First manual overclock. FX-9590 Sabertooth 990x R2.0

[bassnut]

As usual RGone has put it in a lot more understandable fashion then I can........ he must have been a teacher at some point in his life or previous life.

 

[Blaylock]

He's been teaching me since 2013 whether he was aware of it or not.

 

[Mandrake4565]

To a man here we all have custom water cooling when we OC to these upper OC limits

I guess in a way, most of us that help in here try and tell it like it is for the long-haul. No watered-down pablum about how less cooling can still work okay with these heat monster FX processors and certainly so when ALL 8 cores come into use when overclocked like we all seem to do. Real c00l is in. Real c00l is just about the only way to have a super relationship with an FX-9590 unless you can keep your hands out of the bios and use the FX-9590 only as AMD intended it to be used when they brought the FX-9590 to market.


RGone...

Two important quotes in these two posts these Fx chips just run hot!!!! Even on a full custom loop I only run 4.7 @ 1.46875 Cpu V because the voltage and heat produced for 4.8 is just too much for my liking.

 

[Dr. McCoy]

Two important quotes in these two posts these Fx chips just run hot!!!! Even on a full custom loop I only run 4.7 @ 1.46875 Cpu V because the voltage and heat produced for 4.8 is just too much for my liking.

It's my thinking that AMD made the 9xxx series for heavy OC'ing and sub-zero cooling in mind.
Well.... Actually of course they did.

The fact these chips throw out so much heat makes them almost unuseable for many out there, the cooler for these was thrown in to make it "Useable" and nothing else so that the buyer woudn't feel cheated or something - I dunno.
Downclocking one to useable speeds and voltages negates what the chip IS so that's a mute point if talking about it from an everyday useage view. These were made to be AMD's top of the line chips - The term "Hot and leaky" applies to these and those kind of chips are typically the ones that do best for OC'ing as we all know. I am thinking about getting one soon and if I do I'm sure I too will have some temp issues even with the setup I have for cooling it if I run it that way but it's to be expected for what it is.

It's a hot running, made for heavy OC'ing chip that obviously needs some real cooling to back it up. In this light it's roughly along the same lines as buying a Ferarri and trying to run it with low grade crap gas, it just doesn't work that way since it's supposed to run premium fuel as a minimum to run correctly/what it was made for.
Stuff some premium in the tank and go!

I'll sum it up like this:
Get one, get some sub-zero cooling setup and turn it loose if you really want to run it as intended by AMD.

Now..... They'll never admit it but they do know guys like us tend to do that and seeing one running crazy clockspeeds makes them look good, plus the fact it's stock specs are clocked way up will help attract buyers and it does you know. When you see the results we can get from these once setup properly, it's kinda like free advertising for them too since they don't have a problem with sacrificing a few good chips on our dime to that end.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

I shut down four cores and run 5ghz 1.5250v manually from time to time. Stability tested some 7 hours on it. Max temp just over 60c. At 4.7 ghz all 8 cores does about the same heat output.

Increasing core clocks seems to produce a lot of heat just as if you over volted it.

 

[RGone]

...............

...............

I shut down four cores and run 5ghz 1.5250v manually from time to time. Stability tested some 7 hours on it. Max temp just over 60c. At 4.7 ghz all 8 cores does about the same heat output.

Increasing core clocks seems to produce a lot of heat just as if you over volted it.

Deeyam. That is about the best and most information about an FX-9590 that I have had the privilege to lay my eyes upon. I have a working knowledge of an FX-8 core at 4.7GHz with ALL the cores on. HoT and it surely explains why many have problems using FX-9590 at even the stock 4.7GHz speed.

Shrimpy my man you have just related the FX-9590 heat monster in a way that makes the whole problem just about crystal clear. Thank you sir.

RGone...skisterzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Samena]

I'd like say thanks for the help you guys have provided to me over the course of this OC saga (lol it was defintiely needed). I've gathered and learned much from this experience. I hate to say it, but it seems like intel is winning the battle. I've bought nothing but AMD ever since I have started building my own PCs. I've always been a bit of an AMD fanboy I guess you could say. I'm wondering if i should have went Intel this time though, as there are no DDR4 motherboards out there for AMD as of yet, which is much to my disliking. Hopefuly AMD can push this issue in the future and I will upgrade this machine, but until then I'll just enjoy the ride. Thanks again!

 

[Johan45]

Don't worry about DDR4 yet, the only systems with it are the Intel X99 and very costly. You'll have a good experience with what you have . Don't feel like you're missing anything really caus you're not.

 

[Blaylock]

Ddr4 is overrated IMO and not worth the $.

 

[dyckah]

Ddr4 is overrated IMO and not worth the $.

i seem to recall people saying the same thing about ddr3 when it first came out.
it just needs to develop/get adopted a bit more, and then it will be better, i think

 

[RGone]

i seem to recall people saying the same thing about ddr3 when it first came out.
it just needs to develop/get adopted a bit more, and then it will be better, i think

Sure they finally sort of sort it all out...but woe to he who jumps first at the elevated price and waits thru the sorting. That is the sucky part.

RGone...

 

[Blaylock]

i seem to recall people saying the same thing about ddr3 when it first came out.
it just needs to develop/get adopted a bit more, and then it will be better, i think

Sure they finally sort of sort it all out...but woe to he who jumps first at the elevated price and waits thru the sorting. That is the sucky part.

RGone...

Agreed on both counts.

 

[Mandrake4565]

I'd like say thanks for the help you guys have provided to me over the course of this OC saga (lol it was defintiely needed). I've gathered and learned much from this experience. I hate to say it, but it seems like intel is winning the battle. I've bought nothing but AMD ever since I have started building my own PCs. I've always been a bit of an AMD fanboy I guess you could say. I'm wondering if i should have went Intel this time though, as there are no DDR4 motherboards out there for AMD as of yet, which is much to my disliking. Hopefuly AMD can push this issue in the future and I will upgrade this machine, but until then I'll just enjoy the ride. Thanks again!

Samena, if you look at my signature I have both a I 7 4770k and an AMD Fx 8350. The 4770k @ 4.4 because mine is a heater and I cannot get it any higher on custom water because of temps. As I've said I run 4.7 on my 8350 on a custom loop as well. Both setups have SSD's. I use the Fx 8350 as my daily rig. Yes the I7 is faster in benchmarks and in most cases Gaming but for some reason I choose to use the Fx 8350 daily. It just feels like it runs smoother to me. Once you get the heat under control with the Fx chips they really are pretty good processors and heck of a lot of fun to Oc, if that's your thing.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

...............

...............




Deeyam. That is about the best and most information about an FX-9590 that I have had the privilege to lay my eyes upon. I have a working knowledge of an FX-8 core at 4.7GHz with ALL the cores on. HoT and it surely explains why many have problems using FX-9590 at even the stock 4.7GHz speed.

Shrimpy my man you have just related the FX-9590 heat monster in a way that makes the whole problem just about crystal clear. Thank you sir.

RGone...skisterzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Most welcome.

Heat isn't the only problem with my particular set up. Running tight timings with high clocks just doesn't seem to happen. Although I've only tested this set of Ram, it seems what ever the board likes for automatically setting high speed ram timings works rather well. I have no issues running 1200mhz effective clocks at Cas 11. But trying to run 1000mhz at Cas 9 will give me errors while stress testing.

HT link while on auto, drops down to 2200mhz while manually overclocking the Ram as well. I'm not sure as to why, but I have to set it back to 2600mhz volts unchanged.

As far as the NB speeds go, I haven't officially done extensive testing, but the average is 2500mhz, I'm pretty sure I've been closer to the 3ghz mark with some stability and bench ability.

Any requests for something in particular, I'm open to try and give results. De-lidding is still on the back burner, but next weekend I might actually have a chance to do it.... still not sure if I really should or want to. But for the sake of ALIENS, I may do it any ways.

DDR4? Well your looking at bigger bandwidth way looser timings and big speeds. Will it make your hard drive seek faster? Not likely.

Likely this system as is will last for quite some time being more recent games are GPU dependent. No reason to buy into Intel unless the moneys available IMO.

Love your AMD.

 

[FullMetalFrank]

...post above Bassnut. I guess in a way, most of us that help in here try and tell it like it is for the long-haul. No watered-down pablum about how less cooling can still work okay with these heat monster FX processors and certainly so when ALL 8 cores come into use when overclocked like we all seem to do. Real c00l is in. Real c00l is just about the only way to have a super relationship with an FX-9590 unless you can keep your hands out of the bios and use the FX-9590 only as AMD intended it to be used when they brought the FX-9590 to market.

Let me say a little to background the review/article below. There are those of us that spend possibly too much time in searching background information and results from users from all over. I may fit such category.

I watched the release of the FX-9590 processor. I read a 'lot' of reviews. Most reviews were the same old pablum from most reviewers. However if you have followed a lot of my writing you will remember I said no reason to buy the FX-9590 since it did n0t appear to be 'super silicon' and thus a prime candidate for overclocking. I said just a very very few reviews of the FX-9590 told the real truth.

Well hokiealumnus was one of the few that told it like it truly was about the FX-9590. How there was way much heat to contend with and that even with his custom water cooling loop he was barely able to reach 5.0GHz with ultimate stability.

HIS older/original water loop is used as the comparison for the loop he is testing in the review below. Yes on Intel in the review below but he is pleasingly surprised at the less temps he sees now with the EK L360 Kit which is not even the bad boy kit from EK.

So now if you have paid attention you know the more complete background behind the review below. His original FX-9590 review was done with his older loop and now he tested a new loop that is; by a good bit, better than his original loop and makes the EK non-Extreme kit tested below a very good candidate for cooling an FX-9590. This is not to say that there may not be other possible solutions, but at least here is a solution that has 'history' surrounding it.

I, as can many of the others that hang around in the AMD forum sections, can spec out a complete loop for ourselves. But a kit is often a better option for beginners. Especially a kit that is not just another AiO kit that is just barely entry level water cooling.

Article by hokiealumnus @ OCF done in Feb 2014.

EK WaterBlocks L360 Water Cooling Kit Review

You are now returned to your regularly scheduled programming. Ole Faht out.

RGone...

if finaly solved the problem : my config is amd fx9590 , coolmaster water cooling, hyper fury x 1866 mhz 16 gb, asus sabertooth r2.0 990 fx

first load up bios defaults, restart, then disable amd turbo mode, disable cool and quiet, let the rest as it is. dram frequenzy i choose 1866 mhz and it works fine without freezing anymore !

 

[Johan45]

That's good news

 

[Mr.Scott]

if finaly solved the problem : my config is amd fx9590 , coolmaster water cooling, hyper fury x 1866 mhz 16 gb, asus sabertooth r2.0 990 fx

first load up bios defaults, restart, then disable amd turbo mode, disable cool and quiet, let the rest as it is. dram frequenzy i choose 1866 mhz and it works fine without freezing anymore !

So basically, you now have a max clockspeed of 4.7, at twice the heat, and twice the price of a 8350 that you could have had 4.7 on anyway.

Great job.

 

[chrisjames61]

So basically, you now have a max clockspeed of 4.7, at twice the heat, and twice the price of a 8350 that you could have had 4.7 on anyway.

Great job.

Many people have stated that any AMD 8 core at 4.7 GHz will consume as much juice and make as much heat as the 9590 at 4.7 GHz. From my anecdotal evidence on this forum I don't buy that. I agree with you Mr. Scott.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Many people have stated that any AMD 8 core at 4.7 GHz will consume as much juice and make as much heat as the 9590 at 4.7 GHz. From my anecdotal evidence on this forum I don't buy that. I agree with you Mr. Scott.

I do not agree here with Mr. Scott. Let me explain why, take it to the bank too....

1 reason is Any other FX overclocked to 4.7ghz voids the 3 year warranty.

Another reason is while running a FX-9590 for daily use, it uses only about 1.428v at 4.7ghz load All 8 cores. (I can example this at any time)

No stability testing required at 4.7ghz with 5ghz turbo.

The heat issue does not stem from overclocking, it is from P-state requirements. Meaning all left on auto. Therefor comparison from FX-8350 to FX-9590 is hard to make logical.

While the FX-8350 has a turbo of only 4.2ghz and can request up to 1.4250v (while auto set up) P-State FID 0x18 - VID 0x0A - IDD 13 (20.00x - 1.425 V)

The FX-9590 only requires 0.100v more to achieve up to but not exceeding 1.5250v for 700mhz more speed.

While I watch many people try and OC to 4.7ghz and struggle with heat, the same can be had with a stock 9590. The difference is there is no stability testing required to run a FX-9590 at 4.7ghz.

However, even though my statements are purely personal experience based.... I would not recommend a FX-9590 for an average user with Air or AIO cooling if they plan to heavily game.

Might be better to stick with the lower clocks and lower frame rates around 4.2 - 4.4ghz.

As you see, only hard core overclockers come here and brag some big clocks meanwhile boasting some real heavy cooling and even in most cases chilling. I find this forum full of truth only at the time of question. Not a second before hand.

Is a FX-9590 faster than a FX-8350/70? Yes, and by a considerable margin. Even at stock while overheating and meeting it's first P-state of 4.5ghz (all 8 cores), it's still ahead of that 4.2ghz turbo (only 4 cores) of the FX-8350 for example.

first load up bios defaults, restart, then disable amd turbo mode, disable cool and quiet

Disable turbo and cool and quiet doesn't stop the PC freeze ups. The Clear CMOS would have done that alone. Cpu probably runs hotter with C&Q turned off.

 

[Kenrou]

No stability testing required at 4.7ghz with 5ghz turbo.

While I watch many people try and OC to 4.7ghz and struggle with heat, the same can be had with a stock 9590. The difference is there is no stability testing required to run a FX-9590 at 4.7ghz.

Is a FX-9590 faster than a FX-8350/70? Yes, and by a considerable margin. Even at stock while overheating and meeting it's first P-state of 4.5ghz (all 8 cores), it's still ahead of that 4.2ghz turbo (only 4 cores) of the FX-8350.

Stability testing nowadays takes ~20m on IBT AVX very high 10 runs for any non anal everyday overclocker.

Again nowadays getting to 4.7ghz is fairly easy to most 83** on air, passing that is the tricky part and for most cases will require an AIO or custom loop (I pull 4.7ghz ~55c, 4.8ghz ~60c on a Noctua NH-D15 on all 8 cores).

AFAIK and was told by the almighty's here, the 95** is simply a better binned overclocked 83**, so I assume that at 4.7ghz both CPU's will do roughly the same on any bench ?

Following that reasoning, can we run the 9590 on air at 4.7ghz with the same Noctua or do you need water ? This is the crux of the matter, correct ?