Selecting cpu and mobo to pair with high end GPU (r9 290)

[pitprok]

I'm trying to build a high end PC with an R9 290 GPU (that is the result of a debate vs GTX 970)

The basic build will have 1x R9 290 but i'm planning to add a second with crossfire in a year in order to extend its usefulness
(the reason i picked the r9 290 over the GTX is that the predictions say that the 512 bit bus will be important as gaming evolves and im trying to make a build that wont need to be replaced in 1,5 year)

The target is a built that can stand high graphics gaming paired with recording/streaming
So now im trying to pick between motherboards and cpus to achieve a good build (whatever i get will probably be OC a little)

AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor kit: 140$ ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 motherboard + 60$ for water cooling + 200$ cpu = 400$
Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz Quad-Core Processor kit: 140$ msi z97 gaming 3 motherboard + 34$ Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO cooler + 400$ cpu=574$
Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor kit:80$ ASRock H97M Anniversary motherboard + 230$ cpu= 310$

INTEL CORE I5-4690K 3.50GHZ kit with 140$  msi z97 gaming 3 motherboard + 34$ cooler + 280$ cpu= 434$
INTEL XEON E3-1230 V3 with 140$ msi z97 gaming 3 motherboard + 34$ cooler (i think the 212 is good enough) + 312$ cpu=486$

P.S. if the xeon e3-1230 can work with an asrock h97 then the price drops to 426$... but im afraid that i wont be able to OC with a cheap motherboard

AMD FX-9590 4.7GHZ 8-CORE kit: 140$ ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 motherboard + 60$ for water cooling + 270$ cpu = 470$

 

Im seriously thinking about giving up, i've been researching for 2 weeks and im still no closer to deciding than i was when i started

[Suffokation]

4690K + MSI Z97 G3.

[SkilledRebuilds]

My 4690 (non-K) lets the GPU usage sit at 98-100% all day long in any game.

Never tried to stream though, although I used to record 1080p/30fps to a 500GB mechanical @ 60Mb/s quite easily using my CPU when I had my 2600K @ 4.5Ghz and it didn't compromise my gaming ability at all. But I also had tried a few different codecs and found a nice sweetspot.

I'm sure more knowledgeable people with streaming experience can provide a better CPU example for modern processors + streaming ability.

[Litargirio]

Im seriously thinking about giving up, i've been researching for 2 weeks and im still no closer to deciding than i was when i started

 

Two weeks! I spent 6 months researching before I decided to finally buy the parts to build my PC. :lol:

 

By the way, what's your total budget?

[pitprok]

Two weeks! I spent 6 months researching before I decided to finally buy the parts to build my PC. :lol:

 

By the way, what's your total budget?

Around 1250 euros (1400$)

Tower with 3 fans costs 60$

Ssd 120GB SANDISK (555/520) for 80$

Sata 3 1TB WD 60$

DVD/RW 20$

PSU SEASONIC M12II-850 BRONZE 850W 145$

Ram (2 modules) 16GB gskill ripjawsx 2133 mhz  190$

GPU Asus radeon r9 290 4GB    340$

 

Am i forgetting something ?

 

[Litargirio]

@pitprok

 

The most powerful CPU for LGA1150 is the 4790K. If you can afford it, then go for it.

 

The second best CPU is the 4690K, which is a 4790K without hyperthreading. Which means that they perform the same, except in heavy multitasking, in which the 4790K has the upper hand.

 

If all you are gonna do is gaming and recording/streaming, 4690K is more than enough. Or 4590(K), whose performance is... virtually the same. A 4790K won't really give you any noticeable performance boost for that matter (except in multitasking and video rendering), but if you want your PC to be slightly more "futureproof" (especially since the newer games are beginning to be able to use more than 4 threads), or you just want the best of the best, get the 4790K. I mean, why not, right?

 

As for the AMD CPU option... no. Even the best CPUs bottleneck high end graphics cards, so you won't be able to upgrade to a better graphics card in the distant future (as opposed to the Intel CPUs, which won't bottleneck future GPUs such as the R9 590). As to performance, you can read this post by Faceman on why AMD is not a very good choice for gaming, if you want to.

[pitprok]

@pitprok

 

The most powerful CPU for LGA1150 is the 4790K. If you can afford it, then go for it.

 

The second best CPU is the 4690K, which is a 4790K without hyperthreading. Which means that they perform the same, except in heavy multitasking, in which the 4790K has the upper hand.

 

If all you are gonna do is gaming and recording/streaming, 4690K is more than enough. Or 4590(K), whose performance is... virtually the same. A 4790K won't really give you any noticeable performance boost for that matter (except in multitasking and video rendering), but if you want your PC to be slightly more "futureproof" (especially since the newer games are beginning to be able to use more than 4 threads), or you just want the best of the best, get the 4790K. I mean, why not, right?

 

As for the AMD CPU option... no. Even the best CPUs bottleneck high end graphics cards, so you won't be able to upgrade to a better graphics card in the distant future (as opposed to the Intel CPUs, which won't bottleneck future GPUs such as the R9 590). As to performance, you can read this post by Faceman on why AMD is not a very good choice for gaming, if you want to.

Its like an 8core right ? If im not mistaken the 9590 also has 4 cores and 8 threads or is it different ?

Is the 120$ difference between 4790 and 4690k or 170$ with 4590 worth the difference ?

[Litargirio]

Its like an 8core right ? If im not mistaken the 9590 also has 4 cores and 8 threads or is it different ?

Is the 120$ difference between 4790 and 4690k or 170$ with 4590 worth the difference ?

 

Only Intel CPUs have hyperthreading, so:

• 9590 -   8 cores 8 threads
• 4790K - 4 cores, 8 threads
• 4690K - 4 cores, 4 threads
• 4590 -   4 cores, 4 threads

 

The 4690K gives you better value for the money than the 4590, and you can overclock it, so yes, it is worth it. The 4790K is only worth it if you do a lot of video rendering or heavy multitasking. Otherwise, it will perform the same as the 4690K: http://tinyurl.com/nspb654

[pitprok]

Only Intel CPUs have hyperthreading, so:

• 9590 -   8 cores 8 threads
• 4790K - 4 cores, 8 threads
• 4690K - 4 cores, 4 threads
• 4590 -   4 cores, 4 threads

 

The 4690K gives you better value for the money than the 4590, and you can overclock it, so yes, it is worth it. The 4790K is only worth it if you do a lot of video rendering or heavy multitasking. Otherwise, it will perform the same as the 4690K: http://tinyurl.com/nspb654

well is gaming + recording considered "heavy multitasking" ?

Thats the most important thing for me

[JustCallMeVlad]

Dont buy a locked processor. You'll regret it later. Get the 4690K

[Litargirio]

well is gaming + recording considered "heavy multitasking" ?

Thats the most important thing for me

No. 4690K is your best bet then.

[pitprok]

Dont buy a locked processor. You'll regret it later. Get the 4690K

which one is the locked one ?

[JustCallMeVlad]

which one is the locked one ?

 

Anything without a K cannot be overclocked 

[i_build_nanosuits]

well is gaming + recording considered "heavy multitasking" 7?

Thats the most important thing for me

no, but if you like recording your gameplay i suggest a GTX 970 GPU instead which come with shadowplay...this is a very good nvidia software that won't require any CPU horsepower for recording, the encoding is done by the GPU so it won't impact performance nearly as much as anyhting esle...it's perfect.

The GTX 970 is also a lot more energy efficient therefore if you plan on using dual GPU's it's much easier...much lower power consumption, heat output, noise levels etc...

 

Also when you say ''(the reason i picked the r9 290 over the GTX is that the predictions say that the 512 bit bus will be important as gaming evolves and im trying to make a build that wont need to be replaced in 1,5 year)'' this i don't know where you come with this but an R9 290 will never be better than a GTX 970 for gaming...you need an R9 290X to compete with the GTX 970 but the 290X will consume over 300W under load where as an overclocked GTX 970 will do 200W tops.

 

For your CPU, if you could afford the i5-4690K and a Z97 board that support dual GPU's at 8x/8x you'd be golden...otherwise i suggest you still get the Z97 motherboard with dual X16 pcie slots but you could drop the CPU to a locked model to cut down on cost such as the i5-4460 or i5-4590 for example which won't limit the performance in games either.

[pitprok]

no, but if you like recording your gameplay i suggest a GTX 970 GPU instead which come with shadowplay...this is a very good nvidia software that won't require any CPU horsepower for recording, the encoding is done by the GPU so it won't impact performance nearly as much as anyhting esle...it's perfect.

The GTX 970 is also a lot more energy efficient therefore if you plan on using dual GPU's it's much easier...much lower power consumption, heat output, noise levels etc...

 

Also when you say ''(the reason i picked the r9 290 over the GTX is that the predictions say that the 512 bit bus will be important as gaming evolves and im trying to make a build that wont need to be replaced in 1,5 year)'' this i don't know where you come with this but an R9 290 will never be better than a GTX 970 for gaming...you need an R9 290X to compete with the GTX 970 but the 290X will consume over 300W under load where as an overclocked GTX 970 will do 200W tops.

 

For your CPU, if you could afford the i5-4690K and a Z97 board that support dual GPU's at 8x/8x you'd be golden...otherwise i suggest you still get the Z97 motherboard with dual X16 pcie slots but you could drop the CPU to a locked model to cut down on cost such as the i5-4460 or i5-4590 for example which won't limit the performance in games either.

 

 

 

in 2 years the 290 will probably still be used in high end benchmark charts. the 970 probably won't be. by then DX12 AAA games will start emerging (dev time n' all), and suddenly bus width is going to be even more crucial with the increased size of draw calls and gradual increase to texture size from now until then - meanwhile new AMD and Nvidia flagship cards will both be using HBM at that point. the 290 will probably last longer through this transition, like most AMD flagship cards. I have my doubts the 970 will stay relevant for that long.

 

 

 

 

The 7950 is still very relevant after 3 years for example at 1080p resolutions and it was the 290 of its day in 2012.

[Litargirio]

@pitprok He's making it more complicated than it is. Both are excellent cards with its own advantages, and the 290 doesn't fall short against the 970. If you want the 290, get the 290; if you want the 970, get the 970. Period.

 

 

(Actually the 970 has a built-in VRAM defect, which prevents you from using all of it. So... yeah.)

[pitprok]

@pitprok He's making it more complicated than it is. Both are excellent cards with its own advantages, and the 290 doesn't fall short against the 970. If you want the 290, get the 290; if you want the 970, get the 970. Period.

 

 

(Actually the 970 has a built-in VRAM defect, which prevents you from using all of it. So... yeah.)

 

It doesnt prevent you from using all of it, its just that it doesnt use the last 0,5GB properly because its a downgraded 980 or smth

Its still a defect but not that serious.

[Litargirio]

It doesnt prevent you from using all of it, its just that it doesnt use the last 0,5GB properly

It's the same thing? Anyway, that's what I meant to say.

[D3MON]

8320(E), working well for me so far and costs about the same as a low end i3 excepts it lays the i3 out in rendering/transcoding tasks.
 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/D9R623

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/D9R623/by_merchant/

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  ($139.99 @ Amazon) 

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($28.75 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.89 @ Newegg) 

Total: $268.63

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-27 00:50 EST-0500

same as your 4790K price up but HALF the price (and slightly less performance in rendering of coruse, its a $140 cpu vs $400)
-sli/crossfire
-Decent onboard audio with a creative soundblaster cinema 2 only found on $125 intel boards
-killer e2205 nic (pretty sweet actually) again onyl found on those more expensive intel boards.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_fx_8320e_8_core_cpu_review/9
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_970_gaming_motherboard_review,21.html
 

[pitprok]

 

8320(E), working well for me so far and costs about the same as a low end i3 excepts it lays the i3 out in rendering/transcoding tasks.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/D9R623

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/D9R623/by_merchant/

 

CPU: AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz 8-Core Processor  ($139.99 @ Amazon) 

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($28.75 @ OutletPC) 

Motherboard: MSI 970 GAMING ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($99.89 @ Newegg) 

Total: $268.63

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-01-27 00:50 EST-0500

same as your 4790K price up but HALF the price (and slightly less performance in rendering of coruse, its a $140 cpu vs $400)

-sli/crossfire

-Decent onboard audio with a creative soundblaster cinema 2 only found on $125 intel boards

-killer e2205 nic (pretty sweet actually) again onyl found on those more expensive intel boards.

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_fx_8320e_8_core_cpu_review/9

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_970_gaming_motherboard_review,21.html

 

 

 

Since you're using it, tell me, can it stand both gaming/recording or gaming/streaming ?

I read in the article that it probably is going to bottleneck crossfire r9 290 so its not going to last as long as a 4690k build but it is much cheaper so i could consider it if it can handle what i'm asking for the time being.

Also how is it temperature wise ? fx have a reputation of heating up the room

[Litargirio]

can it stand both gaming/recording or gaming/streaming ?

No. Here are the benchmarks:

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

This one above is Witcher 2

---

---

[Litargirio]

 

LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

 

 

[D3MON]

Since you're using it, tell me, can it stand both gaming/recording or gaming/streaming ?

I read in the article that it probably is going to bottleneck crossfire r9 290 so its not going to last as long as a 4690k build but it is much cheaper so i could consider it if it can handle what i'm asking for the time being.

Also how is it temperature wise ? fx have a reputation of heating up the room

Havent tried streaming, but fraps recording (at 1080p 60fps) wont work fully with 1 good cpu core (phenom at 4ghz, sandybridge i5 at 4ghz...as it'll be pinned at 100% and while bf3 (probably 4 too) can work pretty damn good on 3 cores its not ideal.

so really you need 2 cores or atleast 2 threads just to record with fraps so for battlefield (and other frostbite games atleast) youll want an fx6300 with 1 module for fraps and another 2 modules for the game, or an overclocked i5 so anyone that says in i3 will match an fx in gaming is missing the point that thats all it'll do, a citreon saxo can meet a ferrari 458 italia on the highway cruising, but what about when you push it further (as linus showed in his i7 extreme video a few months back where they got it to do a billion things and it crushed a 4770k?).

cpu's dont bottle graphics cards.....except single threaded games where they can sometimes but usually those games get 100fps anyway so who cares.

for instance you could have an fx4100 at 4.0 and a 750ti at 1080p in bf4 on high you get 30fps AVERAGE, is the cpu going to be a limiting factor partially? yes, because its a heavily demanding game and sure getting a 4690k would get more performance, but not enough to justify the added cost, the gpu is still going to be the limiting factor here and i guarentee that a and fx4100 (as much as i dislike it) with a 290 will outperform an i5 with a 750ti on high.

if you need CF290's....your gpu limited, who would buy another graphics card when they're not gpu limited and cant use the power (1366x768 users?)

i could do it right now, only reason i havent is because im only at 1080p and even on bf4 on ultra with 125% scaling im still getting 70fps, i usually maintain there's next to no reason to go above high and at 1080p its rare that you need 4x msaa, but when you have a 780/290/970, you'll do it because you can without it effecting performance, well unless you have a 970 (dig).

when I can get a 50-55in 4k tv for £400 ill sell my tv and get on, till then theres no point, a 7870/r9-270 is still badass for 1080p on ultra (check out jayztwocents video) though id personally take 80fps:high over 55fps:ultra when it comes to a run n' gun.

ive tested sli gtx480's in this board and it was great, both gpu's reached 100% on each so they were the limit first, in heaven ultra preset my single 290 outperformed them actually (65fps vs 50).

output is equal to voltage x frequency, when you overclock and bump the voltage to keep it stable they combine to create an exponential increase, if votlages never had to be increased power consumption wouldn't change much, however at 4ghz 1.45v and fx8 will draw significantly more power than the same cpu at 1.3v, thats why i recommend mild overclocks, sure you can still keep temps in check with a cheapo hyper 212 evo and still in all likely hood get 4.5ghz, if thats not enough power i7-e or an overclocked 4790k is the only way to go but i hope you got deep pockets, a 4790k on its own will cost you more than an 8320e and msi gaming board and the cooler...

you have to remember when these chips came out people like tinytomlogan (and myself) wondered what we could get out of these, coming from phenom on 45nm which could stand 1.45v daily, 1.5v at the limit daily short term and a max of 1.55v when going balls to the walls, we put in 1.5v and aimed for 5ghz, unsuprisingly they turned to ehaters, no way near as bad as bulldozer but they could put some heat out, but noone uses that 24/7

check this out

OC3D 8320E overclocked to 4.6ghz 1.46v (it did 4.5 at 1.4 tom...c'mon, that 100mhz is worth 0.06v?)

300W running the linpack stress test.

back when piledriver was released...

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_vishera_fx8350_piledriver_review/9

450W!!! sure theres a 7970 in there and not an r7-250 but thats not stressed so maybe 50w,

and here's why

using 1.568v for 4.8ghz...200mhz more which is only 4.3% faster, with 7.3% more voltage, combine them and thats 100 watts.

it would have been even bigger, 4.5ghz at 1.4v is 93.75% of the performance and at 275 watts would of been around 89% of the power draw

reminds me of when top gear ragged a toyota prius, its not what you drive its how you drive it.

[D3MON]

 

LTT's own Cinebench Scores:

 

nice of you to bring that up, am i missing a 700+ pentium k score? maybe theres an i3 one, and didnt anandtech recently sell his company?

all i get from intel users is "a pentium K beats an i3 in gaming", "an i3 matches an amd fx in gaming", "getting a 5960x for gaming is pointless".

ergo a pentium-k=5960x...

some people game, some people render, some people game & render.............. guess what, some people want to game and render and dont have $700 just for the cpu and board. my whole rig (admittedly over spent on the case and psu but it has room for upgrades) cost half what most intel builds cost and sure some will come close in price they wont be able to do everything it does as well.

ive been playing bf3 on half my cpu while rendering previously recorded footage on the other.

[pitprok]

Havent tried streaming, but fraps recording (at 1080p 60fps) wont work fully with 1 good cpu core (phenom at 4ghz, sandybridge i5 at 4ghz...as it'll be pinned at 100% and while bf3 (probably 4 too) can work pretty damn good on 3 cores its not ideal.

so really you need 2 cores or atleast 2 threads just to record with fraps so for battlefield (and other frostbite games atleast) youll want an fx6300 with 1 module for fraps and another 2 modules for the game, or an overclocked i5 so anyone that says in i3 will match an fx in gaming is missing the point that thats all it'll do, a citreon saxo can meet a ferrari 458 italia on the highway cruising, but what about when you push it further (as linus showed in his i7 extreme video a few months back where they got it to do a billion things and it crushed a 4770k?).

cpu's dont bottle graphics cards.....except single threaded games where they can sometimes but usually those games get 100fps anyway so who cares.

for instance you could have an fx4100 at 4.0 and a 750ti at 1080p in bf4 on high you get 30fps AVERAGE, is the cpu going to be a limiting factor partially? yes, because its a heavily demanding game and sure getting a 4690k would get more performance, but not enough to justify the added cost, the gpu is still going to be the limiting factor here and i guarentee that a and fx4100 (as much as i dislike it) with a 290 will outperform an i5 with a 750ti on high.

if you need CF290's....your gpu limited, who would buy another graphics card when they're not gpu limited and cant use the power (1366x768 users?)

i could do it right now, only reason i havent is because im only at 1080p and even on bf4 on ultra with 125% scaling im still getting 70fps, i usually maintain there's next to no reason to go above high and at 1080p its rare that you need 4x msaa, but when you have a 780/290/970, you'll do it because you can without it effecting performance, well unless you have a 970 (dig).

when I can get a 50-55in 4k tv for £400 ill sell my tv and get on, till then theres no point, a 7870/r9-270 is still badass for 1080p on ultra (check out jayztwocents video) though id personally take 80fps:high over 55fps:ultra when it comes to a run n' gun.

ive tested sli gtx480's in this board and it was great, both gpu's reached 100% on each so they were the limit first, in heaven ultra preset my single 290 outperformed them actually (65fps vs 50).

output is equal to voltage x frequency, when you overclock and bump the voltage to keep it stable they combine to create an exponential increase, if votlages never had to be increased power consumption wouldn't change much, however at 4ghz 1.45v and fx8 will draw significantly more power than the same cpu at 1.3v, thats why i recommend mild overclocks, sure you can still keep temps in check with a cheapo hyper 212 evo and still in all likely hood get 4.5ghz, if thats not enough power i7-e or an overclocked 4790k is the only way to go but i hope you got deep pockets, a 4790k on its own will cost you more than an 8320e and msi gaming board and the cooler...

you have to remember when these chips came out people like tinytomlogan (and myself) wondered what we could get out of these, coming from phenom on 45nm which could stand 1.45v daily, 1.5v at the limit daily short term and a max of 1.55v when going balls to the walls, we put in 1.5v and aimed for 5ghz, unsuprisingly they turned to ehaters, no way near as bad as bulldozer but they could put some heat out, but noone uses that 24/7

check this out

OC3D 8320E overclocked to 4.6ghz 1.46v (it did 4.5 at 1.4 tom...c'mon, that 100mhz is worth 0.06v?)

300W running the linpack stress test.

back when piledriver was released...

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_vishera_fx8350_piledriver_review/9

450W!!! sure theres a 7970 in there and not an r7-250 but thats not stressed so maybe 50w,

and here's why

using 1.568v for 4.8ghz...200mhz more which is only 4.3% faster, with 7.3% more voltage, combine them and thats 100 watts.

it would have been even bigger, 4.5ghz at 1.4v is 93.75% of the performance and at 275 watts would of been around 89% of the power draw

reminds me of when top gear ragged a toyota prius, its not what you drive its how you drive it.

 

 

I'm sorry, im afraid this got too complicated/technical for me

I'll try to sum what i want in one simple question cause i think there's no end

I'm looking for a cpu that doesnt bottleneck crossfire 290's so that i'll buy one r9 290 now and one probably a year from now in order to keep my system relatively high end.

If that means spending 30$ more to get a 4690k than a fx 9590 i dont care.

But if i can do the same with an OC 8320e or 8350 and spend 100-150$ less i'd like to know.(not factoring in mobo and cooler since the differences almost cancel each other out)

(I'm trying not to bother with the r9 290/gtx 970 debate anymore since i've heard that the 512 bit bus of the 290 is going to be an important factor in gaming in the future)