FX 9590 Facts I have one

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EagleOne

Gawd
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
690
"Snap fast Execution" Very little tweaking, Been running Very Very Smooth With: GSkill TridentX Cas7 So Far The BEST Of The Best Ram I Have Every Had For AMD







ocz ram above


(((((Thanks To All my Friends Here @ [HF] For All The Help You Have Given Me)))))


I have this FX9550 with a -50c phase.change CPU Freon cooling system.
yes the cpu Rocks I also have the FX8350 also Rocks.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest and say that I would've expected better.

5Ghz at 1.525 volts seems pretty normal to me.

My 8350 is game stable at 4.9 Ghz at 1.475 volts and will even pass a few benchmarks at the voltage. I have to drop the freq to 4.7Ghz to get it to pass Prime95 and for everything else it passes at 4.8Ghz. It is also 99% stable at 4.7Ghz at 1.45 volts.

I have not tried 1.5 volts on the CPU to see if 5Ghz is stable as I dont want to pass 1.475 volts.
 
It's funny Eagle I posted up some of my 9370 results a while back. The whole thread seemed to just fall as far a way from true discussion on the 9xxx series chips as you can get. Nice work buddy. I'm glad you're lovin It.
 
Priller said:
I'll be honest and say that I would've expected better.

5Ghz at 1.525 volts seems pretty normal to me.

My 8350 is game stable at 4.9 Ghz at 1.475 volts and will even pass a few benchmarks at the voltage. I have to drop the freq to 4.7Ghz to get it to pass Prime95 and for everything else it passes at 4.8Ghz. It is also 99% stable at 4.7Ghz at 1.45 volts.

I have not tried 1.5 volts on the CPU to see if 5Ghz is stable as I dont want to pass 1.475 volts.
Click to expand...

Trust me these ar better slices of silicon. My 9370 wil run prime stable @ 4.8 G with 1.428v , 4.9 P95 @ 1.476 and the same as Eagle for 5.0.they just reach their plateau later in the clock vs volts.
 
Johan45 said:
Trust me these ar better slices of silicon. My 9370 wil run prime stable @ 4.8 G with 1.428v , 4.9 P95 @ 1.476 and the same as Eagle for 5.0.they just reach their plateau later in the clock vs volts.
Click to expand...

Are those overclocks with multiplier only or FSB as well?

Out of the box what was your voltage?

I've been tempted to grab a 9590 as of late but it seemed that my 8350 was holding its own voltage vs. Mhz.
 
EagleOne said:


I have this FX9550 with a -50c phase.change CPU Freon cooling system.
yes the cpu Rocks I also have the FX8350 also Rocks.

the water cooler that comes with the 9590, is like a toy from a 99cent store for this Monster, you need a real water custom built system like some of the big dogs on this and other sites have. the 9590 is the Fastest cpu I have every had and I have all the AMD cpus with all the best AMD boards possible, when you boot up a 9590 at 5050 mhs or 5300 MHz you will drop 20 degrees before you even get to windows.
you also need very very good ram memory.
is it worth it? for me YES, I can switch out my cpu in 10 minutes to my 8350, but I prefer my FX9590, it really moves fast!, the above CPUZ is where im at that's very smooth and comfortable and boots easy for me, I have to wait till im -30c before I start the board.
I Love It and Im Hooked so do lots of other guys on other sites.
this is just my opinion....feel free to ask me something, im running the shit out of this baby and it rocks on all 8 cores.......:)
Click to expand...

Translation:

"I wasted my money on a $900 CPU and I want everyone to know it!" :p
 
Yeah,

It's just too bad that after all that work building a fancy cooling setup the $900 FX-9550 at 5.3Ghz gets beaten up by a $138 Haswell Core i3-4330T (and possibly even a $64 Pentium G3220) at stock speeds with a cheap, quiet cooler in single threaded apps, which is still where desktop performance matters the most.

At pure single threaded number crunching, at the same clock speed, Vishera based CPU's (like the FX955-) only have about 55% of the performance of the Haswell architecture, which means a 5.3Ghz FX-9550 is equivalent in single threaded performance to an ~2.9Ghz Haswell CPU, and those are much cheaper, produce WAY less heat, and thus run cooler and use less power. Much better choice, unless you are into rendering and encoding where multi-threading actually helps (in which case, for the same money, or less an Intel Ivy Bridge-E CPU will be a much better choice.)

No one likes people who blatantly brag, but if you are going to brag, at least make sure you have something to brag about, not that you have built an inefficient highly overclocked phase change system that gets outperformed by a low cost, budget Intel CPU.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge AMD fan, and use their products as much as I can, it's just not where the raw number crunching is these days.
 
EgleOne said:
.... I have to wait till im -30c before I start the board.
Click to expand...

Yikes! Am I understanding you right that you have to cool the socket to -31C before you can boot up? Wow that's a lot of heat.

Is that 5.07GHz Prime95 or OCCT stable? What kind of temps do you get when stress testing?
 
Zarathustra[H];1040372614 said:
Yeah,

It's just too bad that after all that work building a fancy cooling setup the $900 FX-9550 at 5.3Ghz gets beaten up by a $138 Haswell Core i3-4330T (and possibly even a $64 Pentium G3220) at stock speeds with a cheap, quiet cooler in single threaded apps, which is still where desktop performance matters the most.

At pure single threaded number crunching, at the same clock speed, Vishera based CPU's (like the FX955-) only have about 55% of the performance of the Haswell architecture, which means a 5.3Ghz FX-9550 is equivalent in single threaded performance to an ~2.9Ghz Haswell CPU, and those are much cheaper, produce WAY less heat, and thus run cooler and use less power. Much better choice, unless you are into rendering and encoding where multi-threading actually helps (in which case, for the same money, or less an Intel Ivy Bridge-E CPU will be a much better choice.)

No one likes people who blatantly brag, but if you are going to brag, at least make sure you have something to brag about, not that you have built an inefficient highly overclocked phase change system that gets outperformed by a low cost, budget Intel CPU.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge AMD fan, and use their products as much as I can, it's just not where the raw number crunching is these days.
Click to expand...

*Trying not to turn this into the typical Intel vs. AMD*

While AMDs IPC is lower then Intels they are making good progress. They made a 15% IPC jump going to Vishera.

Oddly enough the only CPUs that I've seen as of late to have heat issues are Haswells. Not to mention around "30%"? dont overclock that well.

The best thing I find is the fact that single threaded performance doesnt mean much now days. I dont game on a single core and many more programs, applications, etc are moving more towards multithreaded application.
 
Priller said:
*Trying not to turn this into the typical Intel vs. AMD*

While AMDs IPC is lower then Intels they are making good progress. They made a 15% IPC jump going to Vishera.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, that they are making good strides with every generation, but the problem is, the competition isn't sitting still either... :(

I think AMD is great for some things though. My FX-8120 running at stock speeds has made an amazing virtualization server. My E-350 board from my old server was just repurposed as a pfSense bo for my parents. So useful, and only 18WTDP. My HTPC is currently an ancient Athlon Neo x2 1.8Ghz, showing it's age, but still pulling strong, and will soon be replaced with a Kaveri based HTPC when I've saved up the cash for an upgrade.

So, huge, long term AMD fan here, I was just rubbed the wrong way by the blatant "bragging" tone and felt the need to fire back :p
 
Priller said:
The best thing I find is the fact that single threaded performance doesnt mean much now days. I dont game on a single core and many more programs, applications, etc are moving more towards multithreaded application.
Click to expand...

I also agree here, that explicitly single threaded speed doesn't matter most of the time. Most tasks have at least some multithreading these days, but usually the returns start to drop off very quickly after 4 cores in most applications.

Most of the time any modern CPU will be fast enough for most tasks, but when they DO run into trouble is usually with some poorly coded app or game that hits one thread really hard and leaves most of the others untouched. With that in mind, fewer stronger cores will almost always outperform many weaker cores.

The exception is of course rendering, encoding and server type workloads. The 8 core machines are great for rendering, encoding and virtualization servers running many guests, but for rendering and encoding, I'd still rather have 4 or 6 fast efficient cores than 8 inefficient slower cores.

I'm actually regretting even getting my hexacore i7-3930k as it rarely gets used to its full potential, and I could have spent way less on a quieter and cooler quad core i7, and never really noticed the difference in performance.


Long story short, I am all for hardware diversity, and not a fanboy of any brand. I buy what's best for the job regardless of whether it's Intel, AMD or Nvidia, and when there is a rough tie, I try to favor the underdog, which is why I have a bunch of AMD CPU's on my non-desktop systems.

It just gets me somewhat bothered when people brag about things blatantly, especially when what they are bragging all this extra work and expense they put into phase change cooling systems to build this monstrosity of cooling and noise that uses 250+W, when a low end ~$500 -$600 build without the risks of custom water cooling, and expense and time of carefully tweaking and building custom setups, will perform similarly...
 
Priller said:
Are those overclocks with multiplier only or FSB as well?

Out of the box what was your voltage?

I've been tempted to grab a 9590 as of late but it seemed that my 8350 was holding its own voltage vs. Mhz.
Click to expand...

Her ya go this should answer the FSB and stability questions. The out of box voltage is 1.5v but it really doesn't need that..

9uyrcy.png
[/IMG]

@Zarathustra[H]

The price of my 9370 was only$250 which isn't much more than I paid for my 8350 when I first got it. Like priller sadi
*Trying not to turn this into the typical Intel vs. AMD*
Click to expand...
I really don't see how that's productive, that's what happened when I posted up my 9370 results. I just felt that people are interested in these CPUs and rthis may help them make a more informed decision.
Eagle's not bragging, he truly is happy with his CPU. He didn't pay $900 either.
 
Priller said:
I'll be honest and say that I would've expected better.

5Ghz at 1.525 volts seems pretty normal to me.

My 8350 is game stable at 4.9 Ghz at 1.475 volts and will even pass a few benchmarks at the voltage. I have to drop the freq to 4.7Ghz to get it to pass Prime95 and for everything else it passes at 4.8Ghz. It is also 99% stable at 4.7Ghz at 1.45 volts.

I have not tried 1.5 volts on the CPU to see if 5Ghz is stable as I dont want to pass 1.475 volts.
Click to expand...
when your freon cooled or super custom water cooled like Johan45
volts don't mean anything in fact the more the better, in some settings:)
 
Zarathustra[H];1040372604 said:
Translation:

"I wasted my money on a $900 CPU and I want everyone to know it!" :p
Click to expand...

what board did you get with it as a combo? :confused:


I paid $389. for mine with the water cooler, gave that away to a collage Girl that wants to start overclocking her 8350 that she custom built in her IT class
 
Last edited:
EagleOne said:
when your freon cooled or super custom water cooled like Johan45
volts don't mean anything in fact the more the better, in some settings:)
Click to expand...


I do have a custom watercooled loop. Both the Mobo and CPU have waterblocks on them.

It is even using a custom prototype coolant as well.
 
Priller said:
I do have a custom watercooled loop. Both the Mobo and CPU have waterblocks on them.

It is even using a custom prototype coolant as well.
Click to expand...

sounds real cool, I cant really see your system what board do u have?
I know u have 8350 :)
 
Zarathustra[H];1040372614 said:
Yeah,

It's just too bad that after all that work building a fancy cooling setup the $900 FX-9550 at 5.3Ghz gets beaten up by a $138 Haswell Core i3-4330T (and possibly even a $64 Pentium G3220) at stock speeds with a cheap, quiet cooler in single threaded apps, which is still where desktop performance matters the most.

At pure single threaded number crunching, at the same clock speed, Vishera based CPU's (like the FX955-) only have about 55% of the performance of the Haswell architecture, which means a 5.3Ghz FX-9550 is equivalent in single threaded performance to an ~2.9Ghz Haswell CPU, and those are much cheaper, produce WAY less heat, and thus run cooler and use less power. Much better choice, unless you are into rendering and encoding where multi-threading actually helps (in which case, for the same money, or less an Intel Ivy Bridge-E CPU will be a much better choice.)

No one likes people who blatantly brag, but if you are going to brag, at least make sure you have something to brag about, not that you have built an inefficient highly overclocked phase change system that gets outperformed by a low cost, budget Intel CPU.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge AMD fan, and use their products as much as I can, it's just not where the raw number crunching is these days.
Click to expand...

I guess this is fair, but it's probably also to say 99% of users dont need or care for that vast single threaded power Intel is sporting. The "average" user maybe reads his email and watches youtube.

The power user probably cares about gaming or encoding, both of which AMD does OK to great in encoding in at any given price point (remember 8350 is often on sale on newegg for $180, 8320 145, etc.) So what exactly does single thread gain you? Single thread is tailored to general purpose, putttering around, workloads that dont need power to begin with. Any actual working program will multithread. Even in gaming which was a weak point, AMD seems to be getting better and better as games get more multithreaded (the consoles will help that too).

Look at any suite of benchmarks and a 8350 is fine for it's price point,. And a 6 core 6350 arguably kicks the crap out of anything Intel has at that price (which is only dual cores). Move above $200 and AMD cant hang, but that's nothing new contrary to opinion, it was really only a short time AMD competed for performance leadership.

We all know AMD's weaknesses though, seems a bit unfair to highlight only the weaknesses.

For the future, I see unbelievable potential for AMD CPU's for several reasons, Intel has been stagnant, neither Haswell nor Ivty Bridge delivered much performance improvement. I think Piledriver delivered more performance improvement in one iteration than Intel has in the last two let alone Steamroller.

The thing is look at what AMD is doing, delivering HUGE die size CPU's for cheap. Obviously that's not ideal, but they seem to survive with it.

I mean, get ANY decent single thread engineering at all, and it would seem AMD could just kill, because they are willing to foot the bill for MUCH larger die sizes, they are delivering bare CPU's without a GPU enabling them to be more aggressive yet, AND a 125 watt TDP, neither of which Intel is. Sooner or later it seems like just by accident they will get a nice IPC improvement. Intel has let them off the hook time and again with mediocre Haswell and Ivy Bridge, doubtful that changes.

Imagine something like a 12 core, 4.4 ghz Steamroller with 20+% single thread IPC improvement out of AMD. It would arguably torch anything Intel has. It's really not far fetched either.

The caveat to ALL of the above though, is I suspect AMD may be pulling a Intel and moving to only APU's. Which would throw all the above into question (but Steamroller still may be nice).
 
Last edited:
Shark974 said:
For the future, I see unbelievable potential for AMD CPU's for several reasons, Intel has been stagnant, neither Haswell nor Ivty Bridge delivered much performance improvement. I think Piledriver delivered more performance improvement in one iteration than Intel has in the last two let alone Steamroller.
Click to expand...

I dont necessarily disagree with most of the rest of your points, but I really wouldn't read too much into this. At some point you get diminishing returns without changing die size or making major changes to the architecture. The fact that Pildriver was able to deliver such large IPC gains speaks more to how BAD bulldozer was than how amazing AMD is for their large IPC gains. The IPC improvements have been approx 10% per architecture for Intel, and Haswell's IPC is approx 25-30% better than Nehalem, which is reasonable, if not exactly earth shattering. Compare that to AMD: IPC went down with bulldozer when compared to Thuban. Vishera just brought back/closer to Thuban so that the clock speed advantages would actually be advantages rather than compensating for architectural weaknesses. The point is, Intel has gone further since Nehalem/Bloomfield than AMD has gone since Stars/Thuban (which were contemporary), so to trumpet AMD's gains with the Vishera chip while Intel "stagnates" is blatantly ignoring the fact that AMD was playing a serious game of catch-up to themselves let alone Intel, and still isn't all that close. So I really don't see AMD breaking through and delivering us anything amazing in the next couple years.
 
Shark974 said:
I guess this is fair, but it's probably also to say 99% of users dont need or care for that vast single threaded power Intel is sporting. The "average" user maybe reads his email and watches youtube.

The power user probably cares about gaming or encoding, both of which AMD does OK to great in encoding in at any given price point (remember 8350 is often on sale on newegg for $180, 8320 145, etc.) So what exactly does single thread gain you? Single thread is tailored to general purpose, putttering around, workloads that dont need power to begin with. Any actual working program will multithread. Even in gaming which was a weak point, AMD seems to be getting better and better as games get more multithreaded (the consoles will help that too).

Look at any suite of benchmarks and a 8350 is fine for it's price point,. And a 6 core 6350 arguably kicks the crap out of anything Intel has at that price (which is only dual cores). Move above $200 and AMD cant hang, but that's nothing new contrary to opinion, it was really only a short time AMD competed for performance leadership.

We all know AMD's weaknesses though, seems a bit unfair to highlight only the weaknesses.

For the future, I see unbelievable potential for AMD CPU's for several reasons, Intel has been stagnant, neither Haswell nor Ivty Bridge delivered much performance improvement. I think Piledriver delivered more performance improvement in one iteration than Intel has in the last two let alone Steamroller.

The thing is look at what AMD is doing, delivering HUGE die size CPU's for cheap. Obviously that's not ideal, but they seem to survive with it.

I mean, get ANY decent single thread engineering at all, and it would seem AMD could just kill, because they are willing to foot the bill for MUCH larger die sizes, they are delivering bare CPU's without a GPU enabling them to be more aggressive yet, AND a 125 watt TDP, neither of which Intel is. Sooner or later it seems like just by accident they will get a nice IPC improvement. Intel has let them off the hook time and again with mediocre Haswell and Ivy Bridge, doubtful that changes.

Imagine something like a 12 core, 4.4 ghz Steamroller with 20+% single thread IPC improvement out of AMD. It would arguably torch anything Intel has. It's really not far fetched either.

The caveat to ALL of the above though, is I suspect AMD may be pulling a Intel and moving to only APU's. Which would throw all the above into question (but Steamroller still may be nice).
Click to expand...

Intel knows when to rest on their laurels. The instant AMD gets close to any of intel's markets, intel gets off their ass.

It's kind of sad that innovation stagnates as a result, but dems the sticks of a duopoly.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040372614 said:
Yeah,

It's just too bad that after all that work building a fancy cooling setup the $900 FX-9550 at 5.3Ghz gets beaten up by a $138 Haswell Core i3-4330T (and possibly even a $64 Pentium G3220) at stock speeds with a cheap, quiet cooler in single threaded apps, which is still where desktop performance matters the most.

At pure single threaded number crunching, at the same clock speed, Vishera based CPU's (like the FX955-) only have about 55% of the performance of the Haswell architecture, which means a 5.3Ghz FX-9550 is equivalent in single threaded performance to an ~2.9Ghz Haswell CPU, and those are much cheaper, produce WAY less heat, and thus run cooler and use less power. Much better choice, unless you are into rendering and encoding where multi-threading actually helps (in which case, for the same money, or less an Intel Ivy Bridge-E CPU will be a much better choice.)

No one likes people who blatantly brag, but if you are going to brag, at least make sure you have something to brag about, not that you have built an inefficient highly overclocked phase change system that gets outperformed by a low cost, budget Intel CPU.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge AMD fan, and use their products as much as I can, it's just not where the raw number crunching is these days.
Click to expand...

The 9590 is the fastest desktop CPU out their, just look at the Battlefield 4 benchmarks, the 9590 beats every Intel CPU. Yeah if you are running single threaded programs you are not going to see full performance, but thats like complaining that modern CPUs don't run your 16bit programs as fast as 64bit programs.
 
Spazturtle said:
The 9590 is the fastest desktop CPU out their, just look at the Battlefield 4 benchmarks, the 9590 beats every Intel CPU. Yeah if you are running single threaded programs you are not going to see full performance, but thats like complaining that modern CPUs don't run your 16bit programs as fast as 64bit programs.
Click to expand...
Thats not only extremely simplistic, its also somewhat incorrect. BF4 benchmarks are only relevant to a small subsection of the CPU buying public, and not only that, they're probably irrelevant to most of the people who own BF4, since the game is far more likely to be GPU limited than CPU limited. Including games, only programs that take extensive advantage of more than 4 cores are going to perform better on AMD than Intel. There are still relevant single threaded apps, and there are relevant apps that are multi-threaded that don't scale well past 4 cores... its hardly comparing 16bit applications to 64 bit ones. There are lots of applications that people actually use that perform dramatically better on intel hardware than the 9590, so how can you say its the "fastest desktop CPU out their [sic]", without qualification? Or do you just prefer to close your eyes and pretend its all ok?
 
omega-x said:
Intel knows when to rest on their laurels. The instant AMD gets close to any of intel's markets, intel gets off their ass.

It's kind of sad that innovation stagnates as a result, but dems the sticks of a duopoly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and if it wasn't for people still buying into AMD it would be a monopoly. I have always preferred the AMD side partly because they have so many little thing to tweak and play with. Intels for the most part have been set the multi raise the volts and voila! All done. Just kind of took the fun out of it for me any way.
 
Am I reading this correctly that it took phase change for you to run a 9590 at 5.0? My 8320 did 5250 under a simple custom water loop Prime stable at 1.55V, I would have hoped the 9590 would be way better than that especially with that cooling. Probably fun to tweak though, I just helped a friend build an 8320 machine and had a great time overclocking it a little (what the hyper 212 could tolerate at least). He was really surprised it managed to gain 700mhz in just a few minutes.
 
LigTasm said:
Am I reading this correctly that it took phase change for you to run a 9590 at 5.0? My 8320 did 5250 under a simple custom water loop Prime stable at 1.55V, I would have hoped the 9590 would be way better than that especially with that cooling. Probably fun to tweak though, I just helped a friend build an 8320 machine and had a great time overclocking it a little (what the hyper 212 could tolerate at least). He was really surprised it managed to gain 700mhz in just a few minutes.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't take a phase change to get it to run at 5.0. That's just what Eagle is using.
 
Activate: AMD said:
Thats not only extremely simplistic, its also somewhat incorrect. BF4 benchmarks are only relevant to a small subsection of the CPU buying public, and not only that, they're probably irrelevant to most of the people who own BF4, since the game is far more likely to be GPU limited than CPU limited. Including games, only programs that take extensive advantage of more than 4 cores are going to perform better on AMD than Intel. There are still relevant single threaded apps, and there are relevant apps that are multi-threaded that don't scale well past 4 cores... its hardly comparing 16bit applications to 64 bit ones. There are lots of applications that people actually use that perform dramatically better on intel hardware than the 9590, so how can you say its the "fastest desktop CPU out their [sic]", without qualification? Or do you just prefer to close your eyes and pretend its all ok?
Click to expand...

He made a stupid generalised comment so I made a stupid generalised comment.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040372604 said:
Translation:

"I wasted my money on a $900 CPU and I want everyone to know it!" :p
Click to expand...

who says you have to pay $900 for this CPU?

Click 1
Click 2

just sayin'......

and just because intel is stomping AMD in the majority of scenarios doesn't mean that AMD doesn't have its place.

maybe he wants to use it for video encoding, which AMD does extremely well, being able to utilize actual cores. maybe he wants it for ECC support, for which you have to buy a server-level chip from intel to get. and then again, maybe he just has the extra money and wants to see what can actually be done with it, all else be damned.

so good to see that we have all moved beyond criticizing others for doing what they want to with their time/money :rolleyes:

Zarathustra[H];1040372657 said:
So, huge, long term AMD fan here, I was just rubbed the wrong way by the blatant "bragging" tone and felt the need to fire back :p
Click to expand...

nothing i read in his post (edited or otherwise) came across as "bragging" to me, much less "blatantly bragging"...it just sounded like he was enthusiastic about it and wanted to share.

LigTasm said:
Am I reading this correctly that it took phase change for you to run a 9590 at 5.0? My 8320 did 5250 under a simple custom water loop Prime stable at 1.55V, I would have hoped the 9590 would be way better than that especially with that cooling. Probably fun to tweak though, I just helped a friend build an 8320 machine and had a great time overclocking it a little (what the hyper 212 could tolerate at least). He was really surprised it managed to gain 700mhz in just a few minutes.
Click to expand...

this just goes back to the point i was trying to make a few weeks ago, about this very same CPU. someone made mention that it was a higher-binned chip, so it had to overclock better....which is absolutely not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.

a higher-binned chip gives you at least a better chance of going higher than a lower-binned chip does, but it's still all luck of the draw, as much as it has to do with the rest of the components in the system.

if you have a weak motherboard but a very strong chip, you can still be out-overclocked by someone with an strong motherboard and a mediocre chip.
 
Hey Johan45:
I have seen threads like this before, my new phase.change is coming soon, I just boosted up one of my jobs they wanted some extras, I added $2150 for the job only to get a HOTROD INTEL SYSTEM so im going for the RampageIV Extreme board 2011 socket, and the Intel 4960x or if out the 4970x and most probably Corsair Platinum 16gigs or Best ram that works with that chipset the Best is always better for me, I have a back power supply 1220watts and a cooler master case the big one brand new from a few years ago,
Johan keep me updated on the top of the line newest Intel cpu that will out soon buddy, im going back to work,
now I will have the BEST of both Worlds......Thank Buddy!

if I get stuck the intel experts here I hope will help me, thanks guys
 
Last edited:
No probs Eagle. I'm not usually that in tune with the latest and greatest from Intel. Last I checked on the Bot it seemed the 39xx series was still doing as good or better than the 49xx. Could just be that it's still fairly young and hasn't had enough people pushing it to get the "good" numbers.

@ LigTasm
Here's a close up of mine only one I can get right now.

35dbyps.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Johan45 said:
No probs Eagle. I'm not usually that in tune with the latest and greatest from Intel. Last I checked on the Bot it seemed the 39xx series was still doing as good or better than the 49xx. Could just be that it's still fairly young and hasn't had enough people pushing it to get the "good" numbers.

@ LigTasm
Here's a close up of mine only one I can get right now.
Click to expand...

Looking good! I had the Sabertooth R2.0 myself and it was a very nice board to work with. I did end up having to add some fans over the VRM because I was pushing it hard under water, I guess with the phase change the socket area stays cooler so it isn't an issue?

The 49xx chips seem to be worse clockers on average, negating any boost in IPC. I've been watching the FS/T forums on a few sites trying to find one that has been stable at 4.7+ to match my 3930k that will do 4.7 at 1.325V but haven't seen any yet.
 
LigTasm said:
Looking good! I had the Sabertooth R2.0 myself and it was a very nice board to work with. I did end up having to add some fans over the VRM because I was pushing it hard under water, I guess with the phase change the socket area stays cooler so it isn't an issue?

The 49xx chips seem to be worse clockers on average, negating any boost in IPC. I've been watching the FS/T forums on a few sites trying to find one that has been stable at 4.7+ to match my 3930k that will do 4.7 at 1.325V but haven't seen any yet.
Click to expand...

oh I see its Ligs system very cool, I know, johan its hard to post pix here I have some I wana post, any tips on how to post pix here you guys...?:confused:
 
EagleOne said:
oh I see its Ligs system very cool, I know, johan its hard to post pix here I have some I wana post, any tips on how to post pix here you guys...?:confused:
Click to expand...

That is Johans system, but personally I host all of my pics on photobucket and link them as images, that way I don't use up someones bandwidth.

Back when I had my 8320 rig around March this year it looked like this:

DSC02809.jpg

DSC02810.jpg

DSC02823.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top