my pc plan

JarrenJamil

Reputable
Dec 13, 2015
39
0
4,530
So I am curently building a gaming pc and I think I have all the parts I need I just wanted to see what you guys think and check if I am doing anything wrong. So I have a amd fx 8350 black edition, a cryorg h7 cooler, for my graphics card I have a amd radeon r9 390, my case is a deepcool kendomen red. Ram is two 8gb Kingstone hyper x furry red. My power supply is a coursair 600w 80+bronze and my motherboard is a msi 970.and my storage will be a 1tb seagate baracuda.Let me know what you think.

content://com.sec.android.app.sbrowser/readinglist/1213195714.mhtml
 
Solution
If you just want a low priced gaming rig that will play games there's nothing wrong with FX CPUs, if you want to game and with higher performance you can go Skylake, or Haswell refresh (older), or Haswell (older still), Ivy Bridge (now talking 2012), or even Sandy Bridge ( start of 2011). The only thing the 8350 would outperform my 2500K (at the release of the 8350) at was video editing (and not by much).

I've got an 8370 rig (nice one) in my shop and it seldom gets used, many prefer to use (Intel) with external keyboard and monitor

I hope Zen is better and it should be, but it will probably end up as a match for maybe the early i5 Haswells, and that's if and when we finally see Zen, they never got around to the promised Excavator...
Do not purchase an 8350. If you already have it, send it back. There is no AM3 motherboard out there with support for the newest technologies - which if you want to keep your PC around for the long haul, is the best way to do so. You're better off going with Intel. The Corsair power supplies are also not good units either. What is your budget?
 


That would only be true if the latest intel skylake processors were affordable in the budget , and they will cost hundreds of dollars extra . At least .
 


True it does depend on the budget, but it also depends on what monitor resolution you're going to run. You don't need an R9-390 for 1080P. And if the budget is between $900 - $1100, I wouldn't sacrifice processing power. You can get a 6600K and an Asus Z97A for around the ~$1050 range without sacrificing. Skylake CPUs don't cost hundreds of dollars more.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($199.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Asus Z170-A ATX LGA1151 Motherboard ($143.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $343.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-12-13 20:58 EST-0500

Vs

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($159.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 R5 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($141.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Total: $301.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-12-13 21:00 EST-0500

$40 is not that steep of a price increase. If you want to overclock it will cost more, but if you're spending $1000 or more on a system, you won't notice the difference in cost at all.
 


Why do you inbtel fans always go and pick the most expensive motherboard you can find to try and justify your shonky math?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/T4Lxcf

Instant $100 saving , with a motherboard with features every bit as good as the intel one you selected .
That $100 means moving up a notch in quality everywhere , or just a better graphics card.

Would frank honesty have been too difficult?
 


OK look I don't want this to devolve into an AMD vs Intel thread. It's been argued to death. But here's the thing - the AMD processors may be cheap but that's all they got. They're cheap. They can't compete with Intel no matter how hard they try and that doesn't matter what budget you've got. It's three years old tech on a 10 year old dead end platform that has no upgrade path. What's after the 8350? The POS 9590? That's all they got. No matter what processor you buy on Intel you have an upgrade path and there's tons to choose from.
 
If you just want a low priced gaming rig that will play games there's nothing wrong with FX CPUs, if you want to game and with higher performance you can go Skylake, or Haswell refresh (older), or Haswell (older still), Ivy Bridge (now talking 2012), or even Sandy Bridge ( start of 2011). The only thing the 8350 would outperform my 2500K (at the release of the 8350) at was video editing (and not by much).

I've got an 8370 rig (nice one) in my shop and it seldom gets used, many prefer to use (Intel) with external keyboard and monitor

I hope Zen is better and it should be, but it will probably end up as a match for maybe the early i5 Haswells, and that's if and when we finally see Zen, they never got around to the promised Excavator CPUs, choosing instead to pop the cores and MC into lower end APUs. We just haven't seen much from AMD in the last 4 years or so, we've heard a lot of hype - remember the 2xx GPUs (that turned out to be rebrands of the 7xxx cards), the bulk of the 'new' 3xx cards are rebrands of the 2xx with more DRAM added, and of course the 9590 (introduced at almost at close to $900 (a highly OCed 8350) that sadly got beat at everything by a $340 4770, and now they are almost giving away at $200
 
Solution
OK I had a rethink on going down the intel route and here is what I got

PCPartPicker part list: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/g3qVxr
Price breakdown by merchant: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/g3qVxr/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor (£174.19 @ Amazon UK)
CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler
Motherboard: MSI Z97-GAMING 5 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard (£114.12 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Red 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory (£62.24 @ Amazon UK)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£35.15 @ Amazon UK)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 390 8GB Video Card (£269.99 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Deepcool KENDOMEN Red ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: Corsair CX 600W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply (£59.99 @ Amazon UK)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer
Wireless Network Adapter: TP-Link TL-WDN4800 802.11a/b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter (£22.49 @ Amazon UK)
Monitor: Asus VX228H 60Hz 21.5" Monitor (£121.19 @ Amazon UK)
Keyboard: Cooler Master CM Storm Devastator Gaming Bundle Wired Gaming Keyboard w/Optical Mouse
Total: £859.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-12-14 20:20 GMT+0000
 


http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/core-i5-6600k-processor-review-desktop-skylake.html
A test of the latest intel , with the AMD FX processors in the comparison

Cinebench [ higher is better]
6600K = 7.53
FX 8350 =6.93

Fry Bench [ lower is better]
6600k = 6.03
FX 8350 = 5.25

Expresso transcode [lower is better]
6600k =49 seconds
FX 8350 =47 seconds

Handbrake
6600k =25.06 fps
FX 8350 =24.76 fps

3Dmark Vantage cpu score
6600k =22515
FX8350 = 22188

There are some game benchmarks as well that do show the intels making higher fps with their set up of graphics card , OS etc . But in every case the AMD is maxing out a 1080p 60 Hz monitor so the user experience would be identical .

Back to your "that's all they got"
Often the FX 8350 is outperforming intels latest and greatest i5 , and when its not its still very close
Oops

I also wish you would stop trying to devolve threads into AMD vs intel by insisting everyone is better off with an intel when that is plainly not the case
 


Ah yes, the "synthetic benchmark" argument. You're pulling numbers off video encoding applications. Who cares? Show me where it really matters - the FPS. No one is building gaming PCs so they test better in synthetic benchmark applications like video encoders. It's pointless. Look at this benchmark - even on a 270X the 8320 is left in the dust by the 4790K:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more

And I'm the one devolving these threads? Ha! I've been here over 4 years now, I've never seen anyone say "Give me a PC that performs better in Cinebench!". That never happens.
 
It all comes down to the games.

no diff on CPU
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Rainbow_Six_Siege_-test-r7_proz.jpg




Huge diff on CPU
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Just_Cause_3_-test-jc3_proz.jpg


Killed by Intel
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-STAR_WARS_Battlefront-test-starwars_proz.jpg


No a big diff
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Call_of_Duty_Black_Ops_III-test-blackops3_proz.jpg




In no game does an AMD beat a comparable Intel, but some games don't show a big difference.

http://gamegpu.ru/%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82-gpu/action-/-fps-/-tps/

These guys are about one of the only sites that does at least do CPU benches. They don't seem to have newer CPU's yet, but you get a 2000/3000/4000/5000 intel and all the AMD's.
 
I'm with g-unit, as I said, the FX CPUs (high end) do very well with video, but gaming they were outclassed when they were released. For Zen, AMD needs to increase their single core performance and scale it across cores. Further improvement in the MC would also be good, opposed to the 2 stick (one per channel) optimization they have been using in CPUs for years
 


Hypothetical build. OP didn't have anything purchased yet if you read the reply a few down.
 
outlander,

he is building a gaming pc, not a video encoding machine. the simple truth is that in games performance of amd vs intel generally ranges everywhere from about equal to intel destroying amd. all that with less power demands and cooler temperatures with newer motherboard features to boot. when talking about gaming computers synthetic benchmarks mean absolutely nothing. if he were building a video editing machine then possibly. while it is great that you listed benchmarks please remember to include benchmarks that actually are relevant to a gaming machine (namely gaming benchmarks).

he did not force the OP to purchase the parts but made a suggestion to do so. in many of the threads you are even more aggressive with suggesting amd so there is really no room to rave about it.

its been said to you before but i'll remind you of this: stop the rampant fanboyism and attitude. if you disagree with an opinion do not attack the person but offer evidence against their opinion in a civil way. that is not too much to ask of anyone. we should not have to remind you of this.
 
No ssddx thats generally not true either .

A 60 Hz monitor can display a maximum of 60 fps . Thats how many times it refreshes in a second .
If one computer is running at 60 fps and another is running at 80 fps all that happens is that the monitor drops frames till both display exactly 60 fps .
One is not 'better" than the other , and it certainly isnt "destroying" anything except maybe your bank account .

The measurement that can be useful for assessing a cpu is the MINIMUM fps .
Take a look in geotchkns charts above
How often do any of those processors fall bellow the 60 fps threshold in those tests at their minimums?
If there is an advantage to intel it is fractional and certainly not worth paying so much more for a cpu .
The only exception might be a small and shrinking number of games and where the gamer has a 144 Hz monitor . Not often a feature of budget builds

And how will the processor handle a multiplayer map with a large number of players?
In my experience thats often related to core count
 
for how many years will it be thus and can you guarantee that for all titles? upcoming games are becoming more and more demanding so any gains now will be well more apparent in the future when the system is older. also, take into account unoptimized games or future upgrades a bit.

so yes, you certainly do have a point though its certainly not without a caveat.
 
Outlander, I think you're missing a few key components here.

First, those are all multi-threaded benches that can use as many cores as you throw at them. None of them are representative of gaming loads or even and typical consumer computing loads. Most consumers don't use anything that goes above two threads, let alone eight. And even so, the 8350 is barely squeaking by the 6600K even though it can handle twice as many threads. That's fairly embarrassing. Now yes, the 8350 is cheaper than the 6600K, so it has that going for it. However, in any task that is four threads or less ( which is the vast majority of gaming and consumer applications ), it appears the 6600K would almost double the performance of the 8350 ( assuming no other limitations, like a GPU in gaming ).

Second, the 8350 is a 125W chip. If you drop that into a lower-end AM3+ board, at best you'll get clock throttling and/or instability. At worst you'll blow the VRM. That means you have to spend extra on the mboard to even use the chip. Meanwhile, you can get an i5-4460 or 6400 for a similar price as the 8350 and drop them into any LGA1150 or 1151 board with no worry. The total platform cost ( CPU + mboard + cooler ) might be a little lower on the Intel side since the stock coolers work fine for them ( you'll likely want an aftermarket cooler with the 8350 ).

Now, if you want to pit the 8350 against a more comparable Intel chip, let's use the Xeon E3-1231v3. That way you're comparing two eight-thread CPUs. At $250, the Xeon is about the same price as an unlocked i5, except it can go into a budget H board. For the 8350 to even have a chance against the 1231, you'll have to OC it quite a bit. Once again, that means spending more on the mboard and cooler, which brings the total platform cost close to what an E3 + H97 board will run. So, assuming both those setups have similar performance and similar prices, would you rather have the aging platform that requires meticulous tweaking and configuration, or would you want the newer chipset that requires no OCing expertise that runs quieter, cooler, and on less power?

The FX-8000 line has a place as the cheapest way to get eight threads right now. If you just need eight threads for number crunching and you're not going for big OCing or tweaking, the 8320 is a decent way to go with a mainstream mboard and stock cooler. But the 8350 just isn't worth it at $40 more. Once you hit $180, you're looking at i5-4460 and -6400 territory, and that changes things a lot. Never forget that the CPU price alone isn't enough. You always need to consider the cost of the mboard and the cooler it will take to actually run the chip. The FX-6300 is a great low-budget chip. For $100 you get six threads and some decent OCing ability should you choose to use it. It's not as demanding power-wise, so you don't need a top-end mboard to fully support it. However, if you want to really push a 6300, once again you're approaching locked i5 budget levels when you add the cost of a cooler and premium mboard to the 6300.
 

________________________
+1