FX9590 clean install random freeze

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

sarnak417

Reputable
Sep 2, 2014
37
0
4,530
Hey there, I just installed a new CPU+MOBO on my computer that had a major BIOS fault a week ago. I went from an FX8350 + 990XA-UD3 to a FX9590 + GA-990FX-Gaming, however I kept my CM 212 Evo as a cooler, with a total of 6 high speed system fans.

Making a clean install was not easy at all, as the PC got stuck at "Gigabyte logo" many times and only after several resets I was able to start W10 setup, from this point everything looked right until it was completed and all drivers installed.. Then it started randomly freezing, even if the CPU temperature isn't high enough for causing it (apparently, it sits at 40-60°C idle/load). However it expecially freeze when using Prime95 torture test, but sometimes even while in idle.

Any idea what could resolve the issue? I'm already changing the cooler to a liquid one, even if I'm skeptical it will do anything usefull to this problem.

---
CPU: FX-9590 (Stock 4,7-5,0 GHz)
MOBO: GA-990FX-Gaming
RAM: 4x8GB (32gb) HyperX DDR3 1866Mhz
SSD: Samsung 740 EVO (240gb)
HDD: WD10EZEX 1TB
PSU: EVGA SUPERNOVA 1000W P2 Platinum Rated
SO: Windows 10 64 bit Pro
 
Solution
synphul
As CTurbo pointed out the 212 evo is nowhere near enough cooling for the fx 9590. Cpu's are given a thermal rating in watts (tdp) to help choose a cooler which can handle the expected heat output. The 212 evo is rated to 180w tdp and the fx 9590 is a 220w tdp cpu. Pushing it right to the max limit of the cooler might be pushing it.

Depending on the liquid cooler it may or may not help, for this cpu I'd skip the single 120mm aio's and look to the 240mm aio's like the h100i or similar. Some 9590's are pushed so hard at the factory they're not quite stable at stock and users get them stable by downclocking them a bit. For that reason people are generally better off with a much less expensive fx 8350 and overclocking it until it's stable.
Sort by date Sort by votes
CTurbo

CTurbo

Pizza Monster
Moderator
Aug 27, 2013
22,424
14
84,965
The 212 is no where near good enough for a 9590. If the problem persists after you get a more adequate cooler, THEN you have a problem.



FYI, the FX9590 is just a big headache on it's own. They're hard to get stable on any system.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
synphul

synphul

Champion
Mar 11, 2011
9,477
7
54,965
As CTurbo pointed out the 212 evo is nowhere near enough cooling for the fx 9590. Cpu's are given a thermal rating in watts (tdp) to help choose a cooler which can handle the expected heat output. The 212 evo is rated to 180w tdp and the fx 9590 is a 220w tdp cpu. Pushing it right to the max limit of the cooler might be pushing it.

Depending on the liquid cooler it may or may not help, for this cpu I'd skip the single 120mm aio's and look to the 240mm aio's like the h100i or similar. Some 9590's are pushed so hard at the factory they're not quite stable at stock and users get them stable by downclocking them a bit. For that reason people are generally better off with a much less expensive fx 8350 and overclocking it until it's stable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
S

sarnak417

Reputable
Sep 2, 2014
37
0
4,530
Thank you everyone for your answers, I'll get a good CL cooler tomorrow and see how it goes, meanwhile I'll downclock the CPU a little. The MOBO natively supports FX9590 + OC so there should be no problem with that. Still can't believe 212 can handle 4,8GHz FX8350 but cannot cool down a FX9590 at 4,7GHz, I really liked that cooler.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
synphul

synphul

Champion
Mar 11, 2011
9,477
7
54,965
The 212 evo is a good cooler for the price. It's still a lower budget entry cooler and only having a single tower, 1 fan and 4 heatpipes it can only do so much. I'd be surprised to see a 212 evo do well on an fx 8350 at 4.8ghz under full load unless perhaps it's a really great overclocker with low vcore. Extremetech tried with their fx 8350 to hit 9590 clock speeds and were unable to get to 4.7 on air. They went to phase change and had stability issues once the cpu warmed up past sub zero temps.
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/159619-5ghz-showdown-overclocked-5ghz-amd-haswell-ivy-bridge

It's possible for someone to have an fx 8 core cpu clocked that high that doesn't hit full load across all 8 cores, if only 4 or 5 cores were fully loaded or a similar situation then the 212 evo may have sufficed. With only some cores at full load it wouldn't be putting out maximum heat.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ecky

Ecky

Illustrious
Feb 3, 2013
7,592
2
38,960
The FX-9590 is hand-selected as a high-leakage CPU, which essentially means it's going to draw a lot more power and make a lot more heat even at the same clocks and voltage as an FX-8350. The reason AMD did this was to improve the CPU's lifespan at these clocks; low leakage CPUs are more easily degraded by heat and voltage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

sarnak417

Reputable
Sep 2, 2014
37
0
4,530


I used the FX8350 for two years at 4,4-4,8 GHz depending on the software without problems with the 212, I only decided to change it beause I could not guarantee it didn't get any damage when my older mobo died brutally.

Anyway, I followed the suggestion to downclock the 9590 and well it worked pretty fast. Tried directly with 4,5 and it was stable. Therefore I decided to confirm my liquid cooling order (probably corsair h100i or gt) and meanwhile I'll downclock the cpu down to 4,0 Ghz to be sure it doesn't get damaged. Thank you all for the suggestions :)
 
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