it.
Impressive how they manage to compete with modern Intel i9 processors. At least in power usage😅 Meanwhile Intel then could be easily cooled by the stock cooler even when overclocked. How things have changed.
I have a bunch of these. Underclock and undervolt. They don't need anything above 4ghz. Enable all power saving features on the motherboard after finding your undervolt/oc happy place. With a nice modern linux kernel and features they work amazingly well for everyday stuff.
@@durschfalltv7505 with c6 and offset voltage 81w with static voltage 91w idle. The only power saving fx needs is C6 for comparison intel i5-3470 has 43w idle
I had a FX-9590 machine that was nearly the Best of what the AM3+ with an FX-9590 could be. I had a GIGABYTE GA-990FX-GAMING G1 AM3+ mb ; AMD FX-9590 cpu ; Storage 1 tb Samsung 970 Evo PCIE-3 NVME M.2 ( plugged into the mb's PCIE-2 M.2 slot ) ; RX 580-8gb video card ; 64 gb ddr3 at 1866 mhz ; PSU was the OCZ ZX 1250w 80+ Gold FM ; Cpu cooler was an 240 AIO forget which brand ; I was just about to buy a ECC-DDR3 128gb ram kit at 1866 mhz before I could the MB quit working and I wasn't able to get a replacement quick enough so that's when I switched to AM4. I might try to get the parts to build it again but with the 128gb of ram this time.
I used my 8350 for many years (5+) as my main PC before getting the Ryzen 1700X. The bulldozer is still in use in my room as my backup system with a RX 580-8GB. Great 1080p setup.
I'm currently selling my FX 9590 and Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z mobo. You can't just slap these CPUs in any AM3+ board. You have to look at the CPU support list of the mobo because not all of them support the FX 9000 series. Also these chips don't operate correctly with stock settings. These chips need both the 8-pin and the 4-pin CPU power molexs connected to the board to obtain the stock frequencies. Disable Turbo clock and set it to 4.7 GHz or higher with your own tuning on the NB and HT.
It shouldn't have disappointed anyone. All of the sources at the time made it clear that the 9370 and 9590 were just factory overclocks of the same Piledriver 8-cores like the 8350. Based on some of your benchmarks, it looks like they toyed with the microcode on these parts to keep them stable at high clocks. That's the only reason they should lose to an 8350 at 4.8. I just ran my 8350 at 4.85 GHz and called it a day. I recognized the 9590 as just AMD marketing wanting to sell the first-ever 5 GHz processor.
It’s too bad these chips were so bad :/ I remember a friend who was a Phenom 2 fanatic feeling lost when Bulldozer came out due to the lackluster performance, even though the price was decent. I’m lucky I chose a 2500K system back in the day. I still have it, though I’m using a 2600 in that rig that I got this year. No Z series board anymore, that went to a friend, so that’s essentially my best option without getting unreasonable in pricing. I can also attest that a 2600K at 4.2 is fine on a i5-11400 cooler; that’s my friend’s current setup with my old hardware and a used K. A little toasty and loud under the worst case scenario, but it works just fine for gaming.
Back then I just upgraded my quad core Phenom 2 to hexa core and skipped Bulldozer/Piledriver entirely. Finally when first gen Ryzen came out I upgraded to the 1700. By that time the Phenom 2 x6 was really showing its age.
The GIGABYTE GA-990FX-GAMING G1 AM3+ mb had both a Type-C port and a PCIE-2 M.2 slot that supported both Type A and Type M ssd's : Type A being the Sata M.2's and Type M being the NVME M.2's. Yes a PCIE-3 M.2 on the PCIE-2 interface will only be able to go as fast as the PCIE-2 will support ; but that is still 3x as fast as Sata- 3. My overall pwerformance was 1866 Mhz read and 1788 mhz read for my Samsung 1tb 970 Evo.
I didn't get to experience what the FX line felt like back in the day. But I was glad I stuck to Intel's offerings. I had both a 2500K and a 2600K system that I was able to push to 4.6-4.7GHz for the both of them.
I have both of those CPUs and I did run the 9590 on an ASROCK MB with 16gb of 1866. I was trying to X-Fire 2 AMD 8990's and it required a PSU with 1300 watts output in order to even boot! As far as it goes I did not do any OC and with AMDs last driver I did get the system to X-Fire...With Win 10! The Mainboard was only rated for 140 watts CPU so no OCing! All the MBs I found were not affordable at the time but it did run very stable😉.
could you test cyberpunk with path tracing and all max settings except cpu intensive ones (draw distance, population, etc) ? i've seen an 8350 do 18fps while at full speed on a motorbike with everything maxed out with a 4090. when walking it gets over 35fps
Does it really pull over 380 watts under load? This is insane. If I torture my 7800x3d with Linpack AMD64 it tops out at around 96 watts with close to 5 GHZ, there is no stress test I can get it to consume more power.
AMD had a AMD FX-8370 4.3GHz 8-Core 8M Socket AM3+ CPU and it's little brother the FX-8350. Both the FX-8350 and FX-8370 could be overclocked to just about to the 5 ghz the FX-9590 was clocked at out of the box and use slighty less power overall.
I remember these. Fuck that. The power draw of these cpus made me skip the entire generation. Went from AMD Phenon II X6 to Ryzen but that was a 95 to 65 watt drop. Those 95XX's where known to be space heaaters in your room. Fun chips thou! 👍Everyone that had one loved it, you would get one that OC the shit out of it, i mean anywhere from 25-30%! But not at those wattages. Your boy say how much juice those muthafuckas where suckin down and was like 💀💀 I'm good on this generation.
The 9000 series weren't a good buy. The fx 8320 was 130-140$ then those 9000 series came out and you could easily overclock it to 4.0-4.1Ghz on a 45-50$ board or to 4.5-4.8Ghz on a 60-70$ board with a Hyper-212. FX CPUs were there for the value and to play games with more than 60fps and for that they were perfect from 2011-2017.
Had a FX8320 that ran 5.1 daily and 5.3ghz max oc. It was great till my causin got his i5 4690k that would do 4.6ghz beating me in nearly every game and benchmark. The FX was great VALUE and lots of fun to OC so it's made its earned its place in PC history and will always have lots of nostalgia. Wish I still had mine even.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 They are and aren't. They are by the fact that they have two physically separated integer pipelines, but are not by the combined FPU. AMD made a semi-superscalar architecture. What trully killed it was Global Foundry's abysmal, 2-3 years delayed 32nm process node. Global Foundry promised AMD 2 billion transistors for an 8 core at 125W in 2009, insteat they gave AMD 1.2 billion transistors at 125W in 2011-2012.
I have Crosshair V Formula Z paired with fx 8350 and corsair Vengeance pro. Ram works at 2133 MHz speed 1.5v. It can easily work at 2400 but it's not necessary. Can't understand what's wrong with you memory. But i think your voltage for 9590 is too low, it should be higher than 1.4 and can be 1.5.
To make use of 2400 you need to crank that north bridge and hyper transport . My 9590 screamed with 2600 mhz nb and 2600 htt . 5.4 ghz shd it clobbered everything I thew at it . I love fx systems
I7 2700k @5ghz is absolutely insane. I always thought the i7 990x was the better ddr3 CPU because triple channel memory. I didn't know it could be that fast.
I've owned this processer gave the PC to my brother, the info you have listed is kind of wrong its an 8 core processer but what you didn't realize its 4 core plus 4 logical processors. It is actually an 4 Core CPU with 4 Logical processors. It does Throttle a lot so heat due to the 220W TDP will make it run hotter causing Throddling. To keep it cool you have to have the Case cool, an 360 Fan that paired with liquid cooler to get that thing to stop that. Only way you will get Acturate testing results.
9590 Allcore stable with 1.31 for sure not There is not even one FX in the whole wide World Allcore stable below 1.37exept the powerdelivery on CPU or MoBo is burned out and reports pure garbage. 9590 at 5 Ghz is minimum around 1.45 on good Silicon so nope your Test is invalid with use of defectiv Hardware sorry
Still using the FX 9590 as a secondary PC, with a 7590x 😂 is not a bad processor, try CPU MB at 2600 MHz and HT link to 2600, and ram at 2133 or 2400 MHz you should have better performance, I find it incredible that you can still play cyberpunk with that pc
I never was able to keep this bad boi cool. I recall being gifted an h80i by one of my best friends and i could not get her past 4.7ghz sadly I was not an intelligent as i am with lowering voltages. I had to disable to boost to keep it from trying to go past 4.7 also as someone else mentioned indeed it was a great heater lol I still have my fx 9590 and its asrock motherboard and ram set, i have used it as a back up when my main pc had some issues with past motherboards.
So many issues with this video... The FX series was priced like an i5, but ran with the i7. It also has consistently better frame times and multitasking (Gaming + Voice Chat + Streaming) than the i5. So while you are looking at cores and performance, you did not mention the price/performance value. Also with your overclock, did you verify you were not getting any correctable cache errors? This is a common oversight for people new to overclocking the 8350/9590. And these errors can hit performance a bit. You also failed to OC the FSB, which is a basic MUST HAVE for a proper FX OC. Most high end 990FX motherboards can easily do 250-300MHz on the FSB, and the gains are worth it. There's really no excuse for missing the FSB OC since it is part of the official AMD OC guide, that has been available as a downloadable PDF since ~2011. You either did not know what you were doing, or just decided to half-ass it. Either way, poorly done.
Definitely seems to be something wrong with your OC. Just watched another channel testing Cyberpunk 2077. 1080p High @STOCK he got an average of 59 FPS on a 3070. Plus if your 9590 is coming in behind an 8350 it's got some issues.
Nice. I was really happy with my AM3+ / FX - 9590 system. : I'm not sure if you had a mb with a PCIE-2 M.2 slot and were using a PCIE-3 NVME M.2 as the storage if the results would be any better.
I'm still using my old A10 5800k as my every day work and light gaming machine (on chip video only). Yes, it can be painful but it still does the job I need it too and it ain't broke yet. Mentioned that as I see the later model A12 9800 on the list. Gives some reference as to just how slow mine is :D
i dont think intel would have made sandybridge so good if the fx cpus came out first. in 2013 i bought a dell with an i7 3770, and upgraded the power supply, and put in a gtx 660. still have that computer but not the 660. was a huge setup from playstation 3, playing games at a true 108060 for the first time. i rember farcry3 looking so good.
The 120mm AIO is too small for any FX. You want a 240mm or better. It looks like your 9590 was thermal throttling due to it. Otherwise it should have beaten the 8350 if only by margin. Edit: FX procs use an algorithm to determine temperature. The closer to the thermal limit, the more accurate it gets. At low temps, it is always off by a bit. So you know. 2nd edit: FX targeted Nehalem IPC. And it nailed it. Unfortunately by that time Sandy Bridge was out and Ivy Bridge was almost there. AMD was late to the party. But again, this chip was made to roll with i5s. Not i7s. It was made as a value chip that can be made performant if you were willing to spend more on the parts that made it faser, like coolers, boards and memory. Price/performance was what they were aiming for but it seems they shot themselves in the foot instead of their mark.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this CPU launched at something around 1000$? I remember like it was yesterday the version with AIO cooler was priced that high for around 2-3 months, then it quickly dropped by a third in price.
@@JohnSmithWessonthanks for the confirmation. I wonder if this CPU was the most insane pricing a PC component ever had. I dont remember a piece of tech from a reputable brand to ever drop the price so much and so fast. AMD smoked some good shit back then.
You should have tested Games like League of Legends, Valorant, Counter Strike 2 and other heavy CPU singlethreaded games. You would see that the Core i5 750 would outperform the late FX Processor by much. Thank you for the video and it brings back memories. I remember upgrading to hope AMD wouldn't be that bad, but it was actually a downgrade. Luckily things changed with the 5800x3d.
do they even have the required instructions? pretty sure the anticheat updated killed old cpus, even if they were fine before just because missing avx instructions
I remember the claim that FX would age better than SandyBridge/IvyBridge/Haswell. Just wait for games to actually use all of these threads. But in the end FX aged like the Q6600. By the time the width was used by games, they were too slow with or without so many cores. And interesting that an i5-750 would outperform it. That means my LGA775 board should do the same. Nehalem didn't have any big improvements on the core itself, it was mostly the frontend that was improved. At the same clock an i5-750 and a Q9650 were pretty much equal.
@@HappyBeezerStudios lga775 rocks dude sad thing most games now require SSE4 and AVX to run so you gotta get lucky for some commuinity patch, like doom eternal, it literally runs flawlessly with a GTX 1050 for such old cpu but for some reason requires SSE4/avx instructions, so you end up cracking the game in the end
Yeah, my Old 3600XT (4.6GHz OC) [2070 Super combo] would wipe the floor with any FX or older gen I-series chips, its interesting to see how far AMD has gone with Ryzen since FX. Even the more budget Ryzens 5s are right up there with the modern i7s and i9s and wipe the floor with the FXs, even the very budger Ryzen 3s are coming close to the 5GHz FX an low end I-series chips, interesting.
Yeap I have theee of them upgraded from 8350 …. Your power vrm can throttle it if it gets too hot also the cpu must be cold or it throttles down way before it gets unreliable both these issues must be resolved first before you see it being faster than the 8350 in most stuff I did notice it was faster even over locked it once well one of them the other two wouldn’t go any higher …. My daily. Is still a 9590 with windows 11 and 32gb ram 6700xt and 8.5gb off nvme ssd (4x980pro and 970pro) with a nvme pciexpress card the 4x980 is in raid 0 and with hp omen thread optimiser its fantastic !!!! ❤ you have to use hp thread optimiser on this gpu for modern games or it stutters bad I believe the problem is 4 cores are full cores and the other 4 don’t age good floating point unit either way it’s much better with the tread optimiser I don’t need to upgrade it yet as the new gpu gave it much more life it’s the highest scoreing pc on 3d mark with 6700xt and fx9590 well was when overclocked last time I checked 5 months ago
Funny how now amd is the performance / efficiency dominator over intel, who rebadge their cpus with overclocks 3 or now even 4 times. We’ve come full circle, remembering amd in the early 2000s…
I bought one of these when they first came out and was so disappointed. It was also super unstable. I haven't used an amd cpu since. That said, I'm soon gonna build a 7800x3d/4070ti super machine. 😅
Nope, the 9590 was released as a US$1K chip. That US$370 was after they realised that they can't scammed people. Plus, this shows that US$300-350 was AMD's top-end CPU, now, it's a glorified low-end 6c!
I had fx8350 more than 10y ago, it was hot and slow, not much faster if not slower in some cases than Thuban Phenom II X6 1100T. After that I was upgraded to i7 4790K, which was much better solution.
I've used the 9590 for about 8 years now. Installed in my first build, which I'm still running. I've never had any problems out of it. Although it has been the only processer I've had, so I have nothing to compare it with. Yes, it is very power-hungry and for the first 5 years, I had it could get over 5ghz. But I havent been able to for a couple years. Its starting to show age. One thing with the video....8 cores. Which yes, AMD did announce that it had 8 cores, but they lied and were sued over it. The 9590, and other in this series, had 4 cores and 8 threads.
They didn’t lose the court case, they settled to avoid a legal process. Court case also happened in one state in one country. Why exactly hasn’t the EU sued them? This thing obviously has 8 cores. 8 pieces of shit cores. And even if you don’t want to call it a a true 8 core, calling it a 4 cores 8 thread is just a lie. This thing doesn’t have HT/SMT The best way to call the cpu is a 4 module cpu with 2 cores per module.
Cpu_nb@2200 + Ram@1866 Such a useless overclock. Even an FX 8300 can reach cpu_nb@2500-2600 with 2133-2400 ram speeds for nice speed increases in games and memory-bound tasks. Also, these 220w models (9590 and 9370) need some kind of active VRM cooling, even on high-end motherboards.
I ran this CPU for several years a few years ago, its an absolute bitch to keep from thermal throttling you really need a nice large cooler or there is no point trying to use it it will kill itself by thermal throttling.
There is something wrong with your setup. If you get a Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 motherboard you can run 32GB of DDR3 2400MHz ram with the 9590 no problem. That MSI board is terrible. Also, add a Noctua D15 and a fan to the backside of the motherboard. You can overclock the 9590 to 4.9ghz all cores and you will see a decent difference from the 8350… that said FX processors were a long way off from intel at the time even running the hell out of them. if you’re going to build an FX based machine in 2024 at least go full send with the madness 😁
This chip wasn't worth it. The fx 8320 was 130-140$ when this launched. And for that price you could easily overclock it to 4.5Ghz on a cheap 60-70$ motherboard and cool it with a hyper-212. Or just run it at 4.0Ghz with a 45-50$ motherboard and stock cooler. It got you over 60fps in 99.9999% of games, so it was a steal for that price.
This is very. Very bad solution. It is hot af, it's quite expensive. It performs almost like the worst ryzen - 1200 and worse then ryzen 1400. This ryzens are very cheap and AM4 mobos are also cheap now. AM3 is out of support and it has northen bridge that is overwhelmingly hot and could die every moment. I don't see any reasons to use it when you have ryzens.
False. That was a nuisance lawsuit with no basis in fact, and it was settled for a small amount to get rid of it. The Bulldozer architecture had two integer cores and one floating point core per module. Four modules means eight integer cores and four floating point cores.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 They didn't lose. They settled for a small amount to make the case go away so they could concentrate on the future. Settling a lawsuit is not losing that lawsuit. If it will cost more to litigate a case to point of victory than to settle and make the case go away sooner, then it makes sense to just settle.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575if it was true than every country on the planet would have sued. Instead a single court case happened in one state in one country. Companies settle out of court all the time to avoid legal fees. And judgement against them when ignorant juries might side against them It’s pretty obvious this thing has 8 cores. The cores are physically there. They just both suck ass and share resources with another core. The best example I can think of are conjoined twins. They count as 2 people right? No one would say they are one person. But obviously if you hired them to do a job, they wouldn’t perform as well as 2 separate employees.
It literally was 2 duel core cpus pasted together and forced to share one lane out. The single lane out problem was why these FX chips SUCKED! It could process like a beast but couldn't get the data out of the chip!
Thanks for video! The fact that Fx9590 was able to match stock 2700K/Fx8350@4.8GHz in Cinebench, but struggles to beat even Fx8350, clearly shows that Bulldozer/piledriver's problem was not core performance, but memory/cache performance...
The thing is that both FX cpus are not a real 8 core cpu.
That is why there was a lawsuit about AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 depends on how you define "core". 386 CPU didn't had FPU or decoder, but was definitly not a 0-core CPU... and exact core composition really doesn't matter, if you match single core and all core performance
@@남기헌-l8y Simply NO. You may exclude FPU with some mental gymnastics. But you can't exclude fetch or decode stage (or dispatch in suprescalar architectures). Those stages were also shared and are absolutely the core (pun not intended) functionality of a CPU core.
I would go even further and call it a failed multithreading attemt (what intel calls hyperthreading). If they would "only" allow to schedule all instructions on any integer cluster, it would be a full multithreading and actually improve singlethreaded performance and therefore lowering the relative improvement of multithreaded applications ("only" is in quotes because it's not a trivial change)
Yep, proper FSB hard OC to about 20-25mhz more will show a big difference, otherwise going higher than 4.2-4.4ghz will not do much. But with hard FSB and memory OC those 5Ghz can show very good results. Too bad not many motherboards will be able to boost bus by a lot. But yeah, a typical fx oc mistake is to oc the memory, core clock and NB without touching the bus.
In some way it had the same issues as NetBurst. It even had a similar design philosophy. Long pipeline, high clock. Some weird core-and a-half
NetBurst had a "full" ALU and a set of simple ALUs that could do two operations per clock, but 64-bit SSE units. Which is not what you want for 128-bit instructions.
FX had two integer clusters with shared FPU and decoder units. That FPU block could be split into two 128-bit units or run as a single 256-bit unit. If the design had better throughput it would've been decent.
And the later Excavator design, which wasn't widely available on desktop showed decent improvements. They released a couple Athlons on the architecture and those were competitive in their market. Sitting between Pentiums and i3 at the time, which seems right for the market they aimed at. And tose Excavator Athlons were 2 module/4 thread CPUs, a full 4 module/8 thread or even 6 module/12 thread CPU would've placed itself among the lower i5 chips without issue.
I have a Pentium 4 here and could gain 15% performance just by increasing the FSB, even when keeping the CPU itself at the same clock.
Both were bandwith-starved architectures. But both were good with the right kind of tasks. Which were tasks that are predictable and keep the pipeline filled. Stuff like video encoding or 3D rendering.
People hate FX cpus, but this bad boi can heat the room during the winter ;)
really?.....
It’s true. I used to run Folding@home to heat my room on cold nights. Worked like a space heater.
@@dannyy7654 hi...what's model fx .....?
@@dannyy7654at that point u were better of with an actual little space heater that consume less power than the fx cpu
How? It downclocks after 61ºc and turn off after 80ºc... Should try an i7 4790K, this reached more than 100ºc and keep going.
I'm glad that AMD was able to climb out of a ditch dug up by Bulldozer
Yet I still skipped Zen and hopped on the bandwagon with Zen+ (2600)
@@RuruFIN I only upgraded to Zen 3 with a Ryzen 5 5600 this year and i was stuck on the K10 architecture before that (That's the Phenom II generation)
Let's just say that i IMMEDIATELY noticed the massive boost in performance compared to the Phenom II 1055t!
@@GUCFan I got a 5800X 3 months ago after using a 3600 for 3 years. The 3600 is still in use on my media system :)
zen+ was not really good either i upgraded from i7 4790k to ryzen 7 2700x and my performance was worse in gaming i think zen2 was the real deal@@RuruFIN
zen+ was not really good either i upgraded from i7 4790k to ryzen 7 2700x and my performance was worse in gaming i think zen2 was the real deal@@RuruFIN
I had one of these. Got it for like $100. It’s still alive and being used for my nephews pc to play some older games and they don’t run as hot as you think they do.
One thing a lot of people overlook about the FX series was the price. The 8350 was $140 cheaper then the 2700k, which allowed gamers to buy a really good mobo and ram. So yes, the performance was not equal, but it did give for budget friendly builds.
The problem was that most games back then didn't utilize more than 2 cores, so even an i5(3570k launched 6 months earlier) would trash it and the price difference was 12$. The FX only redeeming quality was good performance in productivity tasks for cheap, but for games it was horrible. Sure, later these CPUs started to shine once games would use more than 2 cores and would actually keep up or even beat the core i5/i7s, but that came a bit too late.
For all the universal hate they get.. it's basically a meme to shit on FX processors.. these CPUs got me into higher end PC gaming and it's how I learned to build my own rigs. They used to be so cheap used and I never felt I was missing out when using them (shout out to my eBay build FX 8320 and 750ti combo whole PC was like 215 bucks lmao). Now a days they cost way too much and time hasn't been kind at all, but I'll never forget em.
I just finished testing an AMD 8 core with a 15w TDP 🤣
Fancy seeing you here! 😅
Love your vids, can't wait to see the next one
The thing is that both FX cpus are not a real 8 core cpu.
That is why there was a lawsuit about AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 Settling out of court does not actually admit to failure this time. It closed the case, paid some money in California only. They moved on rather than keep fighting those who cannot understand that a "core" is.
@@hrayz It was a shared cores system so the 8 cores was shared by two logic cores.
Major clue was the L2 cache.
strange that your 9590 required such high vCore.
general things to know for FX platform, use multiplier + BCLK for OCing. not multiplier solely.
HT Link at 2600mhz - 2700mhz (Use BCLK) (will be 2600 by default on 990FX) & NB at 2400mhz-2600mhz (use BCLK) (NB VID is safe up till 1.35v, NB Voltage itself is safe till around 1.2v) NB freq is directly tied to IMC & L3 Cache performance.
shut off Core Performance Boost, APM, CStates, HPC, C1E like you mentioned.
in terms of memory FX stops scaling past low 2000mhz Memory, so shoot for 1866-2133mhz C9
360mm Radiator/AIO equivalent or better is required for beyond 1.475v
Other general tips is that you want to start using higher LLC past 1.475v or 4.8ghz onwards, whichever comes first thanks to the bin. vDroop and overshoot becomes a killer as you start pushing 5ghz.
Good to know..Thank you.
Had a FX-8150/990FX Sabertooth/240AIO system a couple of years ago, did mess about with OC on it and HT,NB and RAM tuning does indeed make a bigger impact than just increasing the multiplier. I think i had it running at 4.75Ghz 1866Mhz CL9, remembering it didn't give much boost to performance beyond 4.75Ghz, but meesing around with the Ram and north brigde and ht and stuff following guides did make a significant difference both to stutters and higher fps in games.Retired the Bulldozer when the Pcie slot gave away from the motherboard -.-
yeah Bulldozer was much more sensitive to NB & IMC then people like to act like, the difference in 1% lows between 2600HT/2200NB - 1600mhz C8 and 2700HT/2600NB - 2000 C9 is massive and can be anywhere from 8% to 20% uplift in gaming workloads, by its nature Bulldozer is cache starved. so increasing core clocks, which in turn increases L1 & L2 cache hit rate + NB increasing L3 Cache hit rate + actually saturating the IMC has a stark uplift over stock or even core OC alone. @@bafon
not really 9590 with a real pig for power and a real furnace to heat your room up so it's not surprising that his 9590 is high on the vcore
I owned a 9590 so i know they were no better or worse with the power saving features on or off they sucked both ways and even with the power saver features turned on they still roasted you in your home when gaming the power saving features only saved power when the system was idle not doing anything at all and they didn't have much power when pushed
I finally upgraded from fx8350 4.8ghz dec 2022. But was paired with rx 580. So it wasn't really bad for me. Honestly lasted 8 years of solid play. Im on a 5600x now still with the rx580. Waiting to upgrade GPU still. Prices are always a concern for me.
RX 6600 on the used market is really damn cheap. Probably the best value there is right now for the lowest budget possible. I got my 6700 XT for 275€ which is the best 1080p card for the price right now. Also using a 5600x which I purchased from the same fella for 100€. You can get great deals on the used market and you absolutely can lower the 6600 price by quite a bit by selling your RX 580.
Using my "new" 5600x cpu with a rx 7600 gpu
Beautiful performance with no bottleneck
I also got a rx 7600 and it can play maxed out in 1080p. But my 5600x is overclocked and has ReSize Bar enabled in bios (SAM or amds smart memory) PBO on with Curve Optimiser at -30 all cores. 3600mhz ram low Cas. Think all of that helps 🤔
I am using my FX-8300 and i am quite happy about the performacne. I play in 2k and i have rx570 8GB GPU. Have no idea when a game will get me to change it.
So far all games i want to run feels good. I am wondering when it will be useless ^^
I did acualy upgrade from FX-6100 and the change feels worth it.
Impressive how they manage to compete with modern Intel i9 processors. At least in power usage😅 Meanwhile Intel then could be easily cooled by the stock cooler even when overclocked. How things have changed.
Reverse card.
But my 11900K do thinks, what your Razen cant- warm my legs im winter 😎
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I LOVE MY FX 8150 BLACK EDITION..
BOUGHT A FX9590 BLACK EDITION.
FOR MY DREAM BACK IN TIME BUILD.😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
I still have one and im keeping it, for the history!
I have a bunch of these.
Underclock and undervolt. They don't need anything above 4ghz. Enable all power saving features on the motherboard after finding your undervolt/oc happy place.
With a nice modern linux kernel and features they work amazingly well for everyday stuff.
What do these cpu's pull in idle?
Like i know am4 idle performance is ASS. Since chiplets is ass. I think am3+ is still monolythic cpu's?
@@durschfalltv7505 less than 45W... around about 35-40W
@@durschfalltv7505 with c6 and offset voltage 81w with static voltage 91w idle.
The only power saving fx needs is C6
for comparison intel i5-3470 has 43w idle
@@durschfalltv7505 with c6state and offset voltage 81w with static voltage 91w
You said the MSRP was $329. Unless I'm experiencing a Mendela effect, those CPUs were originally sold for around $900 USD before quickly coming down.
It was indeed $900
I had a FX-9590 machine that was nearly the Best of what the AM3+ with an FX-9590 could be. I had a GIGABYTE GA-990FX-GAMING G1 AM3+ mb ; AMD FX-9590 cpu ; Storage 1 tb Samsung 970 Evo PCIE-3 NVME M.2 ( plugged into the mb's PCIE-2 M.2 slot ) ; RX 580-8gb video card ; 64 gb ddr3 at 1866 mhz ; PSU was the OCZ ZX 1250w 80+ Gold FM ; Cpu cooler was an 240 AIO forget which brand ; I was just about to buy a ECC-DDR3 128gb ram kit at 1866 mhz before I could the MB quit working and I wasn't able to get a replacement quick enough so that's when I switched to AM4. I might try to get the parts to build it again but with the 128gb of ram this time.
The FX-9590 was a space heater/furnace in CPU form. Like holy cow that thing put out some crazy heat.
I absolutely love the gace that you added the A12-9800
I had one of these. I really did like it for the time, it did everything I needed. Upgraded later to a Ryzen 1800X
I used my 8350 for many years (5+) as my main PC before getting the Ryzen 1700X. The bulldozer is still in use in my room as my backup system with a RX 580-8GB. Great 1080p setup.
I'm currently selling my FX 9590 and Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z mobo. You can't just slap these CPUs in any AM3+ board. You have to look at the CPU support list of the mobo because not all of them support the FX 9000 series. Also these chips don't operate correctly with stock settings. These chips need both the 8-pin and the 4-pin CPU power molexs connected to the board to obtain the stock frequencies. Disable Turbo clock and set it to 4.7 GHz or higher with your own tuning on the NB and HT.
It shouldn't have disappointed anyone. All of the sources at the time made it clear that the 9370 and 9590 were just factory overclocks of the same Piledriver 8-cores like the 8350. Based on some of your benchmarks, it looks like they toyed with the microcode on these parts to keep them stable at high clocks. That's the only reason they should lose to an 8350 at 4.8.
I just ran my 8350 at 4.85 GHz and called it a day. I recognized the 9590 as just AMD marketing wanting to sell the first-ever 5 GHz processor.
It’s too bad these chips were so bad :/ I remember a friend who was a Phenom 2 fanatic feeling lost when Bulldozer came out due to the lackluster performance, even though the price was decent.
I’m lucky I chose a 2500K system back in the day. I still have it, though I’m using a 2600 in that rig that I got this year. No Z series board anymore, that went to a friend, so that’s essentially my best option without getting unreasonable in pricing.
I can also attest that a 2600K at 4.2 is fine on a i5-11400 cooler; that’s my friend’s current setup with my old hardware and a used K. A little toasty and loud under the worst case scenario, but it works just fine for gaming.
Back then I just upgraded my quad core Phenom 2 to hexa core and skipped Bulldozer/Piledriver entirely. Finally when first gen Ryzen came out I upgraded to the 1700. By that time the Phenom 2 x6 was really showing its age.
What you on about??FX chips are the best for gaming on winter season...
8320e was good for its price. Especially after thorough tuning.
@@Greenberet.i cooked an egg on the case itself too!
The GIGABYTE GA-990FX-GAMING G1 AM3+ mb had both a Type-C port and a PCIE-2 M.2 slot that supported both Type A and Type M ssd's : Type A being the Sata M.2's and Type M being the NVME M.2's. Yes a PCIE-3 M.2 on the PCIE-2 interface will only be able to go as fast as the PCIE-2 will support ; but that is still 3x as fast as Sata- 3. My overall pwerformance was 1866 Mhz read and 1788 mhz read for my Samsung 1tb 970 Evo.
I didn't get to experience what the FX line felt like back in the day. But I was glad I stuck to Intel's offerings. I had both a 2500K and a 2600K system that I was able to push to 4.6-4.7GHz for the both of them.
I have both of those CPUs and I did run the 9590 on an ASROCK MB with 16gb of 1866. I was trying to X-Fire 2 AMD 8990's and it required a PSU with 1300 watts output in order to even boot! As far as it goes I did not do any OC and with AMDs last driver I did get the system to X-Fire...With Win 10! The Mainboard was only rated for 140 watts CPU so no OCing! All the MBs I found were not affordable at the time but it did run very stable😉.
This cpu consumes more than my MOBO, APU, and GPU combined.
Damn
could you test cyberpunk with path tracing and all max settings except cpu intensive ones (draw distance, population, etc) ? i've seen an 8350 do 18fps while at full speed on a motorbike with everything maxed out with a 4090. when walking it gets over 35fps
Does it really pull over 380 watts under load? This is insane. If I torture my 7800x3d with Linpack AMD64 it tops out at around 96 watts with close to 5 GHZ, there is no stress test I can get it to consume more power.
I’m really astonished at how amd can achieve such dramatic change in cpu generation after bulldozer
AMD had a AMD FX-8370 4.3GHz 8-Core 8M Socket AM3+ CPU and it's little brother the FX-8350. Both the FX-8350 and FX-8370 could be overclocked to just about to the 5 ghz the FX-9590 was clocked at out of the box and use slighty less power overall.
I remember these. Fuck that. The power draw of these cpus made me skip the entire generation. Went from AMD Phenon II X6 to Ryzen but that was a 95 to 65 watt drop. Those 95XX's where known to be space heaaters in your room.
Fun chips thou! 👍Everyone that had one loved it, you would get one that OC the shit out of it, i mean anywhere from 25-30%! But not at those wattages. Your boy say how much juice those muthafuckas where suckin down and was like 💀💀
I'm good on this generation.
The 9000 series weren't a good buy. The fx 8320 was 130-140$ then those 9000 series came out and you could easily overclock it to 4.0-4.1Ghz on a 45-50$ board or to 4.5-4.8Ghz on a 60-70$ board with a Hyper-212. FX CPUs were there for the value and to play games with more than 60fps and for that they were perfect from 2011-2017.
Had a FX8320 that ran 5.1 daily and 5.3ghz max oc. It was great till my causin got his i5 4690k that would do 4.6ghz beating me in nearly every game and benchmark. The FX was great VALUE and lots of fun to OC so it's made its earned its place in PC history and will always have lots of nostalgia. Wish I still had mine even.
The thing is that both FX cpus are not a real 8 core cpu.
That is why there was a lawsuit about AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx.
Absolutely true.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 They are and aren't. They are by the fact that they have two physically separated integer pipelines, but are not by the combined FPU. AMD made a semi-superscalar architecture. What trully killed it was Global Foundry's abysmal, 2-3 years delayed 32nm process node. Global Foundry promised AMD 2 billion transistors for an 8 core at 125W in 2009, insteat they gave AMD 1.2 billion transistors at 125W in 2011-2012.
I have Crosshair V Formula Z paired with fx 8350 and corsair Vengeance pro. Ram works at 2133 MHz speed 1.5v. It can easily work at 2400 but it's not necessary. Can't understand what's wrong with you memory. But i think your voltage for 9590 is too low, it should be higher than 1.4 and can be 1.5.
And while I was using this setup I tried different memory, and almost all ram taked 2133 MHz with different timings.
Thanks for sharing mete. I'm not having much luck when pairing FX chips with fast memory. Voltage was manually set to 1.531V 🙂
To make use of 2400 you need to crank that north bridge and hyper transport . My 9590 screamed with 2600 mhz nb and 2600 htt . 5.4 ghz shd it clobbered everything I thew at it . I love fx systems
@@nexus_techyour board choice is pretty bad to . It's not a true 8+2 phase it's a 6 phase
I7 2700k @5ghz is absolutely insane. I always thought the i7 990x was the better ddr3 CPU because triple channel memory. I didn't know it could be that fast.
I've owned this processer gave the PC to my brother, the info you have listed is kind of wrong its an 8 core processer but what you didn't realize its 4 core plus 4 logical processors. It is actually an 4 Core CPU with 4 Logical processors. It does Throttle a lot so heat due to the 220W TDP will make it run hotter causing Throddling. To keep it cool you have to have the Case cool, an 360 Fan that paired with liquid cooler to get that thing to stop that. Only way you will get Acturate testing results.
With the FX8300, I played all the games except Uncharted because the FX processors don't have the AVX2 instruction and I still use it ,,
9590 Allcore stable with 1.31 for sure not There is not even one FX in the whole wide World Allcore stable below 1.37exept the powerdelivery on CPU or MoBo is burned out and reports pure garbage. 9590 at 5 Ghz is minimum around 1.45 on good Silicon so nope your Test is invalid with use of defectiv Hardware sorry
Hello mate! Thanks, but the core voltage was set to 1.531V in BIOS, usually around 1.525v in OS
Still using the FX 9590 as a secondary PC, with a 7590x 😂 is not a bad processor, try CPU MB at 2600 MHz and HT link to 2600, and ram at 2133 or 2400 MHz you should have better performance, I find it incredible that you can still play cyberpunk with that pc
I want to see NexusTech benchmark the best that APUs on FM2+ had to offer: the A10-7890K/R7 250e in Dual Graphics mode!
what were ur 990x settings? I get much more fps in games on my x58 platform than you shown here
Isn't the x58 a 1311 intel socket?
@@timmanboy1 1366 yes
I never was able to keep this bad boi cool. I recall being gifted an h80i by one of my best friends and i could not get her past 4.7ghz sadly I was not an intelligent as i am with lowering voltages. I had to disable to boost to keep it from trying to go past 4.7 also as someone else mentioned indeed it was a great heater lol I still have my fx 9590 and its asrock motherboard and ram set, i have used it as a back up when my main pc had some issues with past motherboards.
So many issues with this video...
The FX series was priced like an i5, but ran with the i7. It also has consistently better frame times and multitasking (Gaming + Voice Chat + Streaming) than the i5. So while you are looking at cores and performance, you did not mention the price/performance value. Also with your overclock, did you verify you were not getting any correctable cache errors? This is a common oversight for people new to overclocking the 8350/9590. And these errors can hit performance a bit. You also failed to OC the FSB, which is a basic MUST HAVE for a proper FX OC. Most high end 990FX motherboards can easily do 250-300MHz on the FSB, and the gains are worth it. There's really no excuse for missing the FSB OC since it is part of the official AMD OC guide, that has been available as a downloadable PDF since ~2011. You either did not know what you were doing, or just decided to half-ass it. Either way, poorly done.
Definitely seems to be something wrong with your OC. Just watched another channel testing Cyberpunk 2077. 1080p High @STOCK he got an average of 59 FPS on a 3070. Plus if your 9590 is coming in behind an 8350 it's got some issues.
Nice. I was really happy with my AM3+ / FX - 9590 system. : I'm not sure if you had a mb with a PCIE-2 M.2 slot and were using a PCIE-3 NVME M.2 as the storage if the results would be any better.
I'm still using my old A10 5800k as my every day work and light gaming machine (on chip video only). Yes, it can be painful but it still does the job I need it too and it ain't broke yet.
Mentioned that as I see the later model A12 9800 on the list. Gives some reference as to just how slow mine is :D
My 8350 clocked higher than my 9590 did. Both water cooled I got 5.2Ghz stable on my 8350 while my 9590 almost didn't have any headroom at all.
The lightstreets of my neighborhood is dead now when u turn this pc on
i dont think intel would have made sandybridge so good if the fx cpus came out first. in 2013 i bought a dell with an i7 3770, and upgraded the power supply, and put in a gtx 660. still have that computer but not the 660. was a huge setup from playstation 3, playing games at a true 108060 for the first time. i rember farcry3 looking so good.
aint naur way the 2700k OC is matching the 10900X in Mankind Divided like how is that possible
I OC’ed the FSB to get the most performance gain in Games. CPU speed didn’t matter much for my FX 9590.
05:22 why not vulkan?
could it have been throttling? also, the higher clocked FX cpu's needed the cpu/NB overclocked at or above 2400mhz to improve gaming performance.
The 120mm AIO is too small for any FX. You want a 240mm or better. It looks like your 9590 was thermal throttling due to it. Otherwise it should have beaten the 8350 if only by margin.
Edit: FX procs use an algorithm to determine temperature. The closer to the thermal limit, the more accurate it gets. At low temps, it is always off by a bit. So you know.
2nd edit: FX targeted Nehalem IPC. And it nailed it. Unfortunately by that time Sandy Bridge was out and Ivy Bridge was almost there. AMD was late to the party. But again, this chip was made to roll with i5s. Not i7s. It was made as a value chip that can be made performant if you were willing to spend more on the parts that made it faser, like coolers, boards and memory. Price/performance was what they were aiming for but it seems they shot themselves in the foot instead of their mark.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this CPU launched at something around 1000$? I remember like it was yesterday the version with AIO cooler was priced that high for around 2-3 months, then it quickly dropped by a third in price.
yes it was around 1000 dollars which is insane considering you could buy i7 4770k + good motherboard and ram kit for less and it would destroy 9590.
@@JohnSmithWessonthanks for the confirmation. I wonder if this CPU was the most insane pricing a PC component ever had. I dont remember a piece of tech from a reputable brand to ever drop the price so much and so fast. AMD smoked some good shit back then.
Tbh for a while the amd processors were actually a good option for low budget builds without any needs in power efficiency.
You should have tested Games like League of Legends, Valorant, Counter Strike 2 and other heavy CPU singlethreaded games. You would see that the Core i5 750 would outperform the late FX Processor by much.
Thank you for the video and it brings back memories.
I remember upgrading to hope AMD wouldn't be that bad, but it was actually a downgrade. Luckily things changed with the 5800x3d.
do they even have the required instructions?
pretty sure the anticheat updated killed old cpus, even if they were fine before just because missing avx instructions
I remember the claim that FX would age better than SandyBridge/IvyBridge/Haswell. Just wait for games to actually use all of these threads.
But in the end FX aged like the Q6600. By the time the width was used by games, they were too slow with or without so many cores.
And interesting that an i5-750 would outperform it. That means my LGA775 board should do the same. Nehalem didn't have any big improvements on the core itself, it was mostly the frontend that was improved. At the same clock an i5-750 and a Q9650 were pretty much equal.
@@HappyBeezerStudios lga775 rocks dude
sad thing most games now require SSE4 and AVX to run so you gotta get lucky for some commuinity patch, like doom eternal, it literally runs flawlessly with a GTX 1050 for such old cpu but for some reason requires SSE4/avx instructions, so you end up cracking the game in the end
Used to have Phenom II X4, that's the only good AMD CPU of that era. 😉
I could turn the heating down when I used to have mine on.
And here I thought we get a POWER6, which was from 2006 and also hit 5 GHz
Yeah, my Old 3600XT (4.6GHz OC) [2070 Super combo] would wipe the floor with any FX or older gen I-series chips, its interesting to see how far AMD has gone with Ryzen since FX.
Even the more budget Ryzens 5s are right up there with the modern i7s and i9s and wipe the floor with the FXs, even the very budger Ryzen 3s are coming close to the 5GHz FX an low end I-series chips, interesting.
Yeap I have theee of them upgraded from 8350 …. Your power vrm can throttle it if it gets too hot also the cpu must be cold or it throttles down way before it gets unreliable both these issues must be resolved first before you see it being faster than the 8350 in most stuff I did notice it was faster even over locked it once well one of them the other two wouldn’t go any higher …. My daily. Is still a 9590 with windows 11 and 32gb ram 6700xt and 8.5gb off nvme ssd (4x980pro and 970pro) with a nvme pciexpress card the 4x980 is in raid 0 and with hp omen thread optimiser its fantastic !!!! ❤ you have to use hp thread optimiser on this gpu for modern games or it stutters bad I believe the problem is 4 cores are full cores and the other 4 don’t age good floating point unit either way it’s much better with the tread optimiser I don’t need to upgrade it yet as the new gpu gave it much more life it’s the highest scoreing pc on 3d mark with 6700xt and fx9590 well was when overclocked last time I checked 5 months ago
Can you test a i7 4790K?
Q6600 and E8400 pls
Funny how now amd is the performance / efficiency dominator over intel, who rebadge their cpus with overclocks 3 or now even 4 times. We’ve come full circle, remembering amd in the early 2000s…
Yep but I found Xeon chip better for the price once the cooling was managed properly
I bought one of these when they first came out and was so disappointed. It was also super unstable. I haven't used an amd cpu since.
That said, I'm soon gonna build a 7800x3d/4070ti super machine. 😅
I kept my 9590, sometimes I think about putting a linux system together with it but - meh.
IMHO,a faster than 1866 memory MIGHT help to boost the performance??
Weird my old FX-8370 ran (1866) 2133mhz O/C.
Nope, the 9590 was released as a US$1K chip. That US$370 was after they realised that they can't scammed people.
Plus, this shows that US$300-350 was AMD's top-end CPU, now, it's a glorified low-end 6c!
I had fx8350 more than 10y ago, it was hot and slow, not much faster if not slower in some cases than Thuban Phenom II X6 1100T. After that I was upgraded to i7 4790K, which was much better solution.
The thing is that both FX cpus are not a real 8 core cpu.
That is why there was a lawsuit about AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx.
There HAS to be something wrong with your set up, chip, whatever.
Hello mate, I'm not sure what is wrong, I went over settings over and over, can't find anything that would cause slower performance. Bad luck 🙂
@@nexus_techit's your board
Crazy that a Ryzen 1700 at 3Ghz had a faster single core performance of about 60% vs this at 5Ghz 😂
I've used the 9590 for about 8 years now. Installed in my first build, which I'm still running. I've never had any problems out of it. Although it has been the only processer I've had, so I have nothing to compare it with. Yes, it is very power-hungry and for the first 5 years, I had it could get over 5ghz. But I havent been able to for a couple years. Its starting to show age. One thing with the video....8 cores. Which yes, AMD did announce that it had 8 cores, but they lied and were sued over it. The 9590, and other in this series, had 4 cores and 8 threads.
I hope you got you money from that lawsuit.
They didn’t lose the court case, they settled to avoid a legal process. Court case also happened in one state in one country. Why exactly hasn’t the EU sued them?
This thing obviously has 8 cores. 8 pieces of shit cores.
And even if you don’t want to call it a a true 8 core, calling it a 4 cores 8 thread is just a lie. This thing doesn’t have HT/SMT
The best way to call the cpu is a 4 module cpu with 2 cores per module.
My 8350 kept me warm I should grab one of those,to lower my gas bill.
Cpu_nb@2200 + Ram@1866
Such a useless overclock. Even an FX 8300 can reach cpu_nb@2500-2600 with 2133-2400 ram speeds for nice speed increases in games and memory-bound tasks.
Also, these 220w models (9590 and 9370) need some kind of active VRM cooling, even on high-end motherboards.
So what I'm hearing is my 9590 is still viable today. All I needed to know
I ran this CPU for several years a few years ago, its an absolute bitch to keep from thermal throttling you really need a nice large cooler or there is no point trying to use it it will kill itself by thermal throttling.
I have 8300 and cpu_Nb overclock is better than core clock at 4,4ghz or more.
There is something wrong with your setup. If you get a Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 motherboard you can run 32GB of DDR3 2400MHz ram with the 9590 no problem. That MSI board is terrible. Also, add a Noctua D15 and a fan to the backside of the motherboard. You can overclock the 9590 to 4.9ghz all cores and you will see a decent difference from the 8350… that said FX processors were a long way off from intel at the time even running the hell out of them. if you’re going to build an FX based machine in 2024 at least go full send with the madness 😁
This chip wasn't worth it. The fx 8320 was 130-140$ when this launched. And for that price you could easily overclock it to 4.5Ghz on a cheap 60-70$ motherboard and cool it with a hyper-212. Or just run it at 4.0Ghz with a 45-50$ motherboard and stock cooler. It got you over 60fps in 99.9999% of games, so it was a steal for that price.
Not sure why youre so surprised. It reviewed HORRIBLY.
The mid to lower end were the only decent cpus.
I remember 3 years ago I was going to buy one but it was 250$
This is very. Very bad solution. It is hot af, it's quite expensive. It performs almost like the worst ryzen - 1200 and worse then ryzen 1400. This ryzens are very cheap and AM4 mobos are also cheap now. AM3 is out of support and it has northen bridge that is overwhelmingly hot and could die every moment.
I don't see any reasons to use it when you have ryzens.
At first you are showing us MSI 990FXA Gaming and then you are installing this bad boy to ASUS Motherboard.. Why??
siempre será una leyenda
Why are these things $180-$200 on eBay though? They're horrible! A $10 i7 2700k beats it to death lol.
Lies, the 2700k goes for $20/25 lol
Ine had better dcores . Though my nb abd htt were at 2600 plus my imc was happy at 2133 .ram
4 k da dene çok farklı sonuçlar alıcaksın
thats a lot of watt
Next time test it against Phenom II x4 or x6 🤣
Thr ppfxa mai board isnt thr best . I eoukd have went cross hair or sabretooth
99fxa
Its only worth if someone pay you to take it,this cou was unspeakable shit 10 years ago now its infinite unspeakable shit only
This cpu is not a real 8 core cpu.
Look up the AMD lawsuit for AMD FX 8xxx and FX 9xxx series.
False. That was a nuisance lawsuit with no basis in fact, and it was settled for a small amount to get rid of it.
The Bulldozer architecture had two integer cores and one floating point core per module. Four modules means eight integer cores and four floating point cores.
@@TrueThanny Not false cause if false they would have not paid the people including me. If false again then why Did AMD lose?
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575 They didn't lose. They settled for a small amount to make the case go away so they could concentrate on the future.
Settling a lawsuit is not losing that lawsuit. If it will cost more to litigate a case to point of victory than to settle and make the case go away sooner, then it makes sense to just settle.
@@zushikatetomotoshift1575if it was true than every country on the planet would have sued.
Instead a single court case happened in one state in one country.
Companies settle out of court all the time to avoid legal fees. And judgement against them when ignorant juries might side against them
It’s pretty obvious this thing has 8 cores. The cores are physically there. They just both suck ass and share resources with another core.
The best example I can think of are conjoined twins. They count as 2 people right? No one would say they are one person. But obviously if you hired them to do a job, they wouldn’t perform as well as 2 separate employees.
hd 630 vs gt 710 2gb
No it wasn't worth buying it was just a cherry picked 8350 that's it nothing special
Some times overclocking can give you worse results in some games and tasks
9590 💩
5950 🗿
It literally was 2 duel core cpus pasted together and forced to share one lane out. The single lane out problem was why these FX chips SUCKED! It could process like a beast but couldn't get the data out of the chip!