Please Review This Build

[thatsydneyguy]

Hi and welcome, all Tom's Hardware users. Glad to write my very first post here. I'm considering buying this build for 1518 USD. What do you think? Should I wait? I've got a guy working at Intel who told me they'll be introducing something really great in two months (tops) time hence my hesitation. Anyhow, here're the specs:

- AMD FX-8150 (8 Cores)

- Corsair DDR3 32GB/1333 (4x8GB) CL9

- Samsung SSD MZ-7PC256D (256gb)

- Radeon HD7970 3072MB DDR5

- Generic DVD-RW Dual Layer

- SilentiumPC Brutus 410 2xFAN + Fortron 700W 85

- ASUS CROSSHAIR V FORMULA AM3 DDR3 990FX FV

Hope you can help me. Thanks for reading this far!

 

[blazorthon]

AMD's FX-8350 is a superior CPU and it will launch in a few days or a few weeks according to what I've read. Intel's next stuff probably won't launch until 2nd quarter 2013, so that guy you talked to might have been referring to a merely better-binned i5/i7 or an Ivy replacement for SB-E, none of which are likely to make much of a difference for you.

What is this build intended to do, IE is it some sort of folding or server system? Is it a gaming computer?

If it is a gaming computer, then you should reconsider most of this build, just FYI. I can make plenty of recommendations as could many other members here at Tom's.

 

[thatsydneyguy]

Thanks for the reply, blazorthon. I intend to use it primarily for gaming purposes. I'd appreciate your recommendations, yes but I'd appreciate more or less the same budget.

 

[chugot9218]

32gb ram is way overkill for a gaming rig, never heard of your PSU brand (which may be a bad thing, I am not overtly familiar with PSU's). *Edit* Spotted the GPU lol

 

[blazorthon]

AMD CPU $1.5K build:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kou2
Intel CPU $1.5K build:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kpIw

Both of these builds have two Radeon 7950s in CF and great CPUs, although FX CPUs need more work to perform as wel las Intel does with less work (Intel just needs frequency overclocking, AMD needs frequency overclocking, core configuration optimization, and CPU/NB frequency overclocking to compete in gaming performance).

I can also shrink your budget while still giving greater performance than your current build suggestion.

 

[thatsydneyguy]

Please do. Those are to XFX Radeons, correct?

 

[thatsydneyguy]

two* (Sorry can't edit my own message)

 

[blazorthon]

Please do. Those are to XFX Radeons, correct?

That they are two XFX Radeon 7950s. XFX did a good job on most of their Radeon 79xx cards (excluding the Ghost models, those were no good) and although these aren't top-end 7950 models, they are decent and the pricing is great.

Intel CPU $1.1K build
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kpL0

AMD CPU $1.1K build
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/kpM6

 

[jemm]

Where are you going to buy the parts? US or AU?

 

[thatsydneyguy]

@jemm Probably in AU. I just posted the USD price for convenience.

@blazorthon Thanks for the $1.1K builds. I guess I'll go with the $1.5K build. The most annoying thing in buying a new PC is knowledge that in half a year you could buy a two times better PC for half the price.

 

[jemm]

That´s true! But it happens to everyone, eh?

 

[blazorthon]

Pricing doesn't improve that fast, lol, at least not in the USA.

 

[ittimjones]

i would get faster RAM as well. 8GB of 2133MHz would probably be enough. Faster if possible though would be a bit better.

In building a gaming PC, the most money should be spent in Video Cards. Seriously, it should cost more than the CPU ur pairing with it.

Also, if you plan to OC eventually, make sure you don't skimp on a decent mobo, or cooling for CPU.

And if you plan on expanding on your build down the line, make sure that your PSU has enough juice to power which it might be that you would be adding.

 

[chugot9218]

That is assuming your MOBO supports it, and for the most part, the small increase is not worth the price as far as gaming goes, just get DDR3-1600, most common and reasonably priced. Some will stick with 1333 though, the difference is really negligible.

 

[thatsydneyguy]

I've also heard SSD is not that essential when it comes to gaming. Is that true?

 

[chugot9218]

Yes, it is true. What an SSD does is provide faster access speeds so the processor can load the data it needs into memory. Thus, if the game needs to load the information for a map or level, it loads it much faster, reducing the overall load time, but it does not make a difference as far as graphics/FPS goes.

P.S. What I love my SSD for is the increased boot times it offers, I can be up and running at the desktop in like 20-30 seconds. As a result, I just turn my PC of when I am using it because it is no inconvenience to me to boot it back up, which in the long run will be better for all your components. My suggestion would be a smaller SSD for your OS and maybe a game or program or two you use constantly, and spend the rest of that money on a decent 7200rpm HDD for your other data. Trust me, without experiencing an SSD you will not think the load times for a game are too long on a 7200rpm HDD. If you only ever used SSD's, I can see how you might find an HDD to be "slow".

 

[thatsydneyguy]

Thanks for the reply, chugo9218. I'll have to reconsider SSD in that case. Also, could the XFX video cards in blazorthon's $1.5k build be replaced with Sapphire in case my local store doesn't have XFX?

 

[blazorthon]

I don't see any reason why you couldn't switch them out if you want to.

 

[thatsydneyguy]

One more question if you will: is it relevant for the G.Skill 16GB to be 1866 or is 1600 sufficient? Also, should I decide to buy one GPU what would you recommend?

 

[blazorthon]

No, the system memory doesn't need to be 1866 and 1600 is sufficient. 1866 is slightly better, but it's not going to make much of a difference.

If you wanted a single GPU card, then I'd probably recommend something such as the Gigabyte WindForce Radeon 7970 GHz Edition, but keep in mind that no single GPU setup will be able to come close to the performance of what two 7950s are capable of, at least not with the current generation of video cads.

 

[thatsydneyguy]

Thanks for another reply, blazorthon. What do you think of GIGABYTE GTX670 4GB OC? From what I've seen in YouTube videos PhysX can really make a difference.

 

[blazorthon]

Many Youtube videos have much more settings changed than just PhysX in an attempt to make it look like more than it really is. There are only a handful of games that make good use of PhysX and most of them aren't modern games.

Games such as Batman:AC and Borderlands 2 are among the few where PhysX is worth having. Many of the games where it's worth having are either older games or they look like they are. Besides, AMD has their own advantages too such as far better MSAA efficiency (something that can be helpful in pretty much all games, not just a few) and OpenCL/Direct Compute features such as advanced lighting features that don't work nearly as well on Nvidia cards.

If you want a GTX 670, then go ahead and buy one, but I don't recommend buying one out of hype for PhysX unless you know that you'll mostly play the few games where PhysX matters.

Besides, the price difference between a good 7950 and a good 670 is more than enough to be able to simply get a lower end Nvidia card to supplement an AMD card with PhysX support rather than get a 670.

Also, if you do go for a 670, I don't recommend spending more money on a 4GB model. There aren't many situations where the extra 2GB matters for the 670 and even where it does, you might as well simply get a 7950 or 7970 because they'd perform better in such situations. The 670 generally runs into a far too severe memory bandwidth bottle-neck before it runs into a memory capacity bottle-neck.

 

[thatsydneyguy]

Wow, thanks for that post. Didn't really know there was so much hype about PhysX. I tried to nitpick videos from users, not Nvidia. Is there a good cheaper 4GB alternative from AMD/ATI?

 

[jemm]

Besides, the price difference between a good 7950 and a good 670 is more than enough to be able to simply get a lower end Nvidia card to supplement an AMD card with PhysX support rather than get a 670.

Nvidia had released a driver, ´by mistake´, making it possible to run PhysX (with a secundary card) alongside a AMD/ATI (primary) card -- but is it still like that? I thought Nvidia had ´corrected´ it some ago.

 

[blazorthon]

Wow, thanks for that post. Didn't really know there was so much hype about PhysX. I tried to nitpick videos from users, not Nvidia. Is there a good cheaper 4GB alternative from AMD/ATI?

No, but AMD/Ati have 3GB and 6GB cards. Why do you want 4GB? It'd be difficult, if not impossible, to bottle-neck even the 3GB that most of the Radeon 79xx cards have with even four 7970 GHz Editions in Crossfire, let alone with only one or two 7950s. Even 2GB takes a very intensive load to be bottle-necked with two or three 670/680 cards and I don't even know what you'd need to do to be bottle-necked by 3GB.