Advice For A New Potential High-End Build (9590 vs 5930k)

[JMSavior]

Hello, I've been to Tom's Hardware quite a few times but this is my first time actually making a post. I consider myself medium-advanced at computer building and am looking for a little advice on a potential rig I'll be buying in the next month or so.

Basically, I put together kind of an ideal Intel rig on Newegg then made an AMD counterpart, trying to go a little cheaper because that seems to be the idea with AMD is best cost efficiency.

One main problem I'm currently having is the processor. I've read lots of reviews/comparisons but I can't seem to decide between the Intel Core I7-5930k (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117403) and the AMD FX-9590 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113351). I understand the I7 scores better on benchmarks almost across the board but the FX has more cores (less threads) and an incredibly higher base clock speed.

Could you guys please give me some opinions on these two processors as they obviously have a huge affect on the overall build?

I am mainly going for a high-end gaming PC that will be capable of running 4k graphics, multiple monitors and future technology (VR).

The cost difference between the two builds isn't substantial enough to warrant going AMD if it is sub-par vs futureproofing via Intel.

The problem I'm having is I'm reading a lot about how great the 9590 is. I'm also unsure about the jump to DDR4 RAM at this point in time as it seems the timings are pretty bad on them. Will the DDR4 3000 (15-15-15-35) actually be slower than the DDR3 2400 (10-12-12-31)? Will it bottleneck the 5930k' processor to equal or worse levels of the 9590?

Also please let me know if there is anything else glaring about the builds that should be changed. I realize there are no HDD/SDDs yet, I'm not too worried about those at the moment.
Anyway, here are the builds I'm thinking about:

INTEL:

Thermaltake Core V71 Extreme Full Tower Chassis, Compatible With Extreme Liquid Cooling Builds (CA-1B6-00F1WN-00)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133244

MSI X99S Gaming 7 LGA 2011-v3 Intel X99 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130795

SAPPHIRE 100360SR Radeon R9 295x2 8GB 1024-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202108

EVGA SuperNOVA 850 G2 220-G2-0850-XR 850W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Power Supply Intel ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438018

Intel Core i7-5930K Haswell-E 6-Core 3.5GHz LGA 2011-v3 140W BX80648I75930K Desktop Processor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117403

G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3000 (PC4 24000) Desktop Memory Model F4-3000C15Q-16GRR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231799

NZXT Kraken X61 RL-KRX61-01 280mm All-In-One Water / Liquid CPU Cooling Solution
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835146042



AMD:

Thermaltake Core V71 Extreme Full Tower Chassis, Compatible With Extreme Liquid Cooling Builds (CA-1B6-00F1WN-00)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811133244

NZXT Kraken X61 RL-KRX61-01 280mm All-In-One Water / Liquid CPU Cooling Solution
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835146042

EVGA SuperNOVA 850 G2 220-G2-0850-XR 850W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Power Supply Intel ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438018

ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z AM3+ AMD 990FX + SB950 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Gaming Motherboard with 3-Way SLI/CrossFireX ...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131876

PowerColor AXR9 290X 4GBD5-TDHE Radeon R9 290X 4GB 512-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131606

AMD FX-9590 Vishera 4.7GHz Socket AM3+ 220W 8-Core Desktop Processor - Black Edition FD9590FHHKWOX with Liquid Cooling Kit
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113351

G.SKILL Trident X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2400 (PC3 19200) Desktop Memory Model F3-2400C10D-16GTX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231589

One more quick question. I've heard different things about the 295x2 (8gb) and using two 290x (4gb). I know there's 30 different threads on this forum about it but there's one thing that seems uncertain - for running games in 4k resolution, it seems some people think the 295x2 (8gb) have a killer disadvantage vs two separate 290x's. Something about how the chips are separate so it's actually only two 4GBs instead of one 8GB. I don't understand how having two 290x's each at 4gb would be better in that case since they are two separate chips as well... Any clarification on this issue please?


Thank you for any responses.

 

[DonkeyOatie]

Do not get the FX 9590. It is not great. (Except in the area of pure statistics) It is a marketing ploy disguised as a CPU. It's power needs and thermal output require new words beyond ridiculous and insane. An FX8 will get most of what is possible with the FX9, cheaper and safer.

Vast numbers of cores are not required for modern gaming, and if (when) they are, your system will be obsolete. Assuming that it turns out to be really practical, VR has huge growth and change over the next ten years, and the realities of the market and existing equipment will keep things in check (It cannot succeed if it needs a $5,000 computer to run it now)

I guess I'm saying that I dispute your concept.

4k gaming now and in the future is something you can build and plan for, and you can experiment with new technologies, since they must work with lower levels that you will have.

The current limiting factor at the high end is, and has been for some time in general, the GPU. Modern top end CPUs are capable of driving multiple high-end GPUs. The benefits of faster CPU clocks via overclocking or brute speed have very limited benefits in terms of FPS, and at 4k it is mostly about GPU pixel pushing. We are not quite 'there' yet. There are solutions, but none of them are especially elegant. (and I don't consider the 295x2 or SLI/Crossfire anything to be elegant)

 

[JMSavior]

Do not get the FX 9590. It is not great. (Except in the area of pure statistics) It is a marketing ploy disguised as a CPU. It's power needs and thermal output require new words beyond ridiculous and insane. An FX8 will get most of what is possible with the FX9, cheaper and safer.

Vast numbers of cores are not required for modern gaming, and if (when) they are, your system will be obsolete. Assuming that it turns out to be really practical, VR has huge growth and change over the next ten years, and the realities of the market and existing equipment will keep things in check (It cannot succeed if it needs a $5,000 computer to run it now)

I guess I'm saying that I dispute your concept.

4k gaming now and in the future is something you can build and plan for, and you can experiment with new technologies, since they must work with lower levels that you will have.

The current limiting factor at the high end is, and has been for some time in general, the GPU. Modern top end CPUs are capable of driving multiple high-end GPUs. The benefits of faster CPU clocks via overclocking or brute speed have very limited benefits in terms of FPS, and at 4k it is mostly about GPU pixel pushing. We are not quite 'there' yet. There are solutions, but none of them are especially elegant. (and I don't consider the 295x2 or SLI/Crossfire anything to be elegant)

Thank you. Any other thoughts?

 

[Bossyfins]

I would also like to point out that FX cores are SIGNIFICANTLY slower than Intels i7.

 

[DonkeyOatie]

I would also like to point out that FX cores are SIGNIFICANTLY slower than Intels i7.

I think it's better to say significantly less powerful or less efficient. It's hard to argue that 5Ghz is slower than 4Ghz.

It's better too to mention that the FX chips use modules as the construction unit. Each module has two integer processors and one floating point processor, and the FX 8 and FX 9 have four such modules. AMD counts the integer processors as cores.

Intel's cores, of which where are four, each have their own integer and floating point processor and they are more efficient than the AMD ones. That's what Intel comes out ahead in so many benchmarks.