FX 9590 curb stomps the i7 cpus all the way. Prove me wrong. Oh that's right you can't. Suck it AMD all the way.
>dat power consumption
>dat need for liquid cooling
>dat lack of any overclock potential
>taking all the good and cheap 8350s off the market just to charge a premium for this shit
>still focusing on shitty 32nm and not moving down to 22
the 9xx series is a fucking abomination and all consumers should be pissed. i WAS going to buy an 8350 eventually. then they took all the high binned 8350s and rebranded them just to charge more for the same fucking chip.
fuck companies. first intel pulls this shit with their "k" varients and now AMD... fuck computers fuck companies and fuck consumers.
> then they took all the high binned 8350s
Yields been getting better: five 8350's i've set up during the last four months have had almost half of the power consumption of any of the early 8350's i set up, so in that sense any of more recently produced piledrivers are of higher binning that the ones manufactured in 2012.
The FX-9* were idiotic decision really and they have sold terribly, and for a good reason.
And as far as performance goes: 8350@stock beats the living shit out of email@example.comGHz in multiple make job or pretty much any multithreaded job on non-shitty operating system or with a program that has not been compiled with discriminating compiler.
Quality variances in the amd cpu's is still pretty terrible: 3 out of 10 cpu's dont report core temperature at all for example, but then again there is no real sensor in the cpu anyway (unlike any modern jewtel chip).
No FX8350s were taken off the market to produce the FX Centurion line. Those chips are all the functional 4M Vishera chips that failed validation at stock voltage to be either an 8350 or 8320. They are in fact a lower binned 8320 thats just clocked higher.
32nm Vishera chips aren't being produced any more, AMD hasn't bought any 32nm wafers for a very long time now. They're qualifying old stock as new SKUs. The FX 8370 and 8370e are the highest binned chips they had produced, some of which are absolutely incredible.
>We measure 90 W at the appropriate rail, which should work out to somewhere between 80 and 82 W for the CPU alone, once the losses due to the voltage regulator are subtracted. Nice!
>AMD hasn't bought any 32nm wafers for a very long time now.
What is a
>very long time
and care to show any source?
Either way: each and everyone of the 8350 chips i installed last year had far lower power consumption than the ones i installed during the launch and few months forward.
I don't feel like digging through forum posts from 2012 and 2013. Some AMD employees on various forums like OCN commented on it before they were ever released. When the FX Centurion line was just a rumor they stated outright that they had qualified existing chips into higher performance SKUs, and some into lower power SKUs.
The higher performance line was the FX Centurion.
The lower power line is the e series.
The fact about the wafers came from a conference call with Rory who stated that all wafers they were purchasing for the following year would be 28nm.
Can't prove you wrong, its true.
On the CPU side Llano per clock is faster than Kaveri, it'll likely still edge out Carrizo too.
2.9ghz K10.5 cores with no turbo vs 3.7ghz Steamroller cores with 4ghz turbo:
for the price, the performance is decent. it's not enough to complain about comparative to competing chips. there are better out there in the same bracket as the 9590, but the price jump to the next noticeably better chip by intel usually pushes a consumer back to 9590/8350
15w quad core Jaguar based part with a 2ghz base clock and 2.4ghz turbo.
2 GCN CU clocked at 800mhz.
Its only downside is single channel memory, otherwise it would outperfom a comparatively clocked Phenom across the board.
Good enough for a little web browsing machine. Can handle full Blu-ray playback without issue, but then again so could the first generation Brazos chips. If the system has an SSD in it instead of a shitty mechanical drive it'd be decent enough.
will I ever really need an update?
this still outperforms midrange kaveri laptops
>Will it be compatible with am3+ boards?
LOL of course not. You think they're going to release a 2016-2017 platform on a socket from 2012~ that hasn't gotten a new chipset in years?
They'll be using a new socket.