Hello Everyone, Im sure you see people asking daily "What processor should I get to run x prefectly?" Well, I guess I am asking that. So heres the deal with me, I originally bought a prebuilt PC for playing minecraft about 5 and a half years ago. As time went on, I upgraded my GPU to A GTX 950 FTW. Pretty decent card. Heres the issue though: Im Running with a five and a half year old AMD FX 6300 and I am trying to play Dayz on it. Now, I cant upgrade to a different motherboard because above 500 bucks is a no go so intel is basically out of the question for me. it has to be AMD. I was looking at the AMD FX 9590. Is this my best choice for running games? Is it really worth me paying 200-230 dollars for? Ive tried to do research on it and nobody really seems to have my setup so I kindda got screwed. Some sites also say that it needs liquid cooling? Is this true? Thank you all so much for your help.
The AMD FX 9590
- Thread starter RadioSoap
- Start date
Solution
- Dec 22, 2014
- 32,733
- 2,814
- 113,640
DO NOT buy the FX 9590.
First off it needs one of about 6 very specific motherboards based on the 990FX chipset, which you do not have.
Secondly yes it requires liquid cooling
Third it requires a lot of case fans
Fourth it requires a very powerful and high end PSU
And Finally, don't buy it because for less than what you would spend to do all that you can buy a H110 motherboard and an i5 6500 and blow it away in every task you could imagine, especially gaming.
First off it needs one of about 6 very specific motherboards based on the 990FX chipset, which you do not have.
Secondly yes it requires liquid cooling
Third it requires a lot of case fans
Fourth it requires a very powerful and high end PSU
And Finally, don't buy it because for less than what you would spend to do all that you can buy a H110 motherboard and an i5 6500 and blow it away in every task you could imagine, especially gaming.
- Jun 19, 2011
- 33,489
- 1,620
- 159,590
What motherboard do you have? Only a few boards can properly support the massive power demands of the 9590, and I doubt the motherboard in your pre-built is upto the task. The 9590 requires a big cooler a few of the massive air coolers can handle it, but even with them you are looking at $80+ for a cooler. In some games an i3 like the i3 6100 can match and even beat the 9590. http://www.techspot.com/review/1089-fallout-4-benchmarks/page5.html
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($110.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B150M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: GeIL EVO POTENZA 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($29.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $195.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-16 22:56 EDT-0400
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i3-6100 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor ($110.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B150M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: GeIL EVO POTENZA 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2133 Memory ($29.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $195.96
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-16 22:56 EDT-0400
A 9590 is just a pre-OC'd 8320. The problem with Overclocking FX processors (or just using a 9590) is that they quickly push past 200W, which means you need serious cooling and a proper OCing motherboard which has the power delivery to handle that kind of load.
You need to post your specific motherboard and look into the CPUs on it's support list. Unless you got a high end board when you purchased that thing, it's unlikely to handle the 9590. It *might* however handle an OC on your current CPU. That would be cheaper anyway. That's probably a better idea anyway because faster 3 core performance (which you'll get from an OC on your 6300) is likely more important for gaming than the extra core (or modules - however you spin it) of the 8xxx or 9xxx processors.
You need to post your specific motherboard and look into the CPUs on it's support list. Unless you got a high end board when you purchased that thing, it's unlikely to handle the 9590. It *might* however handle an OC on your current CPU. That would be cheaper anyway. That's probably a better idea anyway because faster 3 core performance (which you'll get from an OC on your 6300) is likely more important for gaming than the extra core (or modules - however you spin it) of the 8xxx or 9xxx processors.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,567
- 13
- 85,015
1) FX-9590 must be supported by your motherboard (see motherboard site's CPU list).
2) Very good air cooler or liquid cooler required.
3) A lot more HEAT dumped into your room (if you use an air cooler your graphics card may throttle down due to extra heat in case).
4) Still drops down to under 70% the performance in some games compared to a modern i5 CPU:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-13.html
Just an example, and for 70% I overclocked the i5 CPU but that's fair because it can and the FX-9590 can't really do any more. I'd also be using an i5-6600K anyway.
5) What frequency is the FX-6300 at?
I doubt the extra threads matter much. Mainly frequency. If you got 5GHz on the FX-9590 then that's maybe 15% more FPS over an FX-6300 at 4.4GHz.
6) About INTEL:
Unfortunately, your best bet would be to SELL your motherboard, CPU, memory, Windows as a combination if possible and bite the bullet in terms of budget and go SKYLAKE which unfortunately also means reinstalling Windows etc.
Summary:
There's no easy answer.
I think buying an FX-9590 is a bad idea, however going Intel is a huge hassle too.
My best advice is TWEAK the settings for the game, give up on the game, or bite the bullet and go Intel.
2) Very good air cooler or liquid cooler required.
3) A lot more HEAT dumped into your room (if you use an air cooler your graphics card may throttle down due to extra heat in case).
4) Still drops down to under 70% the performance in some games compared to a modern i5 CPU:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz-13.html
Just an example, and for 70% I overclocked the i5 CPU but that's fair because it can and the FX-9590 can't really do any more. I'd also be using an i5-6600K anyway.
5) What frequency is the FX-6300 at?
I doubt the extra threads matter much. Mainly frequency. If you got 5GHz on the FX-9590 then that's maybe 15% more FPS over an FX-6300 at 4.4GHz.
6) About INTEL:
Unfortunately, your best bet would be to SELL your motherboard, CPU, memory, Windows as a combination if possible and bite the bullet in terms of budget and go SKYLAKE which unfortunately also means reinstalling Windows etc.
Summary:
There's no easy answer.
I think buying an FX-9590 is a bad idea, however going Intel is a huge hassle too.
My best advice is TWEAK the settings for the game, give up on the game, or bite the bullet and go Intel.
Youve been a huge help with this, thanks a million dude but I read some of the info on this stuff and it looks like this processor is a toe to toe kind of thing with AMD, like if I was deciding which to buy in the first place to get, then I would choose the 6100 but it does not look like it is really an upgrade but an alternative. I did however look though at the Intel Core I3 6320 on this sight:http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-6300-vs-Intel-Core-i3-6320/1555vs3535 which you see will give you benchmarks and all that fun stuff. As you can see, they are relatively close. Is there any reason not to get the 6320 instead? Is it worse in some way? Will it still work with the Mobo you suggested? I dont mind spending a bit extra if it means better performance. Just not alot extra.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,567
- 13
- 85,015
Every single site I find says DayZ runs like complete and utter crap regardless of what CPU you have.
I'm seeing people with modern i5/i7 CPU's get an average of 50 FPS frequently dropping to 10FPS.
That was several months ago. Has this changed?
Intel might be better but it can't overcome the limitations of a crappy game. If the IPC was 40% better on Intel then you can AT BEST get almost 40% higher FPS. In other words you'd drop to 14FPS instead of 10FPS in the same instance.
I'm seeing people with modern i5/i7 CPU's get an average of 50 FPS frequently dropping to 10FPS.
That was several months ago. Has this changed?
Intel might be better but it can't overcome the limitations of a crappy game. If the IPC was 40% better on Intel then you can AT BEST get almost 40% higher FPS. In other words you'd drop to 14FPS instead of 10FPS in the same instance.
- Nov 19, 2010
- 20,893
- 5,116
- 106,640
Remember, you'd need a new copy of Windows going to the 9590 anyway, unless you have one of a very few motherboards that support the 220W chip fully.
Ecky
Illustrious
- Feb 3, 2013
- 7,592
- 2
- 38,960
Although an i3 6100 and FX-6300 have similar total throughput, the i3 has as much throughput as the FX's six cores, in just two (with hyperthreading). Games are starting to gain benefit from additional threads, but the vast majority still need a single strong core to run the master thread. That's why you see the i3 and FX tie in something like a rendering benchmark (perfectly parallel) while in many games, the i3 is twice as fast as the FX.
The IPC advantage is more in the range of 60-75%, so 20FPS in a single-thread limited scenario on an FX-6300 would be more like 35FPS on an i3.
The IPC advantage is more in the range of 60-75%, so 20FPS in a single-thread limited scenario on an FX-6300 would be more like 35FPS on an i3.
Suzuki@1473780084@1473780163
Dignified
- Mar 8, 2015
- 5,283
- 1
- 15,960
It doesn't require a lot of case fans, and it doesn't require a high end PSU, what?
And, don't use the word "blow it away" because it's extreme fanboy talk. The FX 8300 isn't far behind the i5 6500 in workstation applications.
Stop this, please, it's very immature.
- Dec 22, 2014
- 32,733
- 2,814
- 113,640
Excuse me, before attacking me and calling me a fanboy, how about you look at the system in my signature. Yeah all AMD.
There is mountains of evidence showing all FX processors to be behind any Skylake Intel processor in almost every application except Compressing and Decompressing files using 7Zip. For what the OP wants (to play games) and what the average user does, Intel Skylake processors are better in every way, and yes single threaded blow the FX away, and even multi threaded are faster. The i3-6100 has been clearly benchmarked faster than the FX-9590 in most tasks. The lowest end Core processor vs the highest FX.
On top of that we deal with folks running this processor here every day, even with the prescribed motherboards they still run into heat issues due to the power draw, hence the requirement for better case cooling,. And finally when you have a processor that needs a 220w tdp rated board, and has been shown to draw over 300w you damn well need a high end PSU to be able to then run the whole system. I have seen it literally 100 times here, but if you like we can roll up a bunch of examples.
Calling people out as a fanboy is immature. As you can see by the unanimous agreement in this thread (other than you) there is fire behind my smoke.
- Aug 27, 2013
- 22,424
- 14
- 84,965
Forget all about the FX9590. Lets get that out of the way right from the start. It is very unlikely you have a motherboard that would even support a 125w FX cpu at full speed, much less a 220w beast.
If you can tell us what motherboard you actually do have, we could see about some AMD options.
What is your budget for upgrades? You could very very easily get a new Intel motherboard and i5 for considerably less than $300 that would be a tremendous upgrade for you. Of course that would require having to get windows so you'd be looking at around $350 total with windows. You could keep your RAM, hard drive, and case.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($189.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97M Anniversary Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($66.33 @ OutletPC)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($83.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $340.21
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-06-17 15:55 EDT-0400
LeKeiser
Reputable
- Mar 1, 2015
- 333
- 0
- 4,810
If the OP has to change everything, the Intel's way is the best way to go (and I say that when I changed my Intel config for an FX 
)
But if his motherboard allows it, then a FX 83XX OC wouldn't be a bad choice, and he wouldn't have to reinstall Windows. Still, a iX would be faster, but more expensive for a "simple" upgrade.
) But if his motherboard allows it, then a FX 83XX OC wouldn't be a bad choice, and he wouldn't have to reinstall Windows. Still, a iX would be faster, but more expensive for a "simple" upgrade.
photonboy
Titan
- Jun 20, 2006
- 21,567
- 13
- 85,015
Just FYI, but you do NOT need a new copy of Windows as suggested above a few posts if you swap the motherboard to one of the same SOCKET. That is called a REPAIR BUILD.
Anyway, no need to beat a dead horse and keep on suggesting the same thing. Let's let this guy respond if he needs more advice.
Anyway, no need to beat a dead horse and keep on suggesting the same thing. Let's let this guy respond if he needs more advice.
- Dec 22, 2014
- 32,733
- 2,814
- 113,640
Lets preface this with you are still going to need to call Microsoft to unlock your license, and they may well say no, but they seem to be generous these days.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Tried moving SSD from old PC to new one, now it won't boot from either
- Started by scyer327
- Replies: 9
-
Question why my pc dont have sound after install new Nvidia GPU Card?
- Started by sudsaviour
- Replies: 3
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 17
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram