Is this a good build and is it compatible

[szymonm2]

I want to know if this is a good build? Also tell me if everything is compatible with each other?

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/P9MghM
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/P9MghM/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor (£130.94 @ Aria PC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H81M-H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£33.35 @ Aria PC)
Memory: Kingston Predator Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£49.17 @ PC World Business)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£40.39 @ Aria PC)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 290 4GB Tri-X Video Card (£214.98 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Zalman Z3 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case (£26.99 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: EVGA 600B 600W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply (£46.09 @ Aria PC)
Other: Windows 7 (£29.99)
Total: £571.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-22 13:13 GMT+0000

 

[Suztera]

Yes it is not a bad build. Everything should be compatible.

 

[szymonm2]

Or should i change the processor to a fx 8320?

 

[Xenology]

Or should i change the processor to a fx 8320?

That i5 is better than a fx 8320 if you get a cooling unit later on you can OC it

 

[Xenology]

Why you should get the Intel I5-4460:

Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 101.56W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,832 vs 1,402 More than 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 10.42 pt/W vs 6.52 pt/W Around 60% better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Apr, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 5 months later

Why you should fet the FX 8320:
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz Around 25% higher turbo clock speed
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3 GHz More than 15% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 9,317 vs 3,818.2 Around 2.5x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.65 GHz vs 3.14 GHz Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 8,183 vs 6,284 More than 30% better PassMark score
Better performance per dollar 7.27 pt/$ vs 5.52 pt/$ More than 30% better performance per dollar
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.53 GHz vs 3.36 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)


http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4430-vs-AMD-FX-8320

 

[Suztera]

Spoiler

Why you should get the Intel I5-4460:

Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 101.56W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,832 vs 1,402 More than 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 10.42 pt/W vs 6.52 pt/W Around 60% better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Apr, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 5 months later

Why you should fet the FX 8320:
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz Around 25% higher turbo clock speed
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3 GHz More than 15% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 9,317 vs 3,818.2 Around 2.5x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.65 GHz vs 3.14 GHz Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 8,183 vs 6,284 More than 30% better PassMark score
Better performance per dollar 7.27 pt/$ vs 5.52 pt/$ More than 30% better performance per dollar
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.53 GHz vs 3.36 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4430-vs-AMD-FX-8320

You don't use CPUBoss to compare CPU. It's information is not accurate to real life situations. And you comparing between an i5 4430 and a FX 8320.
FX 8320 is still a capable processor. The performance will depends on what application you running.
And an i5 4460 is not overclockable.


To the OP, you don't have to switch to an FX 8320, the i5 4460 is a good cpu.

 

[Xenology]

Spoiler

Why you should get the Intel I5-4460:

Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly lower typical power consumption 68.25W vs 101.56W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,832 vs 1,402 More than 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per watt 10.42 pt/W vs 6.52 pt/W Around 60% better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year vs 109.5 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year vs 30.11 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Apr, 2013 vs Oct, 2012 Release date 5 months later

Why you should fet the FX 8320:
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4 GHz vs 3.2 GHz Around 25% higher turbo clock speed
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 3 GHz More than 15% higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Much better PassMark (Overclocked) score 9,317 vs 3,818.2 Around 2.5x better PassMark (Overclocked) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.65 GHz vs 3.14 GHz Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better PassMark score 8,183 vs 6,284 More than 30% better PassMark score
Better performance per dollar 7.27 pt/$ vs 5.52 pt/$ More than 30% better performance per dollar
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.53 GHz vs 3.36 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4430-vs-AMD-FX-8320

You don't use CPUBoss to compare CPU. It's information is not accurate to real life situations.
FX 8320 is still a capable processor. The performance will depends on what application you running.

I'm using it to show him an average rating it gives each and it shows there's pros and cons for both so it's up to the OP to choose it gives a basic idea of what each offers. Intel has less cores but each single core is stronger, meanwhile the FX 8320 is much more Over clockable so it CAN be stronger.

 

[szymonm2]

Still not 100% sure, im leaning against the fx 8320 as ps4 and xone have 8 cores

 

[Xenology]

Still not 100% sure, im leaning against the fx 8320 as ps4 and xone have 8 cores

Yes but most games don't even use 8 cores, and Intel threads are stronger than AMD threads, so if you don't overclock there's no point in getting an 8320 as the Intel will be stronger.

 

[szymonm2]

ATM games dont use 8 core but in 2-3 years time they will for 100% sure. I am highly not sure i5 4460 or fx 8320. I think i'll go with the i5

 

[Xenology]

ATM games dont use 8 core but in 2-3 years time they will for 100% sure. I am highly not sure i5 4460 or fx 8320. I think i'll go with the i5

DO whatever you want man by 2-3 years you'll want a new CPU and the new FX series will probably have 8 cores for you to utilize so the Intel would be best right now in my honest opinion. DO what YOU want!