AMD FX-9590 and I7-2600k Ivory Bridge.

[Sejersen]

Hey you guys
First of, sorry for the bad information I'm giving you guys; But here goes.

I wan't to buy a new CPU, the AMD FX-9590. I have the I7-2600k Ivory Bridge installed at the moment, but it just don't cut it anymore. I am afraid of buying the new CPU because of my motherboard is around 2 years old now. the name is Pro something(The BIOS version is American Megatrends from 15-07-2011).
Well, I was wondering if you guys would know whether or not I would be capable of inserting the AMD FX-9590 into my current motherboard; as in does the AMD FX-9590 and the I7-2600k Ivory Bridge have the same sockets? And is it even worth it for games like Battlefield 4 and equally high-end games?

thanks

 

[getochkn]

Nope, you need a new board. AMD and Intel aren't compatible. In fact, you'd probably have a hard time even finding a Intel cpu depending on your board.

I think the 9590 isn't worth it. Too much power for a small increase. If you want to go AMD, the 8350 is a good one. intel, the I5-4670k is the price equal of it.

 

[CTurbo]

No AMD shares a socket with any Intel

 

[Onus]

This would not be an upgrade. The Sandy Bridge i7 will outperform the FX in most tasks. Any difference in games may be more attributable to the graphics card you are using.
The sockets are entirely different.
What graphics card do you have now? How much RAM? Upgrades there may be more meaningful than a CPU upgrade. Overclocking your CPU is another option.
Edit: to fix brain fart.

 

[Sakkura]

The Core i7-2600K is generally better than the FX-9590.

 

[CTurbo]

i7 2600K is Sandy Bridge. You could get a i7 3770K with your current motherboard. They don't really get much better than that.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

1-2600k is not ivy bridge, its sandy bridge.
2-AMD cpus can not fit in Intel socket motherboards.
3-FX-9590 is a waste of money. 8350/8320 is a better price/performing ratio cpu.

 

[CTurbo]

I can't imagine a whole lot of situations where a 2600k would not "cut it anymore"

 

[Onus]

I can't imagine a whole lot of situations where a 2600k would not "cut it anymore"

Exactly. We need to know the rest of the system specs. What graphics card(s), and how much RAM?

 

[geofelt]

Absolutely not.
The sockets between amd and intel are different.

The FX series are good if you have multi core enabled apps that are cpu bound.
Games in general, use only 2-3 fast cores. I think it unlikely that you would be satisfied with the fx.

Because you have a "K" cpu, you can overclock it to good effect, gaining 20% more performance conservatively. That assumes your chipset is a Z77 or P67. Have you done that?

 

[filippi]

Problems with Battlefield 4? It's not your cpu's fault. Look elsewhere.

Ref. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

 

[getochkn]

The FX series are good if you have multi core enabled apps that are cpu bound.
Games in general, use only 2-3 fast cores.

Last gen games use 2-3 cores. They are becoming more and more multicore dependant.

 

[IAMEXTREME]

The FX series are good if you have multi core enabled apps that are cpu bound.
Games in general, use only 2-3 fast cores.

Last gen games use 2-3 cores. They are becoming more and more multicore dependant.

+1

 

[geofelt]

The FX series are good if you have multi core enabled apps that are cpu bound.
Games in general, use only 2-3 fast cores.

Last gen games use 2-3 cores. They are becoming more and more multicore dependant.

I have yet to see benchmarks that show dependencies or scaling for more than 4 cores.
One exception I think may be FSX.
No doubt, there are others.

I would be interested in seeing some links that show the effectiveness of more cores vs. faster cores.

 

[getochkn]

The FX series are good if you have multi core enabled apps that are cpu bound.
Games in general, use only 2-3 fast cores.

Last gen games use 2-3 cores. They are becoming more and more multicore dependant.

I have yet to see benchmarks that show dependencies or scaling for more than 4 cores.
One exception I think may be FSX.
No doubt, there are others.

I would be interested in seeing some links that show the effectiveness of more cores vs. faster cores.

One example

why does the i3 530 and the i5 760 and the i7 930, all the same ghz, then have a 30+fps difference between them? Same with the AMD. I see this becoming more the trend with games,

 

[Sejersen]

This would not be an upgrade. The Sandy Bridge i7 will outperform the FX in most tasks. Any difference in games may be more attributable to the graphics card you are using.
The sockets are entirely different.
What graphics card do you have now? How much RAM? Upgrades there may be more meaningful than a CPU upgrade. Overclocking your CPU is another option.
Edit: to fix brain fart.

I just bought the EVGA GTX 770 Dual Superclocked - I got 16 gb ram

I've though ALOT about overclocking my CPU, even got the EVGA Precision in order to do so, but to be honest, I've been to scared to even venture into overclocking. But yea, overclocking my CPU would be a way to do it; But was simply wondering if there was a more safe way to do it

 

[Sejersen]

I can't imagine a whole lot of situations where a 2600k would not "cut it anymore"

Exactly. We need to know the rest of the system specs. What graphics card(s), and how much RAM?

16 GB ram, EVGA GTX 770 Dual Superclocked(4gb).

 

[Onus]

What isn't performing as well as you'd like? If it is a game, try turning off AA and/or lowering other graphical settings. If that makes a difference, then the graphics card is the bottleneck. If it makes no difference, the CPU is.

 

[Sejersen]

Problems with Battlefield 4? It's not your cpu's fault. Look elsewhere.

Ref. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

What isn't performing as well as you'd like? If it is a game, try turning off AA and/or lowering other graphical settings. If that makes a difference, then the graphics card is the bottleneck. If it makes no difference, the CPU is.

Well, it isn't graphical issues that I'm curious about, it's my FPS which drops beneath 50 when playing BF4 on ultra (EVERYTHING on ultra). I know it isn't necessary to play with that high graphics, but I like to be able to play any game at max settings. And since I JUST bought new graphics card, I thought perhaps, since my CPU was showing a notice mark on "Canyourunit" that would be my problem.

 

[getochkn]

Problems with Battlefield 4? It's not your cpu's fault. Look elsewhere.

Ref. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

What isn't performing as well as you'd like? If it is a game, try turning off AA and/or lowering other graphical settings. If that makes a difference, then the graphics card is the bottleneck. If it makes no difference, the CPU is.

Well, it isn't graphical issues that I'm curious about, it's my FPS which drops beneath 50 when playing BF4 on ultra (EVERYTHING on ultra). I know it isn't necessary to play with that high graphics, but I like to be able to play any game at max settings. And since I JUST bought new graphics card, I thought perhaps, since my CPU was showing a notice mark on "Canyourunit" that would be my problem.

To determine if you cpu or gpu is being limited, try running the game in a window and watch task manager, or open hardware monitor to see your gpu usage and cpu usage.

For example, on my system, an 8 core AMD, with a 7970, BF3 on ultra, my cpu cores run about 60% and my gpu is at 99% on Ultra. That shows my cpu isn't bottlenecking and my gpu is my determining factor in how many fps I am getting, which about 40-60fps. This is fine really because any video card is going to run at max and pump out as many frames per second.

Now if your cpu is at 100%, and your gpu at 50%, then your cpu is limiting what your gpu can do.

Ideally, your cpu shouldn't be maxed, but your gpu can because it's going to work as fast as it can always to pump out more fps.

 

[Sejersen]

Problems with Battlefield 4? It's not your cpu's fault. Look elsewhere.

Ref. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

What isn't performing as well as you'd like? If it is a game, try turning off AA and/or lowering other graphical settings. If that makes a difference, then the graphics card is the bottleneck. If it makes no difference, the CPU is.

Well, it isn't graphical issues that I'm curious about, it's my FPS which drops beneath 50 when playing BF4 on ultra (EVERYTHING on ultra). I know it isn't necessary to play with that high graphics, but I like to be able to play any game at max settings. And since I JUST bought new graphics card, I thought perhaps, since my CPU was showing a notice mark on "Canyourunit" that would be my problem.

To determine if you cpu or gpu is being limited, try running the game in a window and watch task manager, or open hardware monitor to see your gpu usage and cpu usage.

For example, on my system, an 8 core AMD, with a 7970, BF3 on ultra, my cpu cores run about 60% and my gpu is at 99% on Ultra. That shows my cpu isn't bottlenecking and my gpu is my determining factor in how many fps I am getting, which about 40-60fps. This is fine really because any video card is going to run at max and pump out as many frames per second.

Now if your cpu is at 100%, and your gpu at 50%, then your cpu is limiting what your gpu can do.

Ideally, your cpu shouldn't be maxed, but your gpu can because it's going to work as fast as it can always to pump out more fps.

So in short; Play BF4 while watching task manager for CPU Usage? And if one or the other is lacking that is my bottleneck?

 

[getochkn]

So in short; Play BF4 while watching task manager for CPU Usage? And if one or the other is lacking that is my bottleneck?

Your gpu is usually always going to be maxxed, it will just run fatser and pump out fps. It's making sure that your cpu isn't maxed and your video card at like 50%.

 

[Sakkura]

You can be CPU bottlenecked without the CPU being at 100% load. It's easier to see a GPU bottleneck, but requires a program that can monitor GPU load. MSI Afterburner is one example.

 

[logainofhades]

Your CPU is fine. Are you overclocked at all? If not and you have a P67/z68/z77 motherboard and a proper CPU cooler, bump the multiplier to 40 for an easy 4.0ghz. There is nothing that CPU can't handle at that speed and that speed should be attainable by any 2600k.

 

[Sejersen]

Your CPU is fine. Are you overclocked at all? If not and you have a P67/z68/z77 motherboard and a proper CPU cooler, bump the multiplier to 40 for an easy 4.0ghz. There is nothing that CPU can't handle at that speed and that speed should be attainable by any 2600k.

Alright then, Overclocking it is Thanks for the answer