More Linux Benchmarks Of The AMD FX-8370E / FX-8370 / FX-9590

[phoronix]

Phoronix: More Linux Benchmarks Of The AMD FX-8370E / FX-8370 / FX-9590

In adding some extra tests besides what was shared in our large Linux review of the new AMD FX CPUs from earlier in the week, that included a fairly big comparison of Intel and AMD CPUs, here's some more Linux test results for just the FX-8370E, FX-8370, and FX-9590 processors.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20859

[peapa]

Motherboard issue

According to Asrock's website the FX-9590 is not in the compatibility list for this motherboard. The specification also says "Supports CPU up to 140W" but the 9590 is 220W. The weird performance issues with the 9590 could come from the motherboard.

[Michael]

According to Asrock's website the FX-9590 is not in the compatibility list for this motherboard. The specification also says "Supports CPU up to 140W" but the 9590 is 220W. The weird performance issues with the 9590 could come from the motherboard.

AMD sent over this motherboard when they sent over the three CPUs, so I assume it should work with the FX-9590.

[schmidtbag]

According to Asrock's website the FX-9590 is not in the compatibility list for this motherboard. The specification also says "Supports CPU up to 140W" but the 9590 is 220W. The weird performance issues with the 9590 could come from the motherboard.

Wattage limitations are there typically because the pins can't handle it. It otherwise shouldn't affect the performance, unless the board intentionally down-throttles the CPU after the wattage reaches a certain point, which I doubt it does. One of the reasons for the AM3+ socket was to support thicker pins.

[profoundWHALE]

According to Asrock's website the FX-9590 is not in the compatibility list for this motherboard. The specification also says "Supports CPU up to 140W" but the 9590 is 220W. The weird performance issues with the 9590 could come from the motherboard.

Assuming that's the issue, then it would explain the performance differences.

Michael, could you see what would happen if you downclocked all of these to the same as the 8370E?

[haplo602]

According to Asrock's website the FX-9590 is not in the compatibility list for this motherboard. The specification also says "Supports CPU up to 140W" but the 9590 is 220W. The weird performance issues with the 9590 could come from the motherboard.

That and also using a CLC that does NOT COOL THE VRMs !!! And I doubt that a 120mm cooler can handle 220W TDP load. You either need a high-perf 140mm tower cooler or a 240mm radiator for the CLC.

[danic]

Wattage limitations are there typically because the pins can't handle it. It otherwise shouldn't affect the performance, unless the board intentionally down-throttles the CPU after the wattage reaches a certain point, which I doubt it does. One of the reasons for the AM3+ socket was to support thicker pins.

Well as owner of a FX-9370, it does throttle. Out of the box my FX-9370 was performing worse than my AMD 1090T @ 4Ghz. I had to disable all cpu power management: AMD Turbo Core, AMD Application Power Management (APM), Cool n Quiet, C1E, Core C6 Mode, and CPU Thermal Throttle. Running on a AsRock 990FX Extreme9 motherboard, I tuned my CPU voltage all the way down to 1.25v (LLC disabled) to get this CPU stable. Even with a Corsair H100i. This is one tough CPU to cool. I have core temps from -5C (unrealistic) all the way to 50-60C. The motherboard reports socket temps from 50-80C. My infrared thermometer reports temps up to 95C while pointing at my VRMs, and I have fans blowing on them. But with the above settings I get a steady 4.4ghz clocks (never throttles) and the benchmarks are much better and video games are much much smoother. I would like to enable Turbo core, but it seems to required APM and Cool'n'Quiet which then the cpu starts having throttle issues.

AMD should have a disclaimer on these 220w processors, it took me weeks to get a stable configuration. I would never ever recommend this processor.

[Dukenukemx]

Wattage limitations are there typically because the pins can't handle it. It otherwise shouldn't affect the performance, unless the board intentionally down-throttles the CPU after the wattage reaches a certain point, which I doubt it does. One of the reasons for the AM3+ socket was to support thicker pins.

Wattage limitations are because VRM's can't handle it. Like most motherboards they typically throttle the CPU to prevent the VRM's from shutting down.

[curaga]

Pretty clear it's throttling when you look at the power graphs.

[NotMine999]

Low Temp Values

Phoronix: More Linux Benchmarks Of The AMD FX-8370E / FX-8370 / FX-9590

In adding some extra tests besides what was shared in our large Linux review of the new AMD FX CPUs from earlier in the week, that included a fairly big comparison of Intel and AMD CPUs, here's some more Linux test results for just the FX-8370E, FX-8370, and FX-9590 processors.

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20859

IMHO, AMD processors not reporting accurate temperatures to software seems like a chronic problem.

I have a FM1 socket APU (3670K) that also reports lower than expected processor temperatures to software...under Windows no less.