FX 9590 Troubles

[Troika]

I tried to do everything I can and I just keep getting BSOD errors or just fail posts whenever I try to get this thing to even just turbo upto 5Ghz or just forcing it to run at 5Ghz all the time. The most success I had was setting overclocking to auto and specifying a x25 multiplier, leaving voltage on auto and disabling turbo. I was able to boot into windows and navigate for a while but as soon as I launched 3dmark, my computer just shutdown. I'm at a loss. I'm by no means an expert at overclocking but I tried to follow what little I could find about the 9590 but none of it seems to really work.  I know this motherboard is able to handle a 9590, it was one of the few that were actually recommended as platforms for it, but I don't get why its not turboing to 5Ghz at all. Another strange thing that I really can't wrap my mind around is that its only pulling 79w on max load. I thought this was supposed to be a 220w monster. I can't tell if that's an error on HWMonitor's part or if there's a problem with the cpu itself. When its running at 4.7Ghz, there doesn't seem to be a problem at all. I've used HWMonitor a lot to monitor other computers and it seemed pretty accurate so I'm not quite sure what's going on here.

Specs:
AMD FX-9590
Cosair H110i GTX
Asus 990FX Sabertooth R2.0
16GB G.Skill Sniper 1866Mhz (4x4GB)
2x Nvidia Geforce GTX 780 in sli
Corsair RMx 1000w

[Marinatall_Ironside]

10 minutes ago, Troika said:

I tried to do everything I can and I just keep getting BSOD errors or just fail posts whenever I try to get this thing to even just turbo upto 5Ghz or just forcing it to run at 5Ghz all the time. The most success I had was setting overclocking to auto and specifying a x25 multiplier, leaving voltage on auto and disabling turbo. I was able to boot into windows and navigate for a while but as soon as I launched 3dmark, my computer just shutdown. I'm at a loss. I'm by no means an expert at overclocking but I tried to follow what little I could find about the 9590 but none of it seems to really work.  I know this motherboard is able to handle a 9590, it was one of the few that were actually recommended as platforms for it, but I don't get why its not turboing to 5Ghz at all. Another strange thing that I really can't wrap my mind around is that its only pulling 79w on max load. I thought this was supposed to be a 220w monster. I can't tell if that's an error on HWMonitor's part or if there's a problem with the cpu itself. When its running at 4.7Ghz, there doesn't seem to be a problem at all. I've used HWMonitor a lot to monitor other computers and it seemed pretty accurate so I'm not quite sure what's going on here.

Specs:
AMD FX-9590
Cosair H110i GTX
Asus 990FX Sabertooth R2.0
16GB G.Skill Sniper 1866Mhz (4x4GB)
2x Nvidia Geforce GTX 780 in sli
Corsair RMx 1000w

Did you try running everything at optimal defaults (press F5 to set everything to Optimized Defaults)? I also recommend you use HWiNFO64, since that utility can access sensors that you wouldn't normally see with HWMonitor (such as VRM temperatures).

[Troika]

Just now, JurunceNK said:

Did you try running everything at optimal defaults (press F5 to set everything to Optimized Defaults)? I also recommend you use HWiNFO64, since that utility can access sensors that you wouldn't normally see with HWMonitor (such as VRM temperatures).

Yes, it was the first thing I did since the cpu and motherboard weren't purchased together. Let me check on that utility and get back to you.

[Vegetable]

HWMonitor doesnt know what it's talking about on power draw. Anyways, I used to have that same board and an 8350 that would do 4.9Ghz 24/7. Never could get 5Ghz stable at all. I think I was 24.5x mult at 1.46v with LLC on high. Was drawing like 1.49v under load but wasnt stable at any less llc. Gl actually getting a 5ghz fx chip

[Streetguru]

17 minutes ago, Troika said:

 

Dude, just run it at 4.5ghz at 1.4V or as low as you can get it, the extra 500mhz isn't going to be worth the crazy power/heat generated

[Enderman]

Just run it at stock, your cooler isn't even good enough to get a good overclock on that crappy CPU.

Maybe sell the CPU and motherboard and buy something better?

[Troika]

Interesting. Every time I try to launch HWMonitor, the system crashes.

 

24 minutes ago, Streetguru said:

Dude, just run it at 4.5ghz at 1.4V or as low as you can get it, the extra 500mhz isn't going to be worth the crazy power/heat generated

If I wanted a slower clocked, more efficient processor, I would have bought one. I picked the 9590 because its a stock 5Ghz chip. I also only paid $65 for it.

[Streetguru]

2 minutes ago, Troika said:

If I wanted a slower clocked, more efficient processor, I would have bought one. I picked the 9590 because its a stock 5Ghz chip. I also only paid $65 for it.

The chip only exists so AMD could say they released the first out of the box 5ghz CPU, no one should actually use it at 5ghz, because it's like 10% more performance for like 100% more power draw at more reasonable voltages. Do 4.7ghz or something then at 1.4V

[Troika]

2 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just run it at stock, your cooler isn't even good enough to get a good overclock on that crappy CPU.

Maybe sell the CPU and motherboard and buy something better?

It outperforms, barely, a Noctua NH-D15 so I'll disagree that it isn't good enough. Especially since the temps I get with the stock profile on the 9590 hitting only 52C. I had a Pentium G3258 running at 4.5Ghz and 1.2v and that temped at 59~60C.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Troika said:

It outperforms, barely, a Noctua NH-D15 so I'll disagree that it isn't good enough. Especially since the temps I get with the stock profile on the 9590 hitting only 52C. I had a Pentium G3258 running at 4.5Ghz and 1.2v and that temped at 59~60C.

Intel CPUs are fine running at 80-90C, the FX CPUs should always stay under 62C.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

Wouldn't something like a 7700K or 8700K be a better choice if the OP wanted to be able to run at 5 GHz?

 

Hopefully Ryzen 3000 series can hit 5+ GHz.  (Not really expecting Ryzen 2000 to reach that, although I wouldn't be surprised to see 4.5 GHz OC on the 2600X/2700X.)

[Troika]

8 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Wouldn't something like a 7700K or 8700K be a better choice if the OP wanted to be able to run at 5 GHz?

 

Hopefully Ryzen 3000 series can hit 5+ GHz.  (Not really expecting Ryzen 2000 to reach that, although I wouldn't be surprised to see 4.5 GHz OC on the 2600X/2700X.)

It would be, yes, but it would have easily cost me at least 3 times as much on the cpu cost alone. I paid $65 for the 9590 and $160 for the sabertooth board with 16GB of ram. $225 for the guts of my computer vs $330 for a 8700k (for some reason, used ones are selling for only $10 less), a Asrock Z370 Extreme4 is $135 (only $120 second hand) and a Crucial 2x8GB 2400 DDR4 kit is $85 used (finally a used deal that made sense) which would have set me back $550 or $525 if I bought everything second hand. A system based on the 7700k would be a similar situation. A delidded 7700k is $290, used z270 board is about $75 for a gigabyte z270 board and the same $85 crucial ram kit, $450 on the used market. If I was made of money, sure, I would have got a 8700k or maybe one of those i9s and all the high end gear I wanted but I'm not. I'm a college student that has to scrap by with whatever's left after tuition and bills.

[meenmeen1103]

That cpu is normally run underclocked to be fair, no matter what mobo, just because of instability issues. The four memory modules don't help memory controller stability either fyi, you could try running just two. 

[Troika]

24 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Intel CPUs are fine running at 80-90C, the FX CPUs should always stay under 62C.

Really? Why do FX chips have such low thermal thresholds?

[Troika]

Just now, meenmeen1103 said:

That cpu is normally run underclocked to be fair, no matter what mobo, just because of instability issues. The four memory modules don't help memory controller stability either fyi, you could try running just two. 

Huh. So it would be better to run two 8GB dimms instead of four 4GB dimms. Interesting!

[meenmeen1103]

Just now, Troika said:

It would be, yes, but it would have easily cost me at least 3 times as much on the cpu cost alone. I paid $65 for the 9590 and $160 for the sabertooth board with 16GB of ram. $225 for the guts of my computer vs $330 for a 8700k (for some reason, used ones are selling for only $10 less), a Asrock Z370 Extreme4 is $135 (only $120 second hand) and a Crucial 2x8GB 2400 DDR4 kit is $85 used (finally a used deal that made sense) which would have set me back $550 or $525 if I bought everything second hand. A system based on the 7700k would be a similar situation. A delidded 7700k is $290, used z270 board is about $75 for a gigabyte z270 board and the same $85 crucial ram kit, $450 on the used market. If I was made of money, sure, I would have got a 8700k or maybe one of those i9s and all the high end gear I wanted but I'm not. I'm a college student that has to scrap by with whatever's left after tuition and bills.

Another consideration is that a set frequency on a 7700k or 8700k is leagues different from the same frequency on a FX due to ipc.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Troika said:

Really? Why do FX chips have such low thermal thresholds?

Just different socket and CPU design that can handle lower temp loads, also they use a temperature algorithm that isn't very good, not an actual thermal sensor.

[meenmeen1103]

Just now, Troika said:

Huh. So it would be better to run two 8GB dimms instead of four 4GB dimms. Interesting!

Before going out and getting different sticks, just take two of the four you have out (one per channel) for testing purposes

[Troika]

Just now, meenmeen1103 said:

Before going out and getting different sticks, just take two of the four you have out (one per channel) for testing purposes

Will do, thanks!

[Vegetable]

5 minutes ago, Troika said:

Really? Why do FX chips have such low thermal thresholds?

It has something to do with the solder apparently

[Troika]

Just now, Enderman said:

Just different socket and CPU design that can handle lower temp loads, also they use a temperature algorithm that isn't very good, not an actual thermal sensor.

Well, no one ever claimed (me included) that the FX series of chips were very good. The lower end ones like the 6xx0 line were somewhat good value, especially when on sale. That was kinda the only point to them. At least Zen seems to have really brought something fresh to the table.

[Troika]

31 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Intel CPUs are fine running at 80-90C, the FX CPUs should always stay under 62C.

This is true, as weird at it seems to me. What's still odd is that HWMonitor is reporting that I'm currently idling between 11C and 20C  I thought that was complete bs but corsair link is reporting the same thing so maybe its legit.

[Troika]

3 minutes ago, Vegetable said:

It has something to do with the solder apparently

Ahh, ok, that makes sense.

[Enderman]

2 minutes ago, Troika said:

This is true, as weird at it seems to me. What's still odd is that HWMonitor is reporting that I'm currently idling between 11C and 20C  I thought that was complete bs but corsair link is reporting the same thing so maybe its legit.

It's that crappy temp sensing algorithm I mentioned earlier.

If you want something closer to the real CPU temp look at the motherboard socket temp on something like hwinfo or hwmonitor.

This is why you want to stay below 62C.

[meenmeen1103]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

It's that crappy temp sensing algorithm I mentioned earlier.

If you want something closer to the real CPU temp look at the motherboard socket temp on something like hwinfo or hwmonitor.

This is why you want to stay below 62C.

Isn't AMD OverDrive still reliable as far as giving temp threshold until max TDP? I mean I know it won't report an actual accurate current temp, but for staying within operating temps I guess