Opinions on AMD FX-9590 220W?

[AtenRa]

Although I really would advise spending a few more bucks and skipping the TX4 :

That's on an Athlon X4 (OC'd to 3.6Ghz at the end there for stress testing).

I know the 212 is even pushing it a bit for air cooling the 9370.

Hmm, why I was thinking the T4 was better ??? nice one thx

 

[AtenRa]

100%. The 8320 is something of a bargain, and the bonus is that it can run on quite a few mobos that aren't that expensive either.

If it means the difference between affording a GTX650 and a GTX760, or a 7790 vs. a 7870/etc .. well I'd think that for a gamer, the slightly slower CPU + better GPU is a better deal any time.

Eg : 4770K + GTX650 vs. 8320 + GTX760 = 8320 is going to be the better gamer 90% of the time.

yeap, I agree, for budget limited gamers, getting a slower CPU in order to get faster GPU is the only way.

 

[Headfoot]

8320 + Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo with Additional fan is my vote.

Inexpensive and effective enough for 8320 to overclock to 4.2-4.5, depending on the chip. Got my brothers 8320 to 4.6 easily on a push-pull Hyper 212 Evo and it maintains very decent temps. Just used good old fashioned AS5 I had laying around

 

[Shamrock]

I recommend an FX-8320 as well.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The FX8xxx can be a good value, but in a legitimate cost comparison one must also consider power cost, especially if overclocking to the mid 4 ghz range. If you game or use the CPU heavily for other uses, you could spend 20.00 or more extra per year in electricity. That is based on 4 hours per day, 100 watt power delta, 15 cents per kwh. If one lives in a country with high power costs, the cost of operation becomes even larger.

 

[rancherlee]

Yeah, but why 9370 when 8350 is about $100 cheaper and still hits those speeds (or 95%)?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/8

The 9370 with watercoolling kit has been as low as 219$ recently, hands down a better deal than any other octocore except the 99$ 8320 Microcenter had a few weeks back. These 8 core chips have been seeing some good sales this past month.

 

[CodeguruX]

Yeah, well the motherboard is already installed, which is why I consider myself stuck. I could rip it out easily, but laziness is getting the better of me, as well as the fact that it's looking like the brand of CPU isn't going to matter as much. Also, yes I have a 780gtx and a decent 240G SSD. I'm just trying to decide on an AMD CPU that's better than my 8120 so I'll feel better about having a decent gaming comp, even though CPUs have no huge bearing on graphical rendering.

So, given that I'm not planning on overclocking anything and probably going to stick with AMD for the hell of it, which chip is the better deal if 9590 is just an overloaded heat mess?...

 

[AtenRa]

Well, if your motherboard support it and you can afford it then by all means go for it. I say that because you dont want to OC, the performance difference between the FX9590 vs FX8120 at default it must be around 30-40%(maybe higher). People upgraded from Ivy to Haswell for less performance

 

[Sweepr]

Well, if your motherboard support it and you can afford it then by all means go for it. I say that because you dont want to OC, the performance difference between the FX9590 vs FX8120 at default it must be around 30-40%. People upgraded from Ivy to Haswell for less performance

Trolling once again. Haswell's max overclock is often enough to match/beat Ivy Bridge even at lower frequency thanks to 10% IPC improvement. Stock vs stock Haswell is ~10% faster than Ivy Bridge (comparing similarly priced models).

As you brought Haswell to this thread, lets not forget i7-4770K delivers better overall performance at stock than the 4.7GHz FX9590, and it does so drawing 160W less power under load.

 

[AtenRa]

Trolling once again. Haswell's max overclock is often enough to match/beat Ivy Bridge even at lower frequency thanks to 10% IPC improvement. Stock vs stock Haswell is ~10% faster than Ivy Bridge (comparing similarly priced models).

As you brought Haswell to this thread, lets not forget i7-4770K delivers better overall performance at stock than the 4.7GHz FX9590, and it does so drawing 160W less power under load.

You alone posting a link that shows Haswell ONLY being 10% faster than Ivy and you accusing me of Trolling ???.

Going from FX8120 at 3.3GHz to 4.7GHz Vishera will get him a nice 30-40% faster performance at the minimum. Thats a nice performance advantage worth upgrading from the FX8120.

 

[Sweepr]

You alone posting a link that shows Haswell ONLY being 10% faster than Ivy and you accusing me of Trolling ???.

Only 10% faster is quite a bit different than upgrading for less performance in my book.

 

[inf64]

8320 is priced rather low nowadays so upgrading and OCing should be a no-brainer decision.

 

[AtenRa]

Only 10% faster is quite a bit different than upgrading for less performance in my book.

I was referring to the performance of FX9590 vs the FX8120. People upgraded from Ivy to Haswell for 10-12% performance, thats less than upgrading from FX8120 to FX9590.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Trolling once again. Haswell's max overclock is often enough to match/beat Ivy Bridge even at lower frequency thanks to 10% IPC improvement. Stock vs stock Haswell is ~10% faster than Ivy Bridge (comparing similarly priced models).

As you brought Haswell to this thread, lets not forget i7-4770K delivers better overall performance at stock than the 4.7GHz FX9590, and it does so drawing 160W less power under load.

Cool... You're trying to make this an AMD vs. Intel thread. Awesome.

 

[Sweepr]

I was referring to the performance of FX9590 vs the FX8120. People upgraded from Ivy to Haswell for 10-12% performance, thats less than upgrading from FX8120 to FX9590.

Fair enough then.

Cool... You're trying to make this an AMD vs. Intel thread. Awesome.

If you look closely you will notice it wasnt me that started an Intel comparison in this AMD thread.
No need to push this conversation further, I misunderstood his ambuiguous post.

 

[Arkaign]

Yeah, I don't think anybody sane is saying that the 4770 isn't hands-down better than the FX chips, but you have to weigh the pros/cons and pricing

If the OP doesn't want to change mobos, then the 8320 or 8350 + a good air cooler + low to mid 4Ghz OC is probably the best buy.

If he's willing to sell the mobo, then going 4770K + Z87 Asrock is a much better buy than going 9370 or 9590, as that pricing range starts to make little sense from the AMD side.

Being that OP is running a 780, personally I'd lean towards just selling the mobo and going 4770K, but OTOH, it's more hassle, and it's not like the 8320/8350 are terrible performers at 4+Ghz. In some poorly coded games the 4770 will have a HUGE lead, SC2/Skyrim (and presumably the upcoming FO4 if it uses the Skyrim engine, which they probably will considering how well Skyrim sold, why change engines when people are willing to plunk down the bucks). On most games though, a 4Ghz+ 8-core FX is more than fine. I defy any single GPU user to tell the difference in a blind test with probably 80% of titles. BF4 for example, it's not going to feel any different unless you are running some monster GPUs with a great OC. Single 780 at 1080P Ultra or higher? It will work great either way.

The better USB/SATA/PCIe performance and lower power would make it a no brainer to me personally, but I can't say the 8320/8350 are a bad bet either for ease/value. I *can* pretty fairly say that the 9370/9590 are a bad deal.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you look closely you will notice it wasnt me that started an Intel comparison in this AMD thread.
No need to push this conersation further, I misunderstood his ambuiguous post.

I think he was just saying to the OP that it isn't uncommon for people to upgrade for a smaller gain than he is likely to see by going to an FX 9590 from his FX 8120.

As you said, no need to push it further.

 

[polyzp]

Get a 9370/9590 if you want the highest chances at getting 5.0-5.1 Ghz stable with a good Air or closed water cooling solution. They are basically better binned chips than the 8320 which typically will hit 4.5/4.6 Ghz Stable even with an H100i. Regardless, the FX 8320 is the price to performance King and has been for a while. They can potentially even hit 5.0 Ghz stable overclocks on 8 cores for as low as 140 bucks. With intel youd have to get an i3 for that price.

I am upgrading from my 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz to a 9590 hoping to hit 5.2 Ghz! Its a ~20% benefit generally, and much higher for games.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nevermind...!

 

[escrow4]

There is zero reason to buy an AMD FX CPU if you can afford an Intel CPU and accompanying board. And running an FX at 5.0GHz or close to would be the equivalent of WW3 in your case in terms of heat and power. Meh.

 

[Headfoot]

I don't know why you won't overclock it. Its not hard on the 8320, especially for an easy overclock like 4.4. Last one I overclocked got to 4.4 on stock volts so literally the only change I made was to the multiplier (since its unlocked...)

Sorry but not wanting to OC a CPU that is that absurdly easy to OC is a cop-out, especially when you've already spent the money to get a 780 and make it a good gaming machine.

If you absolutely won't overclock, even though it will take 5 minutes, get a 9370 since it is just a pre-overclocked 8320/50.

 

[TekDemon]

If you have a microcenter nearby they have a 4770k and mobo bundle with the as rock z87 extreme 4 for cheaper than the 9590 alone would cost you and once overclocked it'll be faster in most situations without the crazy power draw or heat. Sell the mobo and get a good sealed liquid cooler like the h100 or similar and you'll be able to OC like mad. I own both AMD and intel systems but it hardly makes sense to go AMD now outside of the low to midrange where you can make a value argument.

 

[TreVader]

Trolling once again. Haswell's max overclock is often enough to match/beat Ivy Bridge even at lower frequency thanks to 10% IPC improvement. Stock vs stock Haswell is ~10% faster than Ivy Bridge (comparing similarly priced models).

As you brought Haswell to this thread, lets not forget i7-4770K delivers better overall performance at stock than the 4.7GHz FX9590, and it does so drawing 160W less power under load.

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.

 

[TreVader]

If you have a microcenter nearby they have a 4770k and mobo bundle with the as rock z87 extreme 4 for cheaper than the 9590 alone would cost you and once overclocked it'll be faster in most situations without the crazy power draw or heat. Sell the mobo and get a good sealed liquid cooler like the h100 or similar and you'll be able to OC like mad. I own both AMD and intel systems but it hardly makes sense to go AMD now outside of the low to midrange where you can make a value argument.

He said he was going AMD. Why don't you offer a solution that doesn't include a 4770K? Somebody comes in talking about what AMD processor they should use and all you get is "4770K 4700K 4770K!!!!"


The 4770K is the best high performance processor outside the outrageous hexacore stuff. DUH. But realistically almost nobody needs that power for games, and an 8320 or 9590 is a good processor that performs well.

I use an i7-4970HQ in my laptop and it's great, I personally use intel but if I wanted to go AMD I would not appreciate the 60 intel fanboys screaming "haswell haswell haswell!" every time I asked which AMD processor I should use.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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.

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.