Im building an AMD Gaming PC.Tips?Improvements?Will it bottleneck?

[dumbfounded425]

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($129.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ Amazon)

Motherboard :ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($45.98 @ Outlet PC)

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.98 @ Outlet PC)

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card ($279.99 @ Newegg)

Sound Card: Asus Xonar DS 24-bit 192 KHz Sound Card ($38.68 @ Newegg)

Case: Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Amazon)

Power Supply: Antec Neo Eco 620W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($59.98 @ Outlet PC)

Optical Drive : Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($24.98 @ Newegg)

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ Outlet PC)

Keyboard: Logitech G510 Wired Gaming Keyboard ($67.99 @ Amazon)

Other: APEVIA CF12SL-UBL 120mm Blue LED Cooling Fan ($8.99)

Other: APEVIA CF12SL-UBL 120mm Blue LED Cooling Fan ($8.99)
Other: Thermal paste ($9.99)

Total: $990.48
Any tips or improvements? Will it bottleneck?

 

[quilciri]

Solid system for the most part. The PSU choice is a bit questionable. If you plan on getting a second 7950 down the road then you're good.

620w is overkill for a single GPU system. 500w will give you room to overclock both the CPU & GPU as well as add other components later.

for ~$65, I highly reccommend PC Power & Cooling
PPCMK3S500. Very high quality PSU.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/pc-power--cooling-power-supply-ppcmk3s500

 

[dumbfounded425]

Solid system for the most part. The PSU choice is a bit questionable. If you plan on getting a second 7950 down the road then you're good.

620w is overkill for a single GPU system. 500w will give you room to overclock both the CPU & GPU as well as add other components later.

for ~$65, I highly reccommend PC Power & Cooling
PPCMK3S500. Very high quality PSU.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/pc-power--cooling-power-supply-ppcmk3s500

I think thats what Ill go with, your 500, but can you explain why 620w would be worse than 500w?

 

[ilysaml]

I think thats what Ill go with, your 500, but can you explain why 620w would be worse than 500w?

It's not worse, it's just less quality and non modular.

 

[ilysaml]

However, I'm recommending a total build around Core i5 3570K. You'll experience some bottlenecks with the AMD CPU in specific games.

 

[maxalge]

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor ($129.99 @ Amazon)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ Amazon)

Motherboard :ASRock 970 Extreme3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($84.99 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($45.98 @ Outlet PC)

Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.98 @ Outlet PC)

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card ($279.99 @ Newegg)

Sound Card: Asus Xonar DS 24-bit 192 KHz Sound Card ($38.68 @ Newegg)

Case: Rosewill CHALLENGER ATX Mid Tower Case ($49.99 @ Amazon)

Power Supply: Antec Neo Eco 620W 80 PLUS Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($59.98 @ Outlet PC)

Optical Drive : Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($24.98 @ Newegg)

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($89.98 @ Outlet PC)

Keyboard: Logitech G510 Wired Gaming Keyboard ($67.99 @ Amazon)

Other: APEVIA CF12SL-UBL 120mm Blue LED Cooling Fan ($8.99)

Other: APEVIA CF12SL-UBL 120mm Blue LED Cooling Fan ($8.99)
Other: Thermal paste ($9.99)

Total: $990.48
Any tips or improvements? Will it bottleneck?

Yes it will bottleneck, and you are trolling your cpu, hard drive, and motherboard to get that keyboard... Weird choice...

 

[Outlander_04]

Its a good solid build , even including the Antec psu [ which is an older model ]

You do not need the sound card . Spend that money instead on upgrading the motherboard to the Asrock 979 Extreme4 or even the ASUS M5A 990X both of which have better expansion options .Like crossfire and SLI .

The Rosewill challenger case is not that great a case . It won an award from Tomshardware for being cheap . As they gave it the award they wished they'd had enough in the budget for an Antec 300

Today you can get an Antec ONE gamer series case for less than the challenger and its much better built

Why Win7 instead of Win 8 ?

 

[ilysaml]

Why Win7 instead of Win 8 ?

 

[bennaye]

Its a good solid build , even including the Antec psu [ which is an older model ]

You do not need the sound card . Spend that money instead on upgrading the motherboard to the Asrock 979 Extreme4 or even the ASUS M5A 990X both of which have better expansion options .Like crossfire and SLI .

The Rosewill challenger case is not that great a case . It won an award from Tomshardware for being cheap . As they gave it the award they wished they'd had enough in the budget for an Antec 300

Today you can get an Antec ONE gamer series case for less than the challenger and its much better built

Why Win7 instead of Win 8 ?

I agree to dropping the sound card. It's overkill when all you're doing is gaming. The software and equaliser that comes with the computer is more than enough to get that "ooomph" when gaming. The money is much better spent elsewhere, such as the Antec case outlander suggested.

Also, windows 7 because it's been around much longer. All the drivers and games are developed for windows 7. If you're using windows 8 then it's just adding an unknown into the equation. Sure, most games might work, but with windows 7 all games do assuming you have all your drivers and software in order.

 

[Chief7285]

honestly at anything above $700 your in Intel territory and you should take advantage of it, If you have to i would drop the 7950 for a 7870 and go Intel better performance down the road because of bottlenecks, even if you get the i5 3470 its $180 and outperforms everything AMD throws at it. Even if Fx 6300 is overclocked still won't touch it.

 

[dumbfounded425]

However, I'm recommending a total build around Core i5 3570K. You'll experience some bottlenecks with the AMD CPU in specific games.

Im not really good with computers.... Can you recommend any combos of intel I5 or I3 with a MoBo?

 

[dumbfounded425]

honestly at anything above $700 your in Intel territory and you should take advantage of it, If you have to i would drop the 7950 for a 7870 and go Intel better performance down the road because of bottlenecks, even if you get the i5 3470 its $180 and outperforms everything AMD throws at it. Even if Fx 6300 is overclocked still won't touch it.

Can you recommend any combinations of intel processors and MoBO? And any other suggestions?

 

[ilysaml]

It would be the same system you chose but with a;
Core i5 3570K
AROock Z77 Extreme4

You can change the PSU for Seasonic 650W

You may consider this case (Cooler Master Storm Enforcer)

Finally, if you have money left, you can put in a nice SSD (Samsung 830)

 

[Chief7285]

and if you want to go with a cheaper intel build you can go

i5 3470 $180
b75/h77 mobo for about $60-75
if you get this CPU, you can't overclock so you can use the stock cooler just fine to save a few bucks.

be about the same as your price for Fx 6300/ cooler/ mobo

but for futureproofing and all around better try to get what Ilysami suggested.

 

[Coldice54]

BY ALL MEANS, DON'T GET A WD CAVIAR BLUE! Get a faster, larger, and just as quiet Seagate Barracuda 1 TB!

 

[Outlander_04]

There is no future proofing with the intel system

Socket 1155 dies completely in a few months . AMD's socket AM3+ continues till 2014 , and the steamroller processors

 

[Chief7285]

I am aware that Haswell is coming out soon in a few monthes but i was talking "futureproofing" as more horsepower earlier so you won't need to upgrade to a new CPU anytime soon. If he would go with AMD fx 6300 right now its performance is marginal compared to the i5 3570k in games so he would have to upgrade to Steamroller to compete with Ivy bridges in games later on. But who knows AMD may pull something that actually competes with intel but from what we have seen recently I highly doubt it.

 

[Outlander_04]

I think the AMD's are a little weaker in older DX 9 game engines that cant multithread well
but everywhere else the user experience will be exactly the same as if you had an intel cpu

 

[maxalge]

I think the AMD's are a little weaker in older DX 9 game engines that cant multithread well
but everywhere else the user experience will be exactly the same as if you had an intel cpu

Not even close.

Amd are weaker in gaming period, the more demanding the game becomes on the cpu the more the amd processor lags behind...

 

[Outlander_04]

Not even close.

Amd are weaker in gaming period, the more demanding the game becomes on the cpu the more the amd processor lags behind...

Not even close

The results would depend on the game engine and the resolution and detail settings . Yes the intels produce higher FPS at low resolutions . But no one plays at those resolutions by choice and the benchmark results do not reflect what happens when you play at 1080p and have image settings on high

In those situations the AMD FX processors can often perform better than the intel .
The Exception is game engines that cant multi-thread. Even then the user experience wont be any different because most monitors refesh at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times a second , the same thing as 60 FPS .....which means if you are getting more than 60 FPS you never actually see it on your monitor
So even in the situation that most favors the intel the "advantage" is theoretical rather than actual

Most people would be better buying an FX 6300 , and a better graphics card , rather than an intel quad and having to spend less on the graphics

 

[maxalge]

Not even close

The results would depend on the game engine and the resolution and detail settings . Yes the intels produce higher FPS at low resolutions . But no one plays at those resolutions by choice and the benchmark results do not reflect what happens when you play at 1080p and have image settings on high

In those situations the AMD FX processors can often perform better than the intel .
The Exception is game engines that cant multi-thread. Even then the user experience wont be any different because most monitors refesh at 60 Hz . Thats 60 times a second , the same thing as 60 FPS .....which means if you are getting more than 60 FPS you never actually see it on your monitor
So even in the situation that most favors the intel the "advantage" is theoretical rather than actual

Most people would be better buying an FX 6300 , and a better graphics card , rather than an intel quad and having to spend less on the graphics

The lower the resolution, the higher the resolution, and with multi-gpu setups those higher resolutions demand.

Intel has amd beat in all aspects, unless you have less than $400 to spend, then the amd shine.



http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

 

[Outlander_04]

The lower the resolution, the higher the resolution, and with multi-gpu setups those higher resolutions demand.

Intel has amd beat in all aspects, unless you have less than $400 to spend, then the amd shine.



http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/crysis-latency.gif

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-10.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-9.html

http://techreport.com/r.x/cpu-gaming-2012/crysis2-beyond-50.gif

The graphic you show is from a review that doesnt measure fps , but rather the time to render the slowest individual frame . No one else even thinks this is relevant

I suggest you read this , and the forum posts that followed it
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html

The Tomshardware results you link are massively skewed in favor of the intel architecture by the inclusion of skyrim and starcraft . Both are DX9 and dont work particularly better with an increase in core count . This the point I made earlier .

From the same article you reference
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html
Exen the out date FX 8120 matches the intel 2500K , and does it at a fraction of the cost .
Current generation FX processor perform better so any of the 8 core FX models should outperform a 2500K

 

[maxalge]

The graphic you show is from a review that doesnt measure fps , but rather the time to render the slowest individual frame . No one else even thinks this is relevant

I suggest you read this , and the forum posts that followed it
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1285/pg1/amd-fx-8150-black-edition-8-core-processor-vs-core-i7-2600k-review-introduction.html

The Tomshardware results you link are massively skewed in favor of the intel architecture by the inclusion of skyrim and starcraft . Both are DX9 and dont work particularly better with an increase in core count . This the point I made earlier .

From the same article you reference
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html
Exen the out date FX 8120 matches the intel 2500K , and does it at a fraction of the cost .
Current generation FX processor perform better so any of the 8 core FX models should outperform a 2500K

And that bf3 bench is single player offline:


Online:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sweclockers.com%2Fartikel%2F14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3%2F5%23pagehead&act=url

"skewed" by the fact they require a good cpu?

Those games show the weakness of amd processors for gaming.



Also it is relevant because it shows amd cpu's stutter a lot more often and for longer durations.

 

[Outlander_04]

And that bf3 bench is single player offline:


Online:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sweclockers.com%2Fartikel%2F14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3%2F5%23pagehead&act=url


http://cdn.overclock.net/7/74/746236dc_2506.png



"skewed" by the fact they require a good cpu?

Those games show the weakness of amd processors for gaming.



Also it is relevant because it shows amd cpu's stutter a lot more often and for longer durations.

And how do you think they made a repeatable benchmark in online play? By having 60 people in remote locations do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time ?
LOL !

But either way the results actually show that even a last generation FX is running the game at a minimum of 62 fps . This is more than the monitor can display anyway . The images actually displayed will be capped at 60 FPS because its likely a 60 Hz monitor .
The results actually show the intel wont produce a better user experience .

The OP will be fine with an FX 6300 and does not need an intel processor

 

[maxalge]

And how do you think they made a repeatable benchmark in online play? By having 60 people in remote locations do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time ?
LOL !

But either way the results actually show that even a last generation FX is running the game at a minimum of 62 fps . This is more than the monitor can display anyway . The images actually displayed will be capped at 60 FPS because its likely a 60 Hz monitor .
The results actually show the intel wont produce a better user experience .

The OP will be fine with an FX 6300 and does not need an intel processor

60pfs average, you will see drops below that and stutter.

Also you need to read this:

http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking


Even at locked 60fps on a 60hz monitor you WILL see the stutter as shown by the benches.