Overclock.net banner

9590 on crosshair iv formula?

8K views 48 replies 14 participants last post by  mattliston 
#1 ·
Can it be done? I know I can run an 8350 with bios update, but the 9590 is the same price so if I can run this I figure might aswell. Just bought a 1080 and figure CPU needs to be upgraded but don't wanna dump the money on a new mobo and cpu just yet. Nothing else is bottlenecking me with a 1080 is it? Thanks
 
#2 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnn999 View Post

Can it be done? I know I can run an 8350 with bios update, but the 9590 is the same price so if I can run this I figure might aswell. Just bought a 1080 and figure CPU needs to be upgraded but don't wanna dump the money on a new mobo and cpu just yet. Nothing else is bottlenecking me with a 1080 is it? Thanks
A 9590 is never a good idea. Even with the best 990FX boards and a custom waterloop people have scads of heat related problems. Get any 8 core like an 8300, 8320, 8350 etc... and overclock it to say 4.7 GHz.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisjames61 View Post

A 9590 is never a good idea. Even with the best 990FX boards and a custom waterloop people have scads of heat related problems. Get any 8 core like an 8300, 8320, 8350 etc... and overclock it to say 4.7 GHz.
Wouldn't an 8350 clocked @ 4.7 Ghz produce the same heat as 9590 @ 4.7 Ghz?

I did see a clip on Youtube where someone was advising to turn the AMD turbo off in the BIOS - It may be called something slightly different.

I bought a 9590 but wish I'd just got the 8350 instead but I did get an 8350 as well - It's a good CPU [for the money] if used with multi-threaded applications.
 
#4 ·
It isn't about the heat generated but about the type of heat. The 8350 is smooth and steady while the 9590 spikes and jumps all over the place thus making it much harder to control. The 8350 is just much easier to work with.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by miklkit View Post

It isn't about the heat generated but about the type of heat. The 8350 is smooth and steady while the 9590 spikes and jumps all over the place thus making it much harder to control. The 8350 is just much easier to work with.
Right - But what if 9590 was clocked to 4 Ghz like the 8350 - Is it smoother then?

I thought the 9590 was meant to be better binned [better quality silicone] or something - So why would 9590 not be smooth like the 8350? - Is there a defect?
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fra z View Post

Right - But what if 9590 was clocked to 4 Ghz like the 8350 - Is it smoother then?

I thought the 9590 was meant to be better binned [better quality silicone] or something - So why would 9590 not be smooth like the 8350? - Is there a defect?
No, they have different characteristics. The 9590 is what is called a "high leakage" part. That is what allows the 9590 to clock so high but at a cost of heat and voltage.
 
#7 ·
Is the 8350 easily overclocked to that same level? My 1055T is at 3.8 but 4.7+ would be much better I would think lol. And okay if the 9590 is way too much ill just get the 8350 and see if I can overclock it to something decently high. Is the 8370 any better or just a higher stock clock?

On a side note, im tired of my huge ugly looking cpu cooler, considering a thermaltake 3.0 240 to replace it
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fra z View Post

Right - But what if 9590 was clocked to 4 Ghz like the 8350 - Is it smoother then?

I thought the 9590 was meant to be better binned [better quality silicone] or something - So why would 9590 not be smooth like the 8350? - Is there a defect?
That is an interesting question. But first, it is not "better" binned but differently binned to suit its purpose better which is high stock clocks.

Here is an interesting comparison of MY 8350, 8370, and 9590 at 4.7 ghz. I must say that if you have the self control to turn off turbo and then undervolt it, then the 9590 does quite well at 4.7. I do not have said self control.
rolleyes.gif


 
#9 ·
Hi Miklkit,

I've not used my 9590 yet [one day yes] - If it is run at a lower voltage and still maintains 4.7 Ghz there will be less heat produced right? - It may spike, but if the baseline is lower so is the spike - I'm not interested in turbo on one core - I'm more into more cores working together!!!

I see you have 1.5 v - Is this the lowest you could have this?
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnn999 View Post

Is the 8350 easily overclocked to that same level? My 1055T is at 3.8 but 4.7+ would be much better I would think lol. And okay if the 9590 is way too much ill just get the 8350 and see if I can overclock it to something decently high. Is the 8370 any better or just a higher stock clock?

On a side note, im tired of my huge ugly looking cpu cooler, considering a thermaltake 3.0 240 to replace it
I think the 8370 is the same clock as the 8350 - And again I think 8370 is just an updated version of the 8350 with some minor improvements - 8350 is down in price and a good performance for just over £100
 
#11 ·
I put the three charts together so that the three CPUs could be compared directly. They are all running at 4.7 on the same system.

The 8350 is struggling a bit to get there and is running at 1.5 vcore. It also has the highest temperature in CPU 0.

The 8370 is a pretty good one and is doing better at 1.476 vcore and CPU0 temps that are 5C cooler.

The 9590 is doing surprisingly well after some tuning at 1.428 vcore. This is a big difference from its normal 1.5+ vcore. It also has the lowest temps and showed no tendency to spike. The spiking is what hurt it when I pushed it hard.

If you have the self control to turn off turbo and undervolt it at 4.7, then the 9590 should serve you well. If you try to push it to see what it will do, then you will quickly kill it. That is why everyone recommends getting an 8xxx cpu instead. They are more reliable.
 
#12 ·
Hi,

Yes I saw the 8350 CPU-Z @ 1.5 v but no CPU-Z for the 8370 and 9590 - But you've explained it - I don't regret buying the 9590 now because you've explained if turbo is off and voltage is lowered [and I learn the BIOS properly] to know what all the settings do then I should be OK.

I'm not interested in overclocking 9590 for the sake of it and would prefer longevity!

I could eventually liquid cool as cheaply as possible or used closed loop cooler [H100i] or similar or good air cooler.

Under the correct settings is liquid loop still recommended? - How many degrees difference would it be between liquid, closed loop and air - By air I mean quite a good one - Phanteks / Noctura / Coolermaster V8 -

This has already been talked about lots so it's just a ballpark number or two! - When I do build it it'll be either Sabertooth 990FX R3 or CHVFZ - Either should be good! - Then the 8350 goes on the other!
 
#13 ·
I've been running an FX9590 for two years now on the Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0, it's almost impossible to cool at stock under load it just jumps all over the place as the voltage is constantly changed.

I underclock mine to 4.5GHz and drop to 1.4v with Turbo disabled, hovers around 45c idle and stays under 60c with heavy load using a Corsair H100. Prefer stability and less heat especially during the summer.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fot3k View Post

I've been running an FX9590 for two years now on the Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0, it's almost impossible to cool at stock under load it just jumps all over the place as the voltage is constantly changed.

I underclock mine to 4.5GHz and drop to 1.4v with Turbo disabled, hovers around 45c idle and stays under 60c with heavy load using a Corsair H100. Prefer stability and less heat especially during the summer.
This seems like a good plan -
smile.gif
- Could you have got the volatage lower than 1.4 v? [and maintain stability] -
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by miklkit View Post

I put the three charts together so that the three CPUs could be compared directly. They are all running at 4.7 on the same system.

The 8350 is struggling a bit to get there and is running at 1.5 vcore. It also has the highest temperature in CPU 0.

The 8370 is a pretty good one and is doing better at 1.476 vcore and CPU0 temps that are 5C cooler.

The 9590 is doing surprisingly well after some tuning at 1.428 vcore. This is a big difference from its normal 1.5+ vcore. It also has the lowest temps and showed no tendency to spike. The spiking is what hurt it when I pushed it hard.

If you have the self control to turn off turbo and undervolt it at 4.7, then the 9590 should serve you well. If you try to push it to see what it will do, then you will quickly kill it. That is why everyone recommends getting an 8xxx cpu instead. They are more reliable.
So do you think I could run the 9590 on my crosshair iv and just undervolt it with turbo off and leave it at 4.7 or whatever it's at, or would I be better with the 8350/8370 and overclock it. I just like that the 9590 is same price as 8350 and a 9370 is even a bit cheaper. I will need to update my bios to run any of those, but I don't really see any info saying I can run the 9xxx but I do see people running the 8xxx ones.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnn999 View Post

So do you think I could run the 9590 on my crosshair iv and just undervolt it with turbo off and leave it at 4.7 or whatever it's at, or would I be better with the 8350/8370 and overclock it. I just like that the 9590 is same price as 8350 and a 9370 is even a bit cheaper. I will need to update my bios to run any of those, but I don't really see any info saying I can run the 9xxx but I do see people running the 8xxx ones.
8350 is cheaper now than 9590 - Cost wise I'd get 8350 but if you want 9590 [and pay more] it depends how much you want 9590 - ! - Or an 8370 [revised 8350] or 9370 [in between 8350 & 9590 @ 4.4 Ghz base] ! -
 
#17 ·
I didn't see any voltage or temperature spikes from my 9590 when I undervolted it, but I also did not run it 24/7 after that either. So I can't say if air cooling is safe with it or not when clocks are kept low. I do know that when overclocked it turns into a monster that is hard to control and water cooling is the best solution not because it cools better but because water flowing across the block can handle the spikes better.

Also, do not call that Coolermaster V8 a good cooler. It isn't as there are many cheaper coolers that out perform it. Any of the top brands like Be Quiet, Cryorig, Phanteks, and Thermalright are good but the best is still the Noctua D14/D15 because their fans can be adjusted to blow cool air directly at the motherboard VRMs.

The 9590 has that 4.7 ghz stock, but the 8xxx are safer to use long term.
 
#18 ·
Hi Miklkit,

I do have a Phanteks PH-14 or similar - Also have a Coolermaster V8 that is good for upto 250 watts [or similar] - In time I'll add a Noctura - then compare etc...... I know 24/7 use is self explanatory but what level of sustained use would show up a defficient cooling solution?

Maybe an hour on idle to see see average temps? - Then a test of some sort but not too severe [gentle] - Monitor temps to see what's happening

I don't have much experience yet but I did see an Intel i7 3930k with Phanteks PH-14 TC [off the top of my head] idle at around 31-32 degrees C with two fans - I don't even know if the fans are PWM or not [3 pins] and a bit of a fuss where one of the advertised cables were not included - I think I got an older model - Much more to learn in time!

AMD is going to be 10 degrees hotter out of the box isn't it?
 
#19 ·
A 9590, even locked at 5GHz is still going to bottleneck a GTX 1080 quite a bit.

With that said, I have been running a 9590 in my second rig for over a year now. Yes it is like trying to cool a volcano on the center of your motherboard, but that is also why I like it. It is a ridiculous piece of hardware.
biggrin.gif


I would never consider anything less than a 240mm CLC to try and cool a 9590 at stock settings. My Deepcool Captain 240mm barely keeps it at 62c while video encoding which is the hottest you ever want a FX chip to run. Gaming should be easier on the CPU however.

When I used the 9590 in my main gaming rig, I ran it at 5.15GHz @ 1.57v 24/7 and benched it at 5.31GHz. This was on my full custom loop so temps were less of a concern.
 
#20 ·
My 9590 is on a gigabyte UD7. It is hot as heck but with enough cooling it is fine. Steep learning curve compared to the 8370e and 8120 cpus I have worked with. Once you have it dialed in it works well though.
 
#21 ·
This is why stress testing is important. It finds your cooling limits as well as stability. Set it at 4.7 and then tinker with vcore and LLC to get it running as cool as possible while still passing IBT AVX at very high. A Phanteks 14 PE should handle that fine. If temperatures go over 62C, then you need to work on your cooling including case fans. When you get it so it can do that, then your everyday temps will be fine. As an example here is my temps after a gaming session pushing a Fury @ 1440P. Note the idle temps of 21C and the max temps of 60C with average temps of 45C.

 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fra z View Post

This seems like a good plan -
smile.gif
- Could you have got the volatage lower than 1.4 v? [and maintain stability] -
I enabled some of the power save features with the same voltage 1.4v and now it's idling at 32c which is pretty damn good for this chip. I have noticed some slight stutter everynow and then because of the power save obviously it's ramping down and back up when needed. For gaming I would disable the power save features.
 
#24 ·
Without proper cooling the 9590 isn't worth the trouble. IMHO 60mm x 360 at minimum. Same for the 8350 etc when we start taking about 5GHz.
I have been running what you see in rig sig for two years trouble free at 5117MHz 24 hr P95 stable with 1.488v in bios (bounces between 1.488 and 1.5v idle in win 10) and a steady 1.512v under load.
That ole familiar saying "budget parts = budget results" has never been more true.

Will it work? Probably. Check the "Official CHIV" link in my sig. On the OP there's a "members List" showing a lot of really good OC data members obtained. The thread itself will have the info you'll need for the 8xxx series as well.
Not saying it'll be easy.... but might be doable.

You may have more fun running a 1090T the CHIV.
It's cheaper, not as hard to cool and with a moderate loop 4.2GHz with 3000MHz NB isn't out of the question.
This is my 1090T on a CHIV-F with a 4233MHz and 3211MHz CPU/NB

Like others are telling you, if at all possible wait it out.
Speaking from personal experience, I too have just switched to AM4 (1800x/CHVI) and with this setup still at default it simply kicks my 5117MHz/9590's behind.
May be time to put ole girl on the selling block!
 
#25 ·
The FX-9590 will do well with a Evo 212 with a push/pull configuration.Hell it cools better than my H80 Corsair,and it's beast when it's O/C.I personally have the 9370 which is basically the same,and I have had it down to -1 with an Evo 212 at idle,and 50 degrees Celsius under Prime95 for over an hour of max CPU loads.I recently built a 1700x,and honestly the benchmarks show better but that 9590 will be viable for at least another couple of years easy.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackCY View Post

Do yourself a favor and switch to AM4 6 or 8 core CPU, totally worth it. Don't bother with Faildozer anymore. Save up and make the jump. 9590 = 8350 overvolted and overclocked, nothing more, all are power hogs with low performance.
I agree with this. If you already have one then run what you have. As a 9590 owner I cannot recommend buying one. If it is an issue of cost, used x79 setups are pretty cheap these days and miles better than AM3. 3930K is still a pretty solid chip.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top