AMD FX 9590 Stock water cooler or aftermarket cooler?

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.

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.