Is the FX-9590 Really that bad?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
TSK-REAPER22

TSK-REAPER22

Reputable
Feb 23, 2014
169
0
4,690
I keep hearing such bad things about the FX-9590 and how its so terrible at this and that and it doesnt do this and that and etc... but for pure gaming, is it really that bad? I mean 4.7ghz and 8 Cores seems pretty decent for gaming but again i know next to nothing about cpus so someone please explain because the other option is the I7 4790k BUT this is for pure gaming so... keep that in mind.
 
Solution
SoundFX09
The FX-9590 Is not very good for overclocking. It's best used at Stock settings, but it shouldn't bottleneck a 980 SLI Config. however, a water cooler is MANDATORY for the 9590, as it will heat up like hot coals on a grill. If you plan to go with a AMD AM3+ Processor, You are better off with the FX-8350. It's $170, runs at 4 Ghz, can be Overclocked to 4.8 with the right cooler, and shouldn't bottleneck the 980 SLI's at all.

As for the Core i7 4790K, It is quite a beast. You can over clock it to 4.8 Ghz and it will shatter the 9590 and 8350 in almost every category, not to mention that Intel CPU's are brilliant with SLI configs, so your SLI 980's will run like a dream. The only downside is it does cost more than the 9590 and 8350...
Sort by date Sort by votes
i believe the 9590 does NOT come with a cooler. so that's an extra $30 you have to burn. i would get the i5 4690k instead

also keep in mind that it eats 3x more power than a comparable performing intel CPU at high loads. higher power draw means more heat which in turn means more noise from the cooler.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For pure gaming the i7 would be better. Overall Intel currently has better IPC and while the FX-9590 is marketed as a 8 core it is not a true 8 core.

The biggest issue with it is the power usage. Ate its clock speed it still barely keeps up with most high end Intel CPUs. It is just a very inefficient uArch design.

I think the worst part about it was that when it was released they were asking for $800 or more when you could have gotten a FX8000 series CPU for a fraction of the price and just overclocked it with the same liquid cooling system that the FX-9590 required.

It just is not a great CPU. AMD hasn't had anything as amazing as the Athlon 64 series in a while and Intel is staying a few steps ahead both in performance and process wise making it hard to choose AMD for a pure gaming system, especially when Intels top end CPUs present less of an overall bottleneck especially considering that AMDs best motherboard is still only PCIe 2.0 which will easily become a bottleneck now that 4K gaming is going to become more feasible for average people.

Overall AMD is not bad. AT least their GPUs are decent and they do have decent pricing but I prefer performance over cheap. That is why I spent extra money on a Corsair AX860i instead of a cheaper alternative or why I always buy at least $150+ motherboards. If AMD ever gets their CPUs to top Intel I would probably jump to them but they would also cost just as much if not more than Intel would.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I will just give you a hint... if you are concern about the power usage kind of guy...
Let's compare it with less expensive D.Canyon i5-4690k than i7 (if pure gaming), at the same specs, same graphic card, same ram, same psu:

FX-9590 (OC 4.7 to 5.0 ghz): draws power from psu approx. 65w (idle) / 310+w (at 5ghz)
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1733593/amd-9590-finally-reviewed.html

i5-4690k (OC at 4.8ghz): draws 180w (i7-4790k, 198w @4.8ghz)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2014/07/03/intel-core-i5-4690k-review/6

let's just say FX-9590 higher 130w than i5-4690k... gaming in 3hrs 25days a month..

130w x 3h x 25d = 9750w.

Therefore, FX-9590 is adding 9750w more power usage than i5-4690k in a month.. not to mention the psu efficiency, the higher the power in psu could go higher from wall outlet.

Hope it could help you about advantages between the cpu's..
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Now will that I5 Be enough to keep up with and not bottleneck SLI 980s?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The FX-9590 Is not very good for overclocking. It's best used at Stock settings, but it shouldn't bottleneck a 980 SLI Config. however, a water cooler is MANDATORY for the 9590, as it will heat up like hot coals on a grill. If you plan to go with a AMD AM3+ Processor, You are better off with the FX-8350. It's $170, runs at 4 Ghz, can be Overclocked to 4.8 with the right cooler, and shouldn't bottleneck the 980 SLI's at all.

As for the Core i7 4790K, It is quite a beast. You can over clock it to 4.8 Ghz and it will shatter the 9590 and 8350 in almost every category, not to mention that Intel CPU's are brilliant with SLI configs, so your SLI 980's will run like a dream. The only downside is it does cost more than the 9590 and 8350. (FX-9590 is $230 CPU only, But you WILL need a liquid cooler to keep it cool, so it adds up to maybe $300. The FX-8350 costs $170, where as the I7 4790K will run you $350 straight up.)

To answer your question, the FX-9590 is only for those who are hardcore AMD Fans. I would not recommend it because it just isn't the best option for Overclocking. The Intel Core i7 4790K Will do much better at stock and Overclocking, will run BF4 no problem, and is generally, for me at least, the best option with 980 SLI Configurations.

Simply put, Avoid the 9590, and get the Core i7 4790K. Yes, the i7 is expensive, but for the price, it is definitely worth it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


Oh mah gawd best answer by far thank you so much 😀
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


It does not require a clc. There are more than a couple of Big boy Air Coolers that can do the job.

Like my Thermaltake Frio Extreme on my FX 9590. It does a great job. Amd is about getting sufficient Performance at a
more reasonable price. If I need Intel's advantages I will go Intel. But right now I get more than enough from Machines that I have. Amd. Besides it is all about the color on the cpu box. I like red. Blue makes me nautious. Sorry.

P.S. You Do NOT NEED a clc to cool the FX 9590. You need a good Big Boy Air cooler. At the minimum.


 
Upvote 0 Downvote


There are scant few air coolers that fit the bill. Pretty sure that is why AMD says an AIO is required. I have seen guys right here on Toms using crap motherboards 4+1 and a Hyper 212 EVO and wonder why their cpu's are thermal throttling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

There are at least 6 or 7 air coolers I know will Handle the FX 9590 @ 5.0Ghz and above. More at its stock 4.7 Ghz.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yes, but that's SR71. We're talking normal humans here 😀
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Really? Did you just say this? : :fou:

For something to be defined as a CPU Core, it Needs the Following :
Scheduler
Integer Register
ALU(s)
a LSU with its L1 Data Cache.

By my knowledge, every core of the FX processor has those, except that the L2 Cache, L1 Instruction Cache and FPU are shared.
Correct me if im wrong somewhere, but people should really quit believing that an Intel Core = AMD Module, which is entirely false.
It IS however true that an AMD Bulldozer Core doesn't equal an Intel CPU Core, but they work the same way.

Regards,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

First of all I do not posses the knowledge to say you are biased or wrong. But takking the question tp Amd might get a response to solidify or change your point of view, Since you brought this question up it has peaked my interest.
I found this interesting info. Also I am now going to contact Amd.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1798367/true-amd-8350-cores-cpu.html.

Thanks.

 
Upvote 1 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom