Question AMD 9590 cpu revival. 180$/yearPc. Old beast not yet overclocked.

[LRGee]

The problem with the FX is IPC (instructions per clock cycle). At the time, the FX had roughly 66% the IPC of a 3rdGen Intel. That puts your 9590 at a roughly 400% disadvantage to a Ryzen 5600x. And that's very important to FPS.

The cpu takes the code and pre-renders it into a frame instructions package for the gpu. Adds every object, size, detail, background, Ai, pre and post lighting affects, everything the gpu needs to create the frame picture. Every single step is an instruction. The lower the instruction count, the longer it takes to create a frame, the less frames per second that can be shipped to the gpu.

Resolution and detail levels is all on the gpu, that'll raise or lower in fps output, but cannot exceed whatever the cpu gives it. If the cpu can only send 45fps to the gpu, wouldn't make any difference if you had a 3090 in sli, you'd still max out at 45fps at any resolution or detail level.

Modern games are highly instruction intensive, exponentially more instructions just for stuff like AA, photo-realism, shadows, filtering, which didn't exist when the 9590 was new, as there wasn't a gpu that could realistically recreate that level of graphical intensity. You were looking at cards like the gtx690/gtx780ti at best.

Fun project, for sure, but do not expect miricles with fps, it'd be best used with a rtx3080 and 4k monitor, where FPS outputs are naturally lower due to resolution. Either that or a 1080p 60Hz.

+1 to your post.
I assume the 45 fps is based on image size per second vs either gpu memory clock or pci-e bottlenecking?

 

[LRGee]

I don't think you can use a m.2 card as a boot drive.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YoRKQy-UO4

With a RAID 0 i don't see the need to use m.2.

 

[Zerk2012]

With a RAID 0 i don't see the need to use m.2.

This is a bit dated but still about right.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485-10.html

EDIT using a old poor 9590 stressing over a SSD would be the last thing I would do.

 

[LRGee]

This is a bit dated but still about right.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485-10.html

EDIT using a old poor 9590 stressing over a SSD would be the last thing I would do.

OS: on single ssd.
Games:RAID 0
Photos: RAID 1 with 2x 2tbs Baracuda HDD
Video: in raid 1 then swap in RAID 0
I originaly bought 4 adata 128go ssd's 30$ each but i burned one quickly. I swapped to 1 sdd for my os and 2 ssd raid zero for games.

With no BIOS settings i can't tell. Even tho compatibility wasn't 100% i seen some insane transfer speed

 

[DSzymborski]

RAID is great for large sequential transfers of data that you don't care about (you need a separate backup for that).

Games and OS use isn't that at all. You'll get lots of nice benchmark numbers, but it's additional complexity that will be basically meaningless on a day-to-day level.

I understand that you're hot rodding, not trying to make something actually good, but again, just make sure your expectations are realistic. You'd get far better actual performance simply dropping your 290X into a $400 build.

 

[Karadjgne]

Games use extremely small files, most of them are just objects like a gun or pair of socks or a hair-do etc. Just a couple of Kb, with very few actually hitting the Mb size. As a result, for actual gaming, there's very little difference between a HDD and NVMe. The differences are only evident in the load times, even between SSD and HDD. The time it takes to move a Million of those tiny files from storage into ram, or the time it takes to load the massive amounts of data for maps/backgrounds.

This affects drop times, when loading maps in CSGO, instead of waiting 5 seconds to drop with ssd, it takes 30 seconds and half the team is already gone and/or dead by the time you can move. It affects Skyrim, a walk through a door outside into a city takes 10 seconds on ssd or upto 2 minutes from hdd depending on mods etc.

That makes the gaming experience lousy. Even if the game itself is fun.

Your typical hdd has a transfer rate of @ 120MB/s.
Your typical ssd has a transfer rate of @ 450MB/s.
Even running Raid, you'd still take twice as long to load anything as a single cheap ssd. It'll have very little if any affect on games, all that's already in cache/ram memory, it'll be the load times that are cut down, but still drastically slower than an SSD. Even an SSHD hybrid drive would be faster.