ANY Benefits to FX Processors?

[Atomicdonut17]

So, I've not been in the forums very long, and just as long have I been a rookie techie- although in my short time I've learned a pretty good bit and helped a lot of people. In my experiences, I've learned that a general rule of thumb is to turn away from FX processors, due to their atrocious overheating, age, etc. However, people still use them. Is there any real benefit to them besides their higher core count (which doesn't seem to help anything) and cheaper market value?

 

[synphul]

I wouldn't touch a 9590 for free honestly. One of amd's worst cpu's, power hungry, difficult to run at stock most of the time. Many default to downclocking it just to get it stable. Requires an expensive mobo to actually handle it with suitable vrm's and liquid coolers in the $100 or so range. If you can afford all that you can afford ryzen and still come out on top.

Pair it with a 580 and do 1440p in any game? A 580 isn't superior to a 970 and it struggles with 1440p. Some seriously questionable speculation here.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - FX-9590 4.7GHz 8-Core OEM/Tray Processor ($152.20 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H100i v2 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($112.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus - Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($176.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $442.18
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-09 14:56 EDT-0400

VS.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($312.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard ($107.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $420.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-09 14:58 EDT-0400

With ryzen you get 8 cores with smt as well as the improved ipc of ryzen, it runs cooler, consumes less power and will kick the snot out of any fx. It comes with a stock cooler, the 9590 doesn't. Even if you decide to go with an aftermarket cooler to oc, it still won't require a $100+ aio to cool it. Ryzen 5's with 6c/12t can be had for considerably cheaper so that's not even a best case or cheapest ryzen build. If ever there was a reason to ask if there's ANY reason to go with fx (as in no reason to do so) the 9590 is the poster child.

 

[0ldsch00l]

THe power consumption is no diferent then any OCed vishera, they all push 200W, the only dificulty at stock is on board not meant for it with poor VRMs, of course it needs an expensive mobo, they are the ones with beefy VRMs but anyone running a Vishera the right way doesnt buy a old nforce chipset to have to mod it to make it work... As far as liquid cooling Ill bet you money Ill get a stock 9590 under 50 degrees full load even pre wraith default cooling....

9590s have never been the avg pop in and use CPU, it takes tweaking and choosing right parts, but the way you describe it is kind of twisting it Because I dont run a saber kitty in fact the VRM on this board might be better and its a 970 and have popped so many FXs in here, an 8300 in my hands will use just as much power as that 9590

I wouldn't touch a 9590 for free honestly. One of amd's worst cpu's, power hungry, difficult to run at stock most of the time. Many default to downclocking it just to get it stable. Requires an expensive mobo to actually handle it with suitable vrm's and liquid coolers in the $100 or so range. If you can afford all that you can afford ryzen and still come out on top.

Pair it with a 580 and do 1440p in any game? A 580 isn't superior to a 970 and it struggles with 1440p. Some seriously questionable speculation here.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - FX-9590 4.7GHz 8-Core OEM/Tray Processor ($152.20 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: Corsair - H100i v2 70.7 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($112.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus - Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($176.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $442.18
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-09 14:56 EDT-0400

VS.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($312.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI - B350 TOMAHAWK ATX AM4 Motherboard ($107.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $420.77
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-09 14:58 EDT-0400

With ryzen you get 8 cores with smt as well as the improved ipc of ryzen, it runs cooler, consumes less power and will kick the snot out of any fx. It comes with a stock cooler, the 9590 doesn't. Even if you decide to go with an aftermarket cooler to oc, it still won't require a $100+ aio to cool it. Ryzen 5's with 6c/12t can be had for considerably cheaper so that's not even a best case or cheapest ryzen build. If ever there was a reason to ask if there's ANY reason to go with fx (as in no reason to do so) the 9590 is the poster child.

 

[synphul]

The $150 9590 mentioned is oem/tray, sans cooler. It's not twisting things at all, the 9590 is a problematic cpu for many and if it were a decent retail option 'ready to go' it shouldn't require tweaking and adjusting. It should work out of the box. Ryzen also uses less power, even their r7 chips which means someone won't need as big of a power supply to go with their rig.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,review-33854-8.html

Any way you spin it, fx 9590 is just as costly as ryzen and none of the perks. It runs hotter, sucks more power and performs worse. It's not like an fx 6xxx or 8xxx where the justification can be made for an extreme budget for a ~$100 cpu. The additional cost of cooling and mobo (as well as power) drops a subpar chip within the price range of ryzen. As I mentioned previously, about the only reason to consider fx for a new build is availability/price depending on the region and local pricing if someone's on a tight budget. The 9590 doesn't meet those criteria and its performance definitely doesn't.

It's not even a matter of opinion, it's based on facts in terms of performance and cost. Piledriver's improvements over bulldozer were pittance compared to ryzen's improvements over either.

 

[0ldsch00l]

Thats my point, no one that knows is worrying about stock anything if they are popping in a 9590, get it OEM and OCing it anyways where they are supposed golden bin and OC better then an 8350, I find an 8300 my fav and it OCed will consume same as the 9590. It doesnt requier any tweaking or adjusting with mobo meant for it, just cause the rest maybe bios doesnt support it yet or not meant for default 200W doesnt meant it cant handle it. I have an MSI gaming 970 yes a collectable now, I can push prolly 300W through VRM and it wont throttle or burn, woudlnt do it more then 30 min but I can tell this is beffy enough to handle it

The $150 9590 mentioned is oem/tray, sans cooler. It's not twisting things at all, the 9590 is a problematic cpu for many and if it were a decent retail option 'ready to go' it shouldn't require tweaking and adjusting. It should work out of the box. Ryzen also uses less power, even their r7 chips which means someone won't need as big of a power supply to go with their rig.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-7-1700-cpu-review,review-33854-8.html

Any way you spin it, fx 9590 is just as costly as ryzen and none of the perks. It runs hotter, sucks more power and performs worse. It's not like an fx 6xxx or 8xxx where the justification can be made for an extreme budget for a ~$100 cpu. The additional cost of cooling and mobo (as well as power) drops a subpar chip within the price range of ryzen. As I mentioned previously, about the only reason to consider fx for a new build is availability/price depending on the region and local pricing if someone's on a tight budget. The 9590 doesn't meet those criteria and its performance definitely doesn't.

It's not even a matter of opinion, it's based on facts in terms of performance and cost. Piledriver's improvements over bulldozer were pittance compared to ryzen's improvements over either.

 

[bignastyid]

Thats my point, no one that knows is worrying about stock anything if they are popping in a 9590, get it OEM and OCing it anyways where they are supposed golden bin and OC better then an 8350, I find an 8300 my fav and it OCed will consume same as the 9590. It doesnt requier any tweaking or adjusting with mobo meant for it, just cause the rest maybe bios doesnt support it yet or not meant for default 200W doesnt meant it cant handle it. I have an MSI gaming 970 yes a collectable now, I can push prolly 300W through VRM and it wont throttle or burn, woudlnt do it more then 30 min but I can tell this is beffy enough to handle it

Consider yourself lucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zTzpYjQ2MM
BTW the Krait has the same VRM setup as the 970 gaming. There was a similar video that used the 970 gaming but the it was made private. Definitely not beefy enough.
Even with the proper motherboards and cooling solutions many users run into stability issues that require downclocking to fix. Imho the FX 9xxx series has to be one of the(if not thee) worst bunch of CPUs AMD has ever released.

 

[logainofhades]

Even a 1600 would be a far better buy, and can be overclocked. FX 9590 is already at the limit of what FX can do, and it doesn't do it particularly well.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($217.88 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H5 Universal 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($46.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $354.65
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-10 09:28 EDT-0400

 

[0ldsch00l]

Thats my point, no one that knows is worrying about stock anything if they are popping in a 9590, get it OEM and OCing it anyways where they are supposed golden bin and OC better then an 8350, I find an 8300 my fav and it OCed will consume same as the 9590. It doesnt requier any tweaking or adjusting with mobo meant for it, just cause the rest maybe bios doesnt support it yet or not meant for default 200W doesnt meant it cant handle it. I have an MSI gaming 970 yes a collectable now, I can push prolly 300W through VRM and it wont throttle or burn, woudlnt do it more then 30 min but I can tell this is beffy enough to handle it

Consider yourself lucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zTzpYjQ2MM
BTW the Krait has the same VRM setup as the 970 gaming. There was a similar video that used the 970 gaming but the it was made private. Definitely not beefy enough.
Even with the proper motherboards and cooling solutions many users run into stability issues that require downclocking to fix. Imho the FX 9xxx series has to be one of the(if not thee) worst bunch of CPUs AMD has ever released.

Even a 1600 would be a far better buy, and can be overclocked. FX 9590 is already at the limit of what FX can do, and it doesn't do it particularly well.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 1600 3.2GHz 6-Core Processor ($217.88 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG - H5 Universal 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler ($46.88 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: ASRock - AB350 Pro4 ATX AM4 Motherboard ($89.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $354.65
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2017-05-10 09:28 EDT-0400

Sure it is. But I think this is a temp solution the OP wants.

@burning VRM video, you sure thats the same Japanese VRM chips as a 970 gaming, HSF looks diferent. In any case I heard stories of 970 gamings frying as well, there was a Gigabyte troll rep somewhere else ranting this to discredit MSI. His finding was a few users on another board. I must have had 5 CPUs all max TDP oced in this thing no problem, not even throttling.

 

[Dabith01]

So, I've not been in the forums very long, and just as long have I been a rookie techie- although in my short time I've learned a pretty good bit and helped a lot of people. In my experiences, I've learned that a general rule of thumb is to turn away from FX processors, due to their atrocious overheating, age, etc. However, people still use them. Is there any real benefit to them besides their higher core count (which doesn't seem to help anything) and cheaper market value?

FX series CPU's were bad as soon as they were released, being beaten in performance in multiple task by the CPU series they were supposed to replace: namely the Phenom II series! even after AMD released revisions to the FX family, it was still being beaten by lowly i3's and still, in odd cases, Phenom IIs

 

[John_633]

Another side case is if you allready have an am3 or am3+ board, and don't need a huge amount of processing power pile-driver isn't a bad option. They are also fairly useful for working as small scale data servers not that I'd build one scratch for that at this moment, but if I already have DDR3, and a raid array/power supply there are definitely worse options than putting in a 8 core FX. (though for most small situations like that I would go for something low power and 4 threaded like an Atom Z3580 or AM1 athalon