Originally Posted by Particle
I'm not really sure what you mean. An FX-9590 and motherboard together run about $350. No special power supply is needed. No overclocking is needed. No special heatsink is required.
you do need a decent cooler to prevent thermal throttling, but pretty much any aftermarket heatsink will work.
Originally Posted by Ultracarpet
Don't 9590's come with a clc water cooler? I think he/she meant you don't need to add to that $350 by buying a better cooler.
When they first came out, they came with the clc. You can buy just the oem chip now, which don't come with a cooler.
Originally Posted by Themisseble
Does that mean quad core for 230$ and quad with 8 threads for 300$?
as far as I know AMD will not be releasing anything less than 6 cores at first. AMD will release 4 core parts later down the road in their apu line.
Originally Posted by Scorpion49
No, they don't. You can pay extra for the special edition with a garbage 120mm CLC but the "cheap" 9590 is just the chip only. Its a waste of money anyways, an 8370 is cheaper and will likely clock higher.
i wouldn't call it garbage, they are decent units. When the 9590 was first released it was 999$ and came with that cooler, you couldn't buy just the cpu for awhile.
Originally Posted by Vario
Well, looking at newegg really quick, i5 6500 $200, Gigabyte GA-H110M $55, so $255.
FX8300-99$ cheap board 50$, so 150$. The I5 is a better cpu in most cases, but not all. It doesn't make much sense to recommend AMD cpus on any pc build over 600$
Originally Posted by Particle
A decade-old $30 heatsink I had on my shelf cooled an FX-9590 under full load without any problem. I consider that to be no special heatsink. You may keep your bridge.
Ok, if you want to move market segments then pick out a cheaper AMD processor and motherboard. I purposely picked out the fastest and most expensive AMD processor there was to show the low price ceiling. Still not sure what your point is other than wanting to win an argument.
Originally Posted by Stuuut
The community hyped up Bulldozer and followed some AMD forum user like he was a god and looked away from everything indicating it was going to be bad.
But its always AMD's fault
ahh yes good old Jeff.
Originally Posted by SuperZan
It's really not though. You just put words into my mouth while completely missing the point of my post. Intel overclocking, despite its limitations, is quite finicky. I can boot and get stable on a variety of different base clock / multiplier / NB/HT clockspeeds for different results on my FX processor. The FX can also be cooled by a basic air cooler up to 4.6-4.7 GHz. Good luck managing that with Skylake. The 6700k I've got is better. Flat-out. But it's not a more interesting platform to tweak than my 990FX chipset that can run 300+ BCLK. For HWBOT shenanigans, FX series is great fun, and much
Observations aren't 'complaints', and I think I own and have owned enough Intel SKU's to comment on them.
I will agree the FX chips are fun with play around with and they are tanks that handle abuse. The only case I know of that a FX cpu will beat that 6700k of yours is in virtual machines, On the fx you can run 8 separate vm's without much of an issue, good luck doing that on the 4c/8t skylake. Other than that ya skylakes are nice.
Originally Posted by B NEGATIVE
This has been the only AMD release since Thuban that im excited for,hopefully mobo makers will give it some real attention instead of the lacklustre efforts like the 9XX boards.
the 9xx series boards were decent when they were first released, they are just OLD now. On Amd's releases, I was excited for the 7970, and interested in Kaveri as well but that was due to HSA. Other than that I'm with you 100%.