As the title says, I am in between upgrading between the FX8350 and the 9590. Now I am ware that they are essentially the same chip just clocked a lot higher stock. However, I wanted to get your guys opinion whether the increased heat output and insane TDP was really worth the 700mhz or is the reduced price tag and an overclock the better route over all.
Some background Info
I have been using my 1090T since it was first released. Of course I have OC'ed myself but it feels to be loosing its umph. I am looking to bring the last life out of my AM3+ platform when the FX CPU's reduce in price and go on sale. Thanks in advance.
You wont see much of a increase in performance with swapping out the phenom II x6 to a 8350/9590 But if you want more I'd say get a 8350 and overclock it, 9590 isn't worth it.
Well, from what research I have found on the net, after the 3rd revision, they switched from analogue 4+1 MOSFETs to five digital IR3598 dual-MOSFET drivers to give 8+2 with a heat pipe connecting the MOSFET heatsink and the north bridge heatsink. If anything it is now more capable to drive the FX9xxx series chips than its previous revisions and that is what drove the decisions to only allow the 4th revision to be "supported" with the FX9xxx series CPU's.
People have seemed to be able to get the FX9590 to 5.1GHz stable with ease.
Alright, Thanks for the correction. I was looking at stock pictures off of google, and didn't realize yours was a revision with a heat pipe.
With that out of the way. I remember reading somewhere that pistol was having issues trying to get her 9590 stable at it's stock configuration. I don't remember which post i saw that in. I wouldn't risk the possible headaches. Just stick with your 1090t, IMO. If it's still not enough, jump on the Intel bandwagon like I did.
Perhaps, the Intel bandwagon will come after I graduate in the next couple of years. Until then I need to either keep pushing my 6 year old 1090T or wait for a ridiculous sale on either of the FX CPU's.
The good thing is my younger brother and father both have workstations based on the AMD AM3+ platform (some of the parts being my old one's) and both could use a jump from Phenom II X4's clocked at 3.2GHz and 2.2GHz respectfully.
Well 6 cores is nice, but now that I have 16GB of RAM, when I am working in Inventor, ProE, Matlab or doing some heavy video work with adobe suite, I often max out my CPU but not my RAM.
As such, I think that the biggest boost I will obtain will be multi-core performance rather than the slight clock boost in single or dual core performance (such as in games).
yeah that sounds fair enough in this case. I would pick a FX8350 then in this case.
Unless you could afford a 5820K X99 setup, that would ofc realy be a big step up, if you do allot of video editing rendering, and other kind of productivity stuf. But yeah that will be a pretty costly upgrade.
With all that productivity, I think you'll notice a boost in performance, although it may not be as noticeable as night-and-day. Would it be worth the ~$130-170? That's your call.
As someone who jumped from a 4.4GHz OC on an 1100T to a stock 9590 with the FX hotfix for Win7; there was a noticeable bit of snappiness gained. Things just seems to initialize and load a perceptive approximate of about 20-30% faster, moreso (~50%) when things like say GTAV is loading up all 8 cores getting to the main menu. Is the gain worth it? In my honest opinion I feel I should've waited just a bit longer for Zen; it would've only been another year from when I got the 9590. But I already had an ASRock 990FX Extreme9, so I pulled the trigger. I cannot get any more out of it than stock. I've tried everything the UEFI allows it just will not get past 4.8GHz all cores stable. So I run it stock. Since it's only a 220w TDP at full load even a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO will keep it cool enough at full RPM(tested 24h OCCT linpack). For a UD3 though you'll want plenty of incidental airflow over that VRM since it's not the best heatsink ever. Right now the ONLY game I know that needs an FX CPU is MGSV due to SSE1 instruction sets, and I do not notice an FPS gain in games over the 1100T just better loading times.
EDIT: Worth mentioning as well; Video encoding and transcoding halved the time on the 9590 vs the 1100T at 4.4GHz. I only recently got into other productivity like CAD, so I can't comment on performance gain there. I can however comment on how higher speed memory works with AMD platforms. HT or hyper-transport is directly related to memory speed limitations. If you have 2400MHz DRAM but your HT is set to 2000, the highest stable speed you can get out of that DRAM is 2000MHz. The 9590 comes with 2600MHz HT stock, and will run up to that on the DRAM just be sure to disable Spread Spectrum.