[SOLVED] stable motherboard for an AMD FX9590

[RetiredNavyChief]

Hey there, I'm new to these forums, but I've been kit-bashing computers for a while now. I recently got an AMD FX9590 CPU. Research tells me that there are actually a select few motherboards that actually work with this CPU. I've noticed that many posts regarding the '9590 concern over-clocking. I have no interest in OC'ing, rather I'd like to be able to play some older online games with a system powered by this CPU. I'm talking the WarGaming titles(World of Tanks/WarPlanes/Warships) and World of WarCraft.

I first slapped the '9590 onto a Sabertooth 990FX that I had my 8-series FX in. Evidently they didn't play well together, to the point that I was forced to replace that motherboard. I believe my VRs failed. For reference, I had a Radeon 590 installed, and was utilizing a CoolerMaster 1200W PS. I don't think power-draw in total was my issue, so I'm a little hesitant about just getting any other "990" chipset motherboard.

I'd like to get some more thoughts from you fellow hardware...ers concerning what a good motherboard selection would be.

 

[Karadjgne]

Owch.
First, it wasn't really the OC. I can't think of anytime I actually saw anybody successfully OC a 9590. It was always either downclock or being able to run that cpu at its default turbo speeds. The problem being the select few boards built with a power delivery system capable of the 220w+ those cpus demanded.

The R1 version of the Sabertooth could easily handle a 8 series at only 125w, but it wasn't until the R2 version that you really could use the 9 series.

That said, even the largest aircoolers had issues, with the low ceiling temps of the FX, trying to keep that beast inside thermal margins really required liquid cooling, the original stock cooler for the 9590 was in fact an aio, but that was short lived since it was insufficient like every stock cooler back then, later releases had no cooler, just a disclaimer.

So you face several obstacles, none of which are cheap. You'll need a good 280mm/360mm AIO, or full custom loop in appropriate size, and you'll need a top of the line AM3+ mobo like the Asus Crosshair/Extreme or Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 etc. Even the Sabertooth 2.0 or MSI 970Gaming was on the short list of barely able mobos. Production of those boards was essentially stopped years ago, so most of what you'll find is either an older, used mobo with uncertain history or NOS which demands unreasonable pricing.

For what it will cost to get that beast up and running and thermally stable and viable, you'll end up with a platform and cpu that will not surpass the performance of a new platform. This pretty much sums it up:
http://hwbench.com/cpus/amd-ryzen-5-3600-vs-amd-fx-9590

With OC, you could generally get an FX 8350/8370 to @ 4.8-4.9GHz at much lower power/hardware demand and get almost identical results to a stock 9590.

 

[damric]

Chief.

Return FX-9590 if possible. Otherwise sell it on ebay. Do not sink any more money into that platform. Those processors were a novelty when they first came out, but now they are behind even the lowliest Ryzens when it comes to performance, no matter high you clock them.

You can get a Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 pretty cheap with a B450 board and 2x8GB of DDR4 (even the cheap Micron or Hynix stuff) and it will run faster, cooler, and not need crazy cooling or power to do so.

- ET1

 

[FoxVoxDK]

I'm with both of these guys, it's not worth it. I'd return if possible.

 

[RetiredNavyChief]

Owch.
First, it wasn't really the OC. I can't think of anytime I actually saw anybody successfully OC a 9590. It was always either downclock or being able to run that cpu at its default turbo speeds. The problem being the select few boards built with a power delivery system capable of the 220w+ those cpus demanded.

The R1 version of the Sabertooth could easily handle a 8 series at only 125w, but it wasn't until the R2 version that you really could use the 9 series.

That said, even the largest aircoolers had issues, with the low ceiling temps of the FX, trying to keep that beast inside thermal margins really required liquid cooling, the original stock cooler for the 9590 was in fact an aio, but that was short lived since it was insufficient like every stock cooler back then, later releases had no cooler, just a disclaimer.

So you face several obstacles, none of which are cheap. You'll need a good 280mm/360mm AIO, or full custom loop in appropriate size, and you'll need a top of the line AM3+ mobo like the Asus Crosshair/Extreme or Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 etc. Even the Sabertooth 2.0 or MSI 970Gaming was on the short list of barely able mobos. Production of those boards was essentially stopped years ago, so most of what you'll find is either an older, used mobo with uncertain history or NOS which demands unreasonable pricing.

For what it will cost to get that beast up and running and thermally stable and viable, you'll end up with a platform and cpu that will not surpass the performance of a new platform. This pretty much sums it up:
http://hwbench.com/cpus/amd-ryzen-5-3600-vs-amd-fx-9590

With OC, you could generally get an FX 8350/8370 to @ 4.8-4.9GHz at much lower power/hardware demand and get almost identical results to a stock 9590.

Chief.

Return FX-9590 if possible. Otherwise sell it on ebay. Do not sink any more money into that platform. Those processors were a novelty when they first came out, but now they are behind even the lowliest Ryzens when it comes to performance, no matter high you clock them.

You can get a Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 pretty cheap with a B450 board and 2x8GB of DDR4 (even the cheap Micron or Hynix stuff) and it will run faster, cooler, and not need crazy cooling or power to do so.

- ET1

I'm with both of these guys, it's not worth it. I'd return if possible.

A few years ago I wrote about my fx9590 build. I wanted to update; It's been running since my posts after getting another Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 motherboard.

Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 MB
AMD FX9590 CPU
32Gb DDR3 RAM running at 800Mhz
AMD Radeon R580
WiFi6 WiFi card
PCI internal FireWire adaptor card(for my medium format digital camera)
Thermaltake ToughBrand 1200W PSU
all sorts of SATA drives

The system has been stable and reliable running Win10 forever. The only part of the system that ever gets over 45 degrees C is the GPU when I'm running a game on max-res video settings.

A few months ago I started researching Win11. Of course running tpm.msc returned a message about TPM. I installed the most current version(2901 from 2016) of BIOS for the MB. A quick check confirmed that I didn't have a TPM module in the dedicated TPM slot at the 'south' end of the MB(beyond the PCI slots). Amazon sold me a 20-pin TPM 2.0 module for a decent price, and once installed I was able to Enable TPM in BIOS.
BUT...I can't enable the actual module. Msc.tpm still won't recognize the installed TPM module. The manual for the MB states it'll take a TPM 2.0 module. Does anyone know of anything I've missed?
Also, further online research is telling me that neither the MB nor the CPU are on any Win11 compatibility list; Ryzen and some select Athlons are the only AMD processors shown. Does anyone know if FXs are truly 'left behind' by this?

 

[King_V]

FX, older Ryzens, and older Intel chips are left behind by this.

 

[RetiredNavyChief]

FX, older Ryzens, and older Intel chips are left behind by this.

Thank you for clarifying. With that said nothing I do further with this system will enable Win11 in any way, correct?

 

[King_V]

To the best of my knowledge. However, that knowledge is limited, as I plan to hold off on even thinking about Windows 11 until I absolutely, positively HAVE to.

That said, there's supposed to be ways around that requirement, but I haven't really paid much attention to it.

 

[USAFRet]

Thank you for clarifying. With that said nothing I do further with this system will enable Win11 in any way, correct?

Also, there's pretty much NO compelling reason to try to forcefit Win 11 into a non-compatible system.

There is zero performance benefit, just some graphics, and clickies in different places.

 

[RetiredNavyChief]

To the best of my knowledge. However, that knowledge is limited, as I plan to hold off on even thinking about Windows 11 until I absolutely, positively HAVE to.

That said, there's supposed to be ways around that requirement, but I haven't really paid much attention to it.

Also, there's pretty much NO compelling reason to try to forcefit Win 11 into a non-compatible system.

There is zero performance benefit, just some graphics, and clickies in different places.

Thank you both. I'll start researching a good mid-range CPU/MB combo for 1080p/1400p gaming and start collecting parts. This thing is so stable I doubt I'll tear it down though. Maybe someday I'll wipe everything and put Linux on...