OC'ing AMD FX-9590

I do hope that you understand that Watch Dogs is probably one of the worst games to make a decision considering all the controversy surrounding the PC version with it's awful optimization and large amount of game breaking bugs. If you could play BF4 fine with no problems then your issues are with Watch Dogs not your setup.

I do hope that you understand that Watch Dogs is probably one of the worst games to make a decision considering all the controversy surrounding the PC version with it's awful optimization and large amount of game breaking bugs. If you could play BF4 fine with no problems then your issues are with Watch Dogs not your setup.

As for WatchDogs, as stated above, Ubisoft are terrible at optimising games for PC (Assassins Creed 4 anyone?) so I wouldn't go solely on that result, I'm sure they'll eventually get around to fixing it. Can't say as I would recommend forking out for a whole new board and CPU solely for one game, the 9590 may not be as good as the more recent Intel line, but there really isn't much in it, not worth a £250+ upgrade at least.

It seems like more and more people are buying CPU's these days just for the sake of OC'ing them. I don't get it. I buy a good enough CPU to play current games at stock settings, and OC later if as the CPU ages to extend it's life. I can only understand OC'ing a CPU out of the box if it was a mid range or low end budget build. If you buy a company's flagship enthusiast CPU AND still have to OC that sucker right away...then you just got yourself a crappy CPU.

Having said all that, the FX-9590 IS ALREADY OVERCLOCKED. AMD just suckered you into paying twice as much for something you could have done yourself with an FX-8320. This processor is a testament to modern marketing...to think that people will pay 4770k kind of money for something that has to be factory overclocked to the max just to (maybe) compete with the Intel at stock settings.

I couldn't agree more.
Besides, by the time you spend an extra $30 on an OC-able motherboard and an extra $30 on a decent cooler, you've spent enough to get a better CPU in the first place, without the extra work or potential stability issues.

If I had an OC-able CPU, I'd do it to improve the lifespan once it stopped running games to my satisfaction, but beyond that it's pretty much useless. Although it is required for AMD CPUs to compete with Intel at the price point.

Are we really going to turn this in to yet another AMD vs Intel thread?
Like... isn't there already 4236 threads on that already?

Are we really going to turn this in to yet another AMD vs Intel thread?
Like... isn't there already 4236 threads on that already?

It keeps coming up because people keep thinking they provide equal performance. The point of this forum is to point those poor souls in the right direction. Right now that direction leads to Intel.

99.9% of the time I see it on here it's blatant fanboyism.
I'm not mocking the argument, but I rarely see such a comparison made. What I do see though, is people who have recently purchased an AMD chip, being outright told to move to Intel, from boys with an Intel CPU in their sig.

Like I said, I'm not mocking the argument, but there's a time and a place to compare stuff and that place is certainly not in a thread to which someone has just bought the CPU, it's an effort, cost and time waster for them to upgrade so soon after purchase.

Fanboyism is an entirely obvious thing to see when it happens because the opposing side gets little to no good points. The scale goes from either really shit - or really good. With no in between. This certainly and obviously extends further than PC components (Hello PS4 vs Xbone eh). The 9590 has its merits, not in today's world when comparing however, but it's worth remembering that even though something new and better is out, doesn't make the older something bad. This is especially true in the CPU market because, for current gaming anyway, they really haven't made all that much difference in the last few years. I know a few people still rocking first gen i-chips and continuing to enjoy them.

Myself for example, given the choice tomorrow morning, would whip out and buy an i5, or wait for Skylake.
Given the choice a year and a bit ago (2 years?) I opted for the 8350. Still love it, never had issues to date.
If someone asked me what to buy prior to purchasing, I would tell them to do the same thing too. If someone had just purchased a still-decent CPU and wanted opinions on it, I'd tell them the honest truth of it being capable, but a little bit old by today's standards.

This thread is neither. The original question was about overclocking the chip. The in-thread discussion, was about if it was worth making the switch so soon for bottlenecking sakes - the answer to that is no (Unless of course you're Paris Hilton and have zero regard for moneys worth, in which case, yeah sure, a gained percentage in performance is worth the few hundred pounds).
When you put preferences aside it becomes a lot clearer as to what will do what and for how much.

Again, I'm not mocking the argument. I would pick an Intel chip from here on out since AMD seem more focussed on the APU market currently. Plus, as I learnt yet again yesterday morning, someone needs the sack for coming up with the two clips mounting mechanism for heatsinks. Merely suggesting that it's an entirely pointless exercise to force someone into upgrading a newly purchased and, by all accounts, still decent enough, chip. The cost currently of an upgrade from a 9590 to a recent Intel CPU, board + chip + Windows (If applies) really doesn't garner enough performance benefit for the price. We're a generation or two from that.

Blow me that was quite the essay. I need a coffee now.