Can I get away with 850w bronze

[mysticmagic788]

Ive got a 9590 coming and am building pc to go around it but I am trying to keep costs down.
Heatsink will be an 100i and that should do just.
I reckon 850w should do the trick for psu and ordinarily would have wen t for gold minimum. But I have to keep costs down so would a good quality 850w bronze work?
I will enable turbo but wont physically oc

What about a gs 800w. Would that be ok to power a sabretooth or crosshair, 2133mhz ram, fx9590, h100 heatsink with 4 fans, 6 case fans, panasonic bdr209.
6 tb (3*2) sata3 hd, 128gb ssd and an hd7770?

[kalniel]

You'll be fine with a good quality 500W unit.

[cheesyboy]

What a strange rig.....

You could run that on a 500w PSU no problem. 100w ish for the gpu, up to 200w for the CPU, 50w for the rest, plus a margin for error.

[ik9000]

fx9590? really? and sabretooth?

so that's £230 for the CPU and £130 for the MOBO. for £239 you can get an i7-4770K and a decent Asus Z87-Pro is about the same price.

It should kick a 9590 round the park and back again, and use less power while doing so.

I'd also be looking to put a bigger SSD in there. 128GB is ok, but most want min 250GB these days, and they tend to offer better performance gains vs the 120GB models.

RAM 1866 should be good enough. Save the money! TBH for most people the gains for anything over 1600MHz are not worth the extra cost of the memory, though some kits of 1866 are becoming priced competitively.

Oh and the GPU, if you're after a gaming machine (and the crosshair proposal suggests you are) then the GPU is more important than fast RAM and even CPU. I'd rather have a FX6300 and R9-280 than FX9590 and 7770.

Lastly PSU - agree with above, I'd look at 500W-700W tops. Find a nice gold standard or better PSU from a decent manufacturer backed by a 5yr warranty and off you go. remember to check the noise profiles. A few manufacturers can get really loud. Good ones will provide a load-noise curve on the datasheets.

[mysticmagic788]

to first posters 500w wouldnt do at all. cpu draws 240w on its own.
last poster I see where you are coming from but if I was going to run it as a gaming rig I would have 2 or 3 top notch gpus in there.

The most gaming it will do is tribez off facebook.

However it will be streaming/playing numerous 3d movies and 3d video camera scenes as well as doing a lot of 3d rendering.
the card it has is suffice for that.

The I7 would not blow spots off it that is for sure.

It is also arguable whether it would in gaming aswell, if I had at least one top of the range card in there.

For starters I would oc it with venom (which I am not doing) and would be looking at 2 to 3 years down the road when more games will be using more and more cores.

Everyone goes by benchmarks on the month they are released. Its folly.

AMD are always slow getting the bugs out for starters.

secondly they never ever put a home clocked amd against similar ovd intel.

They bang on about amd temps but but I7s get much hotter when ocd to max.

[GeorgeStorm]

500W would work fine.
The 240W is a potential I believe, and nothing else in your rig is going to take much power.

I would also recommend just getting a FX83XX since I believe they're the same chip but lower clocked?

[ik9000]

to first posters 500w wouldnt do at all. cpu draws 240w on its own.
last poster I see where you are coming from but if I was going to run it as a gaming rig I would have 2 or 3 top notch gpus in there.

The most gaming it will do is tribez off facebook.

However it will be streaming/playing numerous 3d movies and 3d video camera scenes as well as doing a lot of 3d rendering.
the card it has is suffice for that.

The I7 would not blow spots off it that is for sure.

It is also arguable whether it would in gaming aswell, if I had at least one top of the range card in there.

For starters I would oc it with venom (which I am not doing) and would be looking at 2 to 3 years down the road when more games will be using more and more cores.

Everyone goes by benchmarks on the month they are released. Its folly.

AMD are always slow getting the bugs out for starters.

secondly they never ever put a home clocked amd against similar ovd intel.

They bang on about amd temps but but I7s get much hotter when ocd to max.

one GPU top end is sufficient for more than decent frame rates even on modern titles. Multi R9 and R7 cards are nice, but not essential. Most folk on here are gaming quite happily on 670s and 7xxx series cards.

the 240w CPU rating is the TDP. It is not the power drawn by the CPU. It is the heat generation envelope of the processor working within spec. There is a big difference.

And with such a large starting TDP the need for cooling is so much greater if you want to overclock it any further. It is essentially a pre overclocked FX8300. So the OP could just save their money and get one of those if they're going to Overclock.

[herulach]

one GPU top end is sufficient for more than decent frame rates even on modern titles. Multi R9 and R7 cards are nice, but not essential. Most folk on here are gaming quite happily on 670s and 7xxx series cards.

the 240w CPU rating is the TDP. It is not the power drawn by the CPU. It is the heat generation envelope of the processor working within spec. There is a big difference.

And with such a large starting TDP the need for cooling is so much greater if you want to overclock it any further. It is essentially a pre overclocked FX8300. So the OP could just save their money and get one of those if they're going to Overclock.

You're correct in a way, but your inference is backwards. TDP is the maximum heat generated by the CPU, so power draw is likely to be higher (due to the heat generated in regulating the voltage to that level). Kitguru's 9590 drew 320W at the wall running a very similar board, which allowing for say 85% efficiency is a CPU draw of 272.

Summing TDPs is about as good an indication as you'll get of maximum power draw. (running prime95 and furmark simultaneously). This isn't necessarily a good indicator of day to day load, but headroom never did any harm. I'd suggest OP would probably be fine with a quality 500W supply, but for peace of mind should get at least 600W, 800 won't be needed unless SLI/Crossfire is in the future.

More likely to be an issue is the cooler, H100 will struggle to keep a 9590 at 60C load. Bearing in mind my system with a 3*120 transplanted onto a H100 block hits 55C with a 6350.

[mysticmagic788]

Ive been told not to overclock it as they believe ocing shortens the lifespan.
op if its a lower clock then its not the same chip.
For starters if I bought an 8350 it wouldnt run the same at stock as the 9590.
As I cant oc the 8350 it will always be inferior.
Secondly there must be a difference between the two as the 9590 will do 5ghz easy without stressing it to much. The 8350 has to seriously graft to get there.

I know about golden chips etc but it must be different for these two chips else why can a 8350 do it on almost every 990 mobo and even some 970's whereas the 9590 has to be put in a mobo that can cope with 240.

The cpu not drawing 240w is very interesting btw. some of the american sites are saying it does.

Interesting reading your view on tdp. It makes sense. Its not something I really ever bothered with. My rigs are always like fridges though admittedly I have never dealt with a chip like this.

[kalniel]

The cpu not drawing 240w is very interesting btw. some of the american sites are saying it does.

The only tests I've seen show whole system peak draw (at the wall) in the 240s, suggesting a system peak load of about 210W and a probably CPU draw of 150-180W.

[mysticmagic788]

Yeah I know about the h100 its bare minimum but I figure I will put 4 fans on the h100 and the corsair 540 air is supposed to be designed so it gives even more cold air towards cpu and gpu. Never used it before but Im hoping it gives me the edge .
Ive got plenty of case fans handy too if needed

herulach what you say about power draw and tdp makes sense. Ties in nicely with everything Ive read on forums with other 9590 builders

Thanks everyone for the replies. I'll let you know how I get on.

[ik9000]

Ive been told not to overclock it as they believe ocing shortens the lifespan.
op if its a lower clock then its not the same chip.
For starters if I bought an 8350 it wouldnt run the same at stock as the 9590.
As I cant oc the 8350 it will always be inferior.
Secondly there must be a difference between the two as the 9590 will do 5ghz easy without stressing it to much. The 8350 has to seriously graft to get there.

I know about golden chips etc but it must be different for these two chips else why can a 8350 do it on almost every 990 mobo and even some 970's whereas the 9590 has to be put in a mobo that can cope with 240.

The cpu not drawing 240w is very interesting btw. some of the american sites are saying it does.

Interesting reading your view on tdp. It makes sense. Its not something I really ever bothered with. My rigs are always like fridges though admittedly I have never dealt with a chip like this.

and this is my point. If the TDP for the FX9590 and FX8320 were the same then you'd be right that running at stock the more expensive chip gave an advantage. But it doesn't. to get it to perform at a faster rate they've had to rag it and up the TDP to 220w because that is what it needs to get it running that fast. Just like an OC'd 8320 would need more voltage and power to go faster.

The Asus Sabretooth is only rated for 140W btw, so you'd be running it 80W over manufacturer's specifications: https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/SA...specifications

This from Tom's Hardware forum:

That AMD FX-9590 microprocessor is a Ford Pinto with a turbocharger strapped to it. They raised the clock speed by providing it with a massive amount of voltage (around 1.5 volts) which gives the microprocessor a 220 watt TDP. Cooling that microprocessor requires liquid cooling. By comparison, the Intel i7-4770K has a TDP of only 84 watts.

Or a more reliable and in depth source, http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...iver-5ghz.html

At its heart, the FX-9590 isn’t all that much different from previous FX-series CPUs. Like the FX-8350, it uses AMD’s 32nm Piledriver architecture, comes with 8MB of L2 cache and eight cores, supports DDR3 speeds of up to 1866MHz and can be used in conjunction with any supporting AM3+ motherboard. The 5GHz core frequency has been attained through the use of AMD’s Turbo Core 3.0 which allows a base clock of 4.7GHz to hit higher levels when the right conditions present themselves. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen very often as our processor remained at 4.7GHz in most workloads.

As one might expect, actually getting a lower clocked architecture to hit such high levels requires some heavy-duty muscle alongside stringent binning. In this case, a massive amount of voltage -1.5V- has been applied and this has a secondary, nasty side effect: a substantial increase in heat production and power requirements. While the FX-8350’s TDP of 125W was deemed inefficient, the FX-9590 brings things to a whole new level with an estimated thermal output of 200W-220W. That’s an important number to remember when choosing a cooler since only the very best air-based solutions will be able to keep temperatures under control.

They did their test on a Sabretooth, and frankly if you do go for the FX9590 I wouldn't fancy going with anything less robust.

Now also in that Canucks review is a lovely set of numbers on gaming performance, and also this little gem of a table:
taken from this page:http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...r-5ghz-17.html

So the 9590 is a huge power hog when it comes to actually doing anything intensive. Look at 240W compared to the i7's 101W. And this is measured using a balanced itripp supply to eliminate any issues of inconsistencies in the supply at the wall.

Gaming-wise they are similar with the i7-4770k taking the lead in most stuff, but the FX9590 showing some lead in heavily multithreaded apps, but not loads more.

And before someone mentions mantle both CPUs will be fairly similar if this chart on Anandtech is anything to go by

(taken from http://www.anandtech.com/show/7728/b...mantle-preview) and as we saw above the 8350 is basically the same architecture as the 9590. I doubt even with a slightly faster CPU speed of the 9590 the performance increase would pull that much further than an OC'd i7 would offer, or an OC'd 8350 for that matter.

OC'ing might shorten lifespan. But from what to what? Lifespan of CPUs is usually several years. Far more than most of us will keep running them for. Not once have I ever had a burned out CPU. Ever. And if OC'ing knocks a few years off that, well fine. The real risk is getting the settings so wrong you literally toast the thing in an instant puff of smokey death. Auto-clocking on most modern Mobo help avoid this peril. And remember that the 9590 is already essentially overclocked at source. The only thing it may have over a 8320 is it's potentially been binned slightly more carefully for AMD to recommend using it at the higher spec to start with. (speculation, probable, but not definite). Personally I'd take the £100 saving and try my luck on how much OC I get on a 8320, or else just buy the intel to start with.

Your money, your choice. That is what I'd do. and I'm no intel fanboy. I recommend AMD in other threads on here, I just don't think the 9590 cpu-cum-aga is a sensible use of anyone's money, unless you're a test site.

[mysticmagic788]

sabretooth gen 3 rev 2 works with 9590.

Thing is even if I could be guaranteed of getting a 8350 to 5ghz it would still need the likes of that sabretooth, crosshair or asrock 990 extreme9. It would be the same tdp it has to be.

The same could be said of the 8320. But its a lottery whether you will get the same performance as what you are guaranteed with the 9590.

Noticed what you said about cpus burning out. The reason this build is being done is because the processor in the 775 series chipset died.

This rig should last 7 years maybe even more.

Its more suited to windows 8.1 too. More and more games are starting to use 8 cores so I think the benefits of this chip with respect to the future will soon outweigh the negatives.

But its not being primarily designed for gaming though its good that it will cope in the future with multicore designed games.

I wish I had time to respond to the rest. Your posting is extremely informative and thanks for that
With respect to your mention of the 1.5 voltage, the theory then, would be that I set an 8320 with an increase to 1.5v and create the conditions which are recommended by amd for the 9590, i.e. board coolers etc then do an overclock, it will perform exactly the same as the 9590?

Or is it still a lottery?

Also, 9590 can use the 2133ghz ram to its full potential. As I already have that and want it, will the 8320 and 8350 run the ram at 2133ghz?

Please let me know asap because 9590 arrives today so I can have a word again with the people Im building it for and tell them I will give them the same results for 80 quid less and if they are ok with that I can possibly refuse delivery after contacting supplier and re ordering

[ik9000]

sabretooth gen 3 rev 2 works with 9590.

Thing is even if I could be guaranteed of getting a 8350 to 5ghz it would still need the likes of that sabretooth, crosshair or asrock 990 extreme9. It would be the same tdp it has to be.

The same could be said of the 8320. But its a lottery whether you will get the same performance as what you are guaranteed with the 9590.

Noticed what you said about cpus burning out. The reason this build is being done is because the processor in the 775 series chipset died.

This rig should last 7 years maybe even more.

Its more suited to windows 8.1 too. More and more games are starting to use 8 cores so I think the benefits of this chip with respect to the future will soon outweigh the negatives.

But its not being primarily designed for gaming though its good that it will cope in the future with multicore designed games.

I wish I had time to respond to the rest. Your posting is extremely informative and thanks for that
With respect to your mention of the 1.5 voltage, the theory then, would be that I set an 8320 with an increase to 1.5v and create the conditions which are recommended by amd for the 9590, i.e. board coolers etc then do an overclock, it will perform exactly the same as the 9590?

Or is it still a lottery?

Also, 9590 can use the 2133ghz ram to its full potential. As I already have that and want it, will the 8320 and 8350 run the ram at 2133ghz?

Please let me know asap because 9590 arrives today so I can have a word again with the people Im building it for and tell them I will give them the same results for 80 quid less and if they are ok with that I can possibly refuse delivery after contacting supplier and re ordering

I wouldn't guarantee an overclock to anyone when you only have one CPU to play with. Stores can do it, but they get to test and select CPUs that are stable at a given clock. Just saying that if it were me I'd rather save £100 take a punt and get the cheaper version and see what my luck is re overclocking. If you're building it for someone else and they have specified a list of requirements, then by accepting to build it for them you have agreed to deliver that spec. I'd be very careful about varying anything or making promises you can't keep. And remember, the customer is always right. If they have asked for 9590 by name and not asked for your advice, then give them the 9590 storage heater power gobbler and that's that.

What I'm saying is that if they asked me for my thoughts I would lean towards an i7-4770k or i7-4770 depending on the particular end-user requirements. Each has its merits. And while those i7s are only 4 core CPUs they can run two threads per core, so you get 8 threads total. Just the same number as an 8 core non hyperthreaded CPU a la the 9590, 8350 and so on. Depending on how caches and workload are distributed 8 individual cores may do better in heavily multi-threaded workloads, but AMD need to sort out the TDP for that to become something I would actually recommend at this price point. For the cheaper budgets eg 8320 price point the argument is more compelling. Not so the £230-£240 CPU price point IMO.

While the Sabretooth works with the 9590 I would again point out that its spec is for TDP 140W.

Good luck finding a GEN3 Sabretooth 990FX you can actually buy. Everywhere I've looked previously has GEN2 rev2. If you have found somewhere please do let me know. That aside, the specs on Asus website for the Gen 3 list:

asus sabretooth spec list
Supports CPU up to 140 W
4 x DIMM, Max. 32GB, DDR3 1866/1600/1333/1066 MHz ECC, Non-ECC, Un-buffered Memory

So it can't use 2133 RAM "to the full" natively, and is at stock being run outside of the official TDP. While they list the 9590 as supported CPU they also state

asus CPU support list
Due to the high TDP, please be noted there are limitations while using this CPU(i.e. special thermal required..)

Usefully they then give NO details what special requirements one should take.
Note your mobo may need BIOS flashing to work with the 9590 see here http://www.asus.com/support/CPU/1/24...0130729101833/
also note the statement in the user manual

The default memory operation frequency is dependent on its Serial Presence Detect (SPD), which is the standard way of accessing information from a memory module. Under the default state, some memory modules for overclocking may operate at a lower frequency than the vendor-marked value. To operate at the vendor-marked or at a higher frequency, refer to section 3.4 Ai Tweaker menu for manual memory frequency adjustment.
• For system stability, use a more efficient memory cooling system to support a full memory load (4 DIMMs) or overclocking condition.

So you may find to get 2133RAM to run, while it is listed in the QVL list, you need to do some manual BIOS adjustments otherwise it will default to running the RAM at a slower speed. (This is common. My mobo does this with 1600 RAM running at 1333 by default. Without manual intervention it would stay that way).

[ik9000]

I'd also point out the following from the canucks article I linked to earlier in case you haven't had time to read it in depth.

The FX-9590 is a hot running processor and we don’t mean hot in any conventional meaning of the word either. This thing is like having a miniature nuclear reactor strapped to your motherboard; it will thoroughly overwhelm mid-tier heatsinks and AIO water coolers alike. Since it doesn’t come with an included heatsink we’re told that retailers will endeavor to bundle the FX-9590 with high end Corsair, Cooler Master or NZXT water cooling units in an effort to ensure customers won’t damage their new processors with sub-par cooling solutions.....

....Only ASUS’ AI Suite II (which takes its temperature readings directly from the BIOS) was somewhat accurate with its reading of 65°C under load but we had reasons to doubt this too since, as you see in the screenshot above, our FX-9590 began throttling some cores down to the 4.515GHz mark after 20 minutes or so of continual full-load testing.

....The lack of accurate temperature logging software poses a large problem for anyone with one of these 220W TDP chips: they have no way of knowing how hot (or cool) their processor is running....

Overclocking Results

In order to achieve a Base Clock of 4.7GHz and the potential for Turbo frequencies to hit the 5GHz mark, AMD chose only the highest leakage Piledriver CPUs for the FX-9590. As we saw in the previous pages, this results in a significant amount of heat being produced at default clocks. Add overclocking on top of that and things start to get a bit dicey, especially on air cooling.

Since our Corsair H80 and Noctua NH-U12S were both overwhelmed whenever Turbo Core was disabled and the system was left at idle... ... a Noctua NH-U14S with dual fans ... resulted in more acceptable temperatures and allowed for some overclocking. Though not all that much.


...we were able to achieve a constant frequency of 5.016GHz on ALL cores, regardless of the situation. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get this 300MHz to a point that we would consider 24/7 stable due to the elevated temperatures


... even the U14S struggled to keep temperatures in the safe zone. In order to get any higher, the only solution would be to move to exotic forms of cooling, none of which we have in-hand right now but expect a follow-up article sometime in the future.

Throwing caution into the wind, we decided to push things even further and eventually hit nearly 5.2GHz. Unfortunately, while the system would boot into Windows, any multi-core load would shut the whole works down. No BSOD or OS freeze, just a complete reboot. It could be that at that point, we had reached the motherboard’s power limits but testing continues.

[ik9000]

just noticed this in another thread:

Tarinder..... you can borrow my sabertooth 990fx and amd 9590 for testing with am3+ If you want

Why not drop him a PM to discuss?