FX-9590 at 5.5GHz-6GHz

rabidz7

rabidz7

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
1,331
Would a FX-9590 at 5.5GHz-6GHz compare to my 4930K at stock, in games. I an aiming for 160FPS at 1024x768 and 80FPS at 2048x1536. Do high resolutions at low FPS or low resolutions and high FPS cause more CPU bottlenecks?
 
a FX9590?.. that chip does not have practically any Overclock headroom even under custom water.. people tend just to run the chip at fully 5ghz no turbo.. and others with a bit more high end custom water loops at 5.2ghz.. and nope, that chip its far to be able to be compared to a 4930K (heck even my 8350 at 5ghz its crushed by my 3770K at 4.5ghz).. hardly to think you will be even able to touch 5.5ghz without exotic cooling..

Low resolutions with low settings will cause the major CPU bottleneck.. High resolutions with more graphical settings put more workload under the GPU than CPU making it majority of the cases a GPU bottleneck.. at that crappy 1024x768 any mid recent CPU with a mid range GPU will throw hundreds of FPS, Thousands in some games.
 
A 4690k overclocked even reasonably to 4.4-4.6ghz will trash your stock 4930k. Since it seems like you want something for competitive gaming on a CRT I would go with an easily overclocked Haswell chip, it will get you where you want to go. More cores won't help. FX9590 isn't going to do anything for you.
 
LigTasm said:
A 4690k overclocked even reasonably to 4.4-4.6ghz will trash your stock 4930k. Since it seems like you want something for competitive gaming on a CRT I would go with an easily overclocked Haswell chip, it will get you where you want to go. More cores won't help. FX9590 isn't going to do anything for you.
Click to expand...

+1...
 
Like most of your other threads, it depends on the game and settings used. Game engines are all different and demand different things from our hardware. But generally, the more visual settings you turn up the more you are making the game GPU-bound. The fewer 3D enhancements you use the more work the CPU is doing compared to the GPU, so you are making the game CPU-bound. If you turn down the resolutions and settings and get the same framerates as with the higher resolution and settings, then you are CPU-limited (being actually limited in performance by your CPU).

To the comparison between those processors, would you really want all the extra heat and power draw of overclocking the 220W TDP FX-9590 to the 130W TDP i7-4930K running at stock? Games are just starting to take advantage of quad-core threading, so any advantage the 8-core FX-9590 would have with parallelism would be for naught. But at that kind of overclock I would think that the FX-9590 would probably be close in single-core performance to the stock i7-4930K.

By all accounts it would be a downgrade because you could simply overclock the i7-4930K for even more performance while not having to deal with the heat and power draw of the FX-9590.
 
I am willing to add a peltier to my loop if is is needed to keep the temperature under control. Please answer the question.
 
I'm pretty sure everyone has addressed your question. Why are you so insistent on having your purchasing decision of an FX-9590 reinforced? Does this particular CPU add anything more for your situation than the i7-4930K does?
 
Would a FX-9590 at 5.5GHz-6GHz compare to my 4930K at stock, in games
Click to expand...

An overclocked FX-9590 would be a downgrade versus a 4930K at stock in most applications. Although you will have some cash in your pocket after the switch.
 
Last edited:
rabidz7 said:
I am willing to add a peltier to my loop if is is needed to keep the temperature under control. Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

What are you going to cool the peltier with? I mean 500W+ of heat (remember a peltier at minimum doubles the heat output) will not be easy..
 
The upgrade path for a FX-9590 is a 6 core Intel at this time. Like everyone told you above 5.2 GHz is just about the max with a custom water loop. If you're trying to run something like Quake Live at really high frame rates, then get an Intel as they have better single core performance.

AMD FX series are for people like me that render video for streaming while playing a game on the same PC with little performance loss. 99% of games don't use but 2 - 3 cores of a processor, which is the exact opposite scenario that you need for a FX-9590 to shine.
 
I'm interested on hearing how you're expecting to get to 6.0 on a 9590...

LN2 is the only way
 
drescherjm said:
I wonder how high you can go with phase change refrigeration. Or are the available units not capable of cooling a 250W+ CPU to -50C?
Click to expand...

I think 5.5ghz or 5.6ghz are the higher stable to bench a 9590 with phase change..
 
cageymaru said:
The upgrade path for a FX-9590 is a 6 core Intel at this time. Like everyone told you above 5.2 GHz is just about the max with a custom water loop. If you're trying to run something like Quake Live at really high frame rates, then get an Intel as they have better single core performance.

AMD FX series are for people like me that render video for streaming while playing a game on the same PC with little performance loss. 99% of games don't use but 2 - 3 cores of a processor, which is the exact opposite scenario that you need for a FX-9590 to shine.
Click to expand...

I've been around PCs for a long time but I still don't quite understand how the AMD 8-core does such a poor performance against 4-core Intels in the benchmarks. Is it mainly because of the single core performances? Can you elaborate?
 
I still don't quite understand how the AMD 8-core does such a poor performance against 4-core Intels in the benchmarks. Is it mainly because of the single core performances?
Click to expand...

To me it is because what is inside the core counts. AMD reduced the processing power of each bulldozer core when they made the 2 core module with only 125% of the number of transistors of a single Phenom II core.
 
devonhiee said:
I've been around PCs for a long time but I still don't quite understand how the AMD 8-core does such a poor performance against 4-core Intels in the benchmarks. Is it mainly because of the single core performances? Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

IPC thats the answer but also in how the games are coded today to run in 2, 3 cores.. and remember that the AMD 8 cores aren't completely a 8 cores chip, each module still share lot of resources between cores..
 
Wait, wait, wait, The OP has a 4930K running at stock but wants to get a 9590 to OC to the max stable OC anyone has ever claimed to have achieved and beyond... but doesn't want to OC the unlocked chip he already has? Just go into your bios, set the CPU multiplier to say 43, probably don't even need to change cooling or crank up voltage, enjoy a free upgrade to a CPU that would be better for what you're talking about than the 9590 even if you could get it to 6GHz.
 
devonhiee said:
I've been around PCs for a long time but I still don't quite understand how the AMD 8-core does such a poor performance against 4-core Intels in the benchmarks. Is it mainly because of the single core performances? Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

The AMD design is forward thinking and potentially works quite well for some workloads, unfortunately software does not utilize the sharing of resources quite the way they imagined it might when they set out to build the architecture for the first time in bulldozer.

There are numerous advantages to the Intel cores, much shorter pipeline, better branch prediction, less penalty for misprediction, no shared resources (besides cache), and the ability to execute more instructions on a given set of data in one clock cycle.

I have a minimal understanding of how CPU's actually work but from what I do get it just isn't an optimal setup in todays software environment.
 
rabidz7 said:
Would a FX-9590 at 5.5GHz-6GHz compare to my 4930K at stock, in games. I an aiming for 160FPS at 1024x768 and 80FPS at 2048x1536. Do high resolutions at low FPS or low resolutions and high FPS cause more CPU bottlenecks?
Click to expand...



No it would not. The Intel cpu would be better unless you actually do manage to get 6ghz with the FX chip. That brings me to the second point.

The FX9590 does overclock well in most cases, however you need good cooling and good knowledge on how to squeeze the most out of it. The highest I've seen one of these chips running was at 5.5ghz under a custom water loop. People with Phase change are commonly hitting 5.5-6ghz. Peltier Cooling is not an option for FX cpus because they don't make tec units that can handle the heat of the FX cpu. (ie would need a 300-400+watt pelt). The best you could do with a peltier would be to use it to chill the water in your loop via a Water chiller.

This brings me to my third point. Yes if you throw tons of money at an FX chip to run 5.5+ghz it can be fast. However, with traditional cooling methods the Intel chips are faster. Overall a overclocked haswell cpu will be faster than the FX chip. There are cases which the FX chip will be competitive but those are not in gaming scenarios.
 
Araxie said:
IPC thats the answer but also in how the games are coded today to run in 2, 3 cores.. and remember that the AMD 8 cores aren't completely a 8 cores chip, each module still share lot of resources between cores..
Click to expand...


LigTasm said:
The AMD design is forward thinking and potentially works quite well for some workloads, unfortunately software does not utilize the sharing of resources quite the way they imagined it might when they set out to build the architecture for the first time in bulldozer.

There are numerous advantages to the Intel cores, much shorter pipeline, better branch prediction, less penalty for misprediction, no shared resources (besides cache), and the ability to execute more instructions on a given set of data in one clock cycle.

I have a minimal understanding of how CPU's actually work but from what I do get it just isn't an optimal setup in todays software environment.
Click to expand...

So in actuality, it all boils down to efficiency? It seems like AMD's cores share the burden of many tasks that Intel's are not plagued by?

Not to derail this thread, but I have been thinking about picking up 2 Xeon 12 core chips.at 2.2 ghz (heard Linus OCed to 4.0) and the dual CPU motherboard that I saw in the For Sale section. Would there be any benefit to gaming in the future or will it be obsolete by the time complete multicore gaming becomes a reality? I know its purposes for the now but I want to know if it will benefit me in the future.
 
Would there be any benefit to gaming in the future or will it be obsolete by the time complete multicore gaming becomes a reality?
Click to expand...

I say it will be several decades obsolete by the time gaming is optimized for 48 threads.
 
devonhiee said:
So in actuality, it all boils down to efficiency? It seems like AMD's cores share the burden of many tasks that Intel's are not plagued by?

Not to derail this thread, but I have been thinking about picking up 2 Xeon 12 core chips.at 2.2 ghz (heard Linus OCed to 4.0) and the dual CPU motherboard that I saw in the For Sale section. Would there be any benefit to gaming in the future or will it be obsolete by the time complete multicore gaming becomes a reality? I know its purposes for the now but I want to know if it will benefit me in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it pretty much does boil down to efficiency. Dual Xeon gaming is a useless endeavor, I tried it on a dual 8-core SB-E rig I built for folding once. It didn't do any better than an i3 with the same clock speeds, that just isn't what that type of machine is for.

Here you go, for science (note that 3Dmark11 which uses many threads can't even figure out what to do with 16c/32t).
 
LigTasm said:
Yeah, it pretty much does boil down to efficiency. Dual Xeon gaming is a useless endeavor, I tried it on a dual 8-core SB-E rig I built for folding once. It didn't do any better than an i3 with the same clock speeds, that just isn't what that type of machine is for.

Here you go, for science (note that 3Dmark11 which uses many threads can't even figure out what to do with 16c/32t).
Click to expand...

sorry to derail the theme ,but.. why that low score in 3dmark with your 7970?..

Edit: Nevermind, noticed its a pretty old bench..
 
Araxie said:
sorry to derail the theme ,but.. why that low score in 3dmark with your 7970?..

Edit: Nevermind, noticed its a pretty old bench..
Click to expand...

Yeah that was quite a while back, it wasn't OC'd or anything. IIRC that was before 7970ghz edition came out.
 
Right. I'll answer the question.

Amd fx9590 5ghz plus.

My rig

9590 fx
Corsair formula a.z
Amd r9 290x crossfire
Kingston savage 240gb
Windows 10

Simple. Answer
Yes

Have mine overclocked to 5.325ghz save and stable.
Can be overclocked to 5.521ghz. But ridiculous voltage increase...

How fast is it. will it beat Intel...simple yes it does.

You can know get this cpu for £149.99..
So you need to compare it to max intel for £340.

Witch sounds a little to much..how ever. Why compare it to Intel same price. When extreme overclock to 5.5ghz. Its ovs it's going to obliterate any Intel for same price.

Know compare to Intel 4930k and 3770k.

Need to make this clear to all you that think overclocking 9590 to 5.5ghz Carnt be done and wont beat intell.

First rule overclocking
Overclock cpu
Overclock mothboard most important.

So 9590 5.5ghz
Ram 2100mz
Fsb. 2600mz
Nb 2800mz
CPU voltage 1.6

Intell go away. Stick your £300 processor were the sun dont shine.
 
paul123123 said:
Right. I'll answer the question.

Amd fx9590 5ghz plus.

My rig

9590 fx
Corsair formula a.z
Amd r9 290x crossfire
Kingston savage 240gb
Windows 10

Simple. Answer
Yes

Have mine overclocked to 5.325ghz save and stable.
Can be overclocked to 5.521ghz. But ridiculous voltage increase...

How fast is it. will it beat Intel...simple yes it does.

You can know get this cpu for £149.99..
So you need to compare it to max intel for £340.

Witch sounds a little to much..how ever. Why compare it to Intel same price. When extreme overclock to 5.5ghz. Its ovs it's going to obliterate any Intel for same price.

Know compare to Intel 4930k and 3770k.

Need to make this clear to all you that think overclocking 9590 to 5.5ghz Carnt be done and wont beat intell.

First rule overclocking
Overclock cpu
Overclock mothboard most important.

So 9590 5.5ghz
Ram 2100mz
Fsb. 2600mz
Nb 2800mz
CPU voltage 1.6

Intell go away. Stick your £300 processor were the sun dont shine.
Click to expand...


Forgot to mention. Why would you compare the fx9590 to Intel 4930k. As it price is over double than the fx9590 chip.

That been said tho. As you may think I'm amd.
I do also have a Intel 5930k.
Its beats my fx 9590 by 24% on single core operation.
On multi core looses by 17%.

So. Their I is.

Intel will always be faster when buying cpu over a certain price. But if you have the hard wear amd money amd can be a awesome way to go.

A low cost cpu and good graphics cards will play most games.
As long as your graphics card is decante and graphics set high. It will fo most off the work.

Hope this has answered your question and gave those who thought Carnt do 5.5ghz without a chiller.
 
Lol nice necro.

Intel will actually be cheaper in the long run if you overclock that much. Power consumption diffrebce will be significant if you overclock that much.
 
JustReason said:
Actually there were quite a few @1.7V+ on custom water. I could prob do that on mine as well (8350) - air-conditioned case.
Click to expand...

My FX -9370 wasn't fond of really high voltages. Then again it crashed hard after 5.0GHz so it wasn't the best OC processor. 5.1GHz was a suicide run for it to post a benchmark number before it went belly up. I bought one of these swanky Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming boards and it was still stuck at the same numbers. :) If you set the LLC to the EXTREME setting, it would set the voltage to a minimum of 1.6v or something like that. That board was "fire" when I tried that for sh*ts n' giggles one day.
 
cageymaru said:
My FX -9370 wasn't fond of really high voltages. Then again it crashed hard after 5.0GHz so it wasn't the best OC processor. 5.1GHz was a suicide run for it to post a benchmark number before it went belly up. I bought one of these swanky Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming boards and it was still stuck at the same numbers. :) If you set the LLC to the EXTREME setting, it would set the voltage to a minimum of 1.6v or something like that. That board was "fire" when I tried that for sh*ts n' giggles one day.
Click to expand...

Think Johan45 was able to get his pretty high , but then again , this thread was a necro of several years old ;)
 
I was able to do 5.2ghz with air condition on 8120 and 9590, the 8350 would only do 4.95ghz. Never really pushed it beyond that, VRMs would get rather hot - over 100c with the 9590 and 8120 even when case was below 0 C. I am tempted to monkey around with the CH6 and 1700x with custom water loop being cooled by subzero air and case. Biggest issue would be practicality of it with RyZen IMC issue with less than 20c conditions. Maybe make a trial run with cheap cardboard ducts to test out what it will do.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
My FX -9370 wasn't fond of really high voltages. Then again it crashed hard after 5.0GHz so it wasn't the best OC processor. 5.1GHz was a suicide run for it to post a benchmark number before it went belly up. I bought one of these swanky Gigabyte GA-990FX-Gaming boards and it was still stuck at the same numbers. :) If you set the LLC to the EXTREME setting, it would set the voltage to a minimum of 1.6v or something like that. That board was "fire" when I tried that for sh*ts n' giggles one day.
Click to expand...

I had a customer with a 9590 that wouldn't even run at the stock 4.7 GHz no matter how much I messed with the voltage and other settings. I think he may have worn it out by having the memory cranked too high for too long (he was trying to run 2400 MHz DDR3) :facepalm:

I could only get that CPU stable by underclocking it to 3800 MHz and undervolting it; Which broke C'n'Q, probably due to it being a crappy ASUS board. The RAM also had to stay at 1333 MHz, going one iota over that caused BSODs out the ass. Sucks he paid so much for memory he couldn't use, but he had no idea what he was doing when he build the rig.
 
cageymaru said:
@1.6v you need more than H2O to cool a FX processor. Maybe cut off CnQ so that the fire breathing dragon can heat up? :)

Are you using this to cool it?
http://www.performance-pcs.com/hot-...hp-790watt-cooling-capacity-waterchiller.html
Click to expand...


Sorry to say I'm useing 360mm thick radiator alpgacool kid from scan. With 5.25 res bay including pump. Along with 240mm ek thick rad. With 150mm internal res. All fabs changed to
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/120...d-led-fan-dual-material-colour-fdb-fan-121dba

Overclocked in bios to 1.6v . In windows it 1.596v. belive it or not my temps are 40 and go up to 75 on each core. Cpu 75 on full load.

Don't forget amd run hot as hell.

Best custom water cooling ever done.

I may get a chilla and see how fare I can push it. Before I upgrade to ryzan 1800x . Just wating for more realse update first. as do have 1600x for wife and 4.1 ghz is the max I can get. my fx9590 I in benchmarks. Unreal. gameing their about same fps. Depending on what games 1600x wins and looses. think when that fo more update for bios and setting. 4.4ghz will be easy and omg will it be fast.
 
devonhiee said:
I've been around PCs for a long time but I still don't quite understand how the AMD 8-core does such a poor performance against 4-core Intels in the benchmarks. Is it mainly because of the single core performances? Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Because the FX 8 core is not a real 8 core. It is a quad core/module that uses 2 clustered threads per core module. Clustered threads act as individual cores unlike simultaneous threads that work together in one core. AMD settled out of court on a lawsuit filed in 2016 over falsely advertising it as an 8 core.
 
sweet necro.

And if it wasn't a real 8 core, it would scale 4 -> 8 thread performance like a 4c 8t I7 does. But it doesn't. It just has slow cores, and 8 of them.
 
No its 8 cores, its just an odd setup, each set of 2 integer cores share either thread of a single SMT FPU. They had some really neat idea's planned for bulldozer but most of them where never finished or implemented. Among these was a reverse hyper-threading/SMT mode that could expand the width of the integer pipeline of each core, by executing instructions for the same thread across 2 cores, this was possible due to the shared decoding, and instruction scheduling hardware. It would have required a deep L0 or micro-op cache, a much expanded cache access width. Pretty much a list of things outside the transistor budget of a 32/28nm process. If they would have fixed the cache, doubled(at a minimum) the fpu width, implemented the reverse smt, micro-op cache, etc, it would have been competitive. Was kinda of a shame that kinda completely abandoned the dozer other then a few minor tweaks for the apu lines.

But it has been implied that the cache system was fundamentally fubar and perhaps not fixable without major redesign of the whole chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top