Search the Community

Hello! So I did OC my I5 4670k to 3.9ghz (yes it is mild) with 1.085v core voltage, then swapped over to adaptive mode and when I run Intel extreme tuning utility it shows that my voltage is up there at 1.16v whilst not even running the stress test, is this normal or should I be worried about it? Also. I run mild OC because I plan on keeping the chip for years to come, running at about 47 degrees under full 100% load with H100I. I tried going 4.4ghz, but realized it is probably a safer bet to run a mild OC as I do not really need that much higher OC for anything and also 4.4ghz did seem to be about the max with 1.25v whist keeping about 70 degree Celsius temperatures according to IETU Anyway, so mostly worried about the voltage. Why does it go higher than it should, is there anything I can do to make it stay at that 1.085 volts that I set it to? Using Asus Z87-pro board by the way.

I just notiiced in the BIOS of my Asus Hero that it was reading my memory at 1333 instead of the expected 1866. i have a i5-4670k cpu and Corsair Vengeance Pro (2x4) @1866 all on a Asus IV Hero

This will be the first time I've ever built a gaming pc. I have build a pc before with 2nd hand parts but I've never used any new parts before. The rigs primary use will be gaming but I also use AutoDesk program's and do some video editing on it too. Here's the specs: -i5 4670k -Gigabyte Z87-HD3 - 2x4gb of black corsair vengance Lp (1600Mhz, cas 9) -Thermalright true spirit 140 CPU cooler -1tb western digital blue HDD -corsair GS600 power supply -corsair C70 in Gunmetal black I'm yet to decide on which GPU to get but I have around £210 to spend on one. I'm probably going to wait until more is announced about AMD's next gen cards so for now I will have to stick with my little GT610, that is if its any better than the iGPU

Welcome to the build! CPU: Intel i5 4670k (4.4 Ghz) MOTHERBOARD: MSI Z87 MPOWER MAX RAM: Avexir 16gb ram GPU: MSI GTX 770 Lightning Edition PSU: Seasonic 760w 80+ Platinum Power Supply CASE: Corsair 650d COOLER: Corsair H100i HDD: 1TB Caviar Blue SSD: 120gb Kingston HyperX Drive Other Stuff: - Aquacomputer Aquaero 5 Pro - 3x Noiseblocker 120mm fans - NZXT HUE

Hey This is my build. Parts: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i 77.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z87X-UD4H ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ​Received Memory: Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory Received Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 2.5" Solid State Disk Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 770 2GB Video Card Case: Corsair 500R Black ATX Mid Tower Case Power Supply: Corsair 860W 80 PLUS Platinum Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply Received Other: BitFenix Recon Fan Controller Received ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pictures will be up in a day or two of the parts i have received Thanks

Hello, I'm currently trying to upgrade my PC. Most of the core components are decided and bought (or taken from the old one). I'm upgrading my case from Antec Three Hundred to the Fractal Design Define R4. On my old PC I have i5-760 with Arctic Cooling Arctic Freezer 7 Pro Rev. 2 cooler plus two Nexus 120mm Silent case fans I can re-use. The new case comes with two relatively good 140mm case fans. What kind of a case fan arrangement would you recommend (2 Fractal Design 140mm silent fans + 2 Nexus 120mm silent fans)? Also, what CPU cooler would you recommend for the 4670k? The Arctic Freezer from my old one is quite silent but not very effective at cooling. I've been looking at Silverstone AR01, Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo and Scythe Mugen 4. So my budget would be around 30 to 40 euros. I live in Finland so not all brands are easily available here. So, anyone got any experience to share or suggestions and comments on how to proceed? I'm looking for a good balance of cooling performance and silent operation. The rest of the stuff if its any help: MoBo: Gigabyte GA-Z87P-D3 RAM: Kingston HyperX 8gigs (two 4gig sticks, no fancy stuff) 1 SSD + 1 HDD MSI Geforce GTX 660 Ti

A new build has been completed! My client is a hardcore FSX pilot and wanted a PC that could handle 3 1920 x 1080 monitors with realism mods, HD textures, etc. His budget was $1600. So, I did my homework and studied up on FSX. Seems to be a very picky program. Anyways, hope you guys enjoy the video! I'm trying to make a name for myself on YouTube, so every bit of support you guys can give helps very much! What I learned about FSX, in case any one cares. FSX favors nvidia cards ( something about AMD's drivers no longer increasing performance on older programs. FSX was released in 2006 ) FSX doesnt like SLI, ( seen no real evidence, but everything I've read seems to support this theory. Some people say SLI made their FSX run slower with SLI than on just one card alone. ) RAID causes FSX to become very fragmented across multiple drives, hindering load times drastically. FSX is a very CPU bound program, hence why I only went with a 770 instead of a 780. Specs: Case- Corsair Obsidian 350D Mobo- Asus gryphon z87 w/ armor kit ( sexy ;) ) CPU- Intel i5-4670k @ 3.4 ghz CPU Cooler- Cooler master Hyper 212 Evo RAM- 2 x 8gb 1600mhz Corsair Vengeance ( LP ) ( Client insisted on 16gb, even though I personally didnt see it necessary. But hey, makes for a more interesting build. ) GPU- EVGA GTX 770 SC w/ ACX cooling (also sexy!) w/ 4gb frame buffer to handle the multi-monitor setup PSU- Corsair TX750M (Yes, I'm a Corsair fanboy. Sponsor me? :wub: ) SSD- Adata 256gb Sata III (550mb/s read, 530mb/s write) Optical- LG Blu-Ray burner OS- WIndows 7 Pro ( I got Pro to accommodate for future ram upgrades as Home Premium only detects up to 16gb )

I just bought a MSI Z87 G45 motherboard and a Intel i5 4670k and installed it all into my case. When I try to boot the computer there is just a black screen and then it says no signal. I use HDMI and I have tried the onboard video and the one from the GPU. Since I used my computer earlier today with my old CPU and motherboard (AMD Phenom II X6 1055T & ASUS Evo m4a87td) I know that my PSU works. I have checked the power connectors and they are connected. I also checked that my PSU (Antec EarthWatts EA-650) is compatible with Haswell and yes it seems like it is( http://techreport.com/review/24897/the-big-haswell-psu-compatibility-list#antec ). I have also made sure that no pins are bent on the CPU socket. Please help.

is it better to get an ivy bridge now that haswell has released or is it better to get the updated haswell ones? 3570k and 4670k are the ones that I've been eyeing for

So my friend wants to build a new PC. He came from a Q8400 processor and wants to build a new one. Can anyone suggest which processor should he get and what mobo? Is it better to go with a 3570k or just stick to Haswell locked processors (because I told him that overclocking Haswell makes too much heat and he might not overclock it enough)?

I was just wondering if it would be better to get a 4670k or Fx 8350 for games. I will be running somethings in the background such as pandora, skype, etc. I know the difference between Intel and AMD processing but since intel is more of single thread then would it be better to get the 8350? As for motherboards I was going to get an ASUS Maximus VI Hero for the 4670k or a Asus Crosshair for the 8350.

Love this community... I feel less depressing coming here, cause at home everyone thinks i'm crazy cause i look at all this computer stuff! LOL :lol: So my question is, for lets say a budget build what would be better... AMD FX-8350 , Intel 4770k or 4670k I've seen the videos of Tek Syndicat that the FX-8350 i think he said 9/10 faster than the intel 3570k in games... and the 4670k isn't much faster than the 3570k right? But what about for stuff like encoding video??? From this benchmarks http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3171.html?prod%5B5755%5D=on∏%5B5944%5D=on∏%5B5877%5D=on∏%5B5754%5D=on∏%5B6234%5D=on The Intel I7 3770k and 4770k are faster than the FX-8350... is that because of the Quick Sync??? Is video encoding affected by graphics cards??? For a budget build? would i be better off with the: FX-8350 and lets say a HD7850? total cost about $350 Intel 4670k and keep the build in graphics $240 (Save money) Intel 4770k and keep the build in graphics. $340 If i go Intel I was thinking of going with a z87 ITX , If i go AMD FX-8350 an ATX with 990FX . Right now i have an HP with an i5 750 and Nvidia GT 220. For video editing I'm using Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas. Hope all this made sense... Thanks!

My build GTX 660 i5 4670k CX600 8gig Ballistic Ram Asus 87-k mobo Nzxt fans+led strip Cooler Master Heat sink WD 500gig hard drive Phantom 410

So i have achieved a overclock with my 4670k. I am just curious of what other people are gettting. from what i have read, I have a lower range chip. my temps stay under 75 degrees thanks to my push/pull h100i so i really cant complain. I haven't tried to push 4.6 as the voltage would be close to 1.3. so, what do you think? go for 4.6 or stay where I am. and i also would like to here your chips abilities. I only game and watch video so no rendering. thanks for the input Specs 4670k asus sabertooth z87 corsair memory 8gb gtx 780 (evga superclocked) corsair force gt ssd h100i lsp ultra PSU hoping to upgrade soon)

I plan on overclocking a 4670k. I originally had in mind an H80i, but to save money will the 212 EVO be able to keep my system cool? Or what about any other coolers that would do better without going over $60? Build: 4670k CPU H80i or 212 EVO MSI Z97 Gaming 5 Corsair Vengeance 16GB RAM Samsung 840 EVO 128GB WD Caviar Blue 1TB NZXT H440 Red/Black Corsair CX 600W

Hello. While gaming i think my cpu is bottlenecking. It always runs at 100%. While i am in a game. And when i am doing nothing its around 0 to 12%. What can i do? PLS HELP EDIT: I have also a lot of fps drops. Temps are around 37 C to 50 C

So I decided to play around with my OC a bit more just to see what I could squeeze outta my shitty 4670k. Now I eventually gave up and settled for my 4.1ghz overclock @ 1.26 volts, unable to lower the voltage I just gave up and was about to leave until I realized that I had never tried adaptive voltage set to auto. So I went ahead n did that and booted successfully. Once I opened CPUz I found that the voltage was 1.21 volts and the cpu was running at 4.1ghz. Now this confused me so I opened up EVERY other voltage/cpu monitoring program that I had and they all gave me the same result. So I assumed that it was dropping the voltage and decided to do a real world stress test. I started rendering in sony vegas at 4k and stared at CPUz. But nothing the voltage stayed at 1.21 volts and 4.1ghz. Now I don't know if this is an error but my temps speak for themselves. They barely even break 58 degrees Celsius. Now can someone help me identify whether this is a glitch or if I got lucky. System is in sig but here it is anyway: - 4670k @ 4.1 ghz with 1.21 volts APPARENTELY - ASUS Z87m-Plus - Thermaltake water 3.0 pro - ASUS gtx 760 - Cougar RS750 - 16GB Skill Memory

Hi guys just wondering if there is anyway that I can get the new Z97 UEFI bios from Asus for my ASUS Z87m-PLus. I haven't been able to track anything down. Also IF i do find a way to get it will I still be able to run my 4670k?

Hey guys, I was just wondering if my temps are ok? i have run aida 64 for 11hours (nearly 12) and it seems stable but my highest temps were 83C I am running at 4.6GHz @ 1.384 volts with a noctua d-14 http://puu.sh/6LY59 http://puu.sh/6LY5q http://puu.sh/6JOr1

There has been so much discussion around AMD vs. Intel lately, especially because there are so many people recommending AMD builds to others as opposed to Intel. Most of the sources I have seen so far pitch Intel as the better choice, but I've decided to do some investigation and put together this thread with as wide of a range of benchmarks as I could find, so hopefully, we get an answer as to what is the better CPU. First of all, before any benchmarks, there are a few givens, the Intel 4670K IPC is much higher than the 8350 and the 8350 consumes much more power, so the focus of any discussion with these two chips is whether the 8350's increased core count can catch up to the higher IPC of the 4670K. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However, I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. Thus, I have decided to conduct research. I hope you all enjoy it. There is a conclusion at the end for all the lazy ones who don't want to read it all. Cheers Guys Source 1 - LinusTechTips - 3570K vs. 8350 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8mG-RkN2uTzThDLOVYT6e0WpVz_0-dRc Linus goes into some pretty good detail, pitching the Ivy Bridge 3570K against the 8350 in mainstream AAA gaming titles with different settings. The results (if you can't be bothered watching the videos), can be found here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2LKAgEko3SATlBMWjhqVUlZWlk/edit https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1PSGh26Ne0XSXFOMHFYTmNsRGs/edit With no AA, the only games in which the 8350 (which is clocked higher) beats the 3570K are Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were very marginal (i.e. less than 10%). With AA, the only games in which the 8350 beats the 3570K are Battlefield 3 and Far Cry 3, the rest of the benchmarks were won by the 3570K. Both of these wins were again, marginal. What "counting" the number of benchmarks won alone doesn't show is that when the 3570K beat the 8350, it tended to do so by a very large margin, as opposed to when the opposite occured. Using these results, we can extrapolate to compare the 4670K which is said to be around 10% faster. Thus, testing by LinusTechTips shows that the 4670K should be better than the 8350 in most tests, especially if pushed beyond the pretty low 4.20 GHz. Winner here is the 4670K, which leads 1-0 against AMD. Source 2 - AnandTech - 4670K vs. 8350 on Bench http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=837 (vs. 4670K) http://anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=701 (vs. 3570K) I like AnandTech Bench, it's probably one of the most comprehensive benchmark databases available on the internet and is usually my go-to site for comparing two products. Looking at the benchmarks that are available, the two processors are pretty neck and neck, though the 4670K wins out on more often than the 8350 does, winning 11/19 benchmarks. However, again, counting benchmarks is not good, it is looking at the individual benchmarks. The 8350 seems to be better at x264 encoding (marginal) and mathematical algorithms (7-zip benchmark). The most key benchmarks here, though, aren't the ones that are close, but rather, the ones that differ by a fair margin. The key benchmarks here which really put the 4670K ahead is the single-threaded Cinebench benchmarks. This shows the vast IPC improvement over the 8350 that the Haswell chip has. Looking at the 3570K vs. 8350, there are more benchmarks to look at, this is also interesting because there are a few benchmarks that are not present with the 4670K. There are a couple of games - Skyrim, Diablo 3, Dragon Age Origins, Dawn of War II, WOW and Starcraft 2 - the 3570K wins on all of these. This is a significant win here, backing up the LinusTechTips videos. The SYSMark 2012 benchmarks are also interesting, with the 3570K showing better all round performance compared to the 8350 apart from in 3D modelling and Data Analysis. 3D modelling seems split, however, as the Intel CPUs are better in the Blender benchmark. Yes, this is not a clean sweep, however, Intel wins the majority of the benchmark. It is important to note, however, that AMD did better in the 7-zip benchmark and marginally better on the x264 encode, but that is a very small victory, we're talking a 1 fps difference, which is nothing in the real world. All in all, the actual AnandTech write-up sums it up best. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/9 In order for AMD to become competitive, it needs to change its underlying architecture. Winner here, again, seems to be the 4670K, not a clean sweep, but a win nonetheless, the i5 leads 2-0 against the 8350. Source 3 - Tom's Hardware - 3570K vs 8350 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html This was before Haswell, but of course, given that Haswell is 10% better than Ivy Bridge, we can sort of get a feel for what we are looking at. Tom's Hardware ran 11 benchmarks, most of them productivity, but a few games. I think the productivity ones are more interesting just given that the 8350 is getting hammered at games. In PCMark 7, 3DMark 11, and the three games, it's pretty clear that the 3570K has the 8350 on the ropes. However, on SiSoftware Sandra (calculation based) and productivity, the 8350 puts in a good showing, though fails to beat the 3570K across the board. The results are tied for content creation and Adobe CS6. Where the 8350 does pull ahead, though, is the compression and encoding where it sits flat in the middle of the 3770K and 3570K. In conclusion, this one is hard to call. However, it is difficult to award it to AMD. In general purpose benchmarks as well as in games, the 3570K is just better. The 4670K will be even better. The areas where the 8350 is strong includes mathematical calculations and encoding, however, these are very specific tasks. This is encapsulated by Tom's Hardware's conclusion in which the reviewer states that the FX 8350 would not be his first choice because of how workload-dependent the 8350 is. Win to the 4670K here too, given by the test results and conclusion, 3-0 to Intel. Source 4 - Bit-Tech.net - 3570K vs 8350 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/8 Nothing we haven't covered before. The only two benchmarks where the 8350 wins is the multi-threaded Cinebench (winning by a tiny 0.6 points) as well as WPrime. In games and most general purpose benchmarks, the 3570K wins by a healthy margin. Here, H264 encoding is a win for Intel, showing even that Sandy Bridge is better than the 8350. Bit-Tech's conclusion says it all, that the "FX-8350 is still uncompetitive across a whole range of benchmarks" and that is true, where the 3570K beats the 8350, it sometimes does so by a huge margin. When the opposite occurs, the 8350 beats the 3570K, it is usually by a small margin. With Bit-Tech concluding that the 8350 is uncompetitive and that "there’s almost no reason to opt for the FX-8350 in comparison to the Intel competition", I think the 3570K walks away with the win here once again. 4670K leads 4-0 against the 8350. Sources 5, 6 and 7 Around here is where things start to get really boring because it's just the same benchmarks again and again and again. If you want to see them, here are the other sources that I looked at: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/8.html http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138394-amds-fx-8350-analyzed-does-piledriver-deliver-where-bulldozer-fell-short/2 http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-fx-8350-8-core-black-edition-processor-review_2055/15 Out of these, TechPowerUp seems to favour the 8350, ExtremeTech leans towards Intel and the Legit Reviews Site seems to be pretty neutral, agreeing that the 8350 has its place, however, that Intel is better across the board, especially for gaming. Leaving the neutral one out, 4670K leads 5 - 1 against the 8350. Source 8 - Tek Syndicate - 3570K vs 8350 - with GTX 670 - with 7870 I'm interested in this video, purely because it is generally the AMD fanboys' favourite video, they harp on about it again and again. I think it's a perfectly valid video, despite having some pretty bad flaws. The first flaw is that the 8350 is overclocked to 5.0 GHz, I'm not sure how many of them can actually reach that far whereas most 3570Ks that I have come across can reach 4.5 GHz pretty easily. Note - I did not watch the whole video in great detail, but I skimmed it and this was what I noticed. 1) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins marginally 2) Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead - 8350 wins by 100% 3) Far Cry 3 - 8350 wins by more than 100% 4) Natural Selection 2 - 8350 wins by around 20 - 30% 5) Skyrim - 3570K wins marginally 6) Trine 2 - 3570K wins marginally These benchmarks are a little funny in my eyes, especially when the 8350 beats the 3570K by more than 100%, especially given that LinusTechTips' testing shows that Far Cry 3 was actually very close. I don't know if anyone has been able to replicate these results, but even here, AMD didn't "wipe the floor" with Intel as a lot of people claimed, but simply just beat Intel on a few games. Intel won back on a couple of games. Okay, the 7870 video is also quite interesting. 1) Crysis 2 - 3570K wins 2) Crysis Warhead - 8350 wins 3) Black Mesa - Irrelevant (I have an issue with this, I'll address it in a second) 4) Metro 2033 - 8350 wins 5) Trine 2 - 8350 wins Now, there are a few issues. Firstly, the Black Mesa benchmark is irrelevant. Nobody cares if a game runs at 196.320 fps or 262.600 fps. You're not going to even be able to see that difference. Second issue is Trine 2, in which the 3570K wins with the GTX670 and the 8350 wins with the 7870. Strange. Anyway, conclusively, yes, Tek Syndicate gives the edge to the 8350, however, it is not the whitewash of Intel that many fanboys seem to suggest. So to end it all up, awarding Tek Syndicate to the AMD side, we get 5-2 to Intel. Conclusion If you've made it this far, congrats and thank you very, very much for reading. I appreciate it genuinely. Okay, so let's conclude. Yes, Intel won 5-2, but that's meaningless. Looking at benchmarks for the sake of looking at benchmarks doesn't help us. What helps us is seeing where the 4670K wins massively and where the 8350 wins massively. Gaming In gaming, the 4670K wins. This is said by Linus, said by AnandTech, said by Bit-Tech, said by Tom's Hardware, said all around the internet except for at Tek Syndicate. If you are going for a gaming PC, go with the 4670K. Video Editing and 3D Rendering Yes, there are benchmarks where the 8350 beats the 4670K, however, what is important is that these two are almost neck and neck. Some sites have the 8350 ever so slightly faster, some have the 3570K/4670K as ever so slightly faster. At the end of the day, it's too close to call. However, the extra IPC that Haswell offers should help in a wider variety of situations, so I would award this to the 4670K. Calculations This one goes to the 8350 which demonstrates a higher performance with calculations throughout due to its higher core count. It beats Intel convincingly in most calculation benchmarks. So, what does this mean? This has been said in the introduction, but I will say it again. I am not an Intel fanboy, which is why I went out to research instead of screaming that Intel is better. I have suggested AMD in the past, their Athlon 64 was better than the Pentium 4, their Athlon 64 x2 was better than the Pentium D. However, I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts. If you're an AMD fanboy, you're not going to like it, but Intel's 4670K is better than AMD's 8350. Regardless of however you look at it, in most situations, the 4670K wins, but it isn't just that, its far superior IPC gives it such an advantage in most every day tasks, which are mostly still single-threaded. The AMD 8350 is good for certain workloads, but apart from those workloads, it is simply terrible. Its IPC, which is weaker than the i7 920's, which is 5 years old, is simply too weak to put it as any sort of real competition to the 4670K. I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions here. Yes, AMD had their time, their Athlon 64 was better than the Intel Pentium 4, however, those days are well and truly over. If, in this day and age, you recommend an AMD processor for any usage apart from calculations, you are either being a fanboy or just plainly ignorant of the facts which say that the 4670K is superior. Of course, this is not to say that nobody should use AMD, but, if you suggest an AMD build for someone else, especially if you suggest an 8350 against a 4670K, know that you are suggesting a worse option, especially for a gaming PC. To argue that the 8350 is competitive with the 4670K across the board is delusional and just plainly wrong. Yes, you are wrong. So that's it guys, for most people, the 4670K is the better option compared to the 8350 and the information shows it. Once again, thank you for taking the time to read my little article. I hope I have helped you see what the statistics say about these two processors. I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have written. Cheers EDIT - Fixed Formatting - Easier to read with Linebreaks

I have a 4670k running at 4.2 at 1.25 volts cooled by an h100i. I was wondering how high could i push the voltage? what is a good voltage cap for haswell?

Which is better for hardcore gaming with multi-monitors and why. I keep hearing that the I5 is better but no one i talk to truly justify there reasoning. Please say why which one is better for hardcore gaming with multi-monitors.

Based on the community's answer to my previous and first post ever, I am going with a GTX 780 3GB instead of a GTX 770 4GB, but with price difference and electricity bills not being a factor, which of these two cpu/gpu combos is best? A FX 8350/GTX 780 or i5 4670k/GTX 780 What I guess I'm trying to say is which of the two sets together will perform better in gaming, but also in overall system speed, snapiness, photoshop, browsing the web, etc. Thanks for any help. (If it helps, the GTX 780 I'm getting is the EVGA ACX cooled one)

So my question/problem is that I can either get a AMD FX-8350 and a EVGA GTX 780 (3GB) or a i5-4670k and a EVGA GTX 770 (4GB) Basically no price difference for me, so it's down to pure performance/quality in not only games but overall system speed, browsing the web, using office, photoshop, etc. Appreciate any help! Thanks. (btw this is my first post, I just joined like 10 minutes ago haha)

I built a new computer two days ago. In it I installed an Intel i5 4670K at stock speeds, and a Noctua NH-L9i aftermarket cooler (as well as the thermal compound that comes with it). Last night I began stress testing to check for any errors. I ran Prime 95's small FFT and used RealTemp GT to monitor my core temps. The results were pretty bad. Two of the cores hit 99 degrees Celsius after only eight minutes. My first thought was that the thermal compound had been applied incorrectly. The NH-L9i is difficult (at least for me) to simply stick on and screw in. The first go round it did slide a little bit while I was inserting the screws, and I don't think the compound was completely centered to begin with. So this morning I opened my computer up and reapplied the compound. I was much more careful this time (the pea sized dot was completely centered) and attaching the fan was much less of a hassle. That said, my temperatures are still a bit high. I did notice some much improved idle temperatures. Each core idles at around 30 degrees Celsius, and they are all within one or two degrees of one another. When running the same small FFT my first three cores hit 97 degrees Celsius in the time that I tested them. Mind you, it wasn't as drastic, and they seemed to stabilize at around 95 degrees Celsius. What really gets me is that the fourth core, even after 30 tests, was stable at around 85 degrees Celsius. I ran 30 tests over a period of 14 minutes. I can only guess at the ambient temperature in the room. The thermostat for the central air and heat says 21 degrees Celsius, but it is down the hall from the room with the computer, which is known to vary from the temperature of the house. I know that the NH-L9i is not really made for overclocking (at least according to a benchmark that I read), but I thought that it would do a fine job at stock speeds. I've also read that fourth gen Intel processors just run very hot. I'm not sure if it matters, but Prime 95 said that my CPU was an "Unknown Intel". Please note that I have applied thermal compound a grand total of two times in my life (this is the second computer I've built, if that clarifies it a bit more), and I am VERY new to the whole stress testing thing. At this point I just wanted to see what people who have a lot of experience with this sort of thing think about my specific situation. Thanks so much in advance.