FX 8350 VS FX 9590

[brokencarr00t1]

Hey! I would like to upgrade my PC from Fx 6300 to Fx 8350 or Fx 9590 if my mothersboard allows me. Mothersboar - Sabertooth 990fx r2.0

First thing i would like to know , will i get much more performance when upgrading from fx 6300 to fx 8350 or fx 9590? I do play bf4 most , but i would like to play watchdogs too , will i see big differences? Im running at 8GB of ram and r9 270x

Then i would also want to know will my motherboard support fx 9590 at it best and without any risk ? I mean will i loose some perfomance ?

Also is it big difference between fx 9590 and fx 8350 when overclocked ?

 

[Mr.Scott]

You'll see no benefit to gaming with that upgrade.
Difference between 8xxx and 9xxx is pretty much heat only.
Best gaming increase for you would be a better GPU.

 

[brokencarr00t1]

Yea but i mean , will i get gaming boost while upgrading from fx6300 to 8350?

 

[bassnut]

Your motherboard will be fine and can support all FX CPU with the proper bios. Your biggest limiting factor will be your cooling which you have not mentioned and your case cooling.

Take a read through this thread, though it deals more with ram timings as you get into the thread a bit you will see where he starts dealing with the heat and now is starting to deal with a bit of an OC.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=746645

I am not sure if you will see a big jump in performance of gamming with this upgrade. I am sure someone else can shed more light on that.

 

[EarthDog]

Yea but i mean , will i get gaming boost while upgrading from fx6300 to 8350?

he just said no...

 

[chrisjames61]

Hey! I would like to upgrade my PC from Fx 6300 to Fx 8350 or Fx 9590 if my mothersboard allows me. Mothersboar - Sabertooth 990fx r2.0

First thing i would like to know , will i get much more performance when upgrading from fx 6300 to fx 8350 or fx 9590? I do play bf4 most , but i would like to play watchdogs too , will i see big differences? Im running at 8GB of ram and r9 270x

Then i would also want to know will my motherboard support fx 9590 at it best and without any risk ? I mean will i loose some perfomance ?

Also is it big difference between fx 9590 and fx 8350 when overclocked ?

The 6300 may actually be your best option. The 6300 usually can be overclocked just as high as a 8350. It produces less heat. The vast majority of games are poorly threaded and clock speed is more important than core count past 4 cores. Especially in a single video card set up. As Mr. Scott said, your video card is the best place to spend your money.

 

[Mr.Scott]

he just said no...

That's what I thought I said.

 

[Waza]

Overclocking your FX6300 is far more effective than getting a new processor.
As long as your cooling can take it fx6300 will clock pretty much the same as FX 8 cores.
I don't know why they list fx8350 as recommended processor, maybe this game can utilize more threads, but if you can clock your 6300 to 4,5Ghz you shouldn't have any problems.

Use the money to buy better cooler if need be. Maybe R9 280x or another 270 if you really feel having better frame rates.

 

[chrisjames61]

Overclocking your FX6300 is far more effective than getting a new processor.
As long as your cooling can take it fx6300 will clock pretty much the same as FX 8 cores.
I don't know why they list fx8350 as recommended processor, maybe this game can utilize more threads, but if you can clock your 6300 to 4,5Ghz you shouldn't have any problems.

Use the money to buy better cooler if need be. Maybe R9 280x or another 270 if you really feel having better frame rates.

He probably wants it for reasons like I bought an 8320 when I already had a 6300. Eight cores sounds better. Its fun to buy new stuff and tinker etc... So he wants it affirmed that its a good purchase. He just needs that little nudge! Personally I think the 6300 is the best personal processor AMD makes. 9370 and 9390 are ridiculous imho. The cooling needed, the price, for the minimal speed increase. Even the 8350 and 8320 outperformed lots of times by the 6300 because the 6300 tends to clock well using less juice, producing less heat.

 

[RGone]

Move to HEAT monsters...

Review FX-9590 from Mid July of 2013 and the cpu has not changed since. A huge number of benches with quite a few cpu combos referenced by rank in all the benches.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...62166-amd-fx-9590-review-piledriver-5ghz.html

What is not really stressed enough is the HEAT the two new FX-9xxx processors can generate and need to be dealt with and getting that HEAT from the processor and then outside the computer case.

If one had never had an earlier 8 core piledriver and clocked it up to 4.9Ghz and "beyond" with all the cores enabled as is the norm in overclocking, then you are n0t ready for the HEAT the FX9xxx cpus can generate to be dealt with.

 

[matas55]

I currently have Q9400 @ 3.1GHz and am thinking of building a new rig. I am debating with my self and can't decide so please someone enlighten me.
Why would a gamer want Intel CPU over AMD? Now that I think about it AMDs are way cheaper. And if you are building gaming PC all the Intel advantages don't matter right? People keep saying that AMD architecture is inefficient compared to Intel. But I guess they are inefficient at encoding and stuff not related to gaming right?
I mean AMD's fastest FX 9590 @ 4.7 GHz v.s i7-4960X @ 3.6 GHz??? Sure you could take a lower end Intel and overclock it to 4.7GHz. But I mean stock @ 4.7 GHz and at that PRICE??!!! Maybe I don't know something here but if you are strictly a gamer and don't care about benchmarks or don't use some specific programs it's a no brainer, right? Arma 3 would sure like those clock speeds.

People keep ****ing on AMD and I still don't know whats wrong with AMD. Someone please explain me this mystery because I am sure hungry for that 9590
Except I don't see any reason for having 8 cores for gaming

 

[Waza]

Intel processors tend to give few FPS more in some games optimized for intel CPUs
AMD is cheaper and in my opinion you won't notice the difference in gaming use even if you can measure huge average FPS difference with benchmarks.
What comes to the 9590 is kinda personal preference. 8350 will do very likely same speeds with same cooling and only thing 9590 offers over 8350 or even 8320 is that it is under warranty with those speeds and voltages.

Intel CPU's are cooler and more efficient and somewhat faster at many tasks but also costs quite much more in some cases.

 

[matas55]

So strictly gaming speaking FX9590 is not the best performer and those are just selling numbers?

 

[Waza]

9590 is just overclocked 8350 so why not just overclock 8350? Sure there is the warranty issue with overclocking and you might get a bad 8350 that doesn't overclock as high but 8350 itself is very capable CPU for gaming even when running stock. I have had no issues playing any game even when running under clocked.
I can run my 8350 up to 5.1GHz stable if I wanted to but rather keep it at 4GHz and turn all fans down. If I ever need more power I just reboot to bios and load OC profile and I'm done.

 

[matas55]

Thats the thing no warranty issues. But now that I did a little research it seems 9590 runs hot, needs nuclear power plant is easily bested by intel and maybe even lifespan is shorter even though it's stock. I guess you get what you pay for
4.7Ghz is just a pretty number then :/
Do these mean anything in CPU intensive gaming like Arma 3? http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

 

[Waza]

What is your goal? You obviously are looking to upgrade your system for better gaming experience yes?
You want the most bang for buck or just ultimate performance? Future proof system or regular updates?
Do you plan to overclock and what is your budget?
Those are the questions you should answer before anyone can really help you better.
You should make a thread asking for help if you need advice, there are many smart guys here with varying opinions and they love to share them

 

[matas55]

Since most of the time GPUs are the bottleneck in most games I have this question.
So lets say you set graphics settings to the point where GPU is not at full load so I guess FPS depends more on CPU now. At what point do todays most demanding games stop caring about CPU speed. I wonder what is the maximum USEFUL core clock on gaming if you don't care about benchmarks or anything else other than gaming? I keep seeing people with i7 who OC to mid 4GHz. But now I look at my crappy CPU load and it rarely reaches full load but it starts to lag at lowest possible settings on Arma 2 CPU benchmark

My average FPS=18 regardless how low the settings are. Yeah Real Virtuality engine is ancient and runs like crap because of AI. I wonder would the benchmark performance stop improving at some core clock? Synthetic tests and scores don't matter, lets talk gaming.
Sorry for noob questions I am no expert and don't really understand how CPU scaling works

 

[Mandrake4565]

Why would a gamer want Intel CPU over AMD? Now that I think about it AMDs are way cheaper.

Matas55, I just want to comment on this quote. Just to let you know where I'm coming from I have 4 working rigs the Fx in my sig which I use every day because I like it so much, a 955 be/Asus M5A99X Evo @ 4.1 on air, a 4770k/Maximus Hero Z87 on Air at 4.4 and a 2500k/Extreme 4 at 4.5 on Air. I don't see any difference playing games on my AMD rigs verse my Intel ones, with the video card being constant, playing at 1080 resolution. Yes maybe you'll see a few FPS more on Intel but not much. That said, AMD being less expensive only applies if you're not planning on overclocking. These Fx 8xxx/9xxx processors require a stout motherboard to run properly if Oced. Additionally you need really good cooling if planning on running 4.5+. So the price gets a lot closer to an Intel setup, when overclocking.

 

[Waza]

OK I ran ArmaII Operation Arrowhead benchmark with all settings maxed and view distance at 10K 1920x1200 and the result was 60 FPS which is probably vSynched.
I will re run it underclocked for you to see how much impact processor speed has.

Same benchmark same settings all cores enabled CPU speed of 3GHz result 54 FPS
Same benchmark same settings I disabled 4 cores and dropped CPU speed to 3GHz and the result was 49 FPS
Same benchmark same settings 4 cores disabled and CPU speed of 3.5GHz and the result was 55 FPS
Same benchmark same settings 4 cores disabled and CPU speed of 3.9GHz and the result was 57 FPS
And just for giggles same settings same bench 6 cores disabled CPU speed 5.2GHz result 56FPS

 

[matas55]

Thanks for this.
Wow I never knew anyone who could run 10K distance at 60FPS thats crazy. Are you running Arma 2 on SSD?

I ran these benchmarks @ 3.1GHz on pretty low and mixed very high medium settings, 1920x1080.
GA-EP45C-DS3R (rev. 1.0) | Q9400 @ 3.1GHz | GTX 285 1GB | 4GB DDR2 780MHz 5-5-5-18 | 7200RPM 1TB | Yeah I know it sucks

Low: Arma 2 benchmark 2 - 18FPS
Operation Arrowhead - 72FPS

High: Arma 2 benchmark 2 - 18FPS
Operation Arrowhead - 42FPS

Before overclock @ 2.66GHz at same high settings I scored 16FPS on Arma 2 benchmark 2 and FPS didn't change on Operation Arrowhead benchmark.

I could also do benchmark at max settings but my GPU would bottleneck and I guess I would get up to 2FPS
Could you also do Arma 2 benchmark 2, this one

It would be awesome if you could do it I wonder how well your beasty rig would fare
BTW, I love the backplate on your 290 DC20C, looks nice
Do you think I could get atleast 300 USD for my PC?