AMD FX 9590 

Released July, 2013
  • 4.7 GHz
  • Octa core
  • Unlocked

Benchmarks Real world tests of the AMD FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
FX 8350
Core i7 4770K

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
FX 8350

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s
Core i7 4770K
4,810,000 MB/s
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
FX 8350
Core i7 4770K

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
Core i7 4770K
FX 8350


FX 9590
Core i7 4770K
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 9590
FX 8350
Core i7 4770K

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Clock speed 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 5 GHz
Cores Octa core
Socket type AM3+
Is unlocked Yes


Has a NX bit Yes
Has virtualization support Yes
Instruction set extensions
  1. MMX
  2. SSE4.2
  3. AVX 1.1
  4. Supplemental SSE3
  5. FMA4
  6. ABM
  7. AMD-V
  8. SSE4.1
  9. XOP
  10. TBM
  11. AVX
  12. AMD64
  13. SSE
  14. BMI1
  15. F16C
  16. FMA3
  17. AES
  18. SSE4a
  19. SSE3
  20. CVT16
  21. CLMUL
  22. SSE2
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes

integrated graphics

GPU None


Architecture x86-64
Threads 8 threads
L2 cache 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1
Die size 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 25
Voltage range 1.91 - 2V
Operating temperature Unknown - 57°C


Overclocked clock speed 5.06 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.06 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.06 GHz

power consumption

TDP 220W
Annual home energy cost 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 5.39 pt/W
Typical power consumption 178.75W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in
Memory type DDR3-1866
Channels Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s
Report a correction


Showing 15 comments.
I have my fx6300 clocked @ 4.7ghz and it scores higher single core in geekbench 3 than the 9590 here did..Of course I'm running on a much newer version of windows (10) also. My multi core isn't too far behind either considering 2 less cores. This was my logic back when I built this rig around 2.5yrs ago and went with fx cpu..My pc is a glorified gaming console so I don't need 8 cores and single thread performance is more important. Why get a 8 core, just get a 6 and overclock. Have same or better single thread performance compared to 8 core fx and enough cores for any game still. Not to mention less power for 6 cores instead of 8. Finally about to ditch the FX though for Ryzen
220watts?! wtf
just stuck @ 5.27 on 1.46v. same mobo. if i go beyond this my cpu temps are for real 87
*F right ?
lol this cpu is 2 years old. i remember when it first came out and costed around $885-$900 on newegg on july 2013 then dropped to $300 by 2014, now it is around $$240, even the i7 3770k was only $550 back then and beat this cpu. back then there were barely any mobos that supported this cpu, now there are plenty more, ridiculously hot hot hot cpu, just get an i5 or an 8350 and oc to 4.7 and boom you got a 9590.
220 watt come on man
220 watt u fukin wat m9
Think of it as a little leg room. You wont find an Intel CPU capable of 6.2ghz or higher overclocked, so this is well worth it. Mines scratching 8ghz OC with stock voltage using an NZXT Kraken x61 cooler on a Gigabyte FX 990-UD7 motherboard, with 32gb of ram, 2-way SLI-gtx960 (each have an NZXT G10 water cooling bracket with Kraken x31's). CPU temp on idle is 118* and on full load 167*..
220W ?....nigga what ?...i7-4770K>>FX 9590+100$ watercooler.... it's 2015 even 125w is unacceptable and the thing is not even more powerful than most of intel's with under 95W ..again..holly shit..AMD went mad
This is my processor
I nearly upgraded my FX-8350 to this but swapped out my Thermaltake Water 2.0 Pro for a Water 3.0 Extreme in my Thermaltake Level 10 GTS case instead. Pushing 4.8Ghz@1.48v stable OC on a Sabertooth 990FX 2.0 w/DDR3-1866 and hitting stock FX-9590 numbers. Go figure.
From the average consumer standpoint this processor makes no sense, that being said the only people that are going to even use the thing would be gamers or maybe a graphic design person. Either way its going to be someone who already has an over the top rig and probably has liquid cooling. liquid cooling isn't expensive and if you spend the money on the processor you might as well drop the extra $80-$120 for the liquid cooling. This only costs $700through Newegg so its only $130 more expensive. Its also 32% faster on base clock speed and 24% faster on turbo clock speed and has more cores (8 vs. 6). Comparing the 3930K to this is asinine. You could compare it to the i7 4960X but even then its 20% faster on the turbo clock and still has more cores. The difference this time is that the 9590 is $350 cheaper.
The 4770k beats it in pretty much everything too.. I like amd, but this is just unfucking acceptable.. Their entire market is going to intel.. Including me. :c
the core i7 3930K is 200 bucks cheaper than the FX 9590 n performs like a monster n doesn't need a after market liquid cooler.
comments powered by Disqus