Fx 9590 .Should I buy it?

[Benji_w]

if you are planning to go Haswell, no. you wont notice much.

 

skylake 6600k. Yes you will notice.

 

 

also, biggest difference between AMD and Intel, although this is more of a intel feature then a CPU performance thing... boot up times.

NEVER have i managed to get close to Intel system boot up times on ANY AMD setup. Irregardless of clockspeeds (we are talking stock FX 8320, FX 8320 running 4.52GHz, 7870k running 4.6GHz)

 

People have said the opposite in the FX owners club, no offense but clockspeed doesn't effect hard drive or SSD loading times? Also my system booted up quicker than my intel buddies systems do too. If your system is booting up under 10 seconds then thats the only noticable difference as in the FX club someone has a system booting up in 7 secs, most of us with bloated windows installs are loading in at 25 secs from bios to fully loaded.

[adarshbp010]

People have said the opposite in the FX owners club, no offense but clockspeed doesn't effect hard drive or SSD loading times? Also my system booted up quicker than my intel buddies systems do too. If your system is booting up under 10 seconds then thats the only noticable difference as in the FX club someone has a system booting up in 7 secs, most of us with bloated windows installs are loading in at 25 secs from bios to fully loaded.

My fx 8150 build takes 7-8 sec to boot up with the fast boot switch on the motherboard turned on

[Benji_w]

My fx 8150 build takes 7-8 sec to boot up with the fast boot switch on the motherboard turned on

 

Google boot racer and install it and try it out for yourself.

[FLUFFYJELLO]

And my 4790K takes 6.6 second to boot. My 4690K takes a whopping 3.1 seconds to boot, though that might be because of how simple a system it is (only 1 SSD, no HDD, fastboot enabled). Nothing either of you have said changes anything: the 9590 is abysmal is terms of performance/$; and certainly not worth it to "upgrade" from an 8150.

And your "don't compare a years old platform to a new one" kinda works against you. Why upgrade within the same generation of processors, ESPECIALLY when that generation is years old now? It doesn't make sense.

[adarshbp010]

And my 4790K takes 6.6 second to boot. My 4690K takes a whopping 3.1 seconds to boot, though that might be because of how simple a system it is (only 1 SSD, no HDD, fastboot enabled). Nothing either of you have said changes anything: the 9590 is abysmal is terms of performance/$; and certainly not worth it to "upgrade" from an 8150.

And your "don't compare a years old platform to a new one" kinda works against you. Why upgrade within the same generation of processors, ESPECIALLY when that generation is years old now? It doesn't make sense.

Thats y i asked whether i should wait for next gen (in the first post)

I think ill wait

I was eager to upgrade coz the bottleneck was bad (bf4 ~125fps normal , ~60fps bottleneck)

But as I said before Intel is superior

It is a clear winner

And amds target consumer are low budget builders thats y they have such a huge success in India ,China and other asian countries

Western markets dont get them huge profits

They just create some innovative costly cpu's and then continue with their low cost cpu's for profits

[crystal6tak]

Should admit intel cpu's are a slight better

They do better but normally it cannot be noticed

They do get better scores in benchmarks but thats not y we use our PC's for

U r telling him to compare years old cpu with a cpu that just launched lets wait for 'zen' cpu's for real comparision

No offense but please...stop spreading BS, piledriver/bulldozer cores are just too weak to handle gaming properly. Nehalem cores can outpace them easily and that's from 2008.

 

EDIT:

Wow, ok, I don't even know what your opinion is now. One post your saying how you think there's little difference, next post you say you know how amd cores are weak. Nevermind this rant if you're already well aware of the situation of the piledriver/bulldozer cores.

 

In actuality, piledriver/bulldozer chips have the upper hand in benchmarks. Why? Cause they're cheap, dirt cheap. Because of how weak the cores are, they're compensated by spamming more cores and sold at insanely low price. A brand new 8320 goes for $120 and matches a 4670K which goes for $260 in terms of raw performance. So if you want to do media production (like editing videos) on the cheap, AMD is a pretty good choice due to the performance per dollar.

 

In gaming however...these cores gets WREKT. It's simple really, most developers have little incentive to make their games utilize 8 cores properly (normally they just code them to run in 2 to 4 threads). Very few games (yes they exist, but they're in the minority), either utilize 8 cores properly or use so little CPU it doesn't matter. 

 

So if you're building a rig for gaming, AMD should be avoided as far away as possible with a 10 mile road.

 

That 980 you have there, install msi afterburner and monitor your GPU usage in game. Any time it's not 95-99% usage, that's a CPU bottleneck right there. You can see for yourself just how many games your CPU is bottlenecking you.

 

So please, I've seen you put several post in this thread about how there's little difference in games in AMD vs Intel. That's simply not true. 

 

As to how to solve this, if you just have to stick with AMD, I guess you can buy an 9590. But buy second hand ones. Please don't buy them at full price. They're not worth that much nor is it a smart idea to continue investing in this dead platform.

 

I would really suggest selling that fancy motherboard and CPU and get an intel setup.

[adarshbp010]

No offense but please...stop spreading BS, piledriver/bulldozer cores are just too weak to handle gaming properly. Nehalem cores can outpace them easily and that's from 2008.

In actuality, piledriver/bulldozer chips have the upper hand in benchmarks. Why? Cause they're cheap, dirt cheap. Because of how weak the cores are, they're compensated by spamming more cores and sold at insanely low price. A brand new 8320 goes for $120 and matches a 4670K which goes for $260 in terms of raw performance. So if you want to do media production (like editing videos) on the cheap, AMD is a pretty good choice due to the performance per dollar.

In gaming however...these cores gets WREKT. It's simple really, most developers have little incentive to make their games utilize 8 cores properly (normally they just code them to run in 2 to 4 threads). Very few games (yes they exist, but they're in the minority), either utilize 8 cores properly or use so little CPU it doesn't matter.

So if you're building a rig for gaming, AMD should be avoided as far away as possible with a 10 mile road.

That 980 you have there, install msi afterburner and monitor your GPU usage in game. Any time it's not 95-99% usage, that's a CPU bottleneck right there. You can see for yourself just how many games your CPU is bottlenecking you.

So please, I've seen you put several post in this thread about how there's little difference in games in AMD vs Intel. That's simply not true.

As to how to solve this, if you just have to stick with AMD, I guess you can buy an 9590. But buy second hand ones. Please don't buy them at full price. They're not worth that much nor is it a smart idea to continue investing in this dead platform.

I would really suggest selling that fancy motherboard and CPU and get an intel setup.

Yup i agree my bulldozer is a piece of **** when it comes to gaming and piledriver are a lil better but intel just wrecks them

I have a maximus iv extreme and i7 2600k [is this cpu good?]from 2 days now (my friend had them)

Its really annoying that u have to have a different type of socket for about every gen of intel processor's

Im thinking of getting a 6th gen cpu but for that i have to buy a new mobo and a pair of ddr4 memory

Gotta save a lot of money now

[emoji13] [emoji23] [emoji51]

[adarshbp010]

EDIT:

Wow, ok, I don't even know what your opinion is now. One post your saying how you think there's little difference, next post you say you know how amd cores are weak. Nevermind this rant if you're already well aware of the situation of the piledriver/bulldozer cores.

I myself got confused in the middle [emoji13]

I think (my original and true opinion) intel is superior

(But seeing some benchmarks and game test they showed amd to be similar in performance so i got a lil conflicted with my self)

[adarshbp010]

Watch this jayztwocents video (https://youtu.be/tvLRZxRL8N8)

He is a really reliable source for me so i got a lil confused on whether to side intel or rethink about this matter

[BlackXbonE]

On which motherboard?

gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 rev 4

[jcw150]

STEP AWAY FROM THE 9590

[artificialRAGE]

For the love of god don't

[GDRRiley]

Isn't that cpu just an overclocked 8350? So no don't buy it

yeah

[SteveGrabowski0]

 

Picking up an unlocked i5 system soon, I've used intel chips and seen barely any difference buddy. I'm not deluding myself at all.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1534128/vishera-vs-devils-canyon-a-casual-comparison-by-an-average-user

 

Why are you getting an i5 then if there's no difference?

[Benji_w]

Why are you getting an i5 then if there's no difference?

 

Because it was £300? Because originally it was for my GF but she's building a 6600K powered gaming rig? Because we want a multimedia PC for the living room and it has WiFi via pcie card? Urm... because I want to de-lid it and watercool it and overclock it because that's my hobby? I want to see why everyone wanks over them? Geez, running out of reasons now, hmmm what else can I say? I nearly bought an FX 9590 yesterday! Was nice and cheap and so enticing! 

[Benji_w]

gigabyte 990fxa-ud3 rev 4

 

Yep that will throttle like fucking crazy with a 9590 in it so no wonder...

[adarshbp010]

Yep that will throttle like fucking crazy with a 9590 in it so no wonder...

I over clocked my fx8150 to 4.82 ghz

It won't bottleneck my gtx 980 now right?

Im seeing some improvement in fps

[s3ns3]

no

[Benji_w]

I over clocked my fx8150 to 4.82 ghz

It won't bottleneck my gtx 980 now right?

Im seeing some improvement in fps

 

Check it's stable with stress testing software.

[JerkyMcDilerino]

Buy it as the heater in winter session. 

[adarshbp010]

Check it's stable with stress testing software.

Its stable

So no bottlenecking now right?

[Benji_w]

Its stable

So no bottlenecking now right?

 

Stable how? Don't say you ran prime for 4 hours and it was fine cos prime takes a long time to show you fucked up lol.

[Jahramika]

Works great get it if will provide for all your needs in a system. Mine runs every game 100% np. Sure its not as fast as the top Intel but cost a ton less.

[BlackXbonE]

Yep that will throttle like fucking crazy with a 9590 in it so no wonder...

yep, i had to put a fan directly over the VRMs to keep it from too big throttles.

[matthewjbauer]

Not to beat a dead horse but I built my dad an AMD FX-8350 system that he was supposed to be using for video editing. We wanted the 8 threads. Problem is we cannot let the CPU turbo with the massive Silverstone AR02. I was thinking about getting a Be Quiet or Noctua split heatsink with the dual fans, but you run into RAM slots being covered. If you are willing to spend $100-$200 on water cooling, then go for it. Otherwise... NO