Would a FX 9590 bottleneck a 1660S?

[Expert shooter]

I wanna get this out of the way first, I know my cousin is better off with a whole new computer but he wants to keep 300-500 dollars just in case he wants something else. Here is what we are thinking on upgrading from

 

CPU: Amd FX 6300 to a FX 9590

GPU: 1050 Ti to a 1660S

RAM: 8GB DDR3 (I think) and just add another stick to make 16GB

 

Will this bottleneck? His CPU temps are 55 avg but we are unsure of what the usages were.

I will update this thread as soon as I get more info.

[spartaman64]

probably yes you might think the 1660s is a low mid end card and wont be bottlenecked but it performs between a 980 and 980 ti for perspective

[igormp]

5 minutes ago, Expert shooter said:

I wanna get this out of the way first, I know my cousin is better off with a whole new computer but he wants to keep 300-500 dollars just in case he wants something else. Here is what we are thinking on upgrading from

 

CPU: Amd FX 6300 to a FX 9590

GPU: 1050 Ti to a 1660S

RAM: 8GB DDR3 (I think) and just add another stick to make 16GB

 

Will this bottleneck? His CPU temps are 55 avg but we are unsure of what the usages were.

I will update this thread as soon as I get more info.

Can the current mobo even handle the FX9590? Keep in mind that most mobos at the time weren't made with a 220W CPU in mind, and some even caught fire due to that.

[iBabySlapper]

The FX9590 has a very high TDP, so it's usually unadvised to get one unless it's in the mobo's supported list. Basically, unless it's a 990FX chipset board, it won't support the 9590. Some 780 chipset and 970 boards would catch fire if you use a 9590 on it.

 

The FX CPUs aren't great, I'd say an 8 core (like a 8320), is worth $60 at most.

[Tristerin]

I have a mobo that can support the FX 9590 - but its only 3% faster than an FX 8350 (ish).  Just take heed of the advice above.

 

Will it bottleneck?  The GTX 1660 Super is faster than an R9 Fury - my FX 8350 bottlenecked my R9 Fury in almost all circumstances.  Fury was still potent but it is what it is.  Side note - I just got a Fury X so Im putting the Fury back with the FX 8350 this weekend so - I don't think its a BAD pairing just answering your question.

 

EDIT - I buy some dumb stuff, and I thought I should add - I would never pay for an FX 9590 at its current prices because it performs like ass compared to current, cheaper CPUs.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

I have a mobo that can support the FX 9590 - but its only 3% faster than an FX 8350 (ish).  Just take heed of the advice above.

 

Will it bottleneck?  The GTX 1660 Super is faster than an R9 Fury - my FX 8350 bottlenecked my R9 Fury in almost all circumstances.  Fury was still potent but it is what it is.  Side note - I just got a Fury X so Im putting the Fury back with the FX 8350 this weekend so - I don't think its a BAD pairing just answering your question.

I dont know about 3%. 9590 all core is 4.7ghz base clock. 5ghz boost.

 

8350 is 4ghz boosted? 

 

Something like that any ways. 25% 

[Streetguru]

48 minutes ago, Expert shooter said:

I wanna get this out of the way first, I know my cousin is better off with a whole new computer but he wants to keep 300-500 dollars just in case he wants something else.

Keep the 1050ti for now, buy an R5 3600, or even a 3300X instead, with some 3600mhz CL16 RAM potentially, or 3200mhz Cl16 is fine if it's way cheaper.

Although B550 boards are coming soonish.

Even just upgrading to an older RX 470-580 or 590 8GB card ~$100 would be like 50-60% faster

[Tristerin]

7 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

I dont know about 3%. 9590 all core is 4.7ghz base clock. 5ghz boost.

 

8350 is 4ghz boosted? 

 

Something like that any ways. 25% 

yeah I dug into more benchmarks just now to confirm, in benching software it seems around 20% faster but looking at FPS to FPS charts and average FPS its not a big leap at all

[xg32]

57 minutes ago, Expert shooter said:

.

i'd keep it to a gpu upgrade, would not bother with the cpu upgrade unless it's an entire new build, i'm aware of the cpu bottleneck but the 9590 is just a bad buy.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

yeah I dug into more benchmarks just now to confirm, in benching software it seems around 20% faster but looking at FPS to FPS charts and average FPS its not a big leap at all

True there. Not exactly a great performer either way.

Probably oc a 8320 that high up though

[HD1 star wars]

On 6/3/2020 at 6:18 PM, Not Wills said:

yes it will the ryzen 3 1200 outperforms the fx 9590, and it can bottleneck a 1060, i found a 1050 is about as high as you can go.

Thats only in ipc demanding games. I have seen a lot of people use fx 8000 cpus with gtx 1060/ rx 580 and not be bottlenecked. Also those 4 threads can really limit that ryzen cpu in newer games. Also you are better of getting like a fx 8350 and overclocking it to a 9590. Also your motherboard can't be a lower end 970 or 760g board. It has to be a high end 970 or a 990fx motherboard for that you don't fry your vrms