# Might as well put together another tower.



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Nov 21, 2015)

*VOID*


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 21, 2015)

850 EVO > 840 EVO


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 22, 2015)

840 EVO has issues that can't be fixed with firmware. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/c...msung_840_evos_still_have_performance_issues/


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 22, 2015)

Am3+ is a dead end socket. IMHO, not a smart build at this time.  If you're really set on AMD, wait for Zen.
A CM 212 EVO can not keep up with a FX-9590.  You need something like a H100 or better.  Maybe one of the high end air coolers like the D15.
You want 8 core massive overkill?  Think i7-5960X


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 22, 2015)

avoid AMD Dead socket ...
a 9590 is a stupid idea in anycase overkill hardly a core i5 6600k will walk all over it and use less power while doing it


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 22, 2015)

You are definitely going to need a sata card for all the drives you want. Also as has been mentioned the Hyper 212 will not be enough to cool the 9590. Also for 64gb of mem I don't think there is a Amd board that supports that much so the 32 gb you have picked it the max. Also plan on the memory only running at 1600 mhz as With Amd procs there are very few and I mean very few that will run the memory at 1866 with all four slots filled. I couldn't get mine to do it.

Asrock says 3 of there boards will support up to 64gb of mem. But they seem to be the only manufacture claiming up to 64gb. The rest are at 32gb max. Doesn't matter anyway as I see no 16gb DDR3 memory sticks and they would have to be 16gb per stick as the boards only have 4 mem slots.


----------



## wolar (Nov 23, 2015)

yea for 9590 you gonna need a top tier air cooler or a water cooler.. still don't understand why you would go for AMD, i agree at some price tag AMD might be better than intel but not that high...


----------



## LightningJR (Nov 23, 2015)

Like others are saying, you will NEED top tier cooling for that CPU. Not want, NEED, if you don't it'll throttle/shut off or burn up.


----------



## ne6togadno (Nov 23, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> ....
> 
> Sorry, sticking with AMD ........ It's for Performance.


atm amd cpu and performance is oxymoron.
if you want performance you go with intel.
if you want amd better wait for tests on zen (sometime 2016 or early 2017) and then decide what is more important performance or amd.


----------



## Jborg (Nov 23, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> avoid AMD Dead socket ...
> a 9590 is a stupid idea in anycase overkill hardly a core i5 6600k will walk all over it and use less power while doing it





thebluebumblebee said:


> Am3+ is a dead end socket. IMHO, not a smart build at this time.  If you're really set on AMD, wait for Zen.
> A CM 212 EVO can not keep up with a FX-9590.  You need something like a H100 or better.  Maybe one of the high end air coolers like the D15.
> You want 8 core massive overkill?  Think i7-5960X



Coming directly from an 'Intel Fanboy' (I own 4 AMD cpus and 1 Intel) These 2 comments are spot on.

Its your money in the end. If you really want to build the rig your suggesting that's completely fine, but most recommendations are going to naturally go the other way. I have bought AMD processors my entire life, but as others have said AM3 is a dead end buy right now, especially a 9*** series FX. - If you really need a heater in a certain room then maybe. If you really really want to stay with AMD I respect that, but I would personally wait for ZEN/PASCAL

Don't let core count and clock speeds fool you.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 23, 2015)

The i5 6600K doesn't walk all over the 9590 in multithreading. If that is his goal the 9590 is a better choice period. He will however not being cooling it with a hyper 212+ ever. Not very many options short of an h100 that will keep it running comfortably.

Want vast super overkill? Just build an AMD setup based off of dual opteron 16 cores. The supermicro boards do not require ECC memory so you aren't spending extra there. It is also quad channel and so on.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 23, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> The AMD CPU is 4.7GHz. Why should I wait for the Zen? Why should I even consider buying the vastly overpriced Intel CPU?


Have you not looked at ANY Intel benchmarks? They blow anything AMD has out of the water. Just because it is at 4.7GHz doesnt mean that it can beat an Intel counter part running at 3.2GHz.

I can see it already, people are going to give you FACTS about Intel being superior and yes you will pay more but not by a whole lot and you will get more performance out of it than anything AMD has to offer. But then youre going to negate that because youre too naive/ignorant/ and sorry maybe just plan stupid to even consider. Please note that I am *not *full on calling you stupid. It's just an option out of the other two i listed.

Also, saying you are going AMD and it's for performance, shouldnt be said in the same sentence as someone pointed out earlier. AMD is nothing more than budget anymore. They havent put out anything good or promising since the AMD Athlon64 days. Intel has held the crown since the Core 2 Duo and probably will hold that crown for the forseeable future unless AMD's Zen stuff starts trickling out for reviews.

I am not a fanboy by any means. I buy what is better for my dollar and that, right now, is Intel.

EDIT: This is why you should go Intel and not AMD.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

14nm (intel) vs 32nm (AMD), lower power consumption, 4GHz beats the 4.7GHz (just like I mentioned in my third sentence). Intel also has 4 less cores compared to the AMD (that has 8) and it still gets torn to shreds in the benchmarks.

It is ~a 61% increase in *performance* going Intel rather than AMD. (this is assuming K version. non k version is ~40% increase and ~$60 less than the K version)
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-FX-9590/3502vs1812

I could go on. Just please look up the benchmarks and youll see. Please dont be stubborn.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 23, 2015)

It really depends on what he is doing if the Intel chips will perform better.


----------



## ne6togadno (Nov 23, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> The AMD CPU is 4.7GHz. Why should I wait for the Zen? Why should I even consider buying the vastly overpriced Intel CPU?


even at 5ghz fx cant keep it up in single core performance with top of the line i5 or i7. 
sad but true
as a lot of ppl said before am3+ is dead end. it can offer you only pcie 2.0 ddr3 and usb3.0 that's it. only advantage fx has over intel is number of pcie lanes and sata ports. nothing else. if you go with intel you can have pcie3 ddr4 usb3.1 (depends on mb) thunderbolt, m2. ssds etc. amd will bring this tech with zen (may be except for thunderbolt). it is also expected zen to increase single core performance of amd cpus and to close current performance gap between their cpus and intel's (this yet to be seen) so if you look for performance and want to stay with amd you'd be better to wait. buying am3+ now when it is more then clear that there wont be any new cpus for this socket is waste of money. better give em for charity.
also consumer grade cpus of intel arent that much more expensive.
your build with intel parts http://pcpartpicker.com/p/KwWWkL or with x99 http://pcpartpicker.com/p/jp7fwP

i think first of all you should start from very begging and make it clear for yourself what this pc will need to do cause in your current part list i can only see pile of lets take what is most expensive (except for vga) and that's it. neither it is gaming rig nor it is server. if you wont to burn some cash buy beer. it will be better then to fill you home with useless metal boxes.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 23, 2015)

You say you are going AMD because Intel is too expensive, then you pick the 9590 that costs $200. The i5-4690k is $210, and destroys the 9590 in everything, including multi-threaded loads.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 23, 2015)

newtekie1 said:


> You say you are going AMD because Intel is too expensive, then you pick the 9590 that costs $200. The i5-4690k is $210, and destroys the 9590 in everything, including multi-threaded loads.



Stock vs stock? Not in any of the non-intel compiler stuff...FMA coding AMD kicks some ass. Again what is it being used for? Honestly neither rig will be slow and if he wants AMD oh well...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 23, 2015)

Listen, OP these guys are not intel fanboys.  Most are too old and too experienced to be fanboys.  

Bottom line, LISTEN.  It's your money to waste in the end, but what you perceive to be "overpriced" is a much better performer in 90% of the things you will do with that computer.  

Btw, I find it hard to understand how you can be so fervently "anti-Intel" and still claim to nothing about Intel?  How is that even possible.

Anyway, half the people here urging you to buy Intel would have AMD systems if they performed better.  If you still insist on AMD instead of learning with an open mind, then for goodness sakes, please wait for Zen. 

Good luck.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 23, 2015)

I have a metric shit ton of AMD stuff. I am buying intel here shortly (retail edge baby)


----------



## LightningJR (Nov 23, 2015)

I am going to ignore all the posts about Intel. I have been doing some research on the 9590. You say you will be going top tier air and that would be fine if you were just doing casual work and gaming. I have seen lots of people say that when stress testing, which should be the same as encoding, their top tier air cooler doesn't cut it. Saw one guy saying that when he did Prime95 with a NH-D14 his PC shut down after 30min. With a NH-D15, which is considered the best air cooler available, doing long encodes on a 9590 it simply may not be enough cooling power, you may have to go for a dual rad 14cm AIO water cooler.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 23, 2015)

cdawall said:


> Stock vs stock? Not in any of the non-intel compiler stuff...FMA coding AMD kicks some ass. Again what is it being used for? Honestly neither rig will be slow and if he wants AMD oh well...



They'd be pretty damn close stock vs stock in heavy multi-threaded loads.  But, at the same time he could ditch the $75 CPU cooler if he went with Intel, he could also ditch the overpriced AMD board and save about $70 there too.  If he went Intel 4790k, he'd spend about the same and it would definitely outperform the 9590 in multi-threaded loads.

9590+Mobo+Cooler = $447
4790K+Mobo= $452


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 23, 2015)

....been a while since i've seen one of these threads.....hope we have the same fun, love and  good sentiment that was in  the 280x thread

................oh yeah........wait for zen braah


----------



## Liquid Cool (Nov 23, 2015)

+1 on the wait for Zen.

Best,

LC


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 23, 2015)

I'll just say this, I have Amd rigs and intel rigs. My main rig is running an oc'd Fx8350, why? Because it just wasn't worth the trouble for me to swap everything over to my 3930k rig to make it my main. The Fx8350 rig does everything I need it to and take all I throw at it with out as much as a hiccup. The 3930k is running linux now and is a dedicated crunching rig.


----------



## Filip Georgievski (Nov 23, 2015)

AMD CPUs are heaters and they need water cooling these days.
If you can afford it, go for AMD, nobody is stopping you.
But for performance I would go with Intel as well. They are better performers.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 23, 2015)

Filip Georgievski said:


> AMD CPUs are heaters and they need water cooling these days.
> If you can afford it, go for AMD, nobody is stopping you.
> But for performance I would go with Intel as well. They are better performers.


Heaters , where do people get this from?  My amd cpu runs half the temp my Intel cpu does. LOL 32c to be exact. Amd cpu's in general run cooler then Intel.


----------



## 64K (Nov 23, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> Heaters , where do people get this from?  My amd cpu runs half the temp my Intel cpu does. LOL 32c to be exact. Amd cpu's in general run cooler then Intel.



I think it's because the AMD CPU uses more power and generates more heat even though the cooler keeps your CPU cooler than your Intel CPU but the heat is still generated.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 23, 2015)

The intel's will murder amd when it comes to video encoding 

With so many people here telling you that intels architecture is more efficient not just power but performance wise also. Why are you still sticking to the same path?


----------



## Jborg (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> No idea why I'd need to explain what I want to do with this. Just want it for a multi-purpose computer, especially for playing video games on its own dedicated HDD, making/watching/burning Blu-rays, re-encoding videos, and more.




"especially for playing video games on its own dedicated HDD" i5 4690K imo, its a great choice for gaming.

I am willing to bet also if you go with an intel build, instead of going with a water cooler for a 9590, you can probably get an SSD instead of an HDD too, and have an all around faster rig for gaming and everything you want to do.

Just my two cents.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Even 1080p proper without DVNR or EE for making custom Blu-rays? Guess both CPU and RAM doesn't matter for encoding or re-encoding. Glad someone hasn't mentioned don't go for 32GB RAM because why should I need that much?
> Also I don't know shit about Intel and it'd be far too much to research all over. I don't give a toss about streaming and obviously would rather have physical.



encoding is encoding,  There is no other form of encoding. Certain programs/software might make use of the CUDA cores on your graphics card so if you need to encode a lot of big big big files. an extra GPU might help with the load - Its not a critical add-on though but it might speed things up a little. a lot of dedicated video encoding machines are running as many Nvidia GPUs as they can get away with because for encoding.

CPU matters a lot with encoding if there are no CUDA cores present. AMD has OpenCL on their graphics cards (CUDA equivalent) but last time i heard anything being said about OpenCL was that it was pretty much dead in the water. Not sure if that has changed over these last 2-3 years.

Obviously you could just ignore everyones opinion and go with your original plan. Afterall none of us are going to be using your computer _*EVER*_....


----------



## rtwjunkie (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> No idea why I'd need to explain what I want to do with this



Because configurations vary depending on what your main use is, that's why.


----------



## LightningJR (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> So is the aftermarket heatsink I chose a good one to use with the CPU I chose? Figures the EVO isn't going to cut it.
> Now I just need to find better prices.





LightningJR said:


> I have seen lots of people say that when stress testing, which should be the same as encoding, their top tier air cooler doesn't cut it. Saw one guy saying that when he did Prime95 with a NH-D14 his PC shut down after 30min. With a NH-D15, which is considered the best air cooler available, doing long encodes on a 9590 it simply may not be enough cooling power, you may have to go for a dual rad 14cm AIO water cooler.[



I did some research and the consensus was that the best of the best air coolers were fine with general tasks and gaming but when using the CPU at the fullest like when encoding or stress testing the temps were really high. Might be fine if the room you're PC is in is at 18C all the time but I wouldn't be secure a NH-D14's ability to cool the 9590 while doing the most strenuous activities.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Only figure I'd stick with AMD mainly because I'm far more used to their structure compared to Intel which I barely know squat about.



Do you think switching to Intel will require you to learn a new language or something? The only difference is you have to learn to put a CPU in an lga socket, it really isn't that hard...


----------



## tabascosauz (Nov 24, 2015)

@Ray_Rogers2109 Look, if you don't want to listen to all the Intel suggestions, do what you want. But there's no way you're cooling the 9590 on air, period. The D15 and TC14PE are at their limits trying to cool a 9370. The FX-9370 has long been touted as the considerably more sane of the two FX-9xxx CPUs, because it hardly costs you any performance while staying a good deal cooler than the pure marketing BS POS that is the 9590. If the 9370 is the Sahara then the 9590 is sheer hell fire.

The notion that FX CPUs are cooler than Intel CPUs while drawing more power is partially true, but not entirely accurate. Sure, they employ solder for better heat transfer and appear to be cooler in operation, but these mainstream Visheras throttle at 70 C to protect themselves, because AMD's weird temperature calculations make that temperature seem a lot more harmless than it is. 70 C on an OC'ed Haswell chip is a godsend; Intel chips get into throttling territory in the 90+ area.

In your spare time, it might do you some good to educate yourself on the tale of Prescott. Higher clock speeds don't always mean a better experience. In the case of 5GHz Piledriver and 3GHz Prescott, it means less performance than the competition, more heat, and more picky component selection in boards and cooling just to deal with one CPU.


----------



## LightningJR (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> The encoding programs I don't use on Highest Priority, just Normal.



Priority doesn't matter, it'll push your CPU to 100% when it can even on normal, it'll just allow you to do other things like browsing while it's doing the encode.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 24, 2015)

@Ray_Rogers2109 , do you understand that the FX-9590 is designed for (extreme) OC'ing?  Think alcohol blown 500 CID Hemi. It's the AMD fanboy CPU.





What you've said though is that you want a daily driver. (love the hollowed out bowtie)




If that's what you want, there's nothing wrong with the FX-8350, we just wanted you to know what the state of computing is.  You'll get more for your money with an i7-6700K build, IMHO.

You are one of the few people for whom I would suggest considering a X99 setup.  For instance, the cough, cough, $649  ASRock X99 Extreme11 has *18 SATA ports*!  An i7-5820K will set you back $390.


----------



## TRWOV (Nov 24, 2015)

Go for an 8350. Most can get to 4.4Ghz with little effort, just 300Mhz less than the 9590's stock speed.


----------



## xvi (Nov 24, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> I'll just say this, I have Amd rigs and intel rigs. My main rig is running an oc'd Fx8350, why? Because it just wasn't worth the trouble for me to swap everything over to my 3930k rig to make it my main. The Fx8350 rig does everything I need it to and take all I throw at it with out as much as a hiccup. The 3930k is running linux now and is a dedicated crunching rig.


So, this is interesting. I'm in the *exact* same scenario. Main rig was an oc'd FX-8350 and I also have a 3930k rig. I *did* end up switching to the 3930k, but only because I needed to clean out the water cooling loop on the AMD rig and never really bothered to put it back together. Laziness ftw.

Just like Sir Mad Shot, I really didn't have any problem with my FX 8350 rig performance-wise. The high clock speeds meant it did decently in single-threaded tasks and the 8 cores meant it could throw down some nice multi-threaded numbers too. Granted the 3930k is technically better, the only way I'd notice is if I ran benchmarks side by side. Daily use, I don't notice a difference.

On paper, Intel is generally better at most everything. I would have recommended AMD a few years ago just for the price/performance you get, but considering how old the FX lineup is and IPC improvements through the generations, Intel really is where it's at. The absolute bottom line though, *go with whatever makes you the happiest.
*
I know someone who bought a FX 9370/9390 (can't remember which one) and put it on a Hyper 212 Evo with one of the mounting screws missing and two fans pointing opposite directions (both blowing IN towards the cooler). They didn't understand why they kept BSODing. I explained it's all those reasons and they really should have gone with a FX 83xx, but they insisted that none of those problems were the cause and they'd just fix it by pointing their AC at the case (only way they could get it to run).
They also kept telling me the temps were fine because it's only 50c (at idle).


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 24, 2015)

64K said:


> I think it's because the AMD CPU uses more power and generates more heat even though the cooler keeps your CPU cooler than your Intel CPU but the heat is still generated.


Yeah could be but one of my intel rigs are water cooled too. It runs 60c under load where my Amd rigs including the air cooled ones run no more then 40c under load. With my main rig being the coolest @ 32c under 100% load.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 24, 2015)

So, the new proposed rig is going to run AMD.  You're already running a 3930k as a cruncher, but it's too much of an effort to figure out what is going on with an Intel system.  Seems like an odd ask, but there's a way to summarize all of this.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-4690K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

If you scroll down, you'll see a couple of different ratings.  The two of particular note are the per core performance (gaming is still largely that), and the overall performance per watt.  As you're looking at these numbers, we've got two conclusions.  The AMD chip is only worth while in intensive loading (ie, lower initial cost is repaid with higher operational costs).  On the single core performance the Intel offering stomps all over the AMD offering.  This is comparing a 4 core to an "8" core processor, and their performances are still the same.  That, in numbers, is why people are telling you that buying new AMD hardware now, that you actually have to buy in installments due to the budget, is not a sound choice.

Why I'm comparing the 9590 to the 4690k should be noted.  Both are DDR3, so they can be a system upgrade and not a new one entirely.  Both are on a functionally dead socket.  Most importantly, both of these offerings are at about the same price point now.



So, let's just assume that you're staunch anti-Intel enough to stick to your guns.  First off, your dedication is both admirable and insane in equal measures.  You have shown Intel that you can give them up, but it's getting a functionally worse piece of hardware.  The best up-side to AMD is that because they're less power savings oriented their chips generally overclock well.  If that's your thing, then I suggest some patience.  You cite that nothing is wrong now, but follow that with a declaration that you are going to upgrade for kicks over the next few months.  Can you wait a little longer?  

It's already been said, but AMD is promising a lot with Zen.  Within striking distance of Intel style promises (DDR4, only 1 or two nodes behind Intel, and ditching the bastardized core designs of Bulldozer).  I myself am going to be looking at them for my next upgrade.  I'm tired of the Intel BS, but a 40-50% drop in performance per watt is just insane.  I'll pay the extra few dollars up front, because that kind of power draw difference (even with the cheap electric prices in the US) pays for itself and then some.  Zen could potentially change that, and saving up money for a year will mean instead of parting a machine together you can get something nice all in one shot whenever AMD actually rolls Zen out.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 24, 2015)

Yeah I thin that was aimed at me. But I have no reason for upgrading at the moment. I will wait for Zen.

OP it is ultimately your decision on what you upgrade to. I am just at the other end of the spectrum and saying Amd will perform nicely for you. I game and crunch on my rig so it gets beat pretty hard and continues to take it with a smile. Now I have heard the some of the people in our crunching team that are running Intel rigs have noticed crunching does take a big hit to the system where they have to suspend it while using the rig where as I don't. I cannot tell the rig is crunching in the background. Also in regards to water cooling, you could go full custom or use an aio like the H100i. I am using an H100i on my 8350 oc'd to 4.4 and it runs really cool. If your not going to oc right away and are thinking of going with a 8350 then that Hyper 212 will work great on it. That is what I had before the H100i and it did a great job.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> So what if I eventually do consider going liquid cooling in the future? I figure I might give it a shot in the future but this tower I chose has a great airflow set-up. 8350 or the 8570 or whichever?
> 
> I don't have anything Intel so might be responding to the person above you? I have no intention in Upgrading my current build whatsoever. Last I had an Intel based computer was maybe right after the Pentium 4 but I also had an AMD.
> 
> I have no idea what's going on now. Just want to put everything together, move over all the data I need to, install the OS onto the SSD and all software needed. Of course the video games including Steam on the dedicated 3TB HDD, make my current build for people who want to come over and also play video games. Not as powerful without the EVGA 970 4GB FTW which I already own and always keep the drivers updated. (Yeah I'll be putting the Sapphire dual fan 6950 2GB back in it once the one I want to build is finished. Maybe tons more legacy games since the particular graphics card isn't all that powerful any longer? Hell I'd even have a taped printout of the games installed on it, maybe.)




You are correct, my apologies on not making that clear.  The intention was to address both points (why Intel is being recommended above AMD, and why upgrading right now is not reasonable), while still addressing the points that you had made.

Reading back over it, the comment is a mess.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 24, 2015)

To put things in perspective my 9370 with an H100i and fans in push/pull can only pull off 4.8ghz with acceptable to me temps, but it could also do that on my modded CM V10.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 24, 2015)

cdawall said:


> To put things in perspective my 9370 with an H100i and fans in push/pull can only pull off 4.8ghz with acceptable to me temps, but it could also do that on my modded CM V10.


And me at the other end of the fence, with my 8350 clocked only at 4.4 in push only config am getting great temps. For normal users the 8350 is probably the best bet as It can be cooled with an air cooler quiet well. Especially if overclocking is not going to be a factor.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 24, 2015)

ThE_MaD_ShOt said:


> And me at the other end of the fence, with my 8350 clocked only at 4.4 in push only config am getting great temps. For normal users the 8350 is probably the best bet as It can be cooled with an air cooler quiet well. Especially if overclocking is not going to be a factor.



I have it set to turbo up to 5ghz, but it hits in the 60's I don't like that personally.


----------



## Jborg (Nov 24, 2015)

My 8350 runs at 4.5G @ stock voltages... literally just upped the multiplier - running a hyper 212 evo - Temps under load are around 50c (Not stress testing load)

Personally I would not get a 9 series FX processor.... I don't see a difference between the 8 series and 9 except one could be used as a winter heater. The extra clock speed is just numbers.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 24, 2015)

Jborg said:


> My 8350 runs at 4.5G @ stock voltages... literally just upped the multiplier - running a hyper 212 evo - Temps under load are around 50c (Not stress testing load)
> 
> Personally I would not get a 9 series FX processor.... I don't see a difference between the 8 series and 9 except one could be used as a winter heater. The extra clock speed is just numbers.



Oh that's true, I just wanted one so I got one. I have had a 9370 since release.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 24, 2015)

cdawall said:


> I have it set to turbo up to 5ghz, but it hits in the 60's I don't like that personally.


Yea 60's would cause panic attacks and heavy drinking in me. When I was on air mid 50's bothered the living crap out of me.


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 24, 2015)

You can just snip the wires of the leds and leave them in place. The H 212+/evo will works on the Fx 8350 really well also. So if you like it on your current build you can also get one for your new build. Just pick up an extra fan and run it in push pull config for best performance. I use 32 gb of Gskill Snipers on my rig and have complaints what so ever with them. Also what Mobo are you looking at?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> The AMD CPU is 4.7GHz. Why should I wait for the Zen? Why should I even consider buying the vastly overpriced Intel CPU?



The clock speed of a CPU does not determine its performance entirely. An i7 4770k, stock speed after turbo is 3.9ghz, and it slaps that amd 4.7ghz chip silly in all games. I hate seeing people say, "oh it has a faster clock out of the box, it has to be better." NO.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Even 1080p proper without DVNR or EE for making custom Blu-rays? Guess both CPU and RAM doesn't matter for encoding or re-encoding. Glad someone hasn't mentioned don't go for 32GB RAM because why should I need that much?
> Also I don't know shit about Intel and it'd be far too much to research all over. I don't give a toss about streaming and obviously would rather have physical.
> 
> I'll stop wasting my time and just post my Blu-ray collection.
> ...


Dont be lazy, and learn about Intel. Once you know the basics then decide. Dont make an ignorant buying decision, especially with a dead and socket that has no upgrade path so you might have to upgrade everything again if Zen is really good.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 24, 2015)

Have you considered getting another case that doesn't have LED fans?  The Fractal Design Define R5 is on sale right now for $90.  That's one third the price of the Cosmos II.  If you still want a full tower, you could consider the Fractal Design Define XL  The side benefit with these cases is that you can build an almost silent computer.
I also don't think you need a 1200 watt PSU.  A similar quality 850 will do.
(I don't understand why PCPartpicker won't show the estimated wattage for your build)


----------



## Jborg (Nov 24, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Dont be lazy, and learn about Intel. Once you know the basics then decide. Dont make an ignorant buying decision, especially with a dead and socket that has no upgrade path so you might have to upgrade everything again if Zen is really good.



Many have already told him all the benefits of going with (Probably) a cheaper and faster Intel system. If not cheaper, it will be nearly the same exact price.

The matter of learning about Intel is really null.... I didn't know anything about Intel processors when I put my intel build together.... Its basically the same thing... instead of pins on the CPU, intel CPUs have contact pads.

All in all its his money to spend and he seems pretty set on an 8350 (or a 9590), which is a capable CPU. Just not one (being an owner) I would recommend at this time. An example I can think of right now is playing GTA V. My 8350 could do it, but I would get FPS dips down to 35-40 FPS almost regularly.

Now using my i5... my FPS almost never goes below 55, and mostly sits at a solid 59FPS


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 24, 2015)

Jborg said:


> Many have already told him all the benefits of going with (Probably) a cheaper and faster Intel system. If not cheaper, it will be nearly the same exact price.
> 
> The matter of learning about Intel is really null.... I didn't know anything about Intel processors when I put my intel build together.... Its basically the same thing... instead of pins on the CPU, intel CPUs have contact pads.
> 
> ...



I mean it can be a little bit confusing with all the different sockets/chipsets, what they are all designed for, all the different chip series (Pentium, i3, i5, i7, Xeon), difference between k and non-k chips. etc. I can see how it might be a little confusing for someone who has never even considered Intel before, but its all relatively simple things, one can get a grasp on within 30 minutes.


----------



## Jborg (Nov 24, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> I mean it can be a little bit confusing with all the different sockets/chipsets, what they are all designed for, all the different chip series (Pentium, i3, i5, i7, Xeon), difference between k and non-k chips. etc. I can see how it might be a little confusing for someone who has never even considered Intel before, but its all relatively simple things, one can get a grasp on within 30 minutes.



In that aspect I agree, it is confusing to choose the right combination of CPU/MOBO to fit your exact needs. In terms of assembly though, not to much difference.


----------



## thebluebumblebee (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> It says 749w give or take a few. I don't mind having a lot of overhead (especially if I want to add even more or something) and I figured an Ultra Tower would be ideal instead of the current mid-tower build. Instead of having 101w extra to play with as per your stated 850w, as mentioned I'll have a whopping 451w extra to utilize and for futureproofing with the 1200w. Yes I know PSUs only draw the power which is only needed but I'd rather not bottleneck anything. Also it's because I currently use a 750w PSU and I figure for this next one, might as well step-it-up to 1200w.
> As ThE_MaD_ShOt already stated, I'll just snip the corresponding wire for the LED with the fans. Then either remove said LED wire completely or just cap it off.
> I'm not even sure if I want to SLI or not just yet. I might even want to wait for the next line of nVidia cards to see if they 100% natively support HDMI 2.2 and HDCP whichever it is for UHD Blu-ray disc. Then there's waiting to buy a 4K ASUS 32" IPS monitor which supports the upcoming format which I haven't even considered yet since the pricepoints are still far too high.
> 
> ...


If you drop to the FX-8350 (which is what I thought you were doing), that's a 95 watt savings.  The other item that skews the total wattage are the HDD's.  They may pull 20 watts each during startup, but after that they never pull 1/2 of that.  That's a 60 watt skew.  There's 155 watts to be subtracted from the 749 watt figure.
An 850 watt PSU will power SLI'd GTX 980 Ti's.
No one's ever wrong in choosing a PSU that's larger than needed.  IMHO, it's just a waste of money.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Nov 24, 2015)

that avatar is a suitable one OP, best of luck.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Thanks for the snide comment.


Hey.. i offered best of luck too( and i mean it too ), dont be a pessimist now.


----------



## Norton (Nov 24, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> EDIT: The 9370. I may just go for that one instead.


8350, 8370, and 9370 will all draw around the same power at the same clock- just go for whatever is the better value- no matter which chip you buy the power use and heat will start to climb rapidly after 4.4Ghz or so.

Note that like @ThE_MaD_ShOt and @xvi I also run an 8350 in my main rig and am 100% happy with the performance and intend to get an X79/X99 setup like theirs soon and will likely not use it as my main rig either


----------



## cdawall (Nov 24, 2015)

Norton said:


> 8350, 8370, and 9370 will all draw around the same power at the same clock- just go for whatever is the better value- no matter which chip you buy the power use and heat will start to climb rapidly after 4.4Ghz or so.
> 
> Note that like @ThE_MaD_ShOt and @xvi I also run an 8350 in my main rig and am 100% happy with the performance and intend to get an X79/X99 setup like theirs soon and will likely not use it as my main rig either



I run a 9370 screw your poverty 8350's!


----------



## Jborg (Nov 24, 2015)

LoL. Sorry I even spoke. I learned a really good lesson myself buying AMD over Intel at first.

Just passing that lesson on... seems you don't care at all though. Which is fine, I could care less if you buy a 4 year old architecture that draws 225+ watts at load that REQUIRES a water cooler. Have fun with a new heater. 

And also, you must have not read my post.* I OWN 4 AMD CPU's*, that doesn't stop me from accepting reality and realizing Intel is better in every way. 



Wont be back


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 24, 2015)

the point was is that amd use more power,have a lower thermal threshold,offer less performance, and aren't really any cheaper then a competing intel platform once you factor in the need for a high end board and cooler
nobody is saying a AMD chip won't do the job but intel will do it better and in the long run cheaper if your machine spends a lot of time at load
and this is coming from a guy that owned nothing but amd systems for 5 years


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 24, 2015)

So I don't get it. What is wrong with this set up OP? You say you dont really plan to OC, well....

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

*CPU:* Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($184.99 @ SuperBiiz) 
*Motherboard:* MSI H170 Gaming M3 ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($89.99 @ Newegg) 
*Memory:* Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4-2400 Memory  ($52.99 @ Newegg) 
*Total:* $327.97
_Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-24 15:37 EST-0500_


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 24, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> So I don't get it. What is wrong with this set up OP? You say you dont really plan to OC, well....
> 
> PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
> 
> ...


because he wants amd and thats fine if he wants to pay more for what he wants so be it


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 24, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> because he wants amd and thats fine if he wants to pay more for what he wants so be it




Well heres an AMD build with a good cooler he will likely need, and it is more expensive. With a relatively cheaper board compared to other 990FX, cheaper memory same amount, and obviously the 8350 is cheaper then the i5. If he dropped the cooler to something else, itll come out to about the same cost as the intel build I proposed.

OP: I know its your money, and you are free to do what you want with it. But please consider the 2 builds in my last 2 posts and REALLY look at them with an open mind. Nevermind your lack of knowledge to Intel parts, that can be resolved rather quickly with help from us and the rest of the internet, and youtube videos on how to put one together. 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

*CPU:* AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($149.99 @ Amazon)
*CPU Cooler:* Noctua NH-D14 65.0 CFM CPU Cooler  ($74.99 @ NCIX US)
*Motherboard:* MSI 990FXA-GAMING ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($109.99 @ Newegg)
*Memory:* Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($42.00 @ Amazon)
*Total:* $376.97
_Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-11-24 15:47 EST-0500_


----------



## ThE_MaD_ShOt (Nov 24, 2015)

cdawall said:


> I run a 9370 screw your poverty 8350's!


 @cdawall   And a post like this forced me to go back to my old Avatar LOL


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 24, 2015)

only foal servants of gargamel use AMD


----------



## PCGamerDR (Nov 26, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> only foal servants of gargamel use AMD



I'm his right hand based on my current setup


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 26, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> I've no idea when I'll be able to afford the majority of the parts. Just a pipe-dream, but I should be doing what I did with my current build. Getting the tower first and then gradually getting each part slowly to put in the case as I go.
> Maybe I should get the 980ti Game Edition which has 6GB VRAM. No idea what I'll do with my 970 4GB FTW though if I do want to get the particular 980ti.



Why? What resolution do you game at? Might be an awful waste of money from overkill.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 27, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> 4K. Why does it matter? Hell, I'd rather have a 4K projector. Vecause of movies too, not just games. It's why I want to buy another ASUS Blu-ray disc burner. Yes, I already own quite a lot of movies on the format. Streaming can GTFO.



Oh, 4k playback can be done on Intel's integrated GPU hah. Gaming, 980Ti will be better than the 970 for sure at 4k.


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> I've no idea when I'll be able to afford the majority of the parts. Just a pipe-dream, but I should be doing what I did with my current build. Getting the tower first and then gradually getting each part slowly to put in the case as I go.
> Maybe I should get the 980ti Game Edition which has 6GB VRAM. No idea what I'll do with my 970 4GB FTW though if I do want to get the particular 980ti.


PC parts depreciate really rapidly, so doing it this way you'll end up with a bunch of outdated parts that you effectively paid over the odds for. Much better to just save the money and then buy all the latest parts at the best prices.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2015)

qubit said:


> PC parts depreciate really rapidly, so doing it this way you'll end up with a bunch of outdated parts that you effectively paid over the odds for. Much better to just save the money and then buy all the latest parts at the best prices.


Which doesn't include AMD CPUs right now.


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> Which doesn't include AMD CPUs right now.


What? When Zen comes out the current parts will be cheaper and Zen should perform significantly better. They'd get cheaper in time anyway and by the sound of it, our OP is going to take a long time get all the parts, making this even more likely.

Even your siggy supports my previous statement. 

"You cannot build a computer to be future proof. It's impossible. Just buy the best you can afford at the point in time of planning and buying."


----------



## xvi (Nov 28, 2015)

I'm really bad at doing the whole "I'll buy the next generation! It should be out soon!" thing, but if this build is going to take some time, might as well wait for Zen.
I had a roommate that bought his parts piece by piece so that he could "afford it". By the time he got the last thing and could finally boot it up, it was already out of date and prices had fallen considerably.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2015)

qubit said:


> What? When Zen comes out the current parts will be cheaper and Zen should perform significantly better. They'd get cheaper in time anyway and by the sound of it, our OP is going to take a long time get all the parts, making this even more likely.
> 
> Even your siggy supports my previous statement.
> 
> "You cannot build a computer to be future proof. It's impossible. Just buy the best you can afford at the point in time of planning and buying."



Key word is "when" Zen comes out in your statement. Thats sometime in the 2nd half of next year, which is not "right now."


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 28, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> It says 749w give or take a few. I don't mind having a lot of overhead (especially if I want to add even more or something) and I figured an Ultra Tower would be ideal instead of the current mid-tower build. Instead of having 101w extra to play with as per your stated 850w, as mentioned I'll have a whopping 451w extra to utilize and for futureproofing with the 1200w. Yes I know PSUs only draw the power which is only needed but I'd rather not bottleneck anything. Also it's because I currently use a 750w PSU and I figure for this next one, might as well step-it-up to 1200w.
> As ThE_MaD_ShOt already stated, I'll just snip the corresponding wire for the LED with the fans. Then either remove said LED wire completely or just cap it off.
> I'm not even sure if I want to SLI or not just yet. I might even want to wait for the next line of nVidia cards to see if they 100% natively support HDMI 2.2 and HDCP whichever it is for UHD Blu-ray disc. Then there's waiting to buy a 4K ASUS 32" IPS monitor which supports the upcoming format which I haven't even considered yet since the pricepoints are still far too high.
> 
> ...



Seriously.

I am going to really try to be polite here so don't take this the wrong way. You come to this website for advice on a good build for a specific number of uses, including gaming, and then you rule out the only real plausible and sensible advice people can give you and come up with* information and build plans that date back all the way to 2012-2013*. I would strongly suggest you reconsider your current state of mind regarding AMD systems and buying options, and broaden your view of the market. The ONE THING that AMD still excels at, GPU, is the thing in your system that you DID NOT GO AMD FOR. Do you see now how ridiculous this looks? If you really like AMD, buy their GPU's. Those are actually competitive in todays' market and for gaming itself and AMD is in a good position for the adoption of DX12 and their current offerings. The AMD CPU range is *not*. It is either too hungry, too hot and too expensive or it will be a bottleneck for your buying plans of a 980ti or 4K gaming. You say you don't like to OC, but when you go for an FX you are likely forcing yourself to do so if you want to avoid a bottleneck...

Come on bro. You cannot expect this line of reasoning to hold or make any sense at all on a tech site.

Another thing about 4K. If you want to go there but not 'yet', keep your 970 and current rig for now, (do *not* SLI the 970, under NO circumstance is this a good idea) wait for Zen to come out and see what happens when Pascal releases. The only alternative to that upgrade path is buying a 980ti today and have a sub-par gaming experience at the highest possible price point. All things considered, I would just wait it out for now and see what summer 2016 looks like for you. It will be a MUCH better time to upgrade because there are actual, competitive options and 4K has had some time to get footing, and at that time you will likely be able to make an actual, sensible choice going for an AMD rig again.

It's basically this:
4K now: Intel i7 Skylake or X99 + GTX 980ti
4K 2016: Wait and keep current system, see what Zen looks like

Let me be clear, any other path is going to cost you a lot of effort, money, and trouble avoiding bottlenecks and OC/heat issues. Also, about 'knowing AMD platform' and not knowing Intel, there isn't much to really know except picking the right socket with the right CPU. Especially if you don't intend to do an overclocking, it's plug and play. Hell, even overclocking is WAY easier on Intel.


----------



## Pill Monster (Nov 28, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> avoid AMD Dead socket ...
> a 9590 is a stupid idea in anycase overkill hardly a core i5 6600k will walk all over it and use less power while doing it


Oh will you please shut up. Your truly are proving your ignorance more and more with every comment...same as at Guru.  Look at some Godamn benchmarks and weep. 
Hell there's people out there with Nehalam's gaming....it's more about GPU power these days as long as you have multicore CPU. 0_o 










qubit said:


> What? When Zen comes out the current parts will be cheaper and Zen should perform significantly better. They'd get cheaper in time anyway and by the sound of it, our OP is going to take a long time get all the parts, making this even more likely.
> 
> Even your siggy supports my previous statement.
> 
> "You cannot build a computer to be future proof. It's impossible. Just buy the best you can afford at the point in time of planning and buying."


I have an 8320 which performs better now than it did 3 years ago, I'd say that's pretty futureproof.
The reason I bought it while people were laughing was I was sure multithreading was the way of the future....so it's possible to get a long life with a bit of planning.
What advantage will have Zen have over Piledriver? Piledriver performs brilliantly now.
Take a look at Intel from Sandy Bridge up to Haswell there's barely any improvement between 3 generations of CPU's, can't imagine AMD is going to be any different with Zen.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 28, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> Oh will you please shut up. Your truly are proving your ignorance more and more with every comment...same as at Guru.  Look at some Godamn benchmarks and weep.
> Hell there's people out there with Nehalam's gaming....it's more about GPU power these days as long as you have multicore CPU. 0_o
> 
> I have an 8320 which performs better now than it did 3 years ago, I'd say that's pretty futureproof.
> ...



Try some Starcraft 2 and tell me again how nice that FX is working for you. Or any other CPU heavy single threaded game engine. I also know that the FX has indeed become more useful with the recent game engines utilizing multiple threads nicely, but that doesn't change the low IPC of the CPU itself. The FX performance drops are situational, but they exist, and that make it a less useful CPU especially if you are in the market for buying one _today. _Is it a bad CPU? No. But definitely not the best choice in any sense of the word. Also the comments on a 9590 are generally spot on, it's a hot headed CPU with a relatively low thermal throttle point, and that in itself is bad design even totally disregarding the performance you get from it.


----------



## qubit (Nov 28, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> *I have an 8320 which performs better now than it did 3 years ago, I'd say that's pretty futureproof.*
> The reason I bought it while people were laughing was I was sure multithreading was the way of the future....so it's possible to get a long life with a bit of planning.
> What advantage will have Zen have over Piledriver? Piledriver performs brilliantly now.
> Take a look at Intel from Sandy Bridge up to Haswell there's barely any improvement between 3 generations of CPU's, can't imagine AMD is going to be any different with Zen.



So you reckon the multithreading has helped it? Perhaps in some cases, but it still remains that if you compare it to an Intel CPU of the same generation it will perform better, even with multithreading. And of course, the later Intels will perform even better compared to it. I'm guesstimating that the latest Skylake 6700k will likely be 50-70% better than your CPU. Of course Intel performance has only improved incrementally; it's becuase of the lack of competition from AMD, simple as that, so you can't really use that as an argument.

What advantage will Zen have over Piledriver? Well, no one can give you a definitive answer right now of course, but I don't doubt the performance will be significantly better or AMD are dead in the water. They've given up on that dumb siamesed module design which should hopefully bring them back into the game with Intel. I'll believe it when I see it, though. AMD really need to prove themselves now.



Vayra86 said:


> Try some Starcraft 2 and tell me again how nice that FX is working for you. Or any other CPU heavy single threaded game engine. The FX performance drops are situational, but they exist, and that make it a less useful CPU especially if you are in the market for buying one _today._


@Pill Monster Unfortunately what Vayra86 says is still true.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 28, 2015)

Pill Monster said:


> I have an 8320 which performs better now than it did 3 years ago,



""all i can say to that  is 3 years ago you did not set it up right""


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 28, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Eh, maybe I'll stick with buying the Blu-rays for awhile (main hobby) then just get the Ultra Tower first and of course the PSU. See how it goes from there. If the Zen motherboards (ASUS preferred) support DDR4 and 64GB RAM instead of the 32GB I was originally aiming for. That and the occasional video game on the cheap from Kinguin and G2A. Really heavily debating on whether or not to add more RAM to my current computer. The ASUS 890GX motherboard I have can currently take 16GB total, but as I stated I don't want to waste anymore money on it.
> Just grabbed my Plextor DVD-RW drive from my Ma's house a couple weeks ago and kept putting off installing it. But did so yesterday after I got back to my house from errands.


I guess you never even looked at the two builds I posted. I guess ill just stop now providing help/advice/recommendations, if your going to be one of those people that already have their choice made in there head and wont take the help given. Waste of time for everyone.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 29, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> Try some Starcraft 2 and tell me again how nice that FX is working for you. Or any other CPU heavy single threaded game engine. I also know that the FX has indeed become more useful with the recent game engines utilizing multiple threads nicely, but that doesn't change the low IPC of the CPU itself. The FX performance drops are situational, but they exist, and that make it a less useful CPU especially if you are in the market for buying one _today. _Is it a bad CPU? No. But definitely not the best choice in any sense of the word. Also the comments on a 9590 are generally spot on, it's a hot headed CPU with a relatively low thermal throttle point, and that in itself is bad design even totally disregarding the performance you get from it.



"Find a shitty old game and it performs bad"


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 29, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Yeah, because I'm not a fan of Intel for my self-built computers. Thanks.



Your ignorance blinds you.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2015)

cdawall said:


> "Find a shitty old game and it performs bad"



Legacy of the Void released just a few weeks ago, so I would say this is pretty recent.

Besides, it's still not the only game *by far* that runs on one core.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> Legacy of the Void released just a few weeks ago, so I would say this is pretty recent.
> 
> Besides, it's still not the only game *by far* that runs on one core.



I apologize poorly coded games as a whole don't make a CPU bad they make the person who coded it a lazy fuck. Somehow both the ps4 and xbox one run just fine on 6-7 jaguar AMD cores and an amd video card.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2015)

cdawall said:


> I apologize poorly coded games as a whole don't make a CPU bad they make the person who coded it a lazy fuck. Somehow both the ps4 and xbox one run just fine on 6-7 jaguar AMD cores and an amd video card.



If 20 FPS Fallout 4 is fine for you, then I applaud you for this argument. And if 900p30 in 2015 sounds like something that is current gen to you, then yeah. Great choice.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> If 20 FPS Fallout 4 is fine for you, then I applaud you for this argument. And if 900p30 in 2015 sounds like something that is current gen to you, then yeah. Great choice.



Plenty of AMD rigs can get better FPS than 20 in FO4. Not my fault you are pulling at straws trying to make a mute point.


----------



## Jborg (Nov 30, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> If 20 FPS Fallout 4 is fine for you, then I applaud you for this argument. And if 900p30 in 2015 sounds like something that is current gen to you, then yeah. Great choice.



Fallout 4 runs just fine on my 8350 rig with a GTX 760... FPS fluctuates from 40-60.

The main difference between the i5 and 8350 running the game is I get a more steady FPS on the i5...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

Jborg said:


> Fallout 4 runs just fine on my 8350 rig with a GTX 760... FPS fluctuates from 40-60.
> 
> The main difference between the i5 and 8350 running the game is I get a more steady FPS on the i5...



The PS4 is limited by the 7870, not the jaguar based 8 core.


----------



## Jborg (Nov 30, 2015)

cdawall said:


> The PS4 is limited by the 7870, not the jaguar based 8 core.



Just stating that I get better than 20 FPS on Fallout 4 with an AMD CPU


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

Jborg said:


> Just stating that I get better than 20 FPS on Fallout 4 with an AMD CPU



Oh I know lol.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2015)

cdawall said:


> *Somehow both the ps4 and xbox one run just fine on 6-7 jaguar AMD cores and an amd video card.*



Reading comprehension, you need some of it here. I responded to your quote, not to a general statement about gaming on AMD hardware. Of course that works just fine, until you hit a game that runs on one core and is CPU intensive. Also you are dead wrong on all counts, Starcraft 2 is a very well coded game, I would even go as far as to say it is the best, most well coded RTS on the market and has been since release. Fallout 4 is a different beast, but it still runs at a very inconsistent frame rate on the console and on PC alike (both Intel/AMD systems), and it is very clear that the consoles are not really capable enough when they show dips to 20 fps. Ergo, the consoles are the worst example of how well you can game on AMD hardware and these low numbers won't do well for the perception of gaming on it. You are also wrong in the fact that GPU is limiting the console. This differs per game, and it is still a fact that there are multiple games out today that suffer from the use of low-power Jaguar cores before being bottlenecked by GPU. Evidenced by the news that MS, and now Sony had to enable another core for developers.

Really, AMD is not going to pay you in shares if you defend them like this. Don't do it, you're wasting your time. The problems with FX CPU's, as well as the issues of the current consoles are well known and documented, that reality is not something a thousand posts of yours will ever change.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> Reading comprehension, you need some of it here. I responded to your quote, not to a general statement about gaming on AMD hardware. Of course that works just fine, until you hit a game that runs on one core and is CPU intensive. Also you are dead wrong on all counts, Starcraft 2 is a very well coded game, I would even go as far as to say it is the best, most well coded RTS on the market and has been since release. Fallout 4 is a different beast, but it still runs at a very inconsistent frame rate on the console and on PC alike, and it is very clear that the consoles are not really capable enough when they show dips to 20 fps.
> 
> Really, AMD is not going to pay you in shares if you defend them like this. Don't do it, you're wasting your time. The problems with FX CPU's are well known and documented, that reality is not something a thousand posts of yours will ever change.



Your reading comprehension also fails. Jaguar is not FX based it is a completely and utterly different micro-architecture. AMD tried something new and it works well in a heavily multithreaded environment in fact 6th generation intel is the first generation to touch it how many years after release? AMD's issue was they assumed the market would shape itself around what they released, in the server market with custom linux setups some of it did, with the console market completely owned by AMD there will slowly be change in the PC market to match this. Me personally? Stop blaming AMD for poor performance in single threaded games and ask the developers why in the year 2015 they are releasing single threaded games.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 30, 2015)

cdawall said:


> Your reading comprehension also fails. Jaguar is not FX based it is a completely and utterly different micro-architecture. AMD tried something new and it works well in a heavily multithreaded environment in fact 6th generation intel is the first generation to touch it how many years after release? AMD's issue was they assumed the market would shape itself around what they released, in the server market with custom linux setups some of it did, with the console market completely owned by AMD there will slowly be change in the PC market to match this. Me personally? Stop blaming AMD for poor performance in single threaded games and ask the developers why in the year 2015 they are releasing single threaded games.



LOL. YOU were the one bringing Jaguar into the mix, not me... Scroll up a bit. You can pass the blame to developers but the reality is that there are single threaded games, a LOT of them, and that they suffer performance wise on low IPC CPU's, of which the FX is the prime example.

Let's move on now please.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> LOL. YOU were the one bringing Jaguar into the mix, not me... Scroll up a bit. You can pass the blame to developers but the reality is that there are single threaded games, a LOT of them, and that they suffer performance wise on low IPC CPU's, of which the FX is the prime example.
> 
> Let's move on now please.



Yep you are right there are so many single threaded games everyone should just stop buying high end hardware. Why do they make anything better than a dual core pentium? I mean it can play all of these poorly coded games. The FX chips will play any current game when equipped with a decent video card to match. The entire argument is a mute point. All it makes me think of is the PC overlords video on youtube.

And I love my AMD shares made me >100% return on investment in 2013. Paid for my 9370 based rig, the down payment on my F150 and an 18ft car hauler with a 2ft dovetail. You will never once hear me complain about AMD and making money. Buy in at 1..83 a share and sell at 4.34, best 6 month turn around I have ever seen.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 30, 2015)

Vayra86 said:


> and now Sony had to enable another core for developers.


I think your find Sony Chose to ( and not HAD TO ) released API to Developers to further lengthing the lifespan of the consol and ajust competiveness re other consols



Vayra86 said:


> Really, AMD is not going to pay you in shares


Monopoly money and shares get it from Hasbro


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 30, 2015)

cdawall said:


> Yep you are right there are so many single threaded games everyone should just stop buying high end hardware. Why do they make anything better than a dual core pentium? I mean it can play all of these poorly coded games. The FX chips will play any current game when equipped with a decent video card to match. The entire argument is a mute point. All it makes me think of is the PC overlords video on youtube.
> 
> And I love my AMD shares made me >100% return on investment in 2013. Paid for my 9370 based rig, the down payment on my F150 and an 18ft car hauler with a 2ft dovetail. You will never once hear me complain about AMD and making money. Buy in at 1..83 a share and sell at 4.34, best 6 month turn around I have ever seen.



You REALLY must love the underdog.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 30, 2015)

MxPhenom 216 said:


> You REALLY must love the underdog.



I like being different. That's why nothing in my rig really matches the status quo. I also base everything off of what I am doing. I have yet to have a game that wont run on my rig well even with crossfire bugs and an old ass motherboard. Hell look at my SSD choices, notice not a damn samsung in sight.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 7, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> This thread has been derailed multiple times already.
> Anyone who keeps suggesting I go with Intel should then donate some money to a random GoFundMe which I'd never make. Personally for a self-built computer, I haven't any need or desire to go for one. Since the AMD Zen will be released in 2016 most likely and currently an expensive pipe-dream as most new CPUs are, why not a GoFundMe for that too? Figure the AM3+ FX CPU I'm considering purchasing pricepoint has already gone quite low, might as well go for it. Brand new, just released, hardware is always expensive and for myself, I'd rather wait for the prices to lower more before getting it.
> So, until the Zen is actually released, I'm not changing anything for the parts. This wasn't a "Help me build another PC." thread but more of a "Will this damn thing work for all the random various multitude of things I want it to?" one. The major thing I'm glad about no one has mentioned getting rid of the optical drives. Yes I still use discs, still own discs, and still prefer discs.
> Mods, please lock this thread. This sub-forum was far more helpful when I made my first thread on here 5 years ago.



A gofundme when the Intel config I posted was cheaper than the AMD. Logic = flawed.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 7, 2015)

The Intel rigs are cheaper don't be ignorant. 

Resident amd guy. Ask @MxPhenom 216 there are not many people who rival me on amd.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 7, 2015)

The more I see this thread pop up, the more I laugh at the OP for being dumb and ignorant. Sorry, but at this point, it's just the plain truth. Youre too blind to see the real difference. People are giving you 100% facts and you just dismiss it because yorue such a hardcore AMD fanboy for no reason at all. Stop living in the past and get over it. Im sure youre too old to be a fanboy.

Can we please get a downvote post/thread option? This thread could be the poster boy for the feature.


----------



## Vayra86 (Dec 7, 2015)

Hey! Stop derailing his thread


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 10, 2015)

Not going to put together another tower. Or am I?


----------



## bogmali (Dec 10, 2015)

OK I am going to throw in my $.02 here.....OP is entitled to his own opinion cause the last time I checked-its his build and if he wants to stay with AMD so be it! Peeps offering advise by showing the facts and basing it on their experiences are always welcome and we as staff appreciate that-it's what this forum is all about. Now what "WE" do not appreciate are the trolls that come in here derailing threads and for you "the usual suspects" I offer this......This is your final warning! So please stay on topic and if you're not offering any help-DO NOT POST!


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2015)

bogmali said:


> OK I am going to throw in my $.02 here.....OP is entitled to his own opinion cause the last time I checked-its his build and if he wants to stay with AMD so be it! Peeps offering advise by showing the facts and basing it on their experiences are always welcome and we as staff appreciate that-it's what this forum is all about. Now what "WE" do not appreciate are the trolls that come in here derailing threads and for you "the usual suspects" I offer this......This is your final warning! So please stay on topic and if you're not offering any help-DO NOT POST!



He has two options wait until zen or even AM4 with excavator (march) or buy the dead AM3+ socket.

FX 9590
H100i
Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z
8-16GB DDR3 
250GB Samsung SSD
2xGPU's of choucce
1000-1200w PSU

There universal AMD build.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 10, 2015)

Thing is I edited the first post. Lock this thread since it has too much threadcrapping.
No, I don't have any interest in telling this forum whatsoever about any tower build I'm doing.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Dec 10, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Thing is I edited the first post. Lock this thread since it has too much threadcrapping.
> No, I don't have any interest in telling this forum whatsoever about any tower build I'm doing.



Id just go Intel bro.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2015)

AthlonX2 said:


> Id just go Intel bro.



Or wait until Zen comes out if he really wants an AMD rig.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 10, 2015)

AthlonX2 said:


> Id just go Intel bro.


I'd just go stop caring about what I've built, "bro".


cdawall said:


> Or wait until Zen comes out if he really wants an AMD rig.


Yeah, it'll be very expensive cause of new hardware. Too bad.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 10, 2015)

unsubbed


----------



## cdawall (Dec 10, 2015)

Ray_Rogers2109 said:


> Yeah, it'll be very expensive cause of new hardware. Too bad.



Doutbful it will be anymore expensive than the specs I posted.


----------



## Ray_Rogers2109 (Dec 10, 2015)

Everyone, stop wasting your time ITT.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 10, 2015)

And on that note, thread closed.


----------

