putting together amd rig. recommendations?

Hey guys, I'm helping out a friend of mine assemble himself a new amd rig. He has almost the whole thing bought, one of the lone components left is his cpu.
for a mobo, he has bought the asus crosshair formula-z
for a cpu, he is deciding between the 8350, and the 9590, as there is only a $50 price difference.
Was just wondering what the minimum cooling you guys would recommend for one of those. He will eventually go custom water, but to begin with he is looking at something like the noctua h14 d (whatever that big dual tower 140 mm one is called, and we are able to get one for $40, allowing him to spend more on the build now, save up for the wc loop later) would that be able to hold the 9590 at stock clocks? Also, for psu we were thinking of getting him a corsair 750w or 850w psu, as the 1000w minimum called for by amd for the 9590 seems a tad excessive. Was planning on getting either 290/290x for it, or maybe pick up a couple of used 280x on the cheap side of things.
it's going to be going into the corsair 750d, so room and airflow should be good.

First off, I believe the 9590 is just a binned 8350 with higher stock clocks (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Whether the price difference is worth it is up to your friend. The noctua cooler will suffice for either chip, even with a moderate overclock.

What resolution does he plan on running? An 850w psu could probably run most of those setups listed without problem. You'd borderline the 750 with any type of overclock on the chip and dual cards.

To begin with he is just going to be running 1920x1080.
but eventually he wants to either get one of those 21:9 super wide screen monitors, or go to a triple monitor 1080p setup. And that was my understanding of the 9590 vs 8350 as well, although a chip that's been binned and will run stock @ 5 ghz does sound like it's worth something.

Yes the FX 9XXX chips are just an 8350 binned higher. My 8350 with 2 560TI cards worked fine up to 5 GHZ on a Seasonic 850w Gold power supply, I wouldn't recommend anything less. To be honest I am not sure that any air cooler is really up to a 9XXX series FX CPU especially once pushing 5GHZ. It would be fine for any of the FX 8XXX CPU even with a mild OC but I think will fall short of any high OC over 4.6 ish. There have been some 8350 come through that seem to run cooler.... who knows maybe you will win the silicone lottery.

Going to try and speak to the "general" results seen around here...

...key is general and around here.

This is done with d*mn good cooling most likely since "johan" and "mandrake" among others have cooling and know how to overclock an 8 core FX processor.

Because of the criteria AMD has chosen to make 9370s and 9590s for sale, they seem to have little extra clock in them and the 5.0Ghz you see talked about with the FX-9590...that is done with TurbCore and will never be using more than one half of the 8 cores at that 5.0Ghz. Most of us take the cpus like the FX-8350 firstly and the FX-8320 secondly and get good cooling and normally have all 8 cores enabled for those WFO cpu speeds you see which normally in here we do not really see the FX-9xxx cpus capable of reaching.

Some of the results many of us have gotten are done with much 'earlier' cpus. What we see or *normally* seem to see most often lately is that AMD in adjusting the binning to get FX-9xxx processors for sale has changed the overclocking potential of the later produced FX-83xx processors.

For that reason myself, I would likely go for the FX-8350 since its' default speed is 4.0ghz which is enough for most daily use and without the heat of the FX-9xxx processors even in their default speed which is higher than the FX-8350s 4.0Ghz.

The problem is you are asking an open-ended question in a forum where there are at least 4 or 5 of us that are day in and day out in here helping and have been since the release of the AMD FX processors and all of us have gone from air to mini-water to big arse rads out in the -20 degree outside cold. "Johan" has had only one of about 3 FX-9370s that would really clock. That so far seems to be the scenario for the FX-9590. You have to remember that we only see X number of processors of the whole world. I as do, a few others look at other sites to see what certain AMD things are doing, and speaking from a couple of years experience with the FX processors, there is no way I would put my own money in any of the FX-9xxx processors. I would save that spare money to buy another FX processor if the first one would not haul major arse. I have had 4 eight core FX-8xxx processors and only two of them have been decent overclockers. Glad I did not have any extra money in the ones that would not get up and go. YMMV. IMO. FYI.
RGone...ster.

the 8350 is the way to go, over the 9xxx cpu's, and 8350 at 4.6-4.8 will get a lot of work done.

if your friend games, you cut the 8350 to 4 cores and clock those higher as most games can only make use of 4 cores any way.

to game, the sweet spot for ram is an 8 gig kit, 1866, cl9 clocked to around 2000 with this processor.

most 8350's should be able to run 4.8 on air, on 4 cores.

Luckily, the set of ram he has already purchased is 1866 cl9 2x4gb so that works pretty good. I'll push him towards getting the 8350. Is it really worth the effort to turn 4 cores off to game with? He does a few other things with it that he says the 8 cores will really be helpful. Surely just a good stable oc on all 8 cores would be the most convenient way to go about it.

Running all 8 cores will be helpful if using all 8. C/D's suggestion of shutting cores down really only applies if you really needed to push the clock speed for the game, which is usually for a cpu intensive game. As far as what chip to get I agree with the above on getting the Fx 8350, on Air such as the Noctua you mentioned you should be able to get it to at least 4.6 stable without heat issues. On Air with one Gpu you should be fine with a 650-750 w Psu, the Evga supernove G2 is highly recommended as a suggestion. If really pushing the OC on the Cpu and Gpu then a larger Psu is probably a good idea. I have seen 800+ watts drawn from the wall when I'm in the 5.2+ range on the Cpu and Maxed on the OC for my GTX 580 lightning, while benchmarking. That is an extreme condition and more for an FYI. I'd be surprised, even if really pushed, the 8350 on Air would see anything above 4.8 Ghz.

Was actually thinking of pushing him in the direction of the corsair rm850. I have one in my current rig, bought from OW and have been very happy with it. And it dealt with a pretty decent mining load for a while there. Like the corsair psu, they've mostly all been good to me. So looking at getting the 8350 and oc it to 4.6-4.8 ghz and that should stick him in a happy place.

I personally for a new build would go with the 8370-E version, same clocks overall with a lower wattage draw = better overall temps with the same clockspeeds. These are currently only $20 more than the 8350 so for the money vs performance and possible temp issues with a 125W chip running all 8 cores, I'd go with that one.
The 9xxx series as others have said will be hard to keep cool with their 220W rating, something to think about.

All chip models mentioned are good but that's my personal take on it.

Was actually thinking of pushing him in the direction of the corsair rm850.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the Corsair Rm 850w, but the EVGA Supernova G2 is less money from what I've seen and is rated slightly higher on JonnyGURU then the Corsair. You can't go wrong with either but for less cash I'd go with the EVGA.

Reviews:
Evga

Corsair

I personally for a new build would go with the 8370-E version

Click to expand...

Fx 8370-E pretty sure the only reason that chip is a 95w chip is because it's base clock is 3.3. Overclocked to 4.5-4.6 on all 8 it's likely the power draw is any less then the 8350.

looking at a few benchmarks and a review or two, for air, a midline gpu, gtx760 os so, air cooled I kind of like the 8370-e Dr McCoy.

The sounds of an FX-8370-E are good, but I too think it is only good for those that run a cpu as AMD intended. When it is latched on to all 8 cores WFO and clocked up...it has to draw the same as an FX-8350 since the silicon is the same. Or I fell off bed this AM and made my head worser.
RGone...ster.

RGone said:

The sounds of an FX-8370-E are good, but I too think it is only good for those that run a cpu as AMD intended. When it is latched on to all 8 cores WFO and clocked up...it has to draw the same as an FX-8350 since the silicon is the same. Or I fell off bed this AM and made my head worser.
RGone...ster.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right....

you are very right Rgone.
it looks like the mainstream user can now plug in an 8 core with the gear we see a lot of people walk in here with.
a board lesser than a sabertooth, midline air cooling and a mid line gpu.
the 8370-E runs on 8 cores at 3.3 with less than 1.3 vcore and turbos up to 4.2 on 4 cores, thats less stress on the board and lesser cooling will do the trick.
then when he's ready to pull the stops out and kick it in the fpu, he can gear up some and make that wonderful amd heat we love so much.

8370-e is on backorder at the place I get my parts from. Regular 8370 is available, but that's $20 extra for just 100mhz more boost, so again 8350 seems better.

it's all in the clocks and voltage anyway, so it'll be ok.

8350 seems better.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Forgot about the wattage draw once it gets going, temps will be roughly the same at that point.
Any of these chips would be good and the 8350 is a good choice.
Good luck with it!

AMD says...

...says > FX-9590 >>Thermal Design Power >> 220 Watt and at the max AMD speed which is 5.0Ghz with TurboCore parameters met but only 4 cores are ever to be used. So if that sort of heat for the power consumed must be removed from the cpu and then the case...no wonder so many have problems with the FX-9xxx cpus in a DIY situation. And don't start turning off C n Q and messing with the multiplier setting because soon the heat monster truly rears its' ugly head. The FX-8350 is reported by AMD to have a TDP of 125, so a pretty hefty difference with a 4.0Ghz default clock vs the default clocks of the FX-9xxx cpus.
RGone...ster.