LED: Affix connector. Affix LED to support pillar with double sided tape.

CPU: Install heatsink rotated 180º showcasing heatpipes.
PCIE1: Rotate heatsink 180º hiding EVGA branding.

LED: Permanently affix leads hiding with black electrical tape.
PCIE2: Install and polish heatpipes complimenting CPU heatpipes.
CASE: Install and polish tempered glass panels.

Engaging initial hardware test.

So, anyone like it? I think it's a better config than most people do, I mean anyone who overclocks their FX is just looking to get burned, right? Here's a low power, low noise FX with ancillary components maxed instead. I think it's a better field to play on. So what do you think, honestly.

That's a great looking system and should handle your tasks quite well.

Sweet. Always nice to see any love for the often maligned FX series.
Somewhere I still have my old 9590 kicking around.

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2024-02-01, 15:06:

That's a great looking system and should handle your tasks quite well.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2024-02-01, 19:12:

Sweet. Always nice to see any love for the often maligned FX series.
Somewhere I still have my old 9590 kicking around.

I agree FX was underappreciated. AMD was smaller back then and had limited resources for a single design that had to feed both their server and consumer markets. The server friendly features had strong points that weren't desirable to regular consumers which is what led to some of the disdain. But FX excelled as a virtualization platform, in part because at the time Intel was locking those features into higher priced tiers. AMD was offering server grade virtualization to the masses for a fraction of the price, a fact underappreciated and unrealized even to this day. Plus, we got Bulldozer and feeding Bulldozer absurd voltages is fun. 1.75V on a salvaged six-core, why not?

bartonxp wrote on 2024-02-07, 04:22:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2024-02-01, 15:06:

That's a great looking system and should handle your tasks quite well.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2024-02-01, 19:12:

Sweet. Always nice to see any love for the often maligned FX series.
Somewhere I still have my old 9590 kicking around.

I agree FX was underappreciated. AMD was smaller back then and had limited resources for a single design that had to feed both their server and consumer markets. The server friendly features had strong points that weren't desirable to regular consumers which is what led to some of the disdain. But FX excelled as a virtualization platform, in part because at the time Intel was locking those features into higher priced tiers. AMD was offering server grade virtualization to the masses for a fraction of the price, a fact underappreciated and unrealized even to this day. Plus, we got Bulldozer and feeding Bulldozer absurd voltages is fun. 1.75V on a salvaged six-core, why not?

The last two FX CPUs were not underappreciated, not many could afford to buy them at the absurd prices AMD wanted, Its hard to appreciate something so few could actually buy. Personally I like the 8350 and 8370 more than the 9370 and 9590. The sweet spot being the 8350 overclocked to 9370 speeds !

That said ...feeding more voltage to a FX9590 doesn't get you much ...but yes its fun to see it being used to cook steak and chips !

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-02-07, 04:41:

bartonxp wrote on 2024-02-07, 04:22:

chrismeyer6 wrote on 2024-02-01, 15:06:

That's a great looking system and should handle your tasks quite well.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2024-02-01, 19:12:

Sweet. Always nice to see any love for the often maligned FX series.
Somewhere I still have my old 9590 kicking around.

I agree FX was underappreciated. AMD was smaller back then and had limited resources for a single design that had to feed both their server and consumer markets. The server friendly features had strong points that weren't desirable to regular consumers which is what led to some of the disdain. But FX excelled as a virtualization platform, in part because at the time Intel was locking those features into higher priced tiers. AMD was offering server grade virtualization to the masses for a fraction of the price, a fact underappreciated and unrealized even to this day. Plus, we got Bulldozer and feeding Bulldozer absurd voltages is fun. 1.75V on a salvaged six-core, why not?

The last two FX CPUs were not underappreciated, not many could afford to buy them at the absurd prices AMD wanted, Its hard to appreciate something so few could actually buy. Personally I like the 8350 and 8370 more than the 9370 and 9590. The sweet spot being the 8350 overclocked to 9370 speeds !

That said ...feeding more voltage to a FX9590 doesn't get you much ...but yes its fun to see it being used to cook steak and chips !

100%. The chip to own was the 8350. Most if not all would do the 4.7-5.0 boost speeds the 9000 chips boasted about. I do actually still have a 8350 in a board and it was working great when retired.
The 9590 I got for the same price as the 8350, it was used at the time. Around 2015 I think. I never had mine past 1.52 volts iirc.
It was comfortable at 5.0ghz on all cores, it would do a bit more but just wasn't stable and heat got out of control fast.

Jasin Natael wrote on 2024-02-07, 14:38:

100%. The chip to own was the 8350. Most if not all would do the 4.7-5.0 boost speeds the 9000 chips boasted about. I do actuall […]
Show full quote

Trashbytes wrote on 2024-02-07, 04:41:

bartonxp wrote on 2024-02-07, 04:22:

I agree FX was underappreciated. AMD was smaller back then and had limited resources for a single design that had to feed both their server and consumer markets. The server friendly features had strong points that weren't desirable to regular consumers which is what led to some of the disdain. But FX excelled as a virtualization platform, in part because at the time Intel was locking those features into higher priced tiers. AMD was offering server grade virtualization to the masses for a fraction of the price, a fact underappreciated and unrealized even to this day. Plus, we got Bulldozer and feeding Bulldozer absurd voltages is fun. 1.75V on a salvaged six-core, why not?

The last two FX CPUs were not underappreciated, not many could afford to buy them at the absurd prices AMD wanted, Its hard to appreciate something so few could actually buy. Personally I like the 8350 and 8370 more than the 9370 and 9590. The sweet spot being the 8350 overclocked to 9370 speeds !

That said ...feeding more voltage to a FX9590 doesn't get you much ...but yes its fun to see it being used to cook steak and chips !

100%. The chip to own was the 8350. Most if not all would do the 4.7-5.0 boost speeds the 9000 chips boasted about. I do actually still have a 8350 in a board and it was working great when retired.
The 9590 I got for the same price as the 8350, it was used at the time. Around 2015 I think. I never had mine past 1.52 volts iirc.
It was comfortable at 5.0ghz on all cores, it would do a bit more but just wasn't stable and heat got out of control fast.

I had one the first 8350's that came in the tin can, gave it to a friend who wanted it badly. I don't think I've ever seen an FX boost in real workload situations, only when it's been forcibly induced. It always seemed more like a paper feature and I was a hotrodder back then so things like turbo were typically disabled. 8350's were definitely the stars of the show.

I have 2x 9590 space heaters. I picked one up new when they were sold at blow out prices, and then got another one as a surprise in a motherboard purchase. Still got them, neither has seen more than 1.55V. I read somewhere that the best 9590's are from 2017 and beyond, that they've been observed to be more reliable at higher memory and northbridge speeds. I think that might have been the last production year too, making them rare and collectable.

Interesting build, keep us up to date on the software configuration. I have an AM3+ build to do which might end up in a similar place. At the moment it's getting an X6 1090 and R9 390, but that still brings plenty of grunt and AMD-V ... can take an FX if I find that wanting.

BitWrangler wrote on 2024-02-09, 23:42:

Interesting build, keep us up to date on the software configuration. I have an AM3+ build to do which might end up in a similar place. At the moment it's getting an X6 1090 and R9 390, but that still brings plenty of grunt and AMD-V ... can take an FX if I find that wanting.

Will do. I've done this before on the same platform with Kubuntu but with different hardware. Lots of things have changed, the most significant being the motherboard, from Asus to Asrock, and adding NVME to the mix. Also looking at a different OS this time around, probably try Arch Linux since I've yet to take the plunge, still deciding.

I like Thubans too, my 1100 and 1035 are a prince and pauper pair. Virtualized gaming on the FX was impressive, the 460 4GB (unlocked SPs) was pulling 25fps in Warhammer at low settings and 2560x1600, and when wizards began throwing spells it dipped to 12fps. It was a bad test but impressive to see.

From what I remember OC'ing an 8350 to 4.5ghz+ didn't show that much increase in benchmarks, the design was tapped out. I purchased my boxed 8350 when Newegg was ditching them years back, so I assume it was a later production unit.

Unknown_K wrote on 2024-02-10, 05:18:

From what I remember OC'ing an 8350 to 4.5ghz+ didn't show that much increase in benchmarks, the design was tapped out. I purchased my boxed 8350 when Newegg was ditching them years back, so I assume it was a later production unit.

Depends on the benchmark, the 9590 seemed faster. It could have been old new stock, you never know. Fur babies!

I ran an FX-8350 build for several years, did me good, and I agree that it got a lot of hate. For what it was, it was a good inexpensive processor. At the end, before I moved to Ryzen, I had it installed on an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board with 16GB of DDR3 1600 and was running 2x Sapphire Tri-X RX 290X cards in Crossfire. Good times. 😜

StriderTR wrote on 2024-02-13, 06:50:

I ran an FX-8350 build for several years, did me good, and I agree that it got a lot of hate. For what it was, it was a good inexpensive processor. At the end, before I moved to Ryzen, I had it installed on an Asus Sabertooth 990FX board with 16GB of DDR3 1600 and was running 2x Sapphire Tri-X RX 290X cards in Crossfire. Good times. 😜

Nice room! My mother threw away/gave away my toys, all my transformers gone, so many good memories. My mom litterally threw away the Mechwarrior game manual with the copy protection codes, saying: "Well it looked like you were done reading it." I opened the exe in a hex editor, wrote down the answers and matched them to the questions using trial and error.

Alright, time to face the crowd, mission failed. I can't get PCI passthrough working, I get a black screen with no EFI, and I'm chalking it up to the Asrock. I can't find anything wrong software-wise. All checks are nominal. I'm thinking maybe the BIOS is missing something or worse it's a cheap motherboard design choice. I've had a similar setup working, the major differences being: Asus motherboard, no NVME, and a different OS, but otherwise it was more or less the same hardware/underlying software.

To rule out the Assrock, I will try the same config on the Asus sans NVME. If it works, drinks are on me. Here's my config, I chose VoidLinux and musl for this build:

boot UEFI USB […]
Show full quote

boot UEFI USB

------------ pre install
nvme0n1
-nvme0n1p1 1G /boot/efi BIOS boot
-nvme0n1p2 32G /
-nvme0n1p3 199.9G /home

Timezone Atlantic/Reykjavik

------------ post install
rm /var/service/sshd
rm /var/service/agetty-tty3
rm /var/service/agetty-tty4
rm /var/service/agetty-tty5
rm /var/service/agetty-tty6
rm /var/service/wpa_supplicant

xbps-install -u xbps
xbps-install -S nano

nano /etc/fstab
noatime

xbps-install -Suv
xbps-install -S xorg-minimal xorg-fonts xf86-video-nouveau
xbps-install -S kde5 kde5-baseapps
xbps-install -S pulseaudio mpv ark okular gwenview firefox wget

ln -s /etc/sv/dbus /var/service
ln -s /etc/sv/sddm /var/service

nano /etc/hosts

------------ kde
disable file indexer, plasma search, etc

------------ grub
nano /etc/default/grub
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet iommu=pt video=efifb:off"

------------ libvirt
xbps-install -S virt-manager libvirt qemu seabios
ln -s /etc/sv/libvirtd /var/service
ln -s /etc/sv/virtlockd /var/service
ln -s /etc/sv/virtlogd /var/service
usermod -aG kvm $USER
gpasswd -a $USER libvirt

nano /etc/libvirt/libvirtd.conf
unix_sock_group = "libvirt"
unix_sock_ro_perms = "0770"
unix_sock_rw_perms = "0770"
unix_sock_admin_perms = "0770"
unix_sock_dir = "/var/run/libvirt"

------------ apply
dracut -f --kver $(uname -r)
grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg

dmesg | grep "iommu"

------------ vfio-pci
nano /etc/modprobe.d/vfio.conf
options vfio-pci ids=1002:67ef,1002:aae0

nano /etc/dracut.conf.d/10-vfio.conf
hostonly="yes"
hostonly_cmdline="iommu=pt video=efifb:off"
force_drivers+=" vfio_pci vfio vfio_iommu_type1 "

------------ apply
dracut -f --kver $(uname -r)
grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg

dmesg | grep "amdgpu"
lspci -nnk -d 1002:67ef

Shame, I don't know enough about it, but instinct would have me investigating if you have to enable something in BIOS and then install the OS to have the right support loaded.

Yeah, the BIOS is sparse in options. What's there has been enabled and the OS confirms that, basically it needs AMD-Vi and iommu in the BIOS, and the iommu=pt kernel option for passthrough. AMD iommu is detected automatically now and not required in GRUB. I can boot EFI VMs using no passthrough, 486's galore, and there weren't any other devices in my iommu group, so it looks like it should work. One thing different this time, I didn't install OVMF because the qemu package already had the files in 4MB format, but that shouldn't affect pci passthrough.

Asrock isn't known for providing the best implementations of motherboards or widest range of options so maybe it's just missing features or cheaply designed, maybe the BIOS prevents a secondary GPU somehow. Switching out the motherboard should help uncover the problem.