PCBudgetSolutions

AMD talked about this earlier and he is the article I believe: http://videocardz.com/44408/amd-radeon-hd-9000-series-to-feature-new-naming-meet-the-radeon-r9-xxxx

If you can try integrated graphics or another graphics card to rule that out. Sounds to me either a GPU or PSU problem but it could be a mobo issue as well.

This pretty much, that's why I keep OS on SSD and all other files on HDD.

Congratz dude!!

I personally have an I7-2600K and I love it because I task pretty hard core when gaming.

The Olympics might be moved out of Russia due to the amount of lesbians on the USA women's side (they threatened to capture any people that are LGBT and torture them). The WAN show had a bandwidth failure as well. Other than that not much.

Either get another 670 and SLI or go 780. Honestly, most games now days except planeside 2 and wow scale about 60% or better and I don't see this changing much in the future negatively anyway. 2GB of Vram per die is plenty for 1080p gaming, the extra horse power will be nice. Remember, to achieve 60 fps, each GPU has to render 30 of the frames, so if you get around 30 FPS with 1 GPU depending on the scaling you should get close to double.

Here is my personal take on the matter. If I was doing this for myself I would lean towards an I5-4670K. Reason being is, I am too new to AMD CPU's and their architecture design is kinda meh, and their temperature sensors on their boards are terrible. However that is what I'd recommend for myself not for you. The FX-8350 offers a better value, in most games except World of Warcraft, an FX-8350 should be able to perform VERY close to an i5-4670K while offering about 6 full cores of performance. Meaning tasking and video editing should be a bit smoother. Add in how much of a better value it is, I would go that route.

This build looks solid, wouldn't really change much other than OCZ PSU's aren't the greatest, but not bad either.

OP, a few things to factor in. What is the make/model of your PSU? What's important is how many Amps are on the 12V rail. You REALLY need to only have a single 12V rail for this setup. I'd say if you're at 35A+ you're fine, that's 420V allocated to your CPU and motherboard and other major components. Here is a breakdown if you will" HD 7870 uses 2 PCI-E 6 pin connectors each capable of pulling 75W each and the PCI-E slot can pull up to 75W as well. That totals: 225W An FX-8350 @ 1.45V @ 4.5Ghz pulls about 175W give or take. That's 400W, and you're extras ram mobo drives fans etc add about 50W depending putting you at 450W. So you could overclock BOTH your CPU and GPU to a very high amount and have some left over depending on your 12V rail. So at stock OP you're fine IF your PSU is decent.

Here's the thing OP, the FX-8320 is binned a bit lower than the FX-8350. So chances are, any 990FX board will have sufficient VRM cooling and power phases to handle any OC, I think your chip will be more limiting. That being said, I wouldn't spend more than 150 bucks, get the features you need, don't overpay for what you don't.

As JJ said in the stream, pretty much any Asus board will overclock to any gaming enthusiast level. However you will need something like an Evo 212 to hit anything past stock. I have an I7-4770K @ 4.2GHz with a Dark knight CPU Cooler (performs pretty bad) and only hit 81*C on prime 95, and 75*C on AIDA. Probably mid-high 60's with an Evo 212. Remember, since the VRM controller is integrated into the CPU die, overclocking within like 4.6GHz really won't matter much between boards. Since voltage is far lower than Ivy and Sandy, the VRM can handle them fine.

Despite me not really being here I feel obligated to add to this just to benefit the community. As stated an AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores, 2 cores on each modules totally 4 modules. Each module shares L2 cache unlike Intel cores. The reason why FX cores drop in productivity is because each module has 1 floating integer for execution and this creates the bottleneck. The theory is, FX cores are 100% efficient at 50% load, but lose HALF it's efficiency from 50-100% load. That is assuming, you can max out 1 core on each module up to 50%. This effectively makes an FX-8350 about 6 cores worth of power give or take. What hurts the FX cores even more is they have I believe 32 pipelines and HALF the IPC's as Intel, where Intel has I believe 12 pipelines. Think of this like ECC ram. Data sets have to go down the pipelines to be executed, Often times data sets go down the wrong pipeline and have to try other pipelines. Increased IPC's makes this process more efficient. So having MORE pipelines and far fewer IPC's is the reason why a Pentium G860 can execute a quad threaded task more efficiently than an FX-4100. The architecture improvements in Piledriver increased IPC's and along with an unlocked multiplier (which helps on the execution level), they can offset some of this deficiency. They also improved cache latency as well with Piledriver which helps a bit for gaming especially on the second level. This is the more difficult side of the explanation.