what's wrong with the amd fx 9590?

[Darkseth]

And in addition to all those negative aspects already said:

 

Even at 4,7 ghz (Turbo @ 5.0) it just manages to slightly go past a NON-OC Intel Sandy Bridge, which came out 2011.

 

150€ is good. But its really NOT worth spending money for a high end mainboard (because you need a VERY good voltage control, 220 watt isnt something cheap mobos can do), and a high end Cooler.

 

An Intel i5 6500 is Faster in most games, and has a TDP of 65. 65 vs 220.

[Kobathor]

I said some. What I mean is the boards that have like 4+1 power phases (most of them) will have said VRMs melt or combust.

A 4770 can melt some motherboards

[TheRandomness]

A 4770 can melt some motherboards

Some, but the 9590 can melt most...

[Suika]

Man, threads like these make me miss Faceman. Here's the scientificy answer.

 

 

The Bulldozer architecture was released in 2011, but it had been in development for many years.  It basically reused an old architecture that had already been phased out years ago.  They reused it, and marketed it well to trick users into thinking it was something spectacular.  "How could an 8 core, 4Ghz CPU possibly be bad?"  One word:  Architecture.  This CPU is not good now, and it wasn't even good when it was released.  Please give this article a read because it does a much better job of explaining this than I will ever be able to.  Analyzing Bulldozer

 

The architecture behind the FX CPUs cannot keep up with high end graphics cards that require strong cores to consistently feed the card.  Monitor your GPU load in your games and you will quickly see that your GPU is not running at 90%+ if you own a high end graphics card paired with an FX processor.  Use an FX with a mid range GPU all you want, that is fine and you won't limit the card's potential and makes for a much more balanced rig. If you get into the upper echelon of GPUs, that is when you are holding your card back by the FX.  This also doesn't bode well for the future because as GPUs get more powerful, the FX will simply not be able to keep up with even mid-range GPUs.  As of now, the highest end GPU I would pair with an FX that won't limit its potential is an R9 280/GTX770.

 

There are very few games that are very well multithreaded, and even in those games, such as CoD:AW, an i3 is still beating out an FX9.  The reason behind this is because games typically have one main thread, Core #0.  When this main thread is being choked by poor single core performance, the rest of the threads struggle.  So even in these really well multithreaded PC port games, we are still seeing Intel processors beating out FXs because their poor IPC simply can't give as good as results on that main thread.

 

When AMD sends out R9 290Xs for review, or release new drivers they send out Intel i7s along with them because they know their FX processors can't power their high end GPUs to their max potential.  That's a big red flag.

-Source

 

And here's a gaming graph.

 

Generally the people who recommend it are fanboys, misinformed, or are willing to feed you false information to help support AMD to bring 'em back from the dead.

[Majestic]

it's not enough. No one ever said that. 8320 will definitely melt boards with 4+1 delivery too. Please edit your post so someone doesn't buy 8320 on a mobo with 4+1 power delivery.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/525209-860k-bottleneck/page-2#entry6977193

 

One of the first I could find.

[ZetZet]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/525209-860k-bottleneck/page-2#entry6977193

 

One of the first I could find.

he said a FEW 4+1 boards can handle a MILD OC. 

 

also it's Prysin, he would defend AMD in his sleep

[Majestic]

he said a FEW 4+1 boards can handle a MILD OC. 

 

I said one of the first, you know how many topics this website hosts? Even looking on google is difficult.

 

It's downplayed quite a lot with 8320 builds, but not with 9590's.

[ZetZet]

I said one of the first, you know how many topics this website hosts? Even looking on google is difficult.

 

It's downplayed quite a lot with 8320 builds, but not with 9590's.

Idk, I always see people recommending 970 chipset boards with 8+2 power phases. Still. 9590 would struggle to run even on those boards. It throttles on 990x with it's stock speeds. 

[Kobathor]

Man, threads like these make me miss Faceman. Here's the scientificy answer.

 

Generally the people who recommend it are fanboys, misinformed, or are willing to feed you false information to help support AMD to bring 'em back from the dead.

Now I have to admit, that graph is weird. Because my 8350+7970 beats the 8350 @5Ghz + an R9 290x. Weird stuff.

[Suika]

Now I have to admit, that graph is weird. Because my 8350+7970 beats the 8350 @5Ghz + an R9 390. Weird stuff.

I forgot which source it was that always had weird info on it, probably that one then. Here's some others.

 

 

[GodSpoon]

You need  a 200$ motherboard... (and heat)

 

 

No it comes with the heat included