KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
Quoting the physical speed of a processor is about as useful measure of performance as telling us that a car has a 5 litre engine. While there is an overall correlation, the winning-losing match-up is much more subtle. KitGuru scans the interwibble and finds an interesting Cinebench claim. With a handful of caution, we approach the bang-per-buck calculator app on our smartphones.
UPDATE: Read the fill KitGuru review and analysis of the AMD FX 9590 over here.
One car has a 5 litre engine and the next has a 2.4 – which one will win on a standard race track?
If they are both saloons, then the 5 litre might have a chance, but if the 2.4GHz is sitting under the carbon fibre of a Red Bull F1 car, then the race is over before it starts.
AMD has done a great job of capturing the imagination with the world's first production CPU capable of hitting 5GHz – straight from the box – with just a ‘standard turbo boost'. The FX-9590 quotes some impressive numbers, but can the FX-team's latest centurion beat off Intel's gladiators?
Over on Facebook, Elric Phares has picked up on a Cinebench number from VR-Zone's forum.
That number is a Cinebench score of 8.61 when the FX-9590 appears to be running at a full 5GHz.
.
Now it has to be said that, if proven correct, this is a stonking number for an AMD processor. In KitGuru Labs testing, the AMD FX-8150 managed only 5.97 – which leaves the new processor around 44% faster.
But where does that 8.61 leave the FX-9590 when scored against Intel processors?
Well it's the kind of score you get with an Intel Core i7 4770k without overclocking. When you overclock the Intel chip to 4.5GHz, then it manages 9.81 and the daddy of the Intel Core pack, the Core i7 3960X manages 14.1 when overclocked.
So if the pricing being quoted for the AMD processor proves accurate (reported online to be just under £600), then that allows us to create this kind of bang-per-buck chart:-
.
KitGuru says: AMD's FX 9590 looks destined to be more successful capturing the imagination than the flag. If the FX 9590 can be forced past 5GHz without risking life/limb/cores, then the calculation will be more favourable – but nowhere near the 4770K.
Comment below, in the KitGuru forums or join us online over at Facebook.
aaaaaa ha ha ha it beats stock Intel core i7 4770K.
Also it is odious that this article publish i7 4770K overclocked because is a laboratory clock, not a stock clock.
Horrible from the jourmnalist that intentionally put Intel overclocked !!! that overclocked intel resist maximum 1 week for a user and after that get burnt
Is bad intention evidently from this site publishing overclocked Intel that is false performance – is a laboratory performance and not stock
it is a big punch from AMD in the face of Intel . coool
Please do not base your analysis on Cinebench, it’s intentionally sabotaged by Intel to produce best results on their chips and nerfed results on AMD/VIA:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelcmpt.pdf
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49
What? Have AMD gone completely insane? Their one strong point used to be bang for buck and then they release this at ~£600? While it may (just) beat the i7 4770K in heavily multi-threaded tasks, it will once again be struggling to beat a sandy bridge i3 in single threaded workloads. As such, it will be just like the FX-8350, great for some specialised tasks, and crap at others. Only this time it will be terrible value as well. Lets hope either the price or performance shown is inaccurate, release it at ~£200 and it may make a splash.
second link excelent to reveal the criminal practises of Intel. If international communities or organizations does not slap Intel on these miseries , then in the future ARM will come next victim. Intel already publish fabricated benchmarks explaining how best are them over ARM.