Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 9590 vs the 8350 Black Edition.

Front view of AMD FX 8350

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 8350

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 8350 Black Edition vs the 9590.

Benchmarks Real world tests of FX 9590 vs 8350

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
FX 8350

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
FX 8350
2,470,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
FX 8350

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
FX 8350


FX 9590
FX 8350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

FX 9590
FX 8350

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
FX 8350

Specifications Full list of technical specs


FX 9590  vs
Clock speed 4.7 GHz 4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 5 GHz 4.2 GHz
Cores Octa core Octa core
Socket type
Is unlocked Yes Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A


FX 9590  vs
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 1,200,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Die size 319 mm² 319 mm²
Clock multiplier 25 21
Voltage range 1.91 - 2V 0.81 - 1.45V
Operating temperature Unknown - 57°C Unknown - 61°C


Overclocked clock speed 5.06 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 5.06 GHz 8.79 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 10,860 10,147
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.06 GHz 4.69 GHz

power consumption

TDP 220W 125W
Annual home energy cost 53 $/year 56.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 192.72 $/year 159.62 $/year
Performance per watt 5.39 pt/W 5.72 pt/W
Typical power consumption 178.75W 159.66W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 29,866.66 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction
AMD FX 8350
Report a correction


Showing 25 comments.
I'm still using my FX-8350! This year I added a Cooler Master Lite 120 and it's purring at 4.4GHz... silently! No problems at all. I tried manually going to 4.8GHz and it bluescreened so very happy at 4.4GGz for PS/LR, 1 - 2GB files 😊
If anyone is still using/looking to buy one of these dated CPUs, know this: Your best bet is to go with the cheaper FX-8350 option. If you're using air-based cooling, you can over-clock the 8350 to about 4.4(maybe 4.5ghz) which is roughly the same performance as the 9590. If you have water-cooling, you can push this card to perform slightly over the performance of the base 9590 speeds at 4.7ghz+. I suggest, however, to save up $300 or so to invest in a Ryzen chip-set and motherboard(plus RAM which might bring the budget up to $400).
It's not water that they used for the world record, it's liquid Nitrogen and Liquid Helium
no,with water cooling u can hit 8.79 ghz...
also how do I learn how to properly overlcock my rig to get these results??
so based on the numbers above I can get the amd fx 8530 and overclock it to 8 ghz using water/liquid cool?? I ask as I looking for good very low cost 8 core amd.. Thanks
i think u must have mounted it badly, i got a 212 and it cools ok, but it wents with two fans out of the cabinet.
im using just that on my 9590
amd fx 8350 is overclockable with water up to 8.79 GHz? Is this a joke?
It is like winter is cold but if you are prepared with proper clothes then it is not that cold anymore least you are confident to step out of the door and walk a bit.
The world record is 8.7 Ghz for a stable OC. That speed was achieved on an FX 8350 xD
So from what I'm reading there is absolutely no point in getting any AMD FX CPU if it's not the 8350 (I own this CPU). I was looking at alternatives but I'm not seeing constructive reasoning so much as straight up bashing of the other products. What about the 8370? Is this one of those communities where in every corner of these discussions someone stands up and declares "well just overclock the 8350 and it'll be just as fast as all the more expensive AMD CPUs" then sits down awaiting their next chance to repeat themselves. Let's say for the sake of sanity that no one is overclocking anything. AMD didn't make the two or three 'higher end' FX models as a joke, so can someone provide a truthful answer? Money is not an issue, should I not consider the FX 9590 for any reason besides the "just overclock the 8350!" guy? No, Intel is not an option, and it never will be. I want the best AMD processor there is, and I'd like some serious and reasonable feedback.
FX9590 is NOT, I R-E-P-E-A-T NOT worth it people. Shame on AMD for trying to make it appear like a completely new variant with raising the model number into the 9xxx range and jacking up the price! Should be called an "FX 8360" to imply it's only factory OC'd. I have a nerfed MSI 990FXA- GD80v2 as they retroactively capped the max cpu voltage to 1.499 so 4.6Ghz~ is about the best you can "reliably" go with the FX8350 (unless you have an earlier, uncapped BIOS- I'm still using v11.13) unless you want to make a bunch of sacrifices or use an older version of Control Center and go the software route to take 4.6 to 5ghz+ with voltage bump (funny how MSI allowed 1.9v via software). The "turbo core" setting is disabled, ALL the green stuff is still enabled, HT link, FSB, and CPU- NB are at stock settings as is the RAM, OC done through voltage and CPU ratio to 4.599Ghz. So remember, the 8350 is OC'd to 4.599Ghz w/o the turbo enable vs. the author's 4.7Ghz 9590 WITH a 5ghz "turbo core speed" which theoretically increases the base clock speed to 5Ghz under demand (which you can actually do to the 8350 in the BIOS assuming the BIOS is unlocked if you really wanted to but after the test results you probably won't) ANYWAYS, after seeing the numbers above and the author's HEAVY bias towards the 4.7ghz 9590 vs. a 4ghz 8350, I went ahead and ran Cinebench 11.5 and Passmark at 4.599ghz with my 8350. Using a legit Passmark 8.0 "30-day trial evaluation" copy "CPU Mark" was 10640 which is 0.4805% BETTER than a 9590 with a 100mhz+ LESS base OC and NO turbo!! "Integer Math": 27497; "Floating Point Math": 9868 (6.7% less than i7-5820k); "Prime Numbers": 32.7 (62.5% FASTER than a Phenom II x4 955); "SSE": 39 (1 point lower than an i7-3720); "Compression": 16169 (50% FASTER than an i7-920); "Encryption" 2031 (21% FASTER than an i7- 3720); "Physics" 713 (only 9% slower than i7-5820k which is pretty amazing all things considered); "Sorting" 9444 (15% slower than i7-5820K); "Single Threaded" 1728 vs. 1714 for the FX9590 at about a 0.8% difference (again with 100mhz LESS base OC from the 8350 and NO turbo). Cinebench 11.5 is pretty old nowadays but the 8350 managed a 7.85 vs. the 9590's 7.87 (all cores obviously) and 8350's 1.22 vs. 9590's 1.28 which is odd considering the 8350 did better in the Passmark testing, but this seems to be where the "turbo" actually helped the 9590, but by the numbers it BARELY helped. Knowing Cinebench favors clock speed and readily bumps it's scores up with even minor clock increases from past experimenting, I decided to try an actual apples to apples approach (minus the turbo on the 8350 as I don't think it's needed) and give the 8350 a 4.699ghz clock speed via Control Center's software OC to even the odds. This bumped the 8350's number to 8.06 @ 4.699ghz vs. the 7.87 of the 9590 with the 4.7 clock speed + the 5ghz "turbo" and a 1.24 single core. Bumping to 4.99 ghz saw the number jump again to 8.24 with a single core speed of 1.32. Also, dunno WHERE the author gets their info as my 8350 hit 5.1 ghz with the software OC (have cpuz validation) but really needs an uncapped mobo. Throw enough voltage at it and I feel it'll go higher but that's a solid 1.1Ghz OC. The author also seems to be exaggerating the wattage usage HEAVILY and their power consumption "prediction" is a total JOKE. How can the 8350 be more expensive to a home user to run than a 9590?? when the typical power consumption is 20w HIGHER for the 9590? The TDP for 8350 is 95w LESS for crying out loud. And the annual figures are what, based off running the CPU's 8 threads at 100% usage for an entire year straight? Is that under some ultra ridiculous Prime95 24/7/365 ultra pointless test?? From a financial AND performance standpoint, the FX8350 is hands down still a better bargain and will either do the exact same specs or best them. Also, avoid the MSI 990FXA GD80v2 or non "v2" IF you want a higher OC as new boards come with capped BIOS that can NOT be reverted. MSI also patched the software to cap voltage even lower than the bios. If you stay around 4.6Ghz to 4.2Ghz, it's an OK board and should have a slight performance increase over a cheaper board.
The processor runs on average 2133MHz memory.By adding 1333 Performance will be far too slow.You may experience stuttering.This can be addressed with driver updates.But it will run that ram.
I will answer your question.
i think we must put a truck radiator for 9590... would you do it?
the amd 9590 draws 220 watts You can not, I repeat, you can not keep this thing cool. It burnt out a thermal take in 3 months with push pull interface. And that was under clocked to stay at 3.7 (the 9590 runs at 3.7 and boosts to 4.0 ++ when it can, permanently if possible) Now I run a 240 in push pull with four 120mm high speed fans with six more in the box. Still doesn't stand a chance at full power. 10-15mins of game play (i.e. Black Flag, Thief on maxed out settings ) then it overheats. Still this card is not hyper threaded like Intel chips (double clocked aka 2x access per-tick per second i.e. 2 billion ticks = 4 billion accesses) nor does it run on 60 watts like the Intel chip-set. But amd's chip is 1,100.00$ cheaper..
I would still prefer the FX-8350... and then overclock it to ~4,5GHz stable with a good cooler for only ~35€ ;)
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO is the solution for the HEAT on the FX 8350!
i want buy fx 9590, what if my ram DDR3-1333 16GB support for this processor? thanks
I had it @ 5.2 on air, not very stable though but still i managed to do it. Used a TT FrioOCK for it, and what a beast it was at the benches, until the BSOD it was...
With an extreme cooling setup you can acheive a stable overclock of 5.2 on the FX-8350. Then you've surpassed the 9590 anyway haha
My 8350 causes me no problems with heat, all i did was make sure i have a proper cooling setup. Anyone that's complaining about heat generation is doing Case cooling wrong :P
I keep hearing people crying like bitches about the HEAT on the fx 8350.. I am running at 4.7 at 47c after three hours prime. ITS CALLED WATER COOL.. git with the program.
Higher clock speed for an extra 130$ when I can get an aftermarket cooler for a fraction the price and still achieve the same clock speed? No thanks. AMD, WTF you doing son? No wonder they decided to give up competing with Intel.
comments powered by Disqus