Building my first gaming rig

[TheDarkOne198]

Hello all,I apparently started this account in 2012 and completely forgot about it lol.
I am not a real computer pro,but I do know more than your average amateur,for sure.
That being said,I have some questions,mostly about the CPU I should have on my rig.
Here it is so far: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/wjh2bv
(I know that there is no monitor or OS chosen,a friend is letting me have one of his spare screens and I already have a Windows 8 Pro disk)

I currently have the new i5-4690k,which I am kind of hyped about (devil's canyon baby,yeah! lol).
I am wondering,however...Maybe it would be better going AMD as I have juggled the FX 8530 and the i5 back and forth like crazy. I know the i5 is the top gaming choice,but we also know that how good games look is basically decided by how they look on the consoles. In the past,PC versions always did look better,but thats because of greater capabilities in single core performance. The thing is,the consoles now have 8 cores (I think its technically more dual quads,from what I have read,but still 8 cores). This means all the games made for those consoles will be made to use 8 cores. In my eyes,this might make the 8 core AMD chips suddenly lurch ahead as a top dog in PC gaming,matching or possibly exceeding the i5 and i7 (8 logical cores has to beat 4 hyperthreaded cores,in the end) since those new games would already be designed,from the beginning,to use up to 8 cores. I also think they may also be more "optimized" for AMD CPUs. My worry about AMD is that they are apparently going to pull out of the high performance,gaming oriented CPU market and are going to focus on more on APUs for mobile devices. The thing is,the new mobile FX branded APUs for higher end laptops and such,kind of confuse me. I wonder if they are migrating the FX line to some high end APU's,maybe by next year. I figure,if they cram at least 6 CPU cores and have the GPU core be at least something matching the mid range cards,say the R9 270 or the HD 7850 (or 7770/90),they could probably stand on their own,save power on your rig since there is no discrete card,and could stand to have some pretty high performance,due to HSA and Mantle (assuming it takes off like AMD and Dice want it to). I think HSA needs to be refined more to really matter,but once it is,I think it will be pretty darn good.BUT,if they dont continue the FX line on desktops,then FX is effectively dead,as far as I am concerned and if they dont,the AM3+/Piledriver,which is already not that great in comparison to LGA1150 and Haswell,even before the refresh,will still pretty advanced for a long while.That leaves FM2+,which is used by the not so stellar A10 and such. Apparently the new mobile FX uses it too,which gives me some hopes for it and maybe a new FM3 socket and possible AM4,but I dont see AMD making AM4,unless its a replacement for FM2+ for APUs.

To reiterate,I feel like AMD might take off in the PC gaming market because games will soon use up to 8 CPUs and to me that means the FX 8530 will skyrocket in gaming ability,since it excels at anything that uses multicore and can match the i7 in that regard,but the FX line may not last and may not have much of a future.But,the overall difference between even the i7 and the 8530,much less the i5,is probably pretty minor. Yeah,the Intel chips have better single core performance,but that isnt to say that the AMD chips suck horribly at the same things,using a single core.I also know that even the aging FX chips should still hold up for quite some more time as most games dont even have the 8350 as a recommended CPU. Heck,Wolfenstein The New Order recommends the Phenom II X6 1090T or the i7-930,both of which aren't exactly top of the line anymore,and that game just came out. Both this i5 I have chosen and the 8530 should do me fine for a long time,but what do you folks think? Do you think the multi core performance oriented games of the future will better use the 8 cores of the FX chips? The Intel chips are probably more future proof,since I dont think they will go away from LGA1150 any time soon,unlike AM3+,so upgrade ability is less limited with the Intel and I wont have to worry about a new motherboard so much,even though I know that is an inevitable thing.It always happens eventually.I just feel with AM3+,it would be a much sooner to come thing. What does this community think of this conundrum of mine?

Sorry about the loooong paragraphs,but this has been bugging me a lot lately. I never knew planning a PC build would need so much thought. This isn't a crucial problem,as I know I can go with that nifty new i5 and be dandy,so I am not really asking for solutions. I just want to ask the question of the AMD multicore in future gaming VS the better single core performance of Intel. Opinions please,folks. Also,I would prefer concise opinions,not fanboy answers like "go intel,its always better". I am an actual AMD fanboy,I know Intel is superior in many many ways,but I always have that tendency to support the underdog,as the underdog may not be the underdog if more people supported them.I remember as a kid,the first computer we had was a Compaq with an old K-6 in it (233 Mhz,lol) and the second one,another Compaq,had an Athalon XP 2000+ (1.6 Ghz) and I had fine performance out of both,back in their days. I had no Intel to compare to,but it was never an issue,aside from not being able to play games that they could not do.Because of this,I have a leaning to them,I am sure some can understand.*Sigh* another long paragraph. Okay,enough. Opinions people! lol

 

[iron8orn]

wow what a read darkone lol

there is a new socket and silicone shrink next year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_%28microarchitecture%29

 

[iron8orn]

you need a better card more than one of the best gaming cpu's

you could get a cheaper non k/z setup to fit in a better card or if you want to oc get a fx for cheaper.

i am not sure about the performance of the kaveri apu with the discrete graphics disable but i know it has better single thread performance than the fx with a lower clock rate so it gives it some decent oc potential.

 

[TheDarkOne198]

Edit,I have updated to this: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/zQCtK8

I am aware that the HD 7850 isn't up to snuff for high end gaming,but that usually implies 1080p gaming. I am not going to do that,since I am well aware that 1080p doesn't mean anything until you have a screen about 55 inches in size,as the human eye cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p,until your screen gets to be that big. My screen will be 19-25 inchs screen and even if it technically reaches 1080p,you cannot see the difference and its really just a waste of time and money.That being said,I will at best play at 1366x728 or just 720p and what from what I have read about the HD 7850,including posts here at tomshardware,the HD 7850 should do pretty fine in 720p gaming in most cases,even on higher settings.The other one I have considered is the GTX 750 ti,but according to GPUBoss.com,the 7850 is better in most respects,except clock speed and power draw. I am not someone that really needs everything maxed out,I have seen vids of games on lower detail settings and it still looks pretty decent. Right now,the thing I play most is Star Trek Online and I dont want frame drops and things disappearing and it will likely be around 720p. My main intention is to just get this thing built,once that is done,It can be upgraded and kept up over time. I am aware of Skylake too,but I want it built this year because I will be moving across the country next year and that would be a bad time to build a computer. It would be easier to just buy the new MOBO and CPU in the future than build it next year when everything is chaotic. I also switched it to the non K version,since I really dont plan on overclocking,I would fear too much I would ruin things,as I have NO experience with it. Is the single thread perf. of Intel THAT much better than FX? I mean,if its a minor difference in real world experiences,then why spend more on Intel,especially if future games would likely use the 8 cores of FX and thus possibly making the more cores come on top? As for Kaveri,I have considered getting the A10 with a gfx card. It may be my lack of understanding in it all,but I would wish that the APU could continue to use the the GPU built in,for faster simultaneous threading performance,while the gfx card does all the video and 3D rendering. To me,this setup would make HSA work even better...

 

[iron8orn]

i can tell the difference in 720p to 1080p. i have 2 7850's clocked at 1ghz and they play well at 60fps in optimized games so you would pleased at 720p but i would recommend you go r9 270/270x

yeah the single thread performance of amd vs intel has been no match for years.. your talking like 5-50 percent better depending what chips your comparing. like the 8350 vs one of the newer i5's is atleast 25 percent better.
the 8350 is a good all around cpu but its 8 threads would never match the performance of the i7 4770k even at 6ghz the i7 would still have better real world performance at 4ghz.

 

[iron8orn]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2177507/performance-test-passmark-cpu-comparison.html

 

[TheDarkOne198]

I see,that something I have wanted to know about the my AMD vs Intel debate,thanks for that. As for the resolution debate,I am going off of that university study I heard about,that basically stated that the human eye cannot see the difference between 1080 and 720 until the screen was about 55 inches or so and I have always assumed that those that said they could had it in their heads they could. That being said,I have read that other factors,like viewing distance and how good your eyes are matter. An article at digitaltrends.com seems to say that the closer you are to the screen,the easier it is to see the finer HD details.It was using TV's instead of computer screens,but same thing really. I guess I am wrong on my assumptions,as I thought the 55 inch limit was regardless of distance. Even still,I plan on doing only 720p as the monitor I am going to be given by a friend probably just does up to 1366x768 and if I really want to do 1080p,I can HDMI to my TV. Since the GPU wont be doing 1080,that should give me good FPS on most games,even with the HD 7850. I have also considered the GTX 750 ti but the HD 7850 seems to be better where it counts,except in a minor clock speed difference and a terribly higher power draw.

 

[TheDarkOne198]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2177507/performance-test-passmark-cpu-comparison.html

Those graphs,to me seem to show the 8350 to be better than the 4770k in a lot of things,except prime numbers,unless I am reading it wrong.That single threaded bar is waaaaay lower though. And,Jesus,does the A10 KILL in the SSE test.

Still,single threaded to me means current games and maybe things like browsers or what not. In the future,games especially,should be using up to 8 cores so I think it wont be long until single threaded becomes irrelevant. It may be a few more years for most everything,but the consoles are going to force it in games,wont they?

 

[iron8orn]

something you should know about scientific testing is that the observers perception can play a large part in the outcome.

if you have ever seen a 4k tv next to a 1080p and 720p all lets say 27 inches.. most people could easily tell them apart and choose to watch on the 4k unless they are near blind.

 

[iron8orn]

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2177507/performance-test-passmark-cpu-comparison.html

Those graphs,to me seem to show the 8350 to be better than the 4770k in a lot of things,except prime numbers,unless I am reading it wrong.That single threaded bar is waaaaay lower though. And,Jesus,does the A10 KILL in the SSE test.

Still,single threaded to me means current games and maybe things like browsers or what not. In the future,games especially,should be using up to 8 cores so I think it wont be long until single threaded becomes irrelevant. It may be a few more years for most everything,but the consoles are going to force it in games,wont they?

i think that 8350 is at 4.5ghz

i know right! what is up with the high sse

 

[TheDarkOne198]

but isn't that is the problem with perception though? It can easily be altered by simply being told something is "better",a sort of placebo effect. But,maybe the fact that I have not seen things in real 1080p also plays a role. My PS3 rarely runs anything that high,I dont have a PS4 yet and my laptop only goes to 1366x768. Little to no experience in comparing the different HD resolutions. Will the R9 270 do 1080p with just one of them? I dont plan on having a dual card setup any time soon,thats even more money to muster up and it will be October before I can scrounge enough together,barring any sudden cash drops. I need it built sooner than later,any upgrades can come later on. The 270 is only about 30 bucks or so more. Getting that 270 might make me get a higher watt PSU,which is even more money. I want this thing to be as close to 800 dollars as possible,right now.

Edit: Okay,that 270 doesnt do much to the wattage but lord does it push the price up...

 

[iron8orn]

yeah the 270 would handle 1080p better and be a better choice for crossfire in the future but i did not think about the power consumption or the budget. you should def always try for the best card you can get when your a gamer.
personally, in everything i have learned its best to start a build around the video card you want and go from there even if its the only piece you order at first.

 

[TheDarkOne198]

yeah,I know the old saying,pay twice as much for the gfx card as you do the CPU. I am kind of taking the opposite route though,as the only PC games I currently play are older things like Doom 3 and Quake 4 (with HD mods) and MMO's like STO,LoTR Online and TERA. Wolfenstein New Order should run decent enough on this build. As for ordering the parts,I want to save the money for it all,then order all at once. Saves me from having a pile of part boxes sitting around,waiting to be opened,and it may sound stupid,but their presence would practically taunt me,lol. I am weird like that. I am not a hardcore PC gamer,but I partially feel that is do to not having a nice gaming rig. Once I have the machine built,any game that comes out that I dont have the hardware to play,I can probably get that hardware in time. The 2 GB of VRAM the GTX 750ti might help more than the 1GB of the 7850,as I have read 1GB is not enough for anything 1080 and that lower TDP should cut down on power draw as I am someone who tends to leave a computer on 24/7.

 

[iron8orn]

SAPPHIRE DUAL-X $170 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202090
you get the amd silver gaming pack for free with the 270 so you get to pick 2 games if it helps you decide.

i played tera for a few months, it was pretty cool.
pretty much just raid in vindictus these days.

 

[TheDarkOne198]

can you get that same deal with the if you get it off of PCpartpicker,since the same exact card is on there and from Newegg. I haven't gone past PCPP,so I am guessing when ordering the parts,it takes you directly to the vender site,such as Newegg. To save money,should I drop down the CPU? Would I notice a huge difference between the 4690 and say,the 4430 or 4440? That would drop it like 40 bucks and make up the price for the 170 dollar gfx card. Even the 4570 might be acceptable in price.

I actually haven't played Tera yet,as its still downloading for me and seems to hit a point where it wont download anymore. I basically just do STO as LoTR is basically dead.

Edit:Never mind,I was dumb,of course it take you to Newegg from there,lol

 

[iron8orn]

i5-4590 non s model is what i would say to go with. all pretty close in price and it shares the same price as the 4570 on newegg.
i dont really use partpicker.
there would not be a huge difference you just want a haswell with a higher clock.

 

[iron8orn]

can you get that same deal with the if you get it off of PCpartpicker,since the same exact card is on there and from Newegg. I haven't gone past PCPP,so I am guessing when ordering the parts,it takes you directly to the vender site,such as Newegg. To save money,should I drop down the CPU? Would I notice a huge difference between the 4690 and say,the 4430 or 4440? That would drop it like 40 bucks and make up the price for the 170 dollar gfx card. Even the 4570 might be acceptable in price.

I actually haven't played Tera yet,as its still downloading for me and seems to hit a point where it wont download anymore. I basically just do STO as LoTR is basically dead.

Edit:Never mind,I was dumb,of course it take you to Newegg from there,lol

i had thought so but ya know how it is lol dont wanna be givn bumb info

 

[TheDarkOne198]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/g3sPgs

PCPP has a few dollars difference between them from most vendors,not enough to care about. Unless I want to count the 4590 from a Micro Center,which is like 50 bucks less than any other option lol. Makes me wish they put out a 4490 that is even less expensive. I also found a R9 270 on PCPP for just $149.99,from NCIX US. Thats what I love about that site,it chooses the best price from all available vendors,including Newegg. Just means you deal with multiple vendors and possibly different return policies. Chose a lower price of memory with the same latency. Those dropped the price quite a bit.

Sad thing is,I still dont know the answer to the original question of if the 8 core FX will be suddenly better in gaming when games use all 8 cores. I guess none of us will know until that happens and its probably safer to go Intel in general. The new extreme i7's have 6 HT so at least Intel is moving to more than 4 logical cores. Its taking them forever and those i7s are ridiculous in terms of prices,but hopefully they will have 8 cores in an eon or two,lol. They haven't had the motivation to go past 4 since AMD is no threat.

 

[TheDarkOne198]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/4XCPQ7

Update,for those with opinion. The new Xeon is out now and as we all know,its basically a non K i7 that is lower price,lol. I am still on the fence about using a hybrid as my main storage drive,I am sure it would make things I might put on there (browesers,IM,some games) load faster,but I can just put those on the SSD instead. Only,that the SSD might fill up quick,as 120GB is not a whole lot. I have 600 in my cash cache (lol) so I have plenty of time to make that decision. Would it be worth the extra 40 or so bucks on it?

Edit: How about this http://pcpartpicker.com/p/JJKVmG

Now,before anyone says anything,I KNOW that the A10 7850k isnt as good,in general,to an i5. But,I have faith in the future of HSA (and many people think Intel should jump on the HSA bandwagon and committee) and I know that the FX-8350 is even considered better than the A10. That being said,I am willing to bet that the 7850k would still do well in day to day performance and in games and I have read that,with HSA enabled,the A10 can really scream in terms of performance. The limiting factor there,is that software needs to support HSA,but I see that happening in the future,as many big names have joined the HSA committee.Its just a matter of time. I also have heard that the next gen AMD APU's will may have a new form of memory,replacing the traditional L1/L2/L3 cache system.I cant seem to find the site that had it,but its a form of memory that is supposed to be on par with DDR4,if I recall correctly and I believe it will be a big chunk of it for everything to go in,as opposed to multi level caching. Obviously,that isnt the reality now,but I believe (just a belief) that the AMD APUs will be a pretty decent choice in the future,because of HSA,once its refined and more mainstream among software devs should adopt it.I will be honest,the main reason I looked at this build is because the mobo has a 2 free games upon purchase coupon deal and the radeon,of course has that 3 free game promotion too. thats 5 games,that I am sure this system would still be able to handle admirably.