Key Differences
In short — Core i9-11900 outperforms the cheaper FX-9590 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing FX-9590 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-11900 is 2835 days newer than the cheaper FX-9590.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-11900
- Performs up to 56% better in Starfield than FX-9590 - 70 vs 45 FPS
- Consumes up to 70% less energy than AMD FX-9590 - 65 vs 220 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD FX-9590 - 16 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-9590 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-9590
- Up to 58% cheaper than Core i9-11900 - £141.0 vs £338.66
- Up to 35% better value when playing Starfield than Core i9-11900 - £3.13 vs £4.84 per FPS
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
70
100%
Value, £/FPS
£4.84/FPS
64.6694214876033%
Price, £
£338.66
41%
FPS Winner
Buy for £338.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4890 minutes ago
Desktop • Jun 11th, 2013
FPS
45
64.28571428571429%
Value, £/FPS
£3.13/FPS
100%
Price, £
£141
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £141 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4890 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Jun 11th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-11900 | vs | AMD FX-9590 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Jun 11th, 2013 |
Core i9 | Collection | FX |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 8 |
16 | Threads | 8 |
2.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.0 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 220 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
25.0x | Multiplier | 23.5x |
UHD Graphics 750 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |