Users of the AMD 9590 and the AMD 8350 please help with these questions

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

g335

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2008
1,108
0
19,280
Hello for users of the AMD 9590 and the AMD 8350

I am going to buy the 8350 but before I do I would like to know how has using the 9590 and 8350 been?

I've read a lot of good reviews on the 9590. Seeing how it is close to price to the 8350 now, wondering if it might be worth buying it.

 
Sort by date Sort by votes
it draws a lot of power, and the 9590 is essentially a cherry picked, factory overclocked 8350. it will obviously be faster than an 8350 but will draw much more power (stock vs stock) and require a much more robust motherboard and all but requires a good liquid cooler.

it is your choice if you want to pick it up however. It is much faster than a stock 8350, its just that if you bring an 8350 up to the 9590's clock speed, there is no difference between the two.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have an 8120 @4Ghz and I love my processor. It will blast any new game and its 2 years old. My 8120 is basically a slightly worse architecture version of the 8350 since they are both clocked at 4GHz. I haven't heard anything good about the 9590, apparently its worse than the 8350. I would save money by buying the 8350 but then spend the saved money on an amazing aftermarket cooler. A moderator on this site has an 8350 overclocked to 5.2GHz. I doubt you will be able to match that but I don't see why you couldn't at least get 4.5Ghz. To sum it up, go with an 8350 with an aftermarket cooler. You will be extremely happy in the long run.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wouldn't say much faster but it is overclocked quite a bit and it does require at least the equivalent to a H80 in terms of cooling power which means there is no stock cooler with it (so add in cooler to the price) and you can't just buy a cheap one. You need a pretty high end air (Noctua) or as I said a Corsair H80 for cooling.

I think it is better to get a 8350 and a decent cooler and overclock it as it is the same thing and will probably cost less overall.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have owned an 8350 for almost a year now, and it's been fantastic. Bone stock, it kicks some serious butt. However, I recently bumped it up to the exact speeds that the FX-9370 runs at. (Base 4.4GHz; Turbo 4.7GHz) Given that the caches and all the other components are pretty much exactly the same, I have essentially overclocked my way to the 9370.
The difference is only noticeable when you watch your FPS counter, (I can't really see a difference between 150FPS and 180FPS unless I look at the counter.) I'm using a Corsair H60 water cooler and my temps never go above 58C, which is well within spec for this chip (and that's only under a torture test with Prime95 and Furmark on SLI graphics (everything pretty much pushing out maximum heat).) I'd also like to point out that I was able to get a rock-solid overclock at 4.4(4.7) without adjusting the voltage at all. I'm running at the stock voltage settings. (Which means that I have FX-9370 performance with a 147W thermal ceiling instead of 220W)
On top of all that, I saved about $50 over buying an actual 9370. I do recommend getting a motherboard with a 990FX chipset though, that way you'll be able to take advantage of all the features that Piledriver has to offer.

P.S. I tried to overclock to the 9590's clock speeds, but I couldn't keep my system stable at those clocks, your mileage may vary, but personally I'm very happy with my 4.4GHz(4.7GHz) that I have now. I'd certainly rather have nearly the performance of Intel's I7s for only $200 than waste my money on high end Intel processors. You can push the savings to getting a better graphics card, or an ssd or whatever.

TLDR: Love AMD, get the 8350 and a decent cooler (air or water works fine) and overclock the nuts off of it, you'll save a bunch of money which you can then invest in better graphics card(s) without any difference in performance from the pricier processors, and actually a significant decrease in power consumption (if you get your overclock settings right.).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Not to mention that the money you save from getting a cheaper processor and overclocking it could be pushed towards a higher 80Plus rating on your PSU which could actually decrease overall system power consumption.

Efficiency is a bigger deal than many people understand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Also a great option, however the 8320's overclocking headroom (how high you can overclock it) isn't always as great as the 8350's.
If you're lucky, you'll get one that can go like stink, which is good news!
But more likely you'll get one that is rock steady up to 4.2GHz then hits a wall and won't go any faster no matter what you do.

Regardless, the FX-8300's are great, even at stock speeds.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The 8320/8350 on 990FX board are tried and true. Pretty much guarantee if there is a bug or quirk on them, then these guys have long since figured them out and then ways around them. The 9xxx's are new enough versions, that apart from heat and power issues, other things like longevity and reliability have yet to be discovered. Stick with the 8320/8350, in the end you won't be sorry.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I haven't had any issue overclocking mine...at 4916 prime stable right now with 1.45v on a cooler master hyper 212 non evo with a cooljag everflow high speed fan. Granted I'm sure my chip is a lucky one (boots and plays bf4 at 5.2 @ 1.5v) but just can't get the heat away fast enough with air. Any motherboard you get I would advise you to take the fan off the stock heatsink and strap it to your vrm heatsinks and get another one to rig to blow on the back of the cpu socket.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Sound's like a lucky draw, nice one!
If you're aiming for overclocks this aggressive, I'd recommend a really good motherboard, and at the very least a Corsair H80 or a big air-cooler (The Hyper 212 Evo really isn't enough, if you want your chip to last.)
Also, keep in mind that at those overclock settings, the 8320 will be pulling +230W of power, so you'll need a good power supply as well.

That is, assuming you can actually hit those frequencies.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lol yeah the evo definitely isnt enough. It gets up to 61 core temp under p95 and 57 in handbrake but at the expense of being noisy (cooljag everflow 120x32mm 3500rpm 6mm h20) but during bf4 stays around 45-50 max. Looking forward to putting this chip under water.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have an AMD 8320 running at 4.4Ghz and i am very happy with it😀
I bought a massive Raijintek EreBoss High Performance CPU Cooler with a 14cm fan but it was too noisy. I replaced the fan with a Noctua NF-P12-PWM 120mm Silent Case Fan and it is now very quiet as well as very cool. I have never seen it above 50 degrees although i do have 4 12cm case fans as well.
A lot of people will say intel is better and more efficient but the 8 core FX chips from AMD are still very fast and also cheaper.
What will you be using your computer for and what are the rest of the components?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I will use it for gaming, graphic design, 3D design and rendering, video editing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Its not really a good idea to make an active attempt to seek out personal reviews because people (especially on here) love to justify their purchases wheter it be from Intel, AMD or NVIDIA. What you want to ask an comparison question because you can get the ups and downs about processors and not just the silver lining.

The FX 8350 IMO has bad value, so lets ignore that and look at the more competitively priced FX 8320. The FX has 8 integer cores, so it will be faster than any i5 in higly paralell and/or integer tasks like the ones you mentioned that you will use. It can overclock easily into the 4 GHz's and you can sometimes push it into the 5 GHzs. The AM3+ platform and the FX CPUs are cheap and have good value.

The FX 8320 has downsides that need to be mentioned, however. First off, the FX 8320 is slower than most i5s in games and falls especially hard in lightly threaded games like Skyrim. Like games, lightly threaded workloads will also choke on the FX 8320. The stock TDP and the power consumption at stock clocks are both pretty high, and they can both sharply increase when you overclock, so be prepared for that. While we are on the topic of overclocking, dont get any CPU based on the premise that you will get impressive overclocks. Those people may just have gotten a better chip than you and yours could be exceptionally bad or good. Its all based on luck, really.

While the AM3+ motherboards are cheaper, they are old and a lot of features you might take for granted are going to be on the higher end 990FX boards. That being said, the uATX solutions for AM3+ are pretty poor and mITX AM3+ motherboards simply don't exist, so you are going to need at least an ATX Mid case.

If you are ok with the downsides, then go ahead with the FX 8320. Where it does perform well its a perfectly good CPU.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


The boards are still good if I get a upper end one correct? I thought the 8350 could only support up to 1866 DDR3 ram.

When you say it falls in gaming, for example Skyrim, how do you mean? Super low frames? What would you consider light threaded work loads?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah. The better 990FX boards are feature packed.

What I mean when it falls is that it gets low FPS, down to around Phenom II levels in lightly threaded tasks. A lightly threaded task is something that can only take advantage of a small amount of cores and/or threads.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Falls in gaming is a harsh exaggeration, AMD processors tend to fall behind the pricier Intel processors but they are by no means slow. Especially in the FX series of processors, you're dealing with flagship components here. You'll be looking at a difference in FPS with Intel having higher FPS, but keep in mind that 250FPS is higher than 180FPS (just making an example) both flagship processors will pull well over 60FPS for almost any games.

Lightly threaded workloads are programs that do not make effective use of multi-core. Examples of such a load include many older video games (which were built for single core systems anyway) and many desktop programs which do not really require multiple cores. Again, this doesn't mean that AMD processors are poor for desktop programs, it just meas that Intel processors are better.
In fact, AMD processors can be better for productivity because they can distribute many "lightly-threaded" programs across different cores, so the actions of one program won't slow others. (Keep in mind how Hyperthreading works before you dispute that.)

And yes, 990FX boards are fully featured. In fact, the FX series combined with a 990FX platform supports 32 PCIe lanes natively, which means that 2 and 3 way SLI and CrossFireX benefit from more PCIe lanes. Haswell only suppots 20 lanes natively.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Wow that is low for Skyrim and Shogun 2, looks unplayable, even for the higher end Intel's.

Who can play that game?

Well how about the 9590? or the Intel E3-1240 V2 Ivybrigde 3.4 GHZ cpu? Will these do well in games as well as rendering 3D animation (lightwave, etc) ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Back in the medieval days computer language was written in Basic (if x then goto here, else goto here) and IBM machines dominated the computer world. This coding was serial, all the commands were written in a line. So computer games followed that course. Even through the DOS days it was the same, everything was written serial. Then some bright spark at AMD realized that serial commands could only happen just so fast, starting at A you gotta go the whole alphabet to get to Z, so parallel coding was implemented and AMD took off like crazy for a few years, until Intel finally cottoned onto the idea and came out with dual cores.. able to run single threads, in parallel. The games naturally followed suit. Most games ran with serial codeing dominant.
So it was until a short while ago. Now games and other software like AutoCAD have so much information, that even serial code must be run in parallel, and this is where AMD shines, with more cores, designed to work in conjunction with each other to produce a result greater than the sum of each individual core.
So now today we have games written in parallel code dominant which heavily tailor to AMD, and other games written with serial code dominant, which heavily tailor to Intel.
It all makes for a real mess and a lot of argument over which is better, when it simply comes down to what you want to do with it. In something like AutoCAD, 3d Rendering etc, its all AMD, multi-cores, parallel thinking. Skyrim is tailored towards serial threads, so Intel outshines AMD there. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, just means one is better suited to certain tasks than the other, and vice versa.

Of course this was a serious over-simplification of the whole thing.
 
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