CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 5960X vs 9590 among desktop CPUs (over 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 5960X 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 5960X  based on its power consumption.

See full details

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!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 5960X

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 5960X

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Intel Core i7 5960X vs the AMD FX 9590.

Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 4.7 GHz vs 3 GHz More than 55% higher clock speed
Much higher turbo clock speed 5 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 45% higher turbo clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 5.07 GHz vs 4.45 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per dollar 6.72 pt/$ vs 2.52 pt/$ Around 2.8x better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 5960X vs FX 9590

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5960X
26,400
FX 9590
13,818

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 9590
2,549

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5960X
4,120,000 MB/s
FX 9590
2,790,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5960X
27,898
FX 9590
12,725

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 5960X
30,382
FX 9590
13,802

GeekBench

Core i7 5960X
30,382
FX 9590
13,802

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i7 5960X
15,978
FX 9590
10,589

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 9590
1,731

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 5960X  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 3 GHz 4.7 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.5 GHz 5 GHz
Cores Octa core Octa core
Is unlocked Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
AVX 1.1
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
BMI1
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
FMA3
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
TBM
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 140W 220W
Annual home energy cost 33.73 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 122.64 $/year 192.72 $/year
Performance per watt 7.18 pt/W 5.38 pt/W
Typical power consumption 113.75W 178.75W

details

Core i7 5960X  vs
FX 9590 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 16 8
L3 cache 20 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.45 GHz 5.07 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.6 GHz 5.05 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 8,243.2 10,860
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.45 GHz 5.07 GHz

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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1866
DDR
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 6,400 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i7 5960X
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
huehue
amd suck gorilla dick.
Well I wouldn't say the 9590 is a gaming chip, compared to a FX8350 its not that much faster granted the base clock is 700mhz higher it can still barly muster a strong graphics card or cards. My FX 8320 at 5ghz with 2x 780ti's were only able to score 13k on firestrike, where my stock i7 3770s scores 16k at just 3.1ghz with no turbo. Gaming a similar priced i5 will yield much better numbers in every game these days. I miss my FX 8320 it was a fright train to say the least, you could throw more and more at it and it will take it like a boss, where my i7 3770's does feel a bit sluggish during lets say a prime95 run where the my 8320 at 5ghz was able to still do stuff while being pegged at 100%.
LOL
A few factors to consider. Firstly comparing a workstation chip to a gaming chip? Retarded in itself. Also as others have pointed out the information from this site is skewed and warped beyond belief. There are so many factors. to consider. ddr4 vs ddr3 for example as just one. The fact that amd is not even a true 8 core cpu but instead 4 modules with 2 cores per module meaning that each core cannot independently function on its own dedicated task effectively. Then you got the fact that an i5 can smash a 9590 for gaming performance and hell in certain games an i3 can beat that chip for gaming too lol. Just so much fail i am surprised that anyone even ever looks at this retarded and failed website anymore :(
You know, I was considering buying a i7-5960k, but I'll keep w/ my AMD FX-9590
AMD is so crazy over all these low-end and mid-end cpus they made. Adding 6 cores to a mid end 6300 and having it unlocked for so cheap? Might sound like a great idea but with all those programs, it's not going to perform perfectly. Just remember, it doesn't matter about how many likes there are, it matters about benchmarks. Having less but stronger cores is better. Intel FTW! (But that doesn't mean going for AMD is the wrong thing)
5960x is 1000Eur, 9590 is 230Eur ;)
Now imagine an AMD processor with specs hitting the same price range. This is bonkers.
no
"that with 4 less physical cores" Four less physical yes, but Hyper-Threading splits each core into two, so both processors effectively have eight to the software.
I had the 4.4 gHz version of this chip. I ran it for about a year, VERY happy with it's performance. I did some horse trading, and ended up with a 2011 i7 4820k (3.7 gHz chip). I noticed a performance difference almost immediately. The quad-channel memory, and overall "snappy-ness" of the machine was substantially faster than the AMD chip. Never in a million years would I have believed that with 4 less physical cores, and 1 gHz less clock speed that you could get a chip that at worst, performed the same. Notice, I'm comparing and AM3+ chip to a 2011 chip. AMD recognizes the Vishera as a workstation-friendly chip, just as the 2011 is a workstation-friendly chip. I only mention this, because there are those out there that will say "lol u cant compare a fx to a 2011 its a workstation chip lol (yes the horrid grammar and punctuation are intended)".
£600+ more for a cpu that will only deliver 5-10% real noticiable difference, lol w@nkers.
Umm, because it's slower?
AMD FX 9590 It is a great high performance processor despite being older technology manages to be among the high-performance processors , of course , it has a high consumption but otherwise this is a great high performance processor, real beast , I only hope that the change in consumption with the arrival of zen
I don't get why you're so worked up about defending Intel, when you're just a wallet to them. Intel, Amd, who cares? It is whatever is being sold at the right price that suits your needs. Who cares which is technically better in ideal circumstances? Yes, Intel at its best is better than AMD at its best, but life isn't about buying everything the best. Everyone knows a Lambo is better than an Accord. What does that mean? That 'fact' isn't even relevant to the majority of the world. It has always been about suiting people's needs at the right price. That's why there will always be more accords on the road. Anyone who tries to convince people that Lambos are better than Hondas is an idiot, that's why noone ever argues over that. It is silly to buy things solely because they are 'the best' while ignoring all other real world variables. For 99% of the world doing everyday task (Gaming, entertainment, school/work...etc), they will never use the 5960x or fx 9590 to their max potential. It is just unrealistic that people would or should pay more for an Intel chip. My last build was FX 8370E, got it for $120. I got that knowing Intel chips are better technically better. But it is definitely not better for me, and my decision is the only one that matters because I know my budget and my needs better anyone. Thus, the question remains, Intel is better for who? For those who's living depends on the performance of their computer. A relatively small percentage of the world. I will never criticize those who buy the 5960x for professional reasons, but anyone who buys a $1000+ chip for gaming is either a brat or an idiot.
Good look using all those "8" cores without hyperthreading. You'll use 2 at most.
They're both wrong. The 5960X can support up to quad-channel DDR4-2133, which equates to a memory bandwidth of 68.288 GB/s, while the FX-9590 can support up to dual-channel DDR3-1866, resulting in a memory bandwidth cap of 29.856 GB/s. As I keep saying, people should really stop relying on this website too much. Details are skewed, unreliable and inaccurate. They must make these figures up in their heads or something; there's no other logical explanation. http://cpugrade.com/db/intel/desktop/core-i7-extreme-edition/i7-5000/i7-5960x/ http://cpugrade.com/db/amd/desktop/fx/fx-9000/fx-9590/
I am surprised with how much more extensions can AMD got over the top INtel CPU. And can I know why Maximum memory bandwidth has so big gap between this two, makes me suspect someone made a typo.
Its also much newer. In 2 years which is the age span difference between the 2 Intel will cost $200-$300 also I'm sure as something much better comes out
Intel also has lower clocks with better performance results coming from a guy who used both AMD and Intel. I literally tried both processors with only a boost speed of 3.7 GHz for the i7 5960x and supposedly many peeople are reaching 4.3 GHz. At 3.7 GHz Intel still dominates easily with this processor on many of the games I'm playing
I've used both processors and my computer runs much smoother with Intel and my boost clock is only at 3.7 ghz because I am still learning all the motherboard terminologies and my computer seems to failed at over clocking pass that point which is weird cause I have a kraken 61 water cooler and replaced the fans with more powerful fans
It's not an overclocked 8350, it's an eight-core chip that managed to achieve higher clocks than the others, and so was given a new model number.
fair enough. But now though.
AMD first released it for much higher price, which was stupid considering it is just an 8350 overclocked.
comments powered by Disqus