FX-9590 Gaming PC

[your Kami]

Ok , so before any Intel fan boy comes here and says "INTEL IS DA BEST" i want to let you know something. I know AMD is maybe little weaker in gaming than Intel and that it is better for video rendering etc. BUT i m NOT rich kid so i don't want to spend $50-100 more if i get 5-10 fps more .
For heat issues i have good liquid cooling here , so please help me and don't just say : "INTEL IS BETTER" without any reason . I need proof , and 5-10 fps is not going to change my mind . Also i read that 220w that FX 9590 use is only when you are doing some complex job , around 130-160 in gaming.
Now i don't want to go over this price , maybe $20-30 is acceptable but not more than that . Thanks for reading , here is part list . http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dQBgqs
I would like suggestions and +/- of my build , thanks again !

P.S i would use my Samsung 840 EVO 120gb SSD and Western Digital 500gb HDD and my CHIEFTEC 550w power supply.

 

[NightAntilli]

Go for the FX-8320 instead. It's $110 on Amazon right now, and with water cooling, you can clock it to at least 4.7 GHz. I've clocked mine to 4.5 GHz on air. That will bring the performance close to the FX-9590 for $100 less. You can then get a much better graphics card, like the R9 280x.

 

[your Kami]

I don't plan on overclocking.

 

[NightAntilli]

Well, if you'd rather spend an excessive $100 for a CPU rather learning to overclock, go for it. I'm not stopping you. I simply told you what I would do. If it's not your thing, that's fine. To each his own.

 

[NightAntilli]

Btw. I'd still suggest going for the $110 FX-8320 and upgrading your videocard instead, even if you're not overclocking.

 

[MrSicko]

i5 4460 with stock cooler+h87 would be cheaper and would perform better in gaming so INTEL IS DA BEST

 

[mdocod]

Both the i5-4690 and E3-1231V3 will run many games up-to ~30% faster than the 9590 for about the same price while dissipating a fraction of the power. I'm not aware of any game that runs faster on the 9590 than on either of these Intel CPUs. In sub-60hz synced gaming conditions, that up-to 30% different will usually amount to 5-10 FPS like you said. If the novelty of the AMD solution here outweighs the disadvantages of performance and efficiency for you, then it's a valid alternative that will perform close enough to stock Intel CPUs that it doesn't really matter. Though I really don't see where the 9590 is saving you any money here. Unless you already have the liquid cooling and a behemoth PSU.... Typically the up front costs of implementing a 9590 are going to add up to more than it would cost to implement an E3 or i7.

It probably seems hard to believe that a CPU with less cores, at a lower clock speed, could perform on par or better. The reason for this, has to do with the availability of execution resources and throughput to the workload. Core count and ghz alone are not measurements of execution performance or execution resources. A 4 core haswell, has more execution resources than an 8 core Vishera, and they are also arranged in a more refined, efficient manner. With haswell you get a shorter instruction pipeline arranged with significantly more intracore parallelism, better cache latency and bandwidth, and fewer instruction penalties. In this case, the 9590 can overcome some of these architectural deficiencies with raw clock speed, but only in workloads that scale really well into all 8 cores. Gaming workloads don't tend to scale this way. Real-time workloads scale most proportionally with core performance. Performance scaling with core count varies depending on the conditions and the game engine, API, and driver overhead.

There is very little difference between overclocking, and building a 9590 rig. The 9590 is not sold like a factory overclocked video card as a working complete package, it is sold as a piece of a puzzle that the end user is expected to solve. You're going to run into many of the same challenges and problems that need to be solved for running Vishera at ~5ghz whether you do it with the 9590 or by overclocking something else. Many 9590 users report having to do some custom tuning akin to overclocking to get them stable, and wind up having to run elaborate cooling solutions just like the overclocker anyway. In order to get it to run right, there's a very good chance you'll still have to learn all of the performance tuning features of the motherboard and spend time experimenting with them anyway.

With the pricing on the 9590 finally coming down so low though, it's certainly looking like a much more inviting AMD enthusiast novelty than it did before at $300+. I still don't see it as a good value CPU, but at least it's not the "flagship-ripoff" it used to be.

-------------

What hardware do you already have specifically that you intend to use in this rig?
Do you want an upgrade path to multiple GPUs?
What are your performance (FPS) goals?
What are your visual quality goals?

 

[your Kami]

Ok , so thanks for reply first .
Now ,
1."What hardware do you already have specifically that you intend to use in this rig?"
Answer : I said that i now have and will use in that rig , my 120gb Samsung 840 EVO SSD , Western Digital 500gb HDD and CHIEFTEC 550w Power supply .
2."Do you want an upgrade path to multiple GPUs?"
Answer : No , i don't have money for Crossfire if that is what you meant.
3."What are your performance (FPS) goals?"
Answer : Huh , i really don't know . It just needs to be playable so 40+ FPS would be ok i think.
4."What are your visual quality goals?"
Answer : Ultra graphic settings on 1920x1080 screen with 40+ FPS .
I don't want to run it on 5Ghz , i would like but i won't because i won't overclock it
Thanks for replying again !

 

[mdocod]

The reason I asked about the upgrade path to multiple GPUs, is that, just about any motherboard that supports the 9590, has a good multi-GPU upgrade path as the 990FX chipset offers 38 PCIE 2.0 lanes, enough for a 16X16X configuration. If we don't *need* this upgrade path, then there are many H97 boards to choose from that would support the i5-4690 / E3-1231V3 that cost less but loose this upgrade path.

FX9590: $220
240mm rad or double tower heatpipe liquid cooling: ~$80+
990FX MOBO: ~$130+
R9 270X: $150
Estimate peak power dissipation: ~500W. Reusing existing PSU may be problematic.
~$580 + PSU replacement imminent.


VS

i5-4690 / E3-1231V3: $220 / $250
90mm heatpipe cooler (optional): ~$20+
H97 "gaming" motherboard: ~$90+
R9 280X: $215
Estimated peak power dissipation: ~400W.
~$575, re-use existing PSU with less worry.

The Intel configuration offers up to 30% better performance (FPS) in compute bound conditions, and/or up to 50% better performance or visual quality on GPU bound conditions, costs the same to implement, and comes with less risk of blowing out your mediocre PSU.

I think the 9590 +270X would meet your performance goals in most games, but it's certainly not the best performance you can get for the money.

 

[NightAntilli]

^ Change the FX-9590 for the FX-8320, and you'll get similar performance for $100 cheaper, or better performance due to a better graphics card.