crossfire life time

[pedramtolo]

i decided to buy two R9 390X and use them in crossfire
i made my mind in this case
and i just have one question
if you use two card in cross fire is it makes their life shorted?

plz don't tell me buy 980 , 980 ti , fury or fury X
i just want use crossfire
here we Discuss just about life time the graphic cards in crossfire mode
is there any chance crossfire could damage graphic cards or make their life shorted from their solo life time?

 

[Rogue Leader]

is 9370 hase same problem as 9590?

Yes, the exact same problem.

Your best bet would be to return the motherboard, CPU and RAM and we can come up with a MUCH better setup for you. Yes the setup will be Intel, but I don't believe your old processors failed you, more than likely the systems had some other problems. Intel has a failure rate of 0.3% its just not possible. And right now the FX is 4 year old technology, it is really not worth buying.

 

[Riptorz]

Not going to lie, this setup you are buying costs 1948.78 minus 100 dollars for mail rebates if you do those. You could do a very solid build that will last way longer and perform 10x better for that much money... Just saying

 

[pedramtolo]

i don't believe new is better
here an example
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K
as you can see 4770k (DDR3 based ram) more better than 6700k(DDR4 based ram)
and 4790k is much better than 6700k
i must think on this matter that witch one i must choose 9590/9370/8350
it is very hard

 

[Rogue Leader]

i don't believe new is better
here an example
http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K
as you can see 4770k (DDR3 based ram) more better than 6700k(DDR4 based ram)
and 4790k is much better than 6700k
i must think on this matter that witch one i must choose 9590/9370/8350
it is very hard

CPU Boss is synthetic tests and not completely accurate. Not only that both those processors are worlds faster than the FX-9590. No, new is not always better, that said an i3-6100 outperforms the FX-9590 in many benchmarks, if you want to go there. And either one of the processors you linked would demolish the FX-9590 with none of the heartache, and absolute torture you are going to go through to get it to run right.

If you are going to stay AMD I implore you to go with the 8350. But man or the amount of money you will be spending, you could buy yourself an i5-6600k based system that would destroy it in every way.

 

[pedramtolo]

as i said Intel is much better than AMD only in their first 3 years
then it left me no choice rather than 8350

 

[Rogue Leader]

as i said Intel is much better than AMD only in their first 3 years
then it left me no choice rather than 8350

I don't understand what you mean. Intel has been handily beating AMD for a while. We are hopeful for the AMD Zen CPUs coming out late this year but the 9590 is one of the worst AMD has ever put out, and if you are looking for a computer to last you "6 years" starting out with a processor whose technology is already 4 years old is a really bad idea.

BTW regarding RAID 0 SSDs as well, you need to read that whole article, they said clearly that in real life use there is no advantage. At least if 1 drive fails the data may be able to be pieced together by a data recovery software, if a RAID array fails your data is gone.

 

[pedramtolo]

do you read upper comments i used 12 years Intel and i will never trust this brand ever
you help me so much and i am in your dept .you changed my mind i will change my cpu to 8350 but i will never go near Intel

its a vs between single ssd and raid 0 ssd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkswbCgDKR8
and if that matter that you said happens to solo SSD all data will fail too then its make no Difference between them

 

[Riptorz]

do you read upper comments i used 12 years Intel and i will never trust this brand ever
you help me so much and i am in your dept .you changed my mind i will change my cpu to 8350 but i will never go near Intel

its a vs between single ssd and raid 0 ssd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkswbCgDKR8
and if that matter that you said happens to solo SSD all data will fail too then its make no Difference between them

You used intel for 12 years, or you used intel 12 years ago? Theres a huge difference. If you used intel for 12 years you wouldnt be here right now you'd still be using a 2600k based system. But yet you mentioned pentiums 2s and pentium 4s. Pentiums are so old and at the time they were released were good technology. But you're basing your judgement on a 12 year old technology. Pentium 2's and 4's are not the same as current processors from intel, i have 4 AMD based systems, and 1 intel system. The 4 AMD systems are for when my friends come over to play WoW. And i use my main computer which is a 6700k 16gb of ram, a 750w power supply, 760T case from corsair, MSI SLI krait motherboard, and a GTX 960 (till the gtx 1080's come out) all of which i only paid 1300 for. But like i said previously, His mind is set, buy what you wish. If you want an actual solid build that won't fail you, let me know.

 

[alphadogg]

get a i5-6600k and a suitable mobo. i have a 390x with i5-2500(non-k) and it still works great. just saying...

 

[hang-the-9]

about Processor i will never buy another intel .i work 12 years with 4 different intel's cpus (pentium 2 233 MHz , pentium 2 450 MHz , pentium 4 2.4 GHZ , Pentium 4 3GHz) and they all of them had same problem.
when they work for 3 or 4 years their speed drops under 50% from their first they but after all of them when i bought AMD cpu . after 6 year passed from its first day it still wotks with 90% of its first day speed. after 12 years of experiencing with intel's cpus i will never go near intel brand.Actually i don't have enough money to spend on my pc every 3 year and my first priority in pc is its life time because of this i asked you guy's about life time of crossfire

and about raid 0 i tested it over HP g4 and it works correctly over 5 years on HDD
and the only problem People fuss about raid 0 is if one of you SSDs faild all of your data will be lost but its complitly stopid to campare this weakness with solo SSD if you have solo SSD and its fails also all of your data will be lost
i just know with raid 0 you get more speed (at least in read and write) with same money

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

here as you can see two 120GB SSD almost is better than single 256GB SSD and only in one case 4K random q1 its lower from 256GB SSD and I do not even know what this is

Your thoughts about the CPU dropping in speeds are not based on anything factual. The only issues with computer speed would come from the operating system running poorly or a hard drive failing. A CPU does not work slower over time. You should have read a bit about picking out new computer builds on here before selecting your system.

I've worked on a ton of Pentium 4 systems, none of them ever ran slow because of their CPU (for the time that is, of course if you try to run modern programs on a P4 you'll see issues). No clue what you mean about problems with them. As long as the case is kept clean, the OS is kept clean, the hard drive is checked for errors, there are no issues at all with the CPUs. Every time I see people trying to buy new computers because it's slow they have a case clogged with dust, the hard drive is 10 years or or they have viruses and spyware on a operating system that was not touched in 4 years.

 

[Riptorz]

about Processor i will never buy another intel .i work 12 years with 4 different intel's cpus (pentium 2 233 MHz , pentium 2 450 MHz , pentium 4 2.4 GHZ , Pentium 4 3GHz) and they all of them had same problem.
when they work for 3 or 4 years their speed drops under 50% from their first they but after all of them when i bought AMD cpu . after 6 year passed from its first day it still wotks with 90% of its first day speed. after 12 years of experiencing with intel's cpus i will never go near intel brand.Actually i don't have enough money to spend on my pc every 3 year and my first priority in pc is its life time because of this i asked you guy's about life time of crossfire

and about raid 0 i tested it over HP g4 and it works correctly over 5 years on HDD
and the only problem People fuss about raid 0 is if one of you SSDs faild all of your data will be lost but its complitly stopid to campare this weakness with solo SSD if you have solo SSD and its fails also all of your data will be lost
i just know with raid 0 you get more speed (at least in read and write) with same money

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485.html

here as you can see two 120GB SSD almost is better than single 256GB SSD and only in one case 4K random q1 its lower from 256GB SSD and I do not even know what this is

Your thoughts about the CPU dropping in speeds are not based on anything factual. The only issues with computer speed would come from the operating system running poorly or a hard drive failing. A CPU does not work slower over time. You should have read a bit about picking out new computer builds on here before selecting your system.

I've worked on a ton of Pentium 4 systems, none of them ever ran slow because of their CPU (for the time that is, of course if you try to run modern programs on a P4 you'll see issues). No clue what you mean about problems with them. As long as the case is kept clean, the OS is kept clean, the hard drive is checked for errors, there are no issues at all with the CPUs. Every time I see people trying to buy new computers because it's slow they have a case clogged with dust, the hard drive is 10 years or or they have viruses and spyware on a operating system that was not touched in 4 years.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone i agree with! I personally take apart my rigs monthly and clean it, reassmble it and manually clean all the files out of hobby. I personally don't trust "virus scanners". And never once have i ever had a problem. Mine still run like new.

 

[hang-the-9]

Noticed you want to run SSD in RAID 0 and you compare it to a single drive failing. It's not the same. You have more chance of at least one of the drive s failing with two of them, if either of your drives fail, you lose your data. This is an interesting calculator http://www.raid-failure.com/raid0-failure.aspx , not sure what info it uses but it shows you the increase chance of data loss of multiple disks in RAID 0 vs one disk. If you keep backups, no problem, if you don't...

Lets say you play Russian Roulette, you use one gun, you have one 1/6 chances to get shot. Then you play with two guns, now you have TWO 1/6 chances to get shot, so your chances of getting shot just went from 1/6 to 2/6. Same thing for your drive failure risk with two drives vs one in RAID 0.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Noticed you want to run SSD in RAID 0 and you compare it to a single drive failing. It's not the same. You have more chance of at least one of the drive s failing with two of them, if either of your drives fail, you lose your data. This is an interesting calculator http://www.raid-failure.com/raid0-failure.aspx , not sure what info it uses but it shows you the increase chance of data loss of multiple disks in RAID 0 vs one disk. If you keep backups, no problem, if you don't...

Lets say you play Russian Roulette, you use one gun, you have two 1/6 chances to get shot. Then you play with two guns, now you have TWO 1/6 chances to get shot, so your chances of getting shot just went from 1/6 to 2/6. Same thing for your drive failure risk with two drives vs one in RAID 0.

While I 100% agree with you and tried to tell him the same thing but have since given up on this thread, 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/12, which is still 1/6.

 

[hang-the-9]

Noticed you want to run SSD in RAID 0 and you compare it to a single drive failing. It's not the same. You have more chance of at least one of the drive s failing with two of them, if either of your drives fail, you lose your data. This is an interesting calculator http://www.raid-failure.com/raid0-failure.aspx , not sure what info it uses but it shows you the increase chance of data loss of multiple disks in RAID 0 vs one disk. If you keep backups, no problem, if you don't...

Lets say you play Russian Roulette, you use one gun, you have two 1/6 chances to get shot. Then you play with two guns, now you have TWO 1/6 chances to get shot, so your chances of getting shot just went from 1/6 to 2/6. Same thing for your drive failure risk with two drives vs one in RAID 0.

While I 100% agree with you and tried to tell him the same thing but have since given up on this thread, 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/12, which is still 1/6.

That's not how you calculate probability of two events happening with the same chance.

Here is one for dice, same thing, two dice with ONE of them being a 6 (which is the same thing as finding a bullet 1/6 times) http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/598838/if-i-roll-two-fair-dice-the-probability-that-i-would-get-at-least-one-6-would-b Result is 11 out of 36 which is roughly 1/3 or almost double of one chance. It's actually a bit greater than that since that counts that does not count the chance of both being 6s. Since both drives can fail at the same time, the chance of at least one of them failing, I think is 1/3 if chances of either of them failing on their own is 1/6. As an example, chances are quite a bit smaller for drive failure in most drives.

 

[Rogue Leader]

Noticed you want to run SSD in RAID 0 and you compare it to a single drive failing. It's not the same. You have more chance of at least one of the drive s failing with two of them, if either of your drives fail, you lose your data. This is an interesting calculator http://www.raid-failure.com/raid0-failure.aspx , not sure what info it uses but it shows you the increase chance of data loss of multiple disks in RAID 0 vs one disk. If you keep backups, no problem, if you don't...

Lets say you play Russian Roulette, you use one gun, you have two 1/6 chances to get shot. Then you play with two guns, now you have TWO 1/6 chances to get shot, so your chances of getting shot just went from 1/6 to 2/6. Same thing for your drive failure risk with two drives vs one in RAID 0.

While I 100% agree with you and tried to tell him the same thing but have since given up on this thread, 1/6 + 1/6 = 2/12, which is still 1/6.

That's not how you calculate probability of two events happening with the same chance.

Here is one for dice, same thing, two dice with ONE of them being a 6 (which is the same thing as finding a bullet 1/6 times) http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/598838/if-i-roll-two-fair-dice-the-probability-that-i-would-get-at-least-one-6-would-b Result is 11 out of 36 which is roughly 1/3 or almost double of one chance. It's actually a bit greater than that since that counts that does not count the chance of both being 6s. Since both drives can fail at the same time, the chance of at least one of them failing, I think is 1/3 if chances of either of them failing on their own is 1/6. As an example, chances are quite a bit smaller for drive failure in most drives.

But if only 1 of them fail in Raid 0 the hole deal is screwed effectively doubling the chances. Good point I stand corrected (and agreed in the first place anyway).

 

[pedramtolo]

you are completely right
and i will put my important data in my HDD
but i choose double speed for my windows rather than double chance of The complete destruction of Windows in 5 years
after that i will buy new SSD's that will be cheaper and bigger in future and use them in raid 0 again and install new windows in them

 

[gokitty199]

another vote for the intel 6600k/6700k or even haswell over any amd current offerings.
source: common sense. you really need to listen to what others are saying in this thread and forget about your current thoughts on intel. just like saying they slow down after a certain amount of years? no, how about doing a fresh install of your OS every 2 years or so and double check.