Building my cousin a PC. Need advice.

[PlymouthJoseph]

1 hour ago, stconquest said:

Look into VRMs.  The FX 8XXX CPUs need a decent 8+2 phase VRM or you will risk burning out your mobo when you try to pump all that power through it.

 

BTW, the FX CPUs are pretty ancient in terms of their performance.  Their single core performance is way back around the Intel i7 920.

I've tried looking into the VRMs and I cannot find anything. Hence I came here for help... And their performance is still fine for gaming for today's standards. 

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

I've tried looking into the VRMs and I cannot find anything. Hence I came here for help... And their performance is still fine for gaming for today's standards. 

The Voltage Regulator Module converts electricity so it can be used by the CPU.  It is usually the the left of the CPU socket and above the socket as well. 

 

Phases allow the conversion process to spread out.  The more phases you have, the more the work is spread out.  Since electricity involves heat, the more you spread the work the better.  You can usually count the phases by counting the chokes (black/grey cubes) along the CPU socket.

 

The MSI 970 only has four phases.  That means that the electricity you need to OC the CPU only has four modules to regulate the amount of clean energy the CPU gets.  This is not good for the FX 8XXX CPU line.  Because the CPU sucks so much power, you risk burning out the VRM.

 

Gigabyte makes the cheapest AM3+ board that can handle the voltage well:  http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-ga970aud3p

 

Do your friend a favor and convince him that going with with the FX CPU is in fact using a CPU that is 6+ years old, because that is how it performs.  A stock i5 6500 (3.2GHz) can keep up with a FX 8XXX CPU even when overclocked to 4.5GHz.

 

 

 

 

[PlymouthJoseph]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

The Voltage Regulator Module converts electricity so it can be used by the CPU.  It is usually the the left of the CPU socket and above the socket as well. 

 

Phases allow the conversion process to spread out.  The more phases you have, the more the work is spread out.  Since electricity involves heat, the more you spread the work the better.  You can usually count the phases by counting the chokes (black/grey cubes) along the CPU socket.

 

The MSI 970 only has four phases.  That means that the electricity you need to OC the CPU only has four modules to regulate the amount of clean energy the CPU gets.  This is not good for the FX 8XXX CPU line.  Because the CPU sucks so much power, you risk burning out the VRM.

 

Gigabyte makes the cheapest AM3+ board that can handle the voltage well:  http://pcpartpicker.com/part/gigabyte-motherboard-ga970aud3p

 

Do your friend a favor and convince him that going with with the FX CPU is in fact using a CPU that is 6+ years old, because that is how it performs.  A stock i5 6500 (3.2GHz) can keep up with a FX 8XXX CPU even when overclocked to 4.5GHz.

 

 

 

 

I have tried talking to him and to convince him but he isn't having any of it. He keeps saying that AMD overclock better than Intel and that he doesn't care about the overall performance. As long as he can play games with it, without it bottlenecking the GTX 960. 

 

Oh, and I have recently read up that the MSI 990FXA Gaming has 8+2 VRM. But there are other places which say it is 6+2... So I just don't know. 

 

I'm trying not to spend any more than £120 on the Motherboard, so if you can find a killer motherboard within that price range, please be my guest.

 

Also, simply... Which is better. The 970 or 990FXA?

[stconquest]

9 minutes ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

I have tried talking to him and to convince him but he isn't having any of it. He keeps saying that AMD overclock better than Intel and that he doesn't care about the overall performance. As long as he can play games with it, without it bottlenecking the GTX 960. 

 

Oh, and I have recently read up that the MSI 990FXA Gaming has 8+2 VRM. But there are other places which say it is 6+2... So I just don't know. 

 

I'm trying not to spend any more than £120 on the Motherboard, so if you can find a killer motherboard within that price range, please be my guest.

 

Also, simply... Which is better. The 970 or 990FXA?

990FX.

 

Just tell him the i5 6600K overclocks much better than the FX 8XXX CPU.  Tell him he will get a minimum of 30% more speed out of the 6600K.

[PlymouthJoseph]

7 minutes ago, stconquest said:

990FX.

 

Just tell him the i5 6600K overclocks much better than the FX 8XXX CPU.  Tell him he will get a minimum of 30% more speed out of the 6600K.

I've tried... He isn't having it. And I couldn't really afford it anyway... That CPU itself is £200... And I'm getting a 8350 + 900FXA for £257.

 

Also, is there any other motherboards around the £120 range which are any good for overclocking. I've just called and he is now thinking about getting another GTX 960 for SLI... So it will have to have 2 x16 PCIe slots, along with a PCIe x1 for his WLAN card... 

[Jonathan Lemmens]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

990FX.

 

Just tell him the i5 6600K overclocks much better than the FX 8XXX CPU.  Tell him he will get a minimum of 30% more speed out of the 6600K.

Define "overclocks much better" please. I's true Intel outperforms AMD especially when overclocked, but if you purely look at GHz increase (just the number) when overclocked, I think AMD does as well if not better than Intel. I got my chip from 3.2 stock to 4.8GHz thats a 50% improvement

[Jonathan Lemmens]

23 minutes ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

I have tried talking to him and to convince him but he isn't having any of it. He keeps saying that AMD overclock better than Intel and that he doesn't care about the overall performance. As long as he can play games with it, without it bottlenecking the GTX 960. 

 

Oh, and I have recently read up that the MSI 990FXA Gaming has 8+2 VRM. But there are other places which say it is 6+2... So I just don't know. 

 

I'm trying not to spend any more than £120 on the Motherboard, so if you can find a killer motherboard within that price range, please be my guest.

 

Also, simply... Which is better. The 970 or 990FXA?

I've tried both chipsets (not the actual boards you're talking about). I feel the 990FX delivers slightly better performance then the 970, but in raw numbers I could reach the same overclock on both boards.

[PlymouthJoseph]

Okay, I am stuck between these... And I cannot really find a massive difference between them both. Please help... 

 

MSI 970 Gaming - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-970-Gaming-AMD-Motherboard/dp/B00LUY72F6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156691&sr=8-2&keywords=msi+970

 

MSI 970A Krait Edition - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-970A-Sli-Krait-Motherboard/dp/B00UQRZU7K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156691&sr=8-3&keywords=msi+970

 

MSI 990FXA Gaming - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-990FXA-Gaming-990FX-Motherboard/dp/B00YCF80C4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156689&sr=8-1&keywords=msi+990

 

MSI 990FXA - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-990FXA-Motherboard-Processor-Gigabit/dp/B004ZHC2DC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156689&sr=8-2&keywords=msi+990

[stconquest]

Just now, PlymouthJoseph said:

I've tried... He isn't having it. And I couldn't really afford it anyway... That CPU itself is £200... And I'm getting a 8350 + 900FXA for £257.

 

Also, is there any other motherboards around the £120 range which are any good for overclocking. I've just called and he is now thinking about getting another GTX 960 for SLI... So it will have to have 2 x16 PCIe slots, along with a PCIe x1 for his WLAN card... 

Get your friend to come here.  He is making some dumb decisions.  Intel CPUs do not need to be overclocked to perform.  1GHz on an Intel CPU is not the same 1 GHz on an ADM CPU.  It boils down to architecture.

 

Just flat out tell him he knows shit about overclocking so why does he want to overclock when he does not have to.  I am currently running a 3 year old i5 3570K and I still have not need to overclock for any game.  I have the cooler to OC, I just don't need the performance. 

 

Seriously, tell him you won't waste his money on things like shitty FX CPUs and SLI 960 (LOL?).  Tell him he has to do that kind of mistake on his own.  Why would you want to?

[Jonathan Lemmens]

2 minutes ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

Okay, I am stuck between these... And I cannot really find a massive difference between them both. Please help... 

 

MSI 970 Gaming - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-970-Gaming-AMD-Motherboard/dp/B00LUY72F6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156691&sr=8-2&keywords=msi+970

 

MSI 970A Krait Edition - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-970A-Sli-Krait-Motherboard/dp/B00UQRZU7K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156691&sr=8-3&keywords=msi+970

 

MSI 990FXA Gaming - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-990FXA-Gaming-990FX-Motherboard/dp/B00YCF80C4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156689&sr=8-1&keywords=msi+990

 

MSI 990FXA - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-990FXA-Motherboard-Processor-Gigabit/dp/B004ZHC2DC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156689&sr=8-2&keywords=msi+990

The differences are minor. Choosing from this list, I'd go with the MSI 990FXA

[PlymouthJoseph]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

Get your friend to come here.  He is making some dumb decisions.  Intel CPUs do not need to be overclocked to perform.  1GHz on an Intel CPU is not the same 1 GHz on an ADM CPU.  It boils down to architecture.

 

Just flat out tell him he knows shit about overclocking so why does he want to overclock when he does not have to.  I am currently running a 3 year old i5 3570K and I still have not need to overclock for any game.  I have the cooler to OC, I just don't need the performance. 

 

Seriously, tell him you won't waste his money on things like shitty FX CPUs and SLI 960 (LOL?).  Tell him he has to do that kind of mistake on his own.  Why would you want to?

Why would I want to? I don't... But I'm paying for it (Mostly, using some old hardware)  And since he is 17 years old... He is stubborn beyond belief... But if you can do a decent Intel build for £250 including cooler... Please be my guest.

[PlymouthJoseph]

Just now, Jonathan Lemmens said:

The differences are minor. Choosing from this list, I'd go with the MSI 990FXA

Which one? Gaming or non gaming?

[stconquest]

5 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

Define "overclocks much better" please. I's true Intel outperforms AMD especially when overclocked, but if you purely look at GHz increase (just the number) when overclocked, I think AMD does as well if not better than Intel. I got my chip from 3.2 stock to 4.8GHz thats a 50% improvement

I am keeping it simple.  Overly simple.

 

Clock for clock, Skylake is 30%+ faster on any core.  3.2 GHz on a 6500 is just as fast as an FX CPU at 4.5 GHz.  You also get better all around stability in games from Intel CPUs, the minimums won't dip as low or as often.

 

AMD CPUs are outdated, plain and simple.  Waste of money.

 

AMD CPU - Buy decent motherboard, buy aftermarket cooling and depend on overclocking to compensate for ancient design.

 

Intel CPU - buy a locked i5 6500 and a $50 motherboard and you are good to go.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

Why would I want to? I don't... But I'm paying for it (Mostly, using some old hardware)  And since he is 17 years old... He is stubborn beyond belief... But if you can do a decent Intel build for £250 including cooler... Please be my guest.

You don't need an aftermarket cooler for an i5 6500:

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-6500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£169.28 @ Amazon UK)
Motherboard: MSI H110M Pro-VD Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  (£45.99 @ Ebuyer)
Memory: Kingston HyperX Fury Black 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  (£32.45 @ More Computers)
Total: £247.72
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-03-16 19:39 GMT+0000

 

 

[stconquest]

12 minutes ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

Okay, I am stuck between these... And I cannot really find a massive difference between them both. Please help... 

 

MSI 970 Gaming - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-970-Gaming-AMD-Motherboard/dp/B00LUY72F6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156691&sr=8-2&keywords=msi+970

 

MSI 970A Krait Edition - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-970A-Sli-Krait-Motherboard/dp/B00UQRZU7K/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156691&sr=8-3&keywords=msi+970

 

MSI 990FXA Gaming - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-990FXA-Gaming-990FX-Motherboard/dp/B00YCF80C4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156689&sr=8-1&keywords=msi+990

 

MSI 990FXA - http://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-990FXA-Motherboard-Processor-Gigabit/dp/B004ZHC2DC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1458156689&sr=8-2&keywords=msi+990

The 970 Gaming will be fine... but don't go the AMD CPU route.  Such a big mistake.

 

The Krait is the only bad one.

[Jonathan Lemmens]

1 minute ago, stconquest said:

... but don't go the AMD CPU route.  Such a big mistake.

I disagree, If overclocking will be your primary activity, you can have just as much fun on AMD for a lot less money. (and a lot less performance, I know)

[stconquest]

5 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

I disagree, If overclocking will be your primary activity, you can have just as much fun on AMD for a lot less money. (and a lot less performance, I know)

Yeah, I have done that.  Sorry...  not much fun.  The kid wants to play games.  He is not an overclock enthusiast.  If he was, the FX CPU would be something to toy around with.  Nobody that understands CPUs would dare buy an FX CPU for their main PC, especially a gaming PC.

 

My Stock i5 3570K destroys my overclocked Phenom II X6.  The X6 is right up there with the FX line.

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

Scroll way down to see where AMD CPUs stack up...

 

Note the FX 9590 is 4.7GHz.... that is where your CPU lies.

[Jonathan Lemmens]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Yeah, I have done that.  Sorry...  not much fun.  The kid wants to play games.  He is not an overclock enthusiast.  If he was, the FX CPU would be something to toy around with.  Nobody that understands CPUs would dare buy an FX CPU for their main PC, especially a gaming PC.

 

My Stock i5 3570K destroys my overclocked Phenom II X6.  The X6 is right up there with the FX line.

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

Scroll way down to see where AMD CPUs stack up...

I know, I'm aware of the performance difference. You don't have to convince me.

 

For whatever reason, this kid really seems to want an AMD chip, so we have to provide him with the proper advice  to do so.

 

In any case, AMD is not a waste of money. You just get what you pay for.

[stconquest]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

I know, I'm aware of the performance difference. You don't have to convince me.

 

For whatever reason, this kid really seems to want an AMD chip, so we have to provide him with the proper advice  to do so.

 

In any case, AMD is not a waste of money. You just get what you pay for.

All the information needed has been provided.

[PlymouthJoseph]

How about this. I tell him to STFU and I get him a Intel i5 6500.

 

Only issue with this, is that I was actually going to give him my old RAM DDR3 RAM... Ah well. 

 

So, could you find me a cheep motherboard to go with the i5-6500? Remember... I was spending £250 on the CPU & Motherboard alone. I wasn't buying another cooler or RAM... 

 

So in short... I you can get me a Intel i5-6500 (Or equivalent) with a motherboard and RAM that will run equal to or better than a FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz for about £250. Please be my guest.

[PlymouthJoseph]

35 minutes ago, Jonathan Lemmens said:

I know, I'm aware of the performance difference. You don't have to convince me.

 

For whatever reason, this kid really seems to want an AMD chip, so we have to provide him with the proper advice  to do so.

 

In any case, AMD is not a waste of money. You just get what you pay for.

Thank you for this... And it is also money concern too... I am not giving him a infinite amount of money to play with... I'm only giving him £250 for the Motherboard and CPU since I already have the RAM, Case, HDD, SSD and Cooler (Kinda, I have a Zalman cooler, but I would be giving him a H80i GT in due time)

[PlymouthJoseph]

40 minutes ago, stconquest said:

All the information needed has been provided.

Oh, and this is gonna sound VERY noob-ish but the 6500 has 4 cores and not hyperthreaded, yet the 8350 has 8 cores (I believe) and is also obliviously not hyperthreaded.  

 

So, for multi-core tasks such as rendering a video and heavy gaming... Wouldn't the 8350 be better? Just due to the 4 extra cores? Especially when running at 4.5GHz... 

[Jonathan Lemmens]

1 minute ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

Oh, and this is gonna sound VERY noob-ish but the 6500 has 4 cores and not hyperthreaded, yet the 8350 has 8 cores (I believe) and is also obliviously not hyperthreaded.  

 

So, for multi-core tasks such as rendering a video and heavy gaming... Wouldn't the 8350 be better? Just due to the 4 extra cores? Especially when running at 4.5GHz... 

I would pick the FX 8350 or FX 8320 the extra cores will defenetely help with rendering and even in some AAA games (like Fallout 4). If either one fits in your budget, then spend what you have left on the best mobo you can afford

[stconquest]

11 minutes ago, PlymouthJoseph said:

Oh, and this is gonna sound VERY noob-ish but the 6500 has 4 cores and not hyperthreaded, yet the 8350 has 8 cores (I believe) and is also obliviously not hyperthreaded.  

 

So, for multi-core tasks such as rendering a video and heavy gaming... Wouldn't the 8350 be better? Just due to the 4 extra cores? Especially when running at 4.5GHz... 

It is not noobish.  It is a valid question.

 

You are right.  The 6500 has four cores and no HT.  The FX 8XXX CPU has 4 modules with 2 limited cores each, totaling eight.

 

The FX 8XXX CPU does edge out the i5 when using all eight cores, sometimes:  http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1026

 

If you want a CPU for gaming AND editing, the Xeon E3-1231 V3 ($225) is what you would look at under a tight budget.  It runs games a ton better than an AMD CPU and does better in multi-threaded workloads as well.

 

For gaming, four cores is the sweet spot for 99.9% of current games.  Four fast cores will almost always perform better than 8 slow cores.

[PlymouthJoseph]

13 minutes ago, stconquest said:

It is not noobish.  It is a valid question.

 

You are right.  The 6500 has four cores and no HT.  The FX 8XXX CPU has 4 modules with 2 limited cores each, totaling eight.

 

The FX 8XXX CPU does edge out the i5 when using all eight cores, sometimes:  http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1026

 

If you want a CPU for gaming AND editing, the Xeon E3-1231 V3 ($225) is what you would look at under a tight budget.  It runs games a ton better than an AMD CPU and does better in multi-threaded workloads as well.

 

For gaming, four cores is the sweet spot for 99.9% of current games.  Four fast cores will almost always perform better than 8 slow cores.

That's fair enough... But for what he's gonna be doing (Gaming, Recording, Editing, Rendering and general PC use) what would be overall better? An AMD FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz with a MSI 990FXA and 16GB 1666MHz DDR3 RAM or a i5-6500 with a motherboard and RAM... 

Remember that I only wanna spend £250 max. (Yes... I know the 8350 + MSI 990FXA comes to £257)