add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Comments

Comments

Comment reply on darkflowrider's Completed Build: ??? ??????? ????? ???g??

  • 63 months ago
  • 2 points

It's the White Knight, not the White Wizard... This demands explanation!

Comment reply on Thecautiousone's Completed Build: The Effect Core/ Client Build (4.2Ghz)

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Where did the cooler money come from? Also, I don't understand the cooling setup, and I would think the temps would be better with that cooler, even with the overclock.

If money was really tight, the memory could have come from a different brand, especially at 1600 speeds. Your part choices are otherwise sensible.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i7 4770"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

I mostly agree, but AMD does make a good case for some highly threaded applications, where hyperthreading may add anywhere from no boost to about a third of a core boost, depending on the specific tasks at execution and what shared resources are available for the hyperthreaded task.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i7 4770"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

It's hard to say that there is a fair comparison - but it's certainly not in the realm of close pricing. Comparing a 2 core CPU to an 8 core is not fair either. Your best bet is probably to find processors that perform comparably under the conditions in which you plan to put them, and then compare price or value.

AMD certainly didn't design the FX-8xxx series to compete with the i3 series processors - it's designed to compete with other processors that handle 8 threads, where they throw 8 full cores and higher stock clock speeds at a lower cost to try and beat Intel's hyperthreading, lower TDP, and higher IPC processors.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Intel i7-4790K vs AMD FX-8350"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

TL;DR - depends - will you fully load the processor often? Looking at Passmark's benchmarks, I compared the i7-4790k and the FX-8350, which both have the same stock clock rate, 4.0 GHz. Both are capable of 8 threads. I looked at single-thread benchmarks, and the 4790k topped the chart at about 5/3 the score of the 8350. But you're right, the 8350 has 8 full-fledged cores, while the 4790k has 4 full cores and 4 logical cores that share resources with the 4 real cores. Search results say that at best, the logical cores are equivalent to about 1/3 of a regular core, usually less, depending of course on the specific thread being executed and its context. Now for the math - FX-8350: 8 cores, baseline score of 8. i7-4790k: 4 cores * 5/3 performance + 4 logical cores * 5/3 performance * 1/3 generous actual usefulness = 8.89 score, an 11% semi-empirical calculated advantage over the 8350. Bottom line - if you fully load the processor, the 4790k might beat the 8350 by just a little bit, depending on specific programs. If not, the 4790k will definitely outshine the 8350 due to its better single-threaded performance. If you fully load the processor, it's up to you to decide whether a maybe 10% performance boost is worth double the cost (there are also energy considerations which favor the 4790k), or to make the decision easier, consider instead the FX-8320 which is even less expensive and is actually the same chip as the 8350, so just overclock to 4.0 GHz and go.

Second-to-last note - if you're worried about the bottleneck, you can try overclocking the 8320/8350 to a speed that won't bottleneck loading the GTX 970. A good cooler is more important here, and probably an investment you would make anyway if you'll be loading your processor heavily.

Last note - if this is for gaming more than multi-threaded workloads, go for an i5. You can't go wrong with the i7 for heavy workloads, but you can save money if you think you'll be loading up all 8 cores frequently, and can get the overclock to a non-bottlenecking speed.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "AMD FX 8350 vs Intel i7 4770"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

TL;DR - depends - will you fully load the processor often?

Looking at Passmark's benchmarks, I compared the i7-4790k and the FX-8350, which both have the same stock clock rate (sorry i didn't use the 4770, apples to apples reasons), 4.0 GHz. Both are capable of 8 threads. I looked at single-thread benchmarks, and the 4790k topped the chart at about 5/3 the score of the 8350. But you're right, the 8350 has 8 full-fledged cores, while the 4790k has 4 full cores and 4 logical cores that share resources with the 4 real cores. Search results say that at best, the logical cores are equivalent to about 1/3 of a regular core, usually less, depending of course on the specific thread being executed and its context.

Now for the math - FX-8350: 8 cores, baseline score of 8. i7-4790k: 4 cores * 5/3 performance + 4 logical cores * 5/3 performance * 1/3 generous actual usefulness = 8.89 score, an 11% semi-empirical calculated advantage over the 8350.

Bottom line - if you fully load the processor, the 4790k might beat the 8350 by just a little bit, depending on specific programs. If not, the 4790k will definitely outshine the 8350 due to its better single-threaded performance.

If you fully load the processor, it's up to you to decide whether a maybe 10% performance boost is worth double the cost (there are also energy considerations which favor the 4790k), or to make the decision easier, consider instead the FX-8320 which is even less expensive and is actually the same chip as the 8350, so just overclock to 4.0 GHz and go.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "FX vs i5?"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

If gaming is all you're doing, and you will have the dedicated graphics card, look at the AMD FX-series. The 8xxx and 9xxx are probably overkill for gaming - you won't likely take advantage of the extra cores. Look at a 4300 or 6300. To match the performance of a similar i5, you'll need to overclock the FX. With the savings getting an AMD processor you could buy a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo to make it a comfortable overclock.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Switching AMD CPUS"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Unless you've already got the 8370, consider overclocking the 8320 if you have a good mobo, as it's the same chip but cheaper. I've never done a processor switch myself.

Comment reply on av8rarky's Completed Build: | Project-ARK |

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Well done!

Comment reply on TimbersAnarchy's Completed Build: Vulcan first build

  • 63 months ago
  • 2 points

You did a good job choosing parts for most of this buid. I'll just add that cable management is important for more than just looks - that big bundle will block airflow and gather dust. You might have tried a 750 W fully modular PSU to help with that - about the same price at deal time.

Comment reply on keane1024's Completed Build: First HTPC Build

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

I wouldn't mind an HTPC like this! Not too much to be done about cabling in a small case unless you're comfortable cutting them shorter. As for the GPU, just consider your future plans. If you won't be gaming on it, you probably won't ever need one, and the money spent could go toward another build. It could ease the load when decoding, but it probably won't help with overall internal temperatures or noise, which is why many HTPCs in this class don't have the dedicated card. If noise is a problem, think about other coolers with better bearings and quiter fan. As is, +1 for the quality and value of the build, nicely done!

Comment reply on james143db's Completed Build: After years of console "Black and Red"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Yeah, I'll watch that. My GPU won't be a big one though. The M.2 M (vs. B+M) interface is just too expensive right now, so I have to stick with the B+M until prices drop.

Comment reply on Megab2000's Completed Build: My Current Build for Gaming!

  • 63 months ago
  • 2 points

I agree with thepinche, it's not bad, but a little more research/shopping could have saved you some money, probably around $400 for the main bits, ignoring the gaming hardware. I hope this will serve to answer some specifics and make your next build even better.

If gaming is the majority purpose, 16 GB RAM is more than necessary. The sticks you got are also overpriced, and the timings could have been better. With a different motherboard, you could have had a faster memory clock too. In the future, try an ASUS, ASRock, or MSI motherboard, they still use Intel hardware if that was what you were concerned about.

I know the Western Digital Black series is performance oriented, but for more than double the price of a Caviar Blue, I don't think you'll get double the performance.

As thepinche said, a lesser version of Windows would have probably been fine, unless you are doing some serious networking or secure data work.

You're right about the i7 being too much for gaming - I suggest installing folding@home to make use of all that power in your off time.

Comment reply on Bladedrummer's Completed Build: GF's productivity PC & first window mod

  • 63 months ago
  • 2 points

IMHO, If she won't use it, don't get it!

Comment reply on Bladedrummer's Completed Build: GF's productivity PC & first window mod

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

+1 for nice window mod and for non-overkill parts - just what's needed. Seems like a lot of these lately are "I know it's overkill but I couldn't resist!" Could have saved a few bucks with a quad-core AMD APU, but single-threaded performance on Intel is undoubtedly better.

Comment reply on ash009's Completed Build: T.A.R.D.I.S. on a budget

  • 63 months ago
  • 2 points

It's, it's... Bigger on the inside!

Comment reply on james143db's Completed Build: After years of console "Black and Red"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Nice. I like the price and upgradeability as well, that 990FX chipset will be nice, I bet. I'm not sure how it will compare to the extreme editions, but it has a lot of other nice features. What really won me over was the Gen 2 M.2 slot, which I'll be using. I'll be starting with the 6300 like you did.

Comment reply on james143db's Completed Build: After years of console "Black and Red"

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Nice and clean, good cable management. Looking at the same mobo/CPU myself.

Comment reply on miikson's Completed Build: Notus

  • 63 months ago
  • 1 point

Looks nice! Pretty good load temps with all those Noctuas! Negative pressure, right?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Goal: easy expansion and upgrades, decent starting specs, 1000 USD system budget"

  • 64 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm an aerospace engineering graduate student. The work I do usually involves programming (mostly Matlab), and can range from parsing many thousands of text files to building detailed simulations that run for a few minutes apiece. The simulations sometimes have graphical outputs, including movies, but hardly "rendering" in the true sense. I won't be post-editing a lot of videos, but compression and decompression of large files are common tasks.

Games will be limited to oldschool/emulated games (Starcraft 1, N64), or simulation games like Kerbal Space Program or Orbiter, which aren't very graphics intense. I've never played any game with a framerate much over 30 FPS, and have little desire to increase the rate, though 2K resolution will be nice. The only other entertainment will be movies and Netflix.

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Goal: easy expansion and upgrades, decent starting specs, 1000 USD system budget"

  • 64 months ago
  • 1 point

Two follow-up questions: 1. Would I need a better GPU for non-gaming purposes at this resolution, or if I decreased the res. of the 2nd monitor?

  1. What GPU would you recommend instead, if I did dum down the cooler?

Comment reply on Forum Topic "Goal: easy expansion and upgrades, decent starting specs, 1000 USD system budget"

  • 64 months ago
  • 1 point

Great feedback. Some of my work requires large file I/O operations, both in file size and number, so the SSD will be worth the budget hit, I think.

I considered going straight for one of the 8-core processors... I'll be thinking about that one. Same with the mobo. Thanks!

Edit: Also, thanks for the keyboard suggestion a bundle will do nicely for this build.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube