Check my build anything could be improved ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

proropke

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2014
241
0
18,690
 
Solution
L


Yes your parts are fine. Corsair and XFX are great. So good and wise choice mate. :)
Sort by date Sort by votes
Nice build. I would go with the Asus M5A97 as it is highly recommended than the GA-970A for the AMD FX Series especially the 8320 or 8350. :)

But like what Legend said eBay is quite dodgy and shifty as computer parts are usually not trusted as it could be a replication. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


well never using ebay, but hopefully my bought part are good, just CPU came a little bit cheaper and the box edges was a bit dodgy
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yes your parts are fine. Corsair and XFX are great. So good and wise choice mate. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution


wanted to reply but put solution 😀 anyways hopefully you still help me is it Asus M5A97 R2.0 or Asus M5A97 LE R2.0
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Check this thread out they talk about this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1873423/asus-m5a97-m5a97.html
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


So no LE version cools better ? if so im getting it and what about this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-BLT2CP4G3D1869DT1TX0CEU-Ballistix-DDR3-1866-PC3-14900/dp/B0069OG1RM/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1407929529&sr=8-8&keywords=2x4gb+ram+1866

ram is ram right ? no need for corsair vegeance cant spell

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Yes according from the article I read. :)

Yes the RAM is perfect, a 1866MHz is perfect as long it is not 2400MHz as it is hardly noticeable. 😉

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You may want to consider getting a Motherboard with a 990FX chipset instead of the 970. The primary differences include faster SATA ports and a lot more PCI-E lanes with the 990FX. May be less of an issue if you're not planning on a Crossfire setup, but still.

I use this right now: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514

But I think this guy (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157281) would be perfect for your build, too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I second the 990FX chipset over the 970. Along with more and faster SATA ports and the ability to crossfire/sli much better, they usually have the ability to support higher power demands from you CPU so you can get higher overclocking results with less worry about burning the board out. Generally just an all around better chipset and not much more money than competent 970 boards. As for brands, I'm not really sure if there are any to stay away from, but I have heard that Gigabyte, ASrock, and Asus (My personal favorite) are the best. Also, I highly recommend this site http:// for choosing your parts, it will tell you where the prices are lowest from the best online retailers and will also make note of any promos and price cuts.

As far as RAM goes, I've always stuck to Corsair and GSkill, I have AMD RAM in my most recent build and it works flawlessly, but costs a bit more It is made by Patriot and can optimize to an AMD system.

Board: http:// or http:// if you don't mind spending more for more features. The asus one was recommended to me when I built this rig and I am very happy with it, I have heard good things about the ASrock one, but I've never owned that brand so maybe someone else has experience with them and can weigh in.

RAM: http:// or http:// Really, you can't go wrong as long as you stick to the main guys like these 2, Patriot, and Kingston are pretty good too. I've never had a DOA stick from any of those brands personally. I'd go for 1866 for sure with an AMD rig, in a 2x4 GB configuration. Not much of an advantage to go with higher RAM clocks or more than 8 GB, lower timings and latency make more of a difference.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Your post came a little late and i have already bought parts is ASUS M5A97 R2.0 970 chip a big loss over 990fx, or none at all ?

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ah oh well. Nah not really a loss, they will perform very similarly just that the 970 won't run dual PCI 2.0 @ x16 bandwidth, so it's not nearly as good for crossfire or sli. other than that, the 970 appears to have a slightly slower hyper transport speed, 2 less power phases, and a few less SATA and USB ports, but the SATA ports are still isted at 6 GB per second just like the 990 FX pro. If you don't plan on running dual GPU's and high overclocking the board you bought will run perfectly fine. Personally, I'd stick with it rather than return it for a 990FX one. They will both perform similarly in a rig with one GPU and will both overclock your CPU decently.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


I dont plan to overclock at all only turbo mode and no crossfire aswell, but what does exactly this means, try to explain it like you would for an complete retard, so its easier for me to understand" slightly slower hyper transport speed, 2 less power phases"

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Ok then you will be fine with that board. The extra power phases allow for more stable and more overall power to be fed to the CPU. In other words, a board with more phases can support more power going to the CPU, which is only really relevant when overclocking or running a high power CPU, such as the FX 9590, which uses 220W which is essentially a factory overclocked 8350, which uses only 125W. A CPU like the 9590, or a heavily overclocked 83XX will most likely be more stable on a board that uses more phases as they will use more power when the frequencies climb, and also since there are more phases the wear and tear factor from overclocking is less of a worry. I believe the highest end Asus AM3+ boards like the Sabre Tooth and Crosshair V use an 8+2 design, which is why the record holders use them and other similar 990 boards for super extreme overclocking.

Hyper Transport is the speed that the system bus in AMD systems run. It handles the RAM to CPU communications and basically all communications with hard drives. Kind of like a link from the CPU to everything else attached to the board. I think it handles communications between the CPU and GPU as well. It is basically AMD's version of Intel's front side bus, which does basically the same thing. Hyper Transport is capable of higher RAM clocks than Intel's system, which is why AMD CPU's always support higher RAM speeds. In fact, all current FX CPU's can run 1866 RAM without overclocking where Intel tops out at 1600 (I think, it's possible their new CPU's might support faster RAM), and anything faster requires a special memory profile loaded into the RAM sticks themselves or manual overclocking in the BIOS. It's also the main reason that AMD rarely needs to make new sockets for their new CPU's and retain backward compatibility, such as a Phenom II CPU made in 2009 running on a board made in 2012 that can also run an FX 8350. The HT speed would be lower for the old CPU, but it would still work fine. All modern AMD boards run HT 3.0, the newest version of Hyper Transport if I remember correctly, but some lower end boards are slightly slower in their rated speed. I'm not really sure exactly why that is, but it is not much slower on 970 boards and most likely the end user will not notice the difference unless they are benchmarking their hard drives or something like that. The RAM and CPU will keep the clocks they were designed for no matter the final speed of the HT link.

A little long winded, and I may have missed a few things but that's basically how it works lol.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Really thanks and you made it really clear, but now i got question, so not only motherboard have to be suitable for ram speeds but cpu as well ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Good, glad I could explain it. Although I am sure there is more to it, that's basically how it goes. And yes, both come into play for RAM speeds, a CPU will have a set max speed that it's memory controller can natively support, the boards usually support higher clock speeds through an overclock, which is automatic with memory profiles like XMP (Intel Memory Profile), AMP (AMD Memory Profiles) or Jedec profiles which are basically industry standard profiles made to work with anything, but might be less optimized. Sometimes, when you plug the RAM in, it will automatically apply a Jedec profile which the CPU/board and RAM determine. It is a fail safe so that the RAM will immediately work and allow the system to boot. Usually you have to go in and set the profile you want in the BIOS. My AMD 1866 RAM set itself to a 1600 MHz Jedec when I first plugged it in, then I went into the BIOS and selected my desired profile (AMP in my case) and rebooted and it was running what it should.

Now even if your CPU only supports 1866 for it's max speed, it can be overclocked with a profile pre-loaded into the RAM, or manually which is why many AMD boards say they support 2133 MHz and sometimes even 2400 MHz. It is technically an overclock above the system's max, but the profile basically automatically overclocks the RAM itself. When the board specs say it supports 2133 MHz, it will usually say (O.C) after that to make clear that that is not a standard for said CPU and the board it was designed to run on. If I remember correctly, AMD and Intel both have the max RAM speeds for their CPU's right on their web sites under the specs for whatever CPU it is, and they can both overclock higher to the board's max speed, and sometimes even higher with a higher end board. Personally I always find out what the max is for the CPU without an O.C. and run that if the board supports it without O.C. as well. More important than raw speed is the latency, and timings which are usually displayed in the RAM specs on the website you're buying it from. Latency is listed under Cas latency, which will be a single number like 8, 9 ,or 10. The lower the better for that. The next numbers are timings, which will usually show 4 numbers like 9-10-9-27. Again, the lower the better. If you have 2 sets of RAM at the same 1866 MHz for speed, and the Cas on one is 10 with timings of 10-11-10-30, and one is Cas 9 with 9-10-9-27, the second one will perform faster overall than the first. Probably not by much really, but if the prices are close always go for the lower timed RAM. At the same time, one set with Cas 8 at 1600 MHz vs 1866 MHz at Cas 11, the lower timed 1600 MHz set will perform pretty closely to the 1866 RAM and probably be cheaper too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom