Asrock compatibility

Razias wrote: Does asrock x99 extreme 6 do the job ?

No. The X99 platform is for Intel 2011-3 processors.

The AMD motherboards that ASRock has for the power hungry 9590 is their 990FX Extreme9 and maybe their Fatal1ty 990FX Professional.

PetrolHead wrote: Also, there are no AMD processors that support DDR4 RAM at the moment.

Good catch. I totally overlooked that.

Xaltar wrote: I would say that unless you already own the FX 9K you should stay clear of them as they run very hot and more often than not you can achieve similar or better performance from an overclocked FX 8k, especially the 95w parts with less heat. If you do already own the FX 9k then make sure you follow ASRock's recommendation of using a good aftermarket top down blowing CPU cooler to ensure your VRMs and socket are actively cooled.

I agree with Xaltar. The FX-9xxx processors are the quickest AMD has to offer, but I'm not sure they're quick enough to justify the increased risks and uncertainty. It seems that motherboard manufacturers haven't tested their boards with these processors properly and there are only a few boards on the market that I've actually seen people recommend for these processors, even at stock speeds. I'll just add a few things to what Xaltar suggested:

-The FX-8xxx processors that are rated at 95W TDP (for example the newer FX-8xxxE processors) are 95 W because they are running at lower clocks. If you overclock those to, say, FX-8350 speeds (assuming you succeed in doing so), then the processor will essentially become a 125W TDP processor. Similarly, if you overclock an FX-8xxx processor to FX-9xxx speeds, you will have nearly as much issues with the heat as with the real thing as you'll be closing in on 220W TDP. I say "essentially" and "nearly" because you might be able to run the overclocked processor at a lower voltage than what is considered stock voltage for a processor that provides similar clock speeds straight out of the box. However, it is important to remember that the 95W TDP processors aren't producing less heat because they are built better or engineered differently; they produce less heat because they are underclocked.

-I highly doubt that any aftermarket top-down cooler will keep an FX-9xxx processor running. The best I know of is enough for 140W TDP... Basically that CPU just needs to be water cooled and you might even need a custom water loop to guarantee reliability. However, the stock water cooler does nothing to cool the socket and the VRM's, which is a big problem. So, you should absolutely listen to Xaltar and see to it that the parts around the CPU are also cooled. You just need to do it with a separate spot fan (or two).

I was under the impression that the TDP difference between Es at non-E clocks and actual non-Es was a lot smaller. Thank you for the correction, Xaltar.