AMD FX 9590 Stock water cooler or aftermarket cooler?

LudoFrancis

Hey Guys,

I ordered my PC not too long ago, and for the CPU I bought the AMD FX 9590. And from what I have heard, this CPU is really HOT.

Would the stock water cooler be decent? Or is it worth it to buy another? If so please recommend one!

Thanks!

TerrorFirmer

I think that CPU has to be the most pointless ever made. Outrageous power consumption, loses to an i3 in a lot of games, bad single thread performance and needs to be water cooled. I'm genuinely curious as to why you chose it? I would stick with the stock water cooler, because buying an aftermarket one and suddenly you're adding another chunk of cash onto the price - that CPU is just not worth it at all to be honest.

It would have been the same price to get a Xeon E3-1231 which kills it stone dead performance wise, uses about 33% of the power and runs like a dream on the included intel air cooler. Even a much cheaper i5 is a better bet.

LudoFrancis

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I think that CPU has to be the most pointless ever made. Outrageous power consumption, loses to an i3 in a lot of games, bad single thread performance and needs to be water cooled. I'm genuinely curious as to why you chose it? I would stick with the stock water cooler, because buying an aftermarket one and suddenly you're adding another chunk of cash onto the price - that CPU is just not worth it at all to be honest.

It would have been the same price to get a Xeon E3-1231 which kills it stone dead performance wise, uses about 33% of the power and runs like a dream on the included intel air cooler. Even a much cheaper i5 is a better bet.

I was told its a lot speedier when it comes to rendering, which I do a lot of. I currently use the 8350, but I was going to go with the 9590 for my second build.

TerrorFirmer

The Intel is an all around much better option. The two will trade blows in certain applications, but the Intel processor does it while using almost 66% less power and on the included air cooler. The 9590 is a monster, will eat up electricity whilst being slower in more applications than it's faster in, and still runs very hot even on a water cooler.

I think it would be a major mistake to overlook the insane power requirements. 9590: 220w under load. Intel E3-v1231: 80w under load. (The E3-v1231 is an i7 basically). The Xeon is also €60 cheaper.

The 9590 will need the water cooler, a strong power supply, and a decent case with plenty of fans for very good airflow to stop it throttling. The Xeon doesn't need any of those things.

And then at the end of the day the 9590 is only marginally faster in some applications, and slower to much slower in others. If the 9590 was in anyway power efficient it would be a decent choice. It exists only for AMD fans, hardware enthusiasts and the like, in my opinion. It doesn't belong in a normal build when Intel is an option.

Redfox25

If it hasnt been delivered yet see if you can cancel it or return it.

Gumbi

Redfox25 wrote: »

If it hasnt been delivered yet see if you can cancel it or return it.

Or return it for a full refund within your 2 week grace period.

AMD CPUs are a waste of money compared to Intel in almost all scenarios (bar APUs in some situations).

A Xeon or i5 would be money far better spent, a Xeon if you are into rendering. It's essentially a locked i7, far better single threaded performance, and multi threaded performance is pretty much on par, as well as drawing far less power.