What does this amd requirement mean?

[MeatFeastMan]

I'm building a pc with the following specs:

CPU: FX 9590

GPU: GTX 750ti

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA UD3 R5

CPU Cooler: Noctua NH D15

Case: Corsair Carbide Air 740

 

On the fx 9000 series processor requirements page on the amd website, it says: 'Chassis exhaust fan mounted near the motherboard VRM components with at least 35CFM of air flow capacity'

http://support.amd.com/en-us/search/faq/295

 

I'm new to building pc's and all this technical nonsense. Would anyone be able to provide an easy to understand explanation of what all that means and how I would do that in my carbide air 740 build?

 

And that is my question by the way. My question isn't about the 9590 or the air cooler or whether I should change them or not. It's about the amd requirement stated on the page, so I don't want answers saying 'why would you use that processor' blah blah. Because it doesn't answer my question.

 

If anyone could help, that'd be great.

 

[Himommies]

DO NOT GET A ANY FX 9XXX SERIES CPU OR ANY FX IN GENREAL  BUT EVEN THE FX 8370 IS BETTER

WAIT FOR RYZEN

[MeatFeastMan]

Okay then, just ignore me completely.

[TheGamingBarrel]

It just means have a fan near the CPU Socket that is pulling away heat from the motherboard.

 

( Though there are better CPU and motherboard combo's out there, it's unrelated ) 

[MeatFeastMan]

Okay. Does the case come with a fan near that or would I need to buy one?

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Okay. Does the case come with a fan near that or would I need to buy one?

litteraly donot pay for a fx 9xxx series cpu

[MeatFeastMan]

I have already bought the processor and motherboard.

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 minutes ago, Himommies said:

DO NOT GET A ANY FX 9XXX SERIES CPU OR ANY FX IN GENREAL  BUT EVEN THE FX 8370 IS BETTER

WAIT FOR RYZEN

Fucking calm your tits, is your cap locks broken? 

 

Yes, it's a bad idea to buy a FX chip now but if he already owns it or is getting it second hand cheap, there's no real reason not to use it  

[TheGamingBarrel]

2 minutes ago, MeatFeastMan said:

Okay. Does the case come with a fan near that or would I need to buy one?

It includes one.

[WereCat]

FX9590 uses so much power that it creates immense amount of heat. They are saying that you really need to cool VRMs on the motherboard because they will get hot a lot.

If you are building PC today and don't have these components already...don't buy it...It is a waste of money. Either wait for AMD Ryzen or go with Intel.

[Himommies]

1 minute ago, MeatFeastMan said:

I have already bought the processor and motherboard.

Yes it includes a fan at the back

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, MeatFeastMan said:

I have already bought the processor and motherboard.

Sell it on craigslist or somewhere, you honestly don't want to be using such a horrible CPU.

Use the money to buy something better.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Sell it on craigslist or somewhere, you honestly don't want to be using such a horrible CPU.

Use the money to buy something better.

Well...it's not that bad of a CPU...I mean if you allow it to utilise all 8 of it's "brains" (not going to use the word core as people are gonna be mad again with shizzle how it's technically only a 4 core), it can match or even beat a 6600K (assuming that it's integer based) sooooo ya know, performance wise, it's not lacking too badly  

 

Although I wouldn't recommend the FX line up, some people needs to calm their tits when ever they see the word FX sooooo...  

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Well...it's not that bad of a CPU...I mean if you allow it to utilise all 8 of it's "brains" (not going to use the word core as people are gonna be mad again with shizzle how it's technically only a 4 core), it can match or even beat a 6600K (assuming that it's integer based) sooooo ya know, performance wise, it's not lacking too badly  

 

Although I wouldn't recommend the FX line up, some people needs to calm their tits when ever they see the word FX sooooo...  

No, it has bad single core performance, it is much worse than an i5 in almost every game or regular task that isn't rendering.

[Curious Pineapple]

You need a decent fan at the rear of the case near the IO panel blowing air out. A few on the front blowing air in wouldn't be a bad idea either

[Thony]

What it means is that the CPU is the hottest CPU on the market and needs beafy cooler to keep it tolerable. Otherwise u will burn the mobo down...

 

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

No, it has bad single core performance, it is much worse than an i5 in almost every game or regular task that isn't rendering.

True but you cannot say that the FX is worse at almost every single task except rendering...

 

Problem I have is when people talk as if the fucking FX chips have performance of a pentium 4 or something where it doesn't, telling him to return it, sell it ect. might not be actually helpful where answering the actual question would be much better.

So what he bought a FX chip? He made a mistake and if he can't return it then if he was to sell it, it's possible that he'll end up making a considerable loss not mentioning how a unlocked i5 platform overall will cost more than the FX with a comparable cooler. 

 

I mean he asked a simple fucking question where he didn't understand what AMD meant of having a decent fan at the back but instead gets slandered by 2 out of 4 people who answered him (not including myself) and well you know...

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Problem I have is when people talk as if the fucking FX chips have performance of a pentium 4 or something where it doesn't, t

...

Spoiler

 

[JoostinOnline]

25 minutes ago, Himommies said:

litteraly donot pay for a fx 9xxx series cpu

I found your new profile picture

[Mr.Meerkat]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Ermmmmmm did I say anything about gaming performance? Nope

Also I thought we were supposed to compare a 4.8GHz 8 core FX to the i5s where overall, you'll end up spending more for an unlocked i5 platform sooooooooooooo...you know  

Spoiler

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  (£120.98 @ Amazon UK) 
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler  (£64.25 @ CCL Computers) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990X-Gaming SLI ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£82.74 @ Eclipse Computers) 
Total: £267.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-01-25 21:55 GMT+0000

 

Versus

Spoiler

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£215.99 @ Aria PC) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£23.99 @ Amazon UK) 
Motherboard: Asus PRIME Z270-P ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£111.92 @ CCL Computers) 
Total: £351.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-01-25 21:56 GMT+0000

 

 

Reason why I didn't go with the cheapest z170 mobo is it's kinda unfair if it didn't have similar features to the FX board such as you know, SLI or m.2  

Also, the Noctua D14 is ermmmm...a bit overkill for a stock 8320E but to keep the comparison fair, you'll need to OC the 8320 thus it's fair to use a more expensive cooler.

 

So overall, you can get a fucking 8320E (which is slightly more expensive than a normal 8320), it's motherboard and a (cheaper) cooler for slightly more than a 6600K by itself...so can we stop comparing it to the fucking unlocked i5s when the FX platform is much cheaper?  

[Curious Pineapple]

10 minutes ago, Enderman said:

...

  Hide contents

 

Excellent comparison. Low end FX chip compared to mid and high end Intel chips, and all running at horridly low clock speeds too. Try running the same test on a P4 and see where it gets you The entire FX machine was probably cheaper than that i7 alone (dependant on GPU choice).

[JoostinOnline]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Ermmmmmm did I say anything about gaming performance? Nope

Also I thought we were supposed to compare a 4.8GHz 8 core FX to the i5s where overall, you'll end up spending more for an unlocked i5 platform sooooooooooooo...you know  

  Reveal hidden contents

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  (£120.98 @ Amazon UK) 
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler  (£64.25 @ CCL Computers) 
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990X-Gaming SLI ATX AM3+ Motherboard  (£82.74 @ Eclipse Computers) 
Total: £267.97
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-01-25 21:55 GMT+0000

 

Versus

  Reveal hidden contents

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£215.99 @ Aria PC) 
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£23.99 @ Amazon UK) 
Motherboard: Asus PRIME Z270-P ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£111.92 @ CCL Computers) 
Total: £351.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-01-25 21:56 GMT+0000

 

 

Reason why I didn't go with the cheapest z170 mobo is it's kinda unfair if it didn't have similar features to the FX board such as you know, SLI or m.2  

Also, the Noctua D14 is ermmmm...a bit overkill for a stock 8320E but to keep the comparison fair, you'll need to OC the 8320 thus it's fair to use a more expensive cooler.

 

So overall, you can get a fucking 8320E (which is slightly more expensive than a normal 8320), it's motherboard and a (cheaper) cooler for slightly more than a 6600K by itself...so can we stop comparing it to the fucking unlocked i5s when the FX platform is much cheaper?  

Even at stock speeds, the i5 is going to run much better on multi and single threaded levels.

6 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

Excellent comparison. Low end FX chip compared to mid and high end Intel chips, and all running at horridly low clock speeds too. Try running the same test on a P4 and see where it gets you The entire FX machine was probably cheaper than that i7 alone (dependant on GPU choice).

Since when are 4GHz and 3.9GHz low clock speeds?  And why do you think that matters so much?

 

Yet another person who doesn't understand there is a lot more to CPU performance than cores and labels.

[Curious Pineapple]

5 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Since when are 4GHz and 3.9GHz low clock speeds?  And why do you think that matters so much?

 

Yet another person who doesn't understand there is a lot more to CPU's than cores and labels.

Read the first line of the system info on each image. 1452 MHz. And it does matter, as from that image it looks like the FX will give 50 FPS, when in reality it's running at less than half it's rated speed.

 

And yes, I do understand what goes into CPU's, which is why I have pointed out that not only are all 3 being run at horridly low speed, but it is a comparison between a low end AMD processor, and a mid and high end Intel. Would a comparison between an i3, FX8300 and FX9560 be fair in a rendering test?

[Mr.Meerkat]

9 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Even at stock speeds, the i5 is going to run much better on multi and single threaded levels.

Single? Yep

Multi? Depends  

Here's an example where the FX almost doubles in performance...

http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4003&page=5 (look at the last benchmark in that page/Cryptography SHA score...)

Or a comfy 32% increase in performance

http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4003&page=7 (4.2GHz vs 4.2GHz, winrar)

 

Yes the i5 beats the FX in every single scenario in a single threaded workload but for fuck sakes, you're forgetting how my last post was dedicated to how a FX 8320 set up can cost up to 30% cheaper than a i5 6600K setup.

[JoostinOnline]

1 minute ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Single? Yep

Multi? Depends  

Here's an example where the FX almost doubles in performance...

http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4003&page=5 (look at the last benchmark in that page/Cryptography SHA score...)

Or a comfy 32% increase in performance

http://www.ocaholic.co.uk/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=4003&page=7 (4.2GHz vs 4.2GHz, winrar)

 

Yes the i5 beats the FX in every single scenario in a single threaded workload but for fuck sakes, you're forgetting how my last post was dedicated to how a FX 8320 set up can cost up to 30% cheaper. 

I wasn't talking about value.  And I agree that it is a better value.

 

And you're right, there are obviously different situations.  Most processes won't use up all those cores though, so in the end you're going to have an under-utilized CPU, meaning less performance.

7 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

And yes, I do understand what goes into CPU's, which is why I have pointed out that not only are all 3 being run at horridly low speed, but it is a comparison between a low end AMD processor, and a mid and high end Intel. Would a comparison between an i3, FX8300 and FX9560 be fair in a rendering test?

"An i3", as if they're even remotely close to each other.  The new i3's beat old i7's.