Makes one wonder why amd is so set on only providing system integrators with this chip. Are they being provided with a different bios or different hardware than current boards have right now...
Printable View
Makes one wonder why amd is so set on only providing system integrators with this chip. Are they being provided with a different bios or different hardware than current boards have right now...
I agree that the price is what makes this product terrible. AMD needs to maintain the value angle to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
I think the price of this chip at the very most should be $349(fx9590) dollars. AMD isn't even packing a cooler in and it shouldn't cost AMD $100 to bin some processors let alone 600 dollars.
The fx9370 should be $279.
Even at $349, people are making some sacrifices vs a 4770k, such as the low overclocking room, generally worse performance, heat/power consumption and the need to buy an more expensive cooler.
They do gain in some scenario's where a program is multithreaded, but these scenarios are rare and it's not like AMD blows Intel away in these cases.
Anything about 500 is simply arrogant pricing.
For an 800 dollars for a processors from AMD to be justified, I expect 12 or more cores, hopefully higher IPC and 5 ghz. If AMD matched the performance of the 3960x, I would expect them to undercut Intel since their reputation and branding is worse. The fx9590 is the opposite and makes Intel entire lineup look value priced, even the 3960x.
Can you please write this in a way that makes sense. I play video games so I give a :banana::banana::banana::banana: how it does in video games not some non-real synthetic crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Apparantly the 9590@5 and 3960x@4.4 have that same spot
That's weird the review I linked and posted SS's from says you are incorrectQuote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
Why because there is no way an AMD could ever keep up? Do you have anything to support your claim I posted a ton of benchmarks all of which supported me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxforces
AMD FX-9590 ES review at PCTUNING (use translate from czech language to english)
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/hardware/pr...x-9590?start=1
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot103.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot106.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot116.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot117.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot101.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot121.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot120.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot137.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot098.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot099.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot114.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot113.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot115.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot131.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot112.png
http://pctuning.tyden.cz/ilustrace3/...eenShot122.png
For graphs: "meně je lepe" = "lower value is better" "vice je lepe" = "higher value is better"
If I were AMD's engineers I would see this Job's video and mark with fire in my head his speech about "performance per-watt" at 2:55+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doVyNVxovX8
And I think that 220W is simply not acceptable for a CPU.
for OC no problem...my i7-3930K at 4700 MHz has +100 W more than 5 GHz Vishera :) (I used the same GPU card). So this 100W will be in most part from CPU.
GPU is the problem here or a bottleneck if you wanna call it that. If the GPU's were faster the difference would be much wider than 1 or 2 frames. That's why benches like these are useless when you want CPU results. It's low res or bust...Quote:
Originally Posted by cdawall
any reviews for the 9370 yet? wonder if the 9370 can get stable at 5ghz? would be a much better deal.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113346
lol combo only
It appears as though newegg has found a clever way around the bundle requirement by "bundling" the processor with a heavily discounted copy of norton Internet security
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...106.19-113-347
It also appears they have no problem selling them alone on eBay
http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewi...d=380680341498
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ace123
should have combo bundles with corsair/nzxt/thermaltake/swifttech AIO liquid coolers
I don't play at 1024x768 so why would I care if an i7 was faster at that resolution. As long as it can push a pair of GPU's for eyefinity I would be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
That can tell you which CPU is really better at a game, but still isnt useful info. Doesnt matter if someone has a CPU that is 200% faster at low resolutions when it is only 1 fps different average at the resolution people are playing at (or more importantly when the user views a benchmark, the res that person is going to play at). What really needs to happen for a CPU benchmark for games is to show high res benchmarks but show both minimum FPS as well as frame times for the GPU between the different CPU systems. Min, average, and max FPS are important when showing benchmarks for the GPU only, but the min FPS is what will show the most difference when trying to benchmark CPUs with games.Quote:
Originally Posted by solofly
And to show I am not completely biased to AMD trying to justify stuff, I have seen a couple people do proper reviews like this back in Sandy Bridge days and the 2600K seemed to get between 5-10 minimum FPS better than Zambezi cores in every benchmark that was shown, which is a pretty big area of difference in gaming. I haven't looked to see how Vishera compares to Ivy or Haswell in this regard though.
Dude the price on this amazon link us fluctuating all over the place. It has been as low as $416 And as high as 878 and now its 800 even
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...w_bottom_links
Well damn I would have grabbed one for $416 :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123