Is the FX-9590 worth it in the long run?

[Anencephalus]

I have read many benchmarks, reviews, debates, articles, etc on the FX-9590. So far I have pretty much seen that if you can afford it, obviously the 9590 is one of your best bets for the latest AMD cpus, if not then the real bang for your buck would be to go with the FX-8350.

I have a gaming PC but with the next-gen games and the fact that my PC is a bit outdated, I'm going to be building a new one (my current build would not support the upgrades I want). I spent days trying to find out whether or not the 8350 would be better than the 9590 and eventually decided the 8350 would be the best decision as I am on a budget.

However, upon finding out that there would be a significant price drop on the FX-9590 I began to second guess my decision. Finally after about 2 weeks of waiting I finally saw Newegg with the new price cut on the 9590 located here.

So now I have come to a slight predicament. I have read that the 9590 isn't too much of a significant upgrade and that it wasn't worth the extra $100+. But now with the price cut, would it be better to get the $240 9590? Is there a significant increase in power?

//On a side note I am still learning and accepting anyone's input. I am aware that the main importance of a CPU is how fast/powerful the individual cores are. Is this true and if so is it significantly better than the 9590?

I can afford the 9590 and I'm hoping my next build will be able to last the next few years so if the 9590 is significantly better than the 8350, then I would rather take the 9590.

One other problem keeping me away from the 9590 was I read an article saying that the FX-9590 and I believe the 9370, I can't remember for sure, were built in the intention of the enthusiast using liquid cooling. I am a little shaky on liquid cooling and although it seems efficient (and badass), is it really worth the risk? I have had many computers donated to the facility where I fix/repair computers that have had liquid cooling mechanisms broken and ruining the entire machine. If I were to get the 9590 I would probably use the current heatsink I have unless convinced that liquid cooling is worth it and not much of a risk.

To summarize,
-liquid cooling = risky? y/n?
-If I use a heatsink would it be better to get the 8350?

Is the FX-9590 worth it in the long run? Or should I stick with what everyone else is saying and go with the 8350?

Here is my next build if you would like to see what I'm planning on getting. Obviously the CPU is not a for sure yet as I am still debating the 8350 or the 9590. (I have a hard drive, monitor, mouse, keyboard)

Thanks very much, any additional information would be awesome. I love learning so throw anything at me

 

[SlayZombi]

The 9590 is just an overclocked 8350. Same architecture and everything. Totally not worth it.

 

[NightAntilli]

Go for the 8350. Or maybe the 8370. I agree that it's not worth it.

 

[digitaldoc]

http://www.pugetsystems.com/parts/CPU/AMD-FX-9590-4-7GHz-220W-9542

With 220 W of power consumption, I would totally stay far away from the FX-9590. (This comes from someone whose last 5 desktop chips were AMD dating back to 2000).

 

[LookItsRain]

Its just a factory guaranteed over clock of 4.7 ghz on a 8350. Plus i dont why people freak out about the tdp, 8350 will be around the same tdp at the same clocks.

 

[Gam3r01]

But for the price its not worth it to get the 9xxx series.
Also, the guaranteed OC can hadly be considered stable.

 

[Anencephalus]

Thanks so much for your answers guy! Love the community!

 

[mdocod]

The FX-9590 would be perfectly acceptable if it were in a bubble where there were no alternatives that could do better, unfortunately, the E3-1231V3 offers even greater single threaded performance and comparable parallel workload performance, dissipates 1/3rd the power, and can run fine on its included HSF, or very quietly on a compact inexpensive (~$20) heatpipe cooler. The FX-9590 even at $240 is still just a novelty chip for AMD enthusiasts that requires an additional $50-100 at minimum worth of cooling to run, (and no less than a ~$130 990FX motherboard with 6+2phase power or better). There's very little practicality there.

 

[logainofhades]

I second going with a Xeon 1231v3.

 

[8350rocks]

I have a system with 8350, and another with 9590. I will say this...the one advantage of the 9590 is that it will run 4.7 GHz all day, every day, with no issues.

I have to say, between the 2 systems, there is perhaps a maximum difference of roughly 100W over the course of a 6 hour gaming session. That is with the 8350 running 4.4 and the 9590 bone stock @ 4.7.

It really is not the massive difference in consumption people think it is.

Also the Seidon120XL cooler that comes with the cooler bundled 9590 it is plenty sufficient and quiet, you can get something of your own liking, but I see temps with high under 50C.

In my mind, it just boils down to what you want to do...the 8350 is a great CPU, and the 9590 is more of a good thing.

By the way...neither chips are "space heaters" either. In my experience, neither one runs very hot at all...

 

[8350rocks]

But for the price its not worth it to get the 9xxx series.
Also, the guaranteed OC can hadly be considered stable.

I have the 9590, and it is perfectly stable. Check the current CPU-Z verification to see my system specs for that rig. It is perfectly fine in stock form. I have not even tried to overclock yet...I really see no reason at this point.