AMD FX-9590 @5GHZ vs FX 8370 OC

[Dabombinable]

i got my gpu cpu usage and temp  on my sceen at all times

get a clue maybe?

On the same screen that you play FPS, which are normally played in full screen? Screenshots of your GPU usage, or I'll just go by the evidence provided all over the internet that an FX 9590 bottlenecks high end GPUs. Also, what's the minimum FPS use, with screen shots?

[FruitBasketSilex]

There's a ton of hype around it. I think we'll see a fair amount of technically inclined devs adopt it fairly early. (DICE, CDPR, Epic, Rebellion, Crytek) It's still going to take a couple of years to be as widespread as DX11 is though. But I think there's a bit more incentive here than there was for DX10/11.

I've seen no fucking hype around it besides making bf4 play less shitty.

[kronickiller]

i would love to give u a screen shot 

what works with rivatuner

fraps doesnt pick up the overlays and print screen aint liking gta

even though i am seriously doubting u even own a 9590 if u cant do this yourself

[Dabombinable]

i would love to give u a screen shot 

what works with rivatuner

fraps doesnt pick up the overlays and print screen aint liking gta

even though i am seriously doubting u even own a 9590 if u cant do this yourself

I've seen the evidence, other people have confirmed that they bottleneck high end GPU's. Plus I know from personal benchmarks that an FX series CPU has an IPC close to that of CPU's from the late 90's early 2000's (more specifically the Pentium III and more than likely the early athlons). Also, you are dodging the question, just take a few screen shots in different games with fraps monitoring the FPS (I know the trial only does 30 second videos-though they would be enough). And taking a screen shot of MSI afterburner's stats isn't that difficult.

[stconquest]

I would like to remind everyone defending an AMD upgrade that costs $300+, that this is not your purchase.  Someone here asked about the "High-End" FX CPUs.  So since any 8-core AMD CPU will perform similarly, barring the binning process to select the higher tier CPUs, the cheapest 8-core is usually the best decision.

 

Now we are at a recommendation to the buyer in this thread.  Intel CPUs are much faster clock-for-clock when compared to the AMD CPUs... this is 100% true.

 

So, is this buyer capable of buying an Intel, or are they dead set on AMD?  Will he/she answer maybe?  If they do not, there is not much to argue about.

 

Question to anyone to think about: 

 

If you were offered a Xeon E3-1231-V3 and Z97 SLI capable motherboard, or an AMD FX 9590 + Decent SLI capable motherboard for free (but can only pick one) what would you pick?

[Dabombinable]

I would like to remind everyone defending an AMD upgrade that costs $300+, that this is not your purchase.  Someone here asked about the "High-End" FX CPUs.  So since any 8-core AMD CPU will perform similarly, barring the binning process to select the higher tier CPUs, the cheapest 8-core is usually the best decision.

 

Now we are at a recommendation to the buyer in this thread.  Intel CPUs are much faster clock-for-clock when compared to the AMD CPUs... this is 100% true.

 

So, is this buyer capable of buying an Intel, or are they dead set on AMD?  Will he/she answer maybe?  If they do not, there is not much to argue about.

 

Question to anyone to think about: 

 

If you were offered a Xeon E3-1231-V3 and Z97 SLI capable motherboard, or an AMD FX 9590 + Decent SLI capable motherboard for free (but can only pick one) what would you pick?

And FX 9590 doesn't require a decent motherboard, but one of the best with the AM3+ socket.

[stconquest]

And FX 9590 doesn't require a decent motherboard, but one of the best with the AM3+ socket.

 

I am kind of trying to get a point across.  If you would take the Intel, how could you recommend the AMD to anyone as they cost roughly the same +/- $50 (not including CPU cooler of course).

 

A lot of people here have had experience with both Intel and AMD, including myself.  Even when I had my Phenom I would not recommend it if there was an Intel option available.  I knew what it could do and could not.  I had friends running i7 920/930s that would edge me out when it mattered... and they were running it stock.  I had a 1 GHz OC on the Phenom, it was okay at the time... but just okay.

 

Saying that the FX CPUs are anything more than "okay" is misleading to anyone buying a CPU.  They do a job, Intel does it better.

 

I am afraid the OP has left the building, probably a while ago too. 

[kronickiller]

On the same screen that you play FPS, which are normally played in full screen? Screenshots of your GPU usage, or I'll just go by the evidence provided all over the internet that an FX 9590 bottlenecks high end GPUs. Also, what's the minimum FPS use, with screen shots?

 

msi afterburner does take screenshots neat didnt know that

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zb79dg.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/25yu43a.jpg

http://i62.tinypic.com/2vijmrm.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/v3mxrl.jpg

 

gta 5 all settings ultra/max msaa2

1st row gpu temp / usage

2nd row fps

3rd row cpu usage / temp

 

there u go proof there is no bottleneck 100 percent gpu usage on a 290x so quit using words like bottleneck when u have no idea what your talking about ( theres a difference between  performance and bottleneck get your terms right )

yes intel is faster than amd but by no means does it bottleneck a gpu hell my stupid phenom 2 955 that i upgraded from could use the 290x 100% and thats only 3.2ghz quad core

and b4 anyone says the phenom is better its not my framerate almost doubled switching to this chip

[sgloux3470]

I've seen no fucking hype around it besides making bf4 play less shitty.

 

Then you haven't been looking around.  There's a ton of talk on DX12/Vulkan in game dev circles and there's constant discussion on hardware subreddits.

 

Not to mention all the buzz Mantle has had for awhile now.

[Dabombinable]

msi afterburner does take screenshots neat didnt know that

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zb79dg.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/25yu43a.jpg

http://i62.tinypic.com/2vijmrm.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/v3mxrl.jpg

 

gta 5 all settings ultra/max msaa2

1st row gpu temp / usage

2nd row fps

3rd row cpu usage / temp

 

there u go proof there is no bottleneck 100 percent gpu usage on a 290x so quit using words like bottleneck when u have no idea what your talking about ( theres a difference between  performance and bottleneck get your terms right )

yes intel is faster than amd but by no means does it bottleneck a gpu hell my stupid phenom 2 955 that i upgraded from could use the 290x 100% and thats only 3.2ghz quad core

and b4 anyone says the phenom is better its not my framerate almost doubled switching to this chip

Hmmm, in that case it seems you've got the only FX model capable of handling a higher end GPU, albeit with a 220W power consumption, expensive cooler and expensive motherboard.

[kronickiller]

cheapest motherboard i could find that wasnt asus, gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 rev 4

and maybe expensive cooler lol h100i gtx

[Dabombinable]

cheapest motherboard i could find that wasnt asus, gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 rev 4

and maybe expensive cooler lol h100i gtx

Looking at it, its one of the few able to run an FX 9590/suicide clocked FX8350 without failing.

[LordMustangGT]

I have screen shots of msi afterburner with both card flat out aswell, then I still get people that say it aint so.  haha  

[LordMustangGT]

Dabobminable was one of the first ones to post in there, yet he still tells me it bottle necks lol 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/315875-9590-sli-780ti/

[kronickiller]

i am guessing most people didnt do their research either bought krappy motherboards or not enough cooling in their computers

 

 

the fx chips do put alot of heat out that could kick up the temp of cards ( i gain 10c on my video card if i dont kick my computer outta silent mode)

there is utterly no reason for any system unless its 10 years old to bottleneck on chip specs alone. hell i wasnt even gonna upgrade my phenom 2 955 but it couldnt give me 60 fps steady in battlefield 4 so it got retired

 

i researched the living krap outta of each piece mainly because i was buying my upgrade paycheck to paycheck and bored out of my skull

[Dabombinable]

Dabobminable was one of the first ones to post in there, yet he still tells me it bottle necks lol 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/315875-9590-sli-780ti/

That is bottlenecking, the GPU usage is all over the place and unable to keep even close to a constant 99-100% GPU usage (which you see when you don't have a bottleneck). Comparing @kronickiller's SS to yours, it might not bottleneck a single high end card, but it sucks for multi GPU configs.

[Dabombinable]

i am guessing most people didnt do their research either bought krappy motherboards or not enough cooling in their computers

 

 

the fx chips do put alot of heat out that could kick up the temp of cards ( i gain 10c on my video card if i dont kick my computer outta silent mode)

there is utterly no reason for any system unless its 10 years old to bottleneck on chip specs alone

An FX 9590 is poor value though, considering what it truly is, and the fact that it wasn't that great a CPU at launch.

[kronickiller]

poor value i agree, but considering i had all the parts already and the cost of switching over everything to i7 the cost per a fps woulda been idiotic.

if your just upgrading and u have everything u need already FX is the best choice, If your starting from scratch for god sakes go intel and do not start at i3 lol

people recommend it all the time and its like your buddy at the bar telling u to take the fat chick while he goes for the hotter i5 or i7 lol

theres no way in a million years i would take a i3 vs my chip lol

better to have old faithful vs the stupid pixie

 

i only went for 9590 over 8350 cuz i didnt wanna deal with the constant heat of overclocking the xtra 20 bucks didnt bother me if it means my comp isnt a total heater during the summer ( power saving options are your friend during the summer )

[LordMustangGT]

the dips where just where I died in BF and it screen changes to the menu.  Go down some more and look at the AC black flag screen shot

[Dabombinable]

the dips where just where I died in BF and it screen changes to the menu.  Go down some more and look at the AC black flag screen shot

In regards to BF4, you must get killed quite a lot. In regards to AC BF, the GPU usage isn't smooth or that stable at all. An I'm pretty sure you've been told before that at higher resolutions the CPU becomes less of an issue, hence higher GPU usage. Drop the resolution a bit and compare the differences.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Dabobminable was one of the first ones to post in there, yet he still tells me it bottle necks lol 

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/315875-9590-sli-780ti/

that's a sweet bottleneck right there son! great job.

[Dabombinable]

that's a sweet bottleneck right there son! great job.

And he told me to look further down at his 'AC BF' SS. Note that only 4 CPU 'cores' were under load, and that if I had the same GPU setup, my Xeon X5450 would be less of an issue.

[i_build_nanosuits]

And he told me to look further down at his 'AC BF' SS. Note that only 4 CPU 'cores' were under load, and that if I had the same GPU setup, my Xeon X5450 would be less of an issue.

the xeon would be about the same as his 5ghz FX to be honest.

But clearly he fail to realise that CPU usage won't mean anything when it comes to gaming...GPU usage % is what matters and for his AC black flag run here's what it looks like:

 

It looks like he get GPU usage droping all the way into the 70% range all the time...

EVERY SINGLE ONE of these low peaks in this GPU load graph is when the CPU limited his GPU, each and every single one of these drops is most likely a drop in framerate in the 35 to 40FPS zone (i know, i did played through that game entirely on my FX-8320@4.6ghz and GTX 780...guess what: i had the same experience.)

 

I should make that picture my signature and title it: here's what a CPU bottleneck looks like.

[i_build_nanosuits]

[Dabombinable]

the xeon would be about the same as his 5ghz FX to be honest.

But clearly he fail to realise that CPU usage won't mean anything when it comes to gaming...GPU usage % is what matters and for his AC black flag run here's what it looks like:

 

It looks like he get GPU usage droping all the way into the 70% range all the time...

EVERY SINGLE ONE of these low peaks in this GPU load graph is when the CPU limited his GPU, each and every single one of these drops is most likely a drop in framerate in the 35 to 40FPS zone (i know, i did played through that game entirely on my FX-8320@4.6ghz and GTX 780...guess what: i had the same experience.)

 

I should make that picture my signature and title it: here's what a CPU bottleneck looks like.

I'm going to be comparing soon, considering the Xeon is the equivalent of a QX9775 (apart from the lower FSB speed of course) I should see some nice results.