AMD FX 9590 stock turbo issue

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Rei Hino

Rei Hino

Reputable
Apr 7, 2014
23
0
4,510
Motherboard I'm using is Sabertooth 990FX/GEN3 R2.0 (bios v 2301) Power supply Corsair 1200i witch should be well then enough power. G.SKILL Trident X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) (2x for 32 GB) 1866 running @ set to manual settings @ 1866 and it's 8,9,9,24 timing and 2 dual GTX 680's in sli. with a H80I corsair water cooler.

I can turn Turbo in Bios to Auto or enabled it will show it is running as 5 ghz witch windows shows when it starts as well but even running windows assessment will cause windows to lock up. And so the question is if the processor on stock can do 5.0 ghz with no need to mess with oc settings why is it not stable? it's running with default voltage of 1.5. Although I also wonder if Turbo is working like it is suppose to IE keep 5.0 ghz untill stress is placed on the processor so all the cores are highly used and down clocking to 4.7 witch is How I thought it was suppose to work. So if anyone can help with this question I would appreciate it, as it okie @ 4.7 it just going to bug me I can't get it to a default 5.0. So for now Turbo is disabled. And I don't think asking AMD will help as they would probably say to e-mail Asus and back and forth.

I modified the Turbo with CPU Ratio to do 4.9 ghz a lil better instead of freezing programs crashes after a amount of time currently running Turbo set CPU Ratio set at 24.0 for 4.8 ghz. Turbo just seems to run the chip @ the perma clocked setting of 5.0 or 4.9 or 4.8 ect as far as I can tell witch is not how I thought Turbo was suppose to work. So yea I'm I doing something wrong I guess? I started trying to adjust settings after I figured out just setting Turbo for Auto or manual was not working.

Note the processor is fine @ 4.7 but im just buged by why Turbo is not working correctly. Any other settings needs to be adjusted ect or is Turbo just broken? Idea's, comments, adjustments?

 
man i dont know why you bought this thing in the first place...i have an FX-8320 wich is the same chip and with 1.5v on the core i have it running stable at 4.8ghz...anyway, i would downclock this CPU and use 1.45v on the core if i where you, 4.4 to 4.6ghz is the sweet spot for these chip, running higher will kill the chip in no time flat, i dont even know why amd pulled out that highly binned chip with insane clocks and voltage...anyway 4.4- 4.6 like i said will crush any game anyway...
 


i agree that you should not buy the fx 9xxx chips, but you said that 4.4-4.6ghz will crush any game, which is quite untrue. the clock speed is not a measure of the chips overall speed and is quite misleading. but OP, if your temps are under 70c then try to downclock to 4.5-4.7 ish and lower voltage to like 1.475
 
right now running 2 programs second life and guild wars 2 on muli monitors 57 c although it idles at about 32-36. I also have the 8350 it worked on turbo well @ 4.2 ghz I got this 9590 to put the 8350 in my backup system. so it was mostly a test if I was going to get a second processor might as well get something different. witch leads me back to the turbo issue 🙁 the chip was on guaranteed stock turbo oc to 5.0 right? lol
 
it comes OC'ed at 5.0ghz, yes. it is also a stable overclock, they test them before they ship them. but, if underclocking to 4.7ghz fixes the problem, then you should either use it at that, or return the chip if you can. if you want to spend $300 on a cpu, go with intel.
 
1.6 v what I manually set them to 1866 mhz speed 8,9,9,24 timing is the default although if I did put them at that manually it would just run them @ 1333
 
I reset the ram on default and this time ran windows assessment just to see if the cores under clocked at all using TurboV EVO and windows froze all cores was @ 90+ usages and was still @ 5012.5 or so ghz when windows frooze.
 
lowering the ram will only help if you are OC'ing by raising the FSB. i believe the fx 9590, along with most other fx chips, are unlocked meaning when you OC, you are only changing the cpu, not the ram.
 
I tried with one stick of ram when I woke up this morning. and took a new set of screenshots along with TurboV Evo status of processor activity during CPU assessment by windows before windows Froze.
 
I was running windows cpu assessment when I had that up to show the processor was still @ 5.0 ghz when taxed it. I thought turbo was suppose to under clock cores automatically back to the base of 4.7 when that much usage is on the cores. So it not running 85% ish without doing nothing to your statement Danbuscus25 I was taxing it doing the TurboV Evo so that is not a problem, But I thought Turbo was suppose to do for AMD like Nvidia boost do to Geforce cards overclock when it cool enough to and under clock when the card is running to hot from all i seen trying to test Turbo is just a fancy way of setting the FSB muliplayer as another number to get you a perma clocked speed without actually down clocking when it overheats, as I have yet to even on the 8350 processor actually seen the Ghz change from 4.0 - 4.2 and back to 4.0 ghz again under load, It just always runs @ 4.2.

(I would like to add I was asking in this thread about why Turbo seems to make things unstable the processor is just fine with Turbo turned off running @ 4.7 ghz it just bugs me as Turbo is a function of the processor that cannot get the processor to 5.0 on just stock settings as advertised out of the box as it say's, But has anyone seen Turbo work the way it suppose to? As I only have my own observations to go by)
 
playing around with it some more 4.9 ghz makes it unstable still after a bit it seems to be semi okie @ 4.8 and Im starting to think maybe something else besides the processor is making it unstable maybe a SSD drive or something? And using FSB to OC that way can only do a stable 202 @ 4809 GHZ to get a stable Windows starting.
 


nein. the chips just have no headroom left to overclock. if they did they would be like...5ghz chips w/ a 5.2 turbo or something.

you understand how turbo works yes? On single threaded apps it can "in best case scenarios" (id imagine low load scenarios) it will only clock up the one core your using to 5ghz. Similar to an intel user disabling hyperthreading or cores to achieve a higher overclock.

To put things further in perspective for you. I have a fx9590 which is under water (just an h100i) but I have lapped the chip and added fans for a push/pull setup. It wont do 5.0 stable (by my stnadards anyhow) at any voltage im comfortable with. It takes 1.53750 to get 4.9 stable. This is with turbo disabled which clocks all 8 cores to that speed all the time. (which is what i assume you are doing)

Some people have managed 5.1 but thats usually with a custom loop (which im keeping on my main rig ty!) and it generates tremendously more heat and usually takes even more voltage that what im using.

But yea - its not unusual, your problem isnt elsehwere.. its just the chip. You add more and more voltage it will eventually be stable but you will likely run out of cooling headroom. I already come close to throttle temps (80c) under prime95 at 1.5375.

Its just a limit of the silicon/process used this time around. People arent lying when they tell you its the same as an overclocked 8350. It is. They take the best samples from those wafers and use them as 9590 and 9370 chips. How many 8350s do you see hitting 4.8 across all cores reliably? Not many - only the best ones. Thats what this was designed as. A guarunteed surefire easy, drop in option for a high clockspeed. Overpriced? sure. Ineffecient? you betcha. Pinnacle of performance for this generations amd lineup. Uh huh.

They werent made for the overclockers segment - but we knew that out of the gate. If your anything like me, you were overly optimistic or you told yourself you would get one of the exceptional chips that actually did overclock a bit 😛

Reminds me of when i broke my first 4770k. I told myself atleast my next one would overclock better. After selling a spare monitor to cover the loss - i found out it was an abysmal abysmal chip and wanted to kill myself 😛 Of course fast forward a few months and my new 4790 is a sex machine. One of the few 5.0 chips. (i run it at 4.9 so it matches my amd rig though cause im anal like that lol) and trust me i tried and tried to get the 9590 running 5.0 for obvious reasons, but even as a seasoned overclocker with the best supporting hardware money can buy.... GG.

So TLDR. Its not a bad anything bud.. it just is.
 
i have one of these nasty chips, they suffer from massive spikes what can crash your system before it even gets a chance to show on any monitoring software.
i got mine stable by underclocking it to 4.5ghz and manually setting the overclock to 4.7ghz
it now can last a stress test from prime95 easly for well over an hour.
all other settings are as default.

i will eventually get round to raising the overclock and see what happens when i get time.

i have been all over the net looking for solutions, and tried everything, this is the closest i have got to getting it the way i want. it has nothing to do with your ram, its simply just a crappy chip and even crazy cooling does not help.

Edit:

Ok it seems setting the overclock manually to anything over 4.7 gets ignored and it simply runs at the base i set of 4.5 so guess i will just leave it the way it is, at least then im still getting the 4.7 even if it is oc to that.
 


I would like to see your BIOS settings if possible, I would love to run my 9590 at 4.7 but have not been able to get any kind of stability above 4.3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom