Wednesday 12 June 2013

AMD FX 9590 vs i7 4770k vs AMD FX 9650 Pt 2.


More Benchmarks! 




Piledriver Flagship
AMD FX 9590 4.7 Ghz Turbo @ 4.8/4.9/5 Ghz  for 8/4/2 Threads
Overclocked : @ 5.2 Ghz  for 8 Threads

Steamroller Flagship
AMD FX 9650 4.5 ghz Turbo @ 4.6/4.7/4.8 Ghz for 8/4/2 Threads
Overclocked : @ 5.4 Ghz for 8 Threads

Haswell Flagship 
Intel i7 4770k 3.5 Ghz Turbo @ 3.7/3.9 Ghz for 8/4 Threads
Overclocked : @ 4.8 Ghz for 8 Threads

ADDED:
IvyBridge i7 3770k
Intel i7 3770k 3.5 Ghz Turbo @ 3.7/3.9 Ghz for 8/4 Threads
Overclocked : @ 4.8 Ghz for 8 Threads



X264 


Single core Performance : Pass 1 fps

Intel i7 4770k

Stock : 180.63
Overclocked : 221.27

AMD FX 9590

Stock : 171.29
Overclocked : 181.78

AMD FX 9650

Stock : 197.16
Overclocked : 226.52

ADDED:

Intel i7 3770k

Stock : 168.39
Overclocked : 213.37

AMD FX 9590 at Stock Clocks is 1.7% faster than a stock clocked i7 3770k, and 5.5% slower than a stock clocked i7 4770k in this single core test. 



Multithreaded Performance : Pass 2 fps

Intel i7 4770k

Stock : 46.47
Overclocked : 59.42

AMD FX 9590

Stock : 52.80
Overclocked : 56.03

AMD FX 9650

Stock : 60.78
Overclocked : 69.83

ADDED:

Intel i7 3770k

Stock : 41.66
Overclocked : 53.59

AMD FX 9590 at Stock Clocks is 26.7% faster than a stock clocked i7 3770k, and 13.6% faster than a stock clocked i7 4770k in this multi core test. 

AMD is catching up in single core performance out of the box, mainly because of the new "high stock clock / smaller overclock" stance AMD is taking for the next few years. Haswell on the other hand sees a huge increase in performance with this encoding test when compared to IvyBridge. When all cores are used, the AMD FX 9650 will greatly out perform intel's 4C/8T chips and will  barley fall short when compared to intel's 1000 USD 6C/12T. 

11 comments:

  1. WINNER=INTEL
    LOSER=AMD

    AMD is dead face it and these benchmarks prove it!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey jml12, FX-9590 is a complete fail.

    But AMD will not die because of this TURD, this CPU was intented to take the performance crown at all cost (with crazy speed, bad move) but there is still plenty of AMD to come for tne next decade.

    No idea what is the Max Wattage for this turdriver CPU, but if the price is similar to the FX-8350 it may just be TOLERABLE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No You're wrong AMD won't survive this decade let alone the next two years at this rate!!!!

      Delete
  3. lol i love how people are saying amd won't survive the decade while playstation 4, xbox one(sucks), and the wii-u(sucks but ppl buy it)
    all use amd processors and amd GPU's

    even without that amd would still survive due to their low prices in the low end market(sub 150* cpu's) and their GPU's are defenitly not lagging behnd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AMD so far is dead-man walking and if AMD didn't get all three consoles they would of already died. Dude their sub $150 CPU SUCK ASS compared to Intel's sub $150 CPU's. Nvidia's Kepler Arch is not great for compute but compute is useless to me as I game a lot so Kepler is far better at that than AMD ever will be. The Holy combo of Intel/Nvidia will send AMD TO ITS GRAVE!!!!

      Delete
  4. Well, dat performance.....

    AMD can only do things right if this is priced between $200 and $350. That sort of performance (with the 9650) will be ridiculous, but if AMD stuff up the pricing there will be no point.

    And yeah, the customary sprinkling of salt in this blog....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep AMD is now doing loser tactics and soon its going to cost AMD EVERYTHING!!!!!

      Delete
  5. Something does not adds up with the single core performance of the FX-9650, how can the Steamroller in stock be faster than 4770k stock?

    I totally believe Steamroller will add up to 30% full IPC about 15-20% IPC and about another 10% in clock speed, but beating an i7 just does not seems right...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The clock advantage allows amd to tie intel at stock speeds in single core for this benchmark.
    Remember intel is roughly 10-40% in ipc ahead depending on the benchmark, but AMD has a 28% clock advantage for max turbo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But higher clocks equal MORE power used. Try 50% ahead of AMD. AMD will never catch up THEY ARE FINISHED!!!!! Clocks ARE WORTHLESS IPC IS ALL THAT MATTERS. AMD is repeating Intel's Netburst all over again and the result is going to be much worse then it was for Intel. Intel has the money to survive a disaster like netburst AMD DOESN'T!!! AMD will still have 30% lower IPC than Intel and that's being NICE!!!! Only 30% IGP improvement might be able to beat Intel Iris but not be much and Intel's mobile 2014 chip will CRUSH Kaveri TO THE GROUND!!!

      Delete
  7. its almost the same performance but the price is not reasonable! and the power consumption of this new CPU of amd is 220w TPD! compare to 84w TPD of i7! im crying here!

    ReplyDelete