FX 9590, Liquid Cooler & Raidmax Agusta case

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ShadowRaidTech

ShadowRaidTech

Honorable
Apr 1, 2013
43
0
10,530
My current system
-Windows 7 Pro x64 on a 500GB SSD
-x5 HDD totaling 6TB together
Case: Raidmax Agusta
MB: ASUS Sabertooth 990fx R2.0
GPU: 2GB GTX 760
RAM: 16GB DDR3
CPU: 3.5GHz AMD FX 6300 w/ Cooler Master GeminII S524
PSU: 750W

First off, I want to state: I AM NOT AN OVERCLOCKER. I WILL NEVER OVERCLOCK MY PARTS.

Anyway, I want to upgrade my current AMD system as much as I possibly can without buying a new motherboard. I intend to upgrade to 32GB of DDR3 RAM (I am not concerned about the MHz speed at all regarding memory) & a GTX 980 ti.

The CPU that looks best to me is the FX 9590. It's stock speed is very catching to me plus it's compatible with my motherboard. I understand it's a power hungry thing and I will upgrade my PSU to 1000+W alongside it.

My concern is cooling. I know this thing requires liquid cooling, no ifs, ands or buts. But I'm unsure of my options. I haven't done water cooling and I'm finding conflicting results for both coolers good enough for 9590 as well as coolers that will fit my case.

I was wondering if a 120mm radiator would do?; I know I could mount it at the back of case on the outside, with a fan inside the case blowing air over the radiator & out of the case and one outside on the other side of the radiator, blowing away from the case (push/pull I believe is the term). If that would work, what 120mm sized liquid cooler would be best to keep the 9590 cool? (I render videos alot, however, my 6300 only reaches 80% usage & 31C temps when I set my program to use both CPU & GPU for rendering)

If one that size is out of the question, I'd probably need a new case- which is fine as I was intending to move this build to a new case anyway once Windows 7 support ends in 2020 and make it an offline system because 10 has absolutely not worked at all with my editing programs and I despise Microsoft's shady practices regarding that OS.

If it comes to that (new case), what case would fit a large radiator as well as my motherboard, a GTX 980 ti, a 5.25" Bluray Drive 5 3.5" HDDs and one 2.5" SSD?
And what liquid cooler would be the best for the 9590 at stock & full load?

Money's not too much of an issue, but I would like to keep it under $200 for a liquid cooler and $150 for a case if possible. Again, not too big of an issue, just a preference.

On a final note, noise is not an issue as I'm a heavy headphone user.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
A 120mm radiator may do it, but you'll want a very thick one and a good pump to go along with it. Something like one of these kits may be a good way to start:

http://www.performance-pcs.com/alphacool-nexxxos-cool-answer-120-ddc-xt-kit.html

And also allow for expansion (or a second 120mm radiator that is at another location.....if that's an option in your case) for maximum flexibility if thermals are not to your liking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're power supply should be plenty. The 9590 DOESN"T use 220w. That's just the Thermal Design. It uses about 80-85w MAX. 240mm Rad would be better like the Corsair GTX H100i. A case that can handle 240mm Rad is what you need. Bitfenix Ronin will fit that but there's plenty to choose.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
120mm coolers are generally not enough for the 9590. In which case you need a 240mm, which means new case.
Now down to business. Why do you want that processor? You are talking 240 dollars for the processor, around 120-150 for a cooler, and about 100 for a new case, plus a larger power supply, at least 100 dollars. So you are spending over 500 dollars for a factory OCed 8320.

Just get a Z170 board and a i5 6500, much better performance, cheaper, no need for a new case or advanced cooling, and you can keep the same PSU.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


This is not true. The 9xxx use clearly over 200W.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote


+1

Indeed.....especially if under a heavy render workload.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Suppose what's drawing me to it is that it has more than my fx 6300; Cores, Threads & definitely GHz (I'm power hungry when it comes to CPU). I'm wanting a PC that'll last me ages without needing an upgrade- specifically well beyond 2020 because I want my editing machine to stay with Windows 7 as long as I can.

I would go for the i5 6500, but
1) I'm trying to avoid Skylake processors due to Microsoft's stupid new Windows 10 or bust policy.
2) Even though Intels obviously outperform AMDs, I still do want a CPU with at least my 6300s GHz speed or better.

What of the i7-4790k? It's Haswell (avoiding new Microsoft Win 10 policy) and comparison charts show it destroying my 6300 in every way. Does it require liquid cooling or can I get away with a Hyper 212 Evo?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


If you're aware that Intel outperforms AMD, why do you care about GHz? Comparing clock speeds between different architectures is useless. Any modern Intel CPU at 3 GHz or higher will probably outperform the 9590 in single-threaded tasks.

And if you're aiming for a future-proof build, I don't think buying a CPU with a 3+ year old architecture makes a whole lot of sense, not to mention the even older chipset.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
^This.
GHz is relatively meaningless unless you are comparing identical architectures, 8320 vs 9590. Cores mean moderately more, but the only thing that really matters is architecture. In which case Haswell and skylake are far superior than any AMD offering.
If you dont want to go skylake (I would suck it up and deal with windows 10, that platform has a lot of potential left, plus look at those Z170 boards). If you are dead set on avoiding win10, I dont know why you would be, you can get the 4790k or the Xeon 1231v3. Both offer i7 class performance which will completely overwhelm any AMD offering, and subsequently less price.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Buy an AMD 8 core CPU or Core i7 4790K
The 4790K will cost much more because it requires a new motherboard.
A 9590 can be cooled with high end air coolers,I"ll recommend Cryorig R1 Ultimate as a cheap good solution for non overclocked 9590.
Everyday more apps and games support more cores,
In that kind of situation you will see the difference between core i5 and core i7.
and the 4790K is close to the 6700K in overall performance.
an 8 core AMD CPU is not a bad option either,
The AMD FX 8350 surpass the 4690K and the 6600K in multithreaded apps and in 4.5GHz even surpass the 4770K.

Benchmark Cinebench R15:
AMD FX 6300 3.5GHz/4.1GHz (Stock): 419 cb
Intel Core i5 4460 3.2GHz/3.4GHz (Stock): 481 cb
AMD FX 6300 4.4GHz (OC): 525 cb
Intel Core i5 4690K 3.5GHz/3.9GHz (Stock): 579 cb
Intel Core i5 6600K 3.5GHz/3.9GHz (Stock): 599 cb
AMD FX 8350 4.0GHz/4.2GHz (Stock): 625 cb
Intel Core i5 4690K 4.5GHz (OC): 682 cb
Intel Core i7 4770K 3.5GHz/3.9GHz (Stock): 697 cb
AMD FX 8350 4.5GHz (OC): 718 cb
Intel Core i5 6600K 4.5GHz (OC): 727 cb
AMD FX 9590 4.7GHz/5.0GHz (Stock): 788 cb
Intel Core i7 4790K 4.0GHz/4.4GHz (Stock): 862 cb
Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz/4.2GHz (Stock): 873 cb
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Where are you sourcing these benchmarks? Those are pretty arbitrary numbers with no real meaning just slapped on each processor. What are the test methods? Are they real or synthetic? Who is the source?
Either way, you can see that the 4790k is easily better than the FX 8xxx or 9xxx series, even at stock speeds.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Method: Cinebench R15
Source: HWBOT
I took only the most avearage results that are vaild.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


You got it wrong,Cinebench has two and in some versions 3 different tests:
1.Open GL
2.Multithreading
3.Singlethreading
All of the benchmark scores i posted are the scores of the Multithreading test alone.
And in multithreaded apps it really does perform like it in reality,
Winrar,7-Zip,Photoshop,Google Chrome,The Withcer 3:Wild Hunt.
But singlethreaded apps results are very different...
Intel clrealy win in single threaded apps:
Single threading - Geekbench3
AMD FX 9590 4.7GHz/5.0GHz (Stock): 2477 points
Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz (Stock): 2659 points
Intel Core i5 4690K 3.5GHz/3.9GHz (Stock): 2957 points
Intel Core i7 4770K 3.5GHz/3.9GHz (Stock): 3566 points
Intel Pentium G3258 4.5GHz (OC): 3912 points
Intel Core i7 4790K 4.0GHz/4.4GHz (Stock): 3949 points
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Handbrake is optimized for 4 threads...I doubt it uses more than 4.
PCmark is the same way too,
Dolphin is a singlethreaded app.
And i don't know FastStone.
Next time post benchmarks from real multithreading apps that use all of the threads properly,Like Winrar and Hybrid that were included in your link.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Handbrake is fully capable of using 8 threads unless you use operations specified to not use 8.
PCmark has trouble addressing all 16 threads on Haswell-E processors, but is handled fine on 8 threads.
Obviously dolphin is single threaded, it says right above the graph, you cant just look at one type of benchmark when comparing processors.
Why post a benchmark for winrar and hybrid when they are included in that link? I use it for a wide selection, not to post a list from a single benchmarking suite.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I meant that you should look into more benchmarks like these of the Winrar and Hybrid that was included in the link.
You should look where the CPU can unleash it's full power (Using all of it's threads)
It's kinda pointless to look at singlethreaded benchmark results because they use just one thread.
In GPU+CPU benchmarks like PCmark it really matters what combo you use,
Because AMD CPU+AMD GPU will outperform AMD CPU+Nvidia GPU...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
First of all, the 9590 DOES use a tremendous amount of power up to 220W (physics, guys. how can you produce 220W of heat energy without using up 220W of electrical energy. really.) without an overclock, so you do need to upgrade your PSU in all likelihood, especially if you want to add in some sort of custom loop (which is really not necessary). In order to cool that thing to proper CPU temps, you should use a 240 or 280 mm radiator. AIO offerings include the Corsair H100i GTX/H110i GX (which includes corsair link, nifty), Deepcool Captain, and potentially expandable Swiftech 220/40-X. Corsair is the best price/performance for your situation, and their coolers are about $105. You could always use a more budget 120 cooler though, which you can get for about $60 from Corsair, Deepcool, NZXT, Swiftech, and a few others. Though, you should probably get a new board anyways. Intel processors have less numbers than AMD, but (interestingly) their processors are just as powerful if not more so. If you want extreme power, look to the 5960-X, or perhaps hold out for Broadwell-E. (hehehe) Good luck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Looking only at benchmarks that use all threads isn't really a good way to judge real world performance, because there are plenty of applications that can't take advantage of all threads. It's not really any more valid than only looking at single threaded applications. Single threaded and 8+ threaded benchmarks are the extremes, with the former typically being the best case scenario for Intel and the latter typically being the best case scenario for AMD.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Well,8 threads CPUs will last longer than 4 threads CPUs,
That's the only reason the FX CPUs survived this long,
Every year the software is more demanding than the year before,Which drove us from Pentium 4(1)> Core 2 Duo(2)>Core 2 Quad(4)>Core i7(8)
And that's just in the past 12 years...
Probably in the future the minimum requirements for games will rise from 4 threads to 6 and than to 8.
Look how the G3258 performs in games the requires 4 theads...(in 4.5GHz and above)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Considering that the dual-core G3258 outperforms the quad-core X4 860K in nearly every gaming benchmark I've seen, I'm not sure it's the best example to use to try and prove the importance of more cores...
 
Upvote -1 Downvote
I think TDP has misconstrued beyond meaning. NO YOU DO NOT NEED 1000 psu 750w is fine. Here's a perfect example
This graph is a 9590 paired with a 780 ti full system load

Qub1Gj.png


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-9590-9370_7.html#sect0

Here's my FX-9370 system shot 100% using OCCT Stock clocks

W8emM1.png


The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by the CPU that the cooling system in a computer is required to dissipate in typical operation. Rather than specifying CPU's real power dissipation, TDP serves as the nominal value for designing CPU cooling systems.[1]

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications." This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power).[2]

Some sources state that the peak power for a microprocessor is usually 1.5 times the TDP rating.[3] However, the TDP is a conventional figure while its measurement methodology has been the subject of controversy. In particular, until around 2006 AMD used to report the maximum power draw of its processors as TDP, but Intel changed this practice with the introduction of its Conroe family of processors.[4]

A similar but more recent controversy has involved the power TDP measurements of some Ivy Bridge Y-series processors, with which Intel has introduced a new metric called scenario design power (SDP)

WIKIPEDIA EXCERPT
 
Upvote -1 Downvote


You're misconstruing that article. It may be paired with a 780 ti, but they're running a CPU only stress test, so that power consumption is mostly CPU. Here's a quote from that article "The FX-9370 and FX-9590 really need 100 to 120 watts more power than the FX-8350 at full load. As a result, the overall power draw of a configuration with a top-end Vishera-based CPU may be twice that of a Haswell-based configuration that would deliver the same performance and cost the same money."



There's no way that's accurate, which is evidenced by the fact that your min temp is 12 C. Unless you're using some kind of exotic cooling, that's almost certainly incorrect. Most CPU reviewers use watt meters or other dedicated equipment to measure power, and I'm inclined to think there's a reason.



That really doesn't prove anything. Sure, TDP may not be equal to power consumption. But if the indicate that a cooler needs to be able to dissipate 220W to cool the CPU, and CPU heat generation = CPU power consumption, than it stands to reason they expect the CPU to consume around 220W.

I'm not necessarily saying you need a 1000W supply, but what you've said here just isn't accurate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom