add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

AMD FX-9590

sterling919
  • 1 month ago

https://pcpartpicker.com/product/pGrG3C/amd-cpu-fd9590fhhkwof

I saw the core clocks on this and looked at the price and was just blown out of my mind, how well would this hold up in streaming/gaming/yt channel video editing?

The games i like to play are rainbow six siege, elite dangerous, and rust.

Comments

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

Poorly. Its on par with a Ryzen 1200 when it comes to gaming. It is really a quad core CPU due to how its architecture share resources between cores, there was/is a lawsuit about this. And clock speed doesn't translate to performance, the FX 9590 is literally the perfect example of that. And despite being so slow it uses a TON of power and will straight up kill lesser boards with literal spontaneous combustion due to how much stress it puts on the VRM. Plus it is on a older platform that is lacking a lot of features. Plus you need a beefy cooler for it. And it uses DRR3. Its from AMD dark Bulldozer era. The architecture as a whole was a massive flop. Even AMD gave up on it at one point and started using Intel CPU's for their GPU demos.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

They did? That is truly, truly sad.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

They still do.

Look in the footnotes for every graphics card release and you'll find RTG only uses Intel platforms for performance testing.

  • 1 month ago
  • 3 points

If you are looking for a good value CPU try this: Ryzen 5 1600 AF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkxrM9AvT-4

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

That was one of AMD's worst mistakes ever. It's a overclocked 8350 but with a massive 225 Watt power draw.

It gets stomped on by a 150 buck i5 9400f.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9400F-vs-AMD-FX-9590/4051vs1812

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Fun fact: It also loses in multicore operations to a Ryzen 5 1400. The cheapest first gen 4c/8t part.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

It looses to about everything, and takes a expensive board and high end cooling.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

FX-8320 was the best of the series in my opinion.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

I managed to snag in 2014 a 990FX chipset board and a FX-8320 CPU combined for the cost of a basic Intel i3 by itself. I thought it would be at least decent cost to performance but it only lasted me till 2017 before I was sick of the CPU lagging behind. I had managed to overclock it to 4.72 GHz on a hyper 212 evo air cooler so I think I won the silicon lotto on that CPU. Though when I got my r7-1800x early 2017 holy crap there was no way to compare them. Well it is like comparing a small go kart with a 1.5hp engine to a modern day muscle car on a race track.

I did add my name to the AMD class action lawsuit so I am waiting to hear back with the results. Any amount I happen to get will just be a bonus! Would be very funny if I get more back than what I spent on the cpu.

  • 1 month ago
  • 2 points

Nah the best was the FX 8320E or any other 95W 8 core variants. You could overclock them to ~4.7Ghz on a ~$70 board.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

All of the FX series suxed the last good AMD processors before AM4 was the 970 black as far as competing with Intel.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Would you consider enlightening me about something regarding this benchmark? 64 core performance? Wait what? lol? B4 that there was something about 8 core performance of this 6 cores/6 threads that is i5 9400F CPU...

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

If you can't read it's not my fault.

Their not saying the 6400F has 8 cores their comparing 8 core performance. The 6 cores beat the 8 core performance of the 9590.

The 64 core is a simple benchmark using all the processor can do so you know in the future. A multi-core server orientated integer and floating point CPU benchmark test.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Sure there is , but whatever

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

It gets stomped on by a 150 buck i5 9400f

Correction: In gaming performance the FX 9590 gets beat by a R3-1200. The increase in IPC is what really made that difference. Comparing it to a 9400f is just cruel.........lol. However you look at it the FX line of CPUs is a horrible value today and I would now count as obsolete. If one needs multi core power for video editing and such the current prices on the r7 2700 is just downright great and you can get a solid motherboard for it too without breaking the bank.

Though I would take data from userbenchmark with a grain of salt especially with how they translate the numbers and weights of tests for the end score: https://youtu.be/AaWZKPUidUY

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Though I would take data from userbenchmark with a grain of salt especially with how they translate the numbers and weights of tests for the end score:

They had a bug where 8-cored CPU were receiving double scores for both AMD and Intel.

The 3990WX never should have been their most highly ranked CPU for gaming as it was before the change.

Giving that AMD has limited multi-core scaling by prioritizing two or four cores depending on the model to receive almost all the workloads, and Intel is slated to do the same with 10th gen, it's not totally off base for them to keep using one and four threads as their primary metrics when both CPU companies are limiting multi-cores into a select few.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

It's not 100% accurate but gives you a Idea of how they compare. You can always use passmark>

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I then looked at the compatible motherboards, there isnt many and the ones that are there and have a price are expensive, then i looked them up and found windows 8

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

so, probably not

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

It's an overclocked FX 8350 that gets trashed by quad cored Intel models in almost all workloads.

Don't bother with it unless you want to burn out some motherboards for grins and giggles.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

i see, nvm then

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

Not to pile on, but I'll pile on ... The FX-9590 and the whole bulldozer series in general can clock high partly because it doesn't do a lot of work per clock cycle. AMD took it too far in that direction, and even at crazy looking clock speeds, the thing is basically a dog.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

go with a ryzen 5 1600 af instead. much stronger and its much more power efficient. the 9590 is a chip that demands top tier cooling and power delivery with budget cpu performance. the 1600af can run on budget power delivery and cooling and perform great performance

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

No one should buy an FX 9590. Even if you have a motherboard that can handle it, first-gen Ryzen already performs better.

Just to expand on motherboards: only a handful of AM3 boards could handle the massive thermals and power draw of the 9590. Asus Crosshair V Formula Z, Asus Sabertooth (2.0 and 3.0), Asrock 990FX Extreme 9, Gigabyte 990FX Gaming and maybe one or two others. If you don't have one of these boards, just skip the 9590 since you don't have the hardware to run it anyway.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

I saw the core clocks on this and looked at the price and was just blown out of my mind, how well would this hold up in streaming/gaming/yt channel video editing?

While nobody in their right mind should purchase this today, if it and a heavy duty motherboard fell on your lap, if would work in a pinch. I recollect a friend running Dolphin and Cemu on this CPU and it pretty much ran everything at full speed. Gaming wise you should hit 60fps plus most titles. Even 1% lows should be manageable. Is it a good CPU? No. Does it work with most Windows 10 applications, including gaming? Yes. Is it true that Intel's i3 and AMD's Ryzen 3 are monstrously ahead in performance? Yes. Does that mean the CPU is unusable? No. People like to talk smack about this CPU and that is okay but I draw the line with those that believe a Raspberry Pi beats it.

  • 1 month ago
  • 1 point

No. It's incredibly power hungry, hot and old. It's unfortunate :(

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube