Opinions on AMD FX-9590 220W?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,782
2,952
136
You know most of the time the system is Idling and/or working at lower power states. At those workloads the power consumption difference between AMD and Intel is a few Watts(depending on the system and workload) .
In games if you are using Vsync the power consumption difference most of the time is close to 50+Watts, simple because the CPU is not working 100%.
So yes, at full load the power consumption of the FX9590 is very high. But unless you are running at full load, the power usage difference is not that high as people would think.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,782
2,952
136
It is a fallacious argument to justify something based on cost and not consider the total cost of ownership over the life of the purchase. Whatever other costs you have are irrelevant to that specific comparison. The total cost of ownership does include power costs.
I will agree, but
In one case you pay more upfront(Intel) for the product. The other way (AMD)you pay more(overall) gradually in the course of 3+ years.
 

polyzp

Member
Jan 4, 2012
161
0
71
Its 20 dollars a year difference AmD vs intel! Teksyndicate already proved how negligibile this is. Power consumption is only really a factor in mobile and server.

Who cares? Really I don't understand the "oh but it draws less power" argument.

The ONLY thing that consumes enough power to make me blink an eye in my house is the pool/spa water heater... and that consumes over 3KW/hr for over 24 hours at a time. If I run it all the time it will raise my power bill by something like $100-200 a month but what you are talking about here is literally cents per day, MAYBE a dollar if you go nuts. If you are really tripping about $1-2 a day in power then you probably should reconsider your financial priorities.

If it performs well and is cheap use it. PERIOD.
 

polyzp

Member
Jan 4, 2012
161
0
71
Out of the box, the 9370 is well priced and is your best bet! (If you dont want to overclock)
 

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Socket AM3+ 220W Eight-Core Desktop Processor - Black Edition FD9590FHHKWOX with Liquid Cooling Kit

I'm thinking of getting that to plop in my GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD3 motherboard. Anyone have any opinions on it? Or the price? I've literally never delt with AMD in my life, so anything could help...

PS- And yes, I am kinda stuck with AMD instead of Intel. So an i7 is not an option.
CodeguruX, I check the Gigabyte website for your mb and cpu support and it does NOT list the 9370 or 9590 as supported. I'm not surprised due to the thermal demand. Don't despair. The 8320 and 8350 are supported. Ending today on Newegg the 8320 with $20 off promo code is $139 vs the 8350 for $199. For the difference you can pick up a decent cpu cooler and OC the 8320 to at least the 8350 specs if not higher.

I presently own 3 rigs, two of which are in my sig below. The third is an 8350 OC'd to 4.6 Ghz on an Asus Sabertooth Rev1 mb (21 multiplier x 219 FSB). I gave my son-in-law another rig I built with an Asus Sabertooth Rev2 mb and a 8320 that I cooled with a Thermaltake Pro water cooler. It runs SOLID at 4.2 Ghz (faster than a stock 8350).

My Intel rigs bench faster but are NOT worlds faster. In your position with what you have I would opt for the 8320 and a Water cooling unit similar to the one they include with the 9590
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,782
2,952
136
ONLY revision v4.0 of GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD3 supports the FX9370 and FX9590.
That's why i said earlier if your motherboard support it. Otherwise, get the FX8350 with a nice WC kit and OC the hell out of it ;)
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
It is a fallacious argument to justify something based on cost and not consider the total cost of ownership over the life of the purchase. Whatever other costs you have are irrelevant to that specific comparison. The total cost of ownership does include power costs.

But the thing of it is that while the FX 9xxx CPU's can certainly suck down a lot of power, that's only with eight cores cranking away. How many games load eight cores up and for how long? How much power does Youtube or browsing really require? The only time I see 100% use on my CPU is when I'm benching and purposely loading it, or stability testing.

The power thing is blown out of proportion in my opinion. It isn't something that should be swept under the rug, but the truth is for 99.9% of the computer-using populace, I don't think they'd notice a difference in their power use or their electric cost one way or another.

*edit - And if I were buying I'd probably look pretty hard at the FX 9370 with the water cooling combo or one of the FX 83xx CPU's. The FX 9590 has a coolness factor to it, but I doubt it is worth the extra money. But at least they're not $800 anymore. :D
 
Last edited:

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
ONLY revision v4.0 of GIGABYTE 990FXA-UD3 supports the FX9370 and FX9590.
That's why i said earlier if your motherboard support it. Otherwise, get the FX8350 with a nice WC kit and OC the hell out of it ;)
WOW, the 4 revision does support it!. BTW, I see the OP prefers not to OC. Bang for the buck under those conditions seems to be between the FX8350 and the FX9370. If OPS mb supports the 9370/9590 then the choice is a FX8350 at 4 Ghz with a Stock Cooler at $199 vs FX9370 at 4.4Ghz with a Liquid cooler at $289. Hard to cost justify the jump to a FX9590 at $399.

Since the OP indicates he will not OC, if mb supports it the FX9370 might be the right choice, otherwise the 8350.
 
Last edited:

WhoBeDaPlaya

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2000
7,411
395
126
That's all true. When the price gets very far past the $200 mark, my value alarm starting blanging.
I feel the same way about things like the 4960X lol :) Just silliness.
That's why cheap bastards like us wait for those special Microcenter sales like the 2500K for $99, or more recently the 4770K for $199 :D
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
But the thing of it is that while the FX 9xxx CPU's can certainly suck down a lot of power, that's only with eight cores cranking away. How many games load eight cores up and for how long? How much power does Youtube or browsing really require? The only time I see 100% use on my CPU is when I'm benching and purposely loading it, or stability testing.

The power thing is blown out of proportion in my opinion. It isn't something that should be swept under the rug, but the truth is for 99.9% of the computer-using populace, I don't think they'd notice a difference in their power use or their electric use one way or another.

*edit - And if I were buying I'd probably look pretty hard at the FX 9370 with the water cooling combo or one of the FX 83xx CPU's. The FX 9590 has a coolness factor to it, but I doubt it is worth the extra money. But at least they're not $800 anymore. :D
Did I say it was a major factor? I simply said that any valid comparison based on price must include power usage. Obviously, whether it is a factor or not will include usage pattern, how much the power delta is, and the cost of electricity in the user's area. It just blows my mind however at those who say FX is cheaper, but lets just ignore power costs, because I spend X on something else. Taking that to its extreme, you could just as well say "ignore the cost of the cpu because my car cost 20k." What one spends on other things is a complete non-sequitor to a comparison of the cost of ownership of two cpus.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
18
81
You can't always say an extra $80 can scale to another part of a rig unless you are building from scratch or adding several upgrades at once.

Also not everyone is wanting to deal with selling off their old gear to buy new gear and many can't afford to buy first then sell later.
 

TreVader

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2013
2,057
2
0
Its 20 dollars a year difference AmD vs intel! Teksyndicate already proved how negligibile this is. Power consumption is only really a factor in mobile and server.
And that's only if you run it at full load for years on end. The reality is the power difference will not be noticed at all.



Intel performs better than AMD, why do people need to use FUD and crap arguments to downplay AMD chips when they can easily make valid arguments about performance?
 

Spawne32

Senior member
Aug 16, 2004
230
0
0
I would only buy the FX9590 if i was a collector, didnt care about spending that money and/or for LN2 usage.

FX9370 with WC kit at 289,99 is a much better buy and FX8320 even better.
So you can brag to your grandchildren that you have one of the highest TDP computer chips made since the 1970s? lol
 

Chris635

Junior Member
Oct 9, 2013
2
0
0
I'd go with the 8320. Okay I'm biased I'm using one now. But on an asrock 990fx extreme 9 motherboard I have it overclocked to 4.92 ghz at 1.4v with llc. Now I do run it with cool n quiet enabled with no problems. I'm using a corsair h100i with 4 noctua nff -12 fans in push/pull for cooling. Under load stress testing with aida64 I'm at 46 c on the cores and 62 c on the socket. So far it's been a good chip for me on a decent motherboard. Why pay for the 9xxxx series when you can pick up an 8320 or 8350 and do the same thing cheaper.
 

Kosmic1

Member
Dec 15, 2013
30
0
0
Oh, and as for the OP, go with an 8350, put it under water even if it's a water 2.0 (it'll need better fans if you want some quiet though) and overclock it if you're not getting the game performance you want. OR just use a good air cooler and put the money you saved towards your video card.
 

CodeguruX

Member
Nov 28, 2013
50
0
0
Okay, well here's a question then. If I kept the 8120 and just put my money towards a 780 SLI, would that be a better performance increase? I got a 850W PSU with 70A. Should be enough to shove another one in there, right?...
 
Last edited:

CodeguruX

Member
Nov 28, 2013
50
0
0
Okay, well as a result to this. I got the FX-8350 chip, I slapped it in with the regular fan, have not tried to overclock or anything. I did a benchmark with PCMark 8, and apparently I went from 43 fps with the 8120 to 62 fps with the 8350. So yes, the 8120 was choking the life out of the 780 gtx, performance wise. Definitely worth the upgrade...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY