Overclocking with AM3+

[Ryxios]

Hi there

 

I am looking forward to build a new PC and I do want to oc it a bit later...

Now my question is without big regards on money (talking about 200-300 USD) for mainboard and same for CPU, what should I get...

 

I was thinking about the ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z (AM3+, AMD 990FX, ATX) its nice prised and i could Xfire on it.

 

Is it a good choice? and what CPU would be nice with it?

 

Greets

Ryx

[vern021]

You can get the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 and the FX-8320.

[Guest]

fx-8350

[Faceman]

Hi there

 

I am looking forward to build a new PC and I do want to oc it a bit later...

Now my question is without big regards on money (talking about 200-300 USD) for mainboard and same for CPU, what should I get...

 

I was thinking about the ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z (AM3+, AMD 990FX, ATX) its nice prised and i could Xfire on it.

 

Is it a good choice? and what CPU would be nice with it?

 

Greets

Ryx

i5-4690k + Z97

 

It will outperform the FX in every way imaginable except for calculations.  If your priority is gaming, get an i5.

[Ryxios]

Wow the Gigabyte is quite cheap ^^

What’s the deal with it besides the lack of style?

 

Would a FX-9590 also be nice if i can afford it?

 

@Faceman, sorry I didn't write it in the first post but I am looking for am AM3+ board so i can use my old AM3 Phenom processor until I get the new one.

Besides calculations are quite a deal for me, I am going to use it for FEM simulations...

[Faceman]

Wow the Gigabyte is quite cheap ^^

What’s the deal with it besides the lack of style?

 

Would a FX-9590 also be nice if i can afford it?

 

@Faceman, sorry I didn't write it in the first post but I am looking for am AM3+ board so i can use my old AM3 Phenom processor until I get the new one.

Besides calculations are quite a deal for me, I am going to use it for FEM simulations...

Well, it depends on where your priorities lie.  How much gaming, and what kind of games do you like to play?  How much time will be spend doing calculations?  I am unfamiliar with FEM simulations, so I will try and research it a little.  What specific program will you be using?  Find it and look up benchmarks.

 

With Intel, motherboard doesn't impact performance.  Motherboard is all about features and aesthetics, thats it.  You will get the same overclock with a "low end" motherboard as a "high end" motherboard.  This is not the case with AMD.

[DeViLzzz]

You could go with a G3258 Anniversary CPU from Intel and some affordable name brand board and OC that thing like crazy and then upgrade to a different cpu later on.  This choice would give you the most upgrade room.  Now if you go the AMD route I second the idea of getting the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 or anything similar from Gigabyte as these boards are awesome.  My son has an AMD FX-6300 and a 990FX board and overclocking is great.  Also I have to say anything my family has gotten from Gigabyte has held up 100%. They are definitely also a motherboard make that offers feature rich boards at an affordable price.  As for going for the AMD FX-9590 I say no as it is pricey and there is no need to get that when you can overclock an AMD FX-8320 or something else.

[DeViLzzz]

i5-4690k + Z97

 

It will outperform the FX in every way imaginable except for calculations.  If your priority is gaming, get an i5.

$200 to $300 the OP said.

[Dumaurier]

I've been using the Crosshair V Formula for quite some time now, is a great board and never had any issues with it.  The settings to overclock your cpu are very easy to navigate and control through the BIOS, but just make sure you've got your good cooling setup and hope you get lucky on the silicon lottery with your chip. I didn't fare too well and can barely manage a 100Mhz OC on my 8350. That was with the Hyper 212 air cooler though, hopefully when my AIO turns up, I may get an improvement.

[Faceman]

$200 to $300 the OP said.

$200-$300 for motherboard, and $200-$300 for the CPU.

 

"Now my question is without big regards on money (talking about 200-300 USD) for mainboard and same for CPU, what should I get."

 

He has a large budget.  He should really be looking at an i7 if he has $400 to spend on a CPU + motherboard.

[DeViLzzz]

$200-$300 for motherboard, and $200-$300 for the CPU.

 

"Now my question is without big regards on money (talking about 200-300 USD) for mainboard and same for CPU, what should I get."

 

He has a large budget.  He should really be looking at an i7 if he has $400 to spend on a CPU + motherboard.

If this is a gaming rig mostly then no to the i7.

[Faceman]

Not trying to start a war.  Just trying to educate.  People think they are getting a good deal when they buy FX, and they are not.

 

If you enjoy games like MMOs(ArcheAge, WoW, Guild Wars2, World of Tanks, Planetside2 etc..) DayZ, ARMA2, ARMA3, Dead Rising 3, Indies, RTS, Emulators, etc.. the FX will be unplayable unless you think 10-15fps is acceptable.

 

Then the other games that are playable, but no where near as fluid as on Intel.  A few examples are: Starcraft, Skyrim, Civilization V.

 

----

---

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

The modern i3s beat the FX8 in the majority of games.

 

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

i5-4670k Vs. FX8350 Aggregate Comparison

 

You should read through the link above, but here is the conclusion.

 

"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 :)"

 

Also, when people say that the FX8 is a less expensive option, they are wrong.  In order for the FX8 to be viable, it needs to be overclocked, which means you need a motherboard with at least 8+2 VRM phase design, and more expensive cooling solution.  This makes it cost the same, if not more than a locked i5 processor which will beat the FX8 in every single game, no matter how high the FX is overclocked.

 

This is the bare minimum for an overclocked FX8 processor that will still under achieve compared to an Intel processor no matter how high you manage to overclock it, and leave you unable to play some of those games I mentioned above.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/sLd6hM
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker....hM/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor  ($126.00 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($93.00 @ Newegg)
Total: $248.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-10 03:38 EST-0500

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/TPL4pg
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker....pg/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i5-4430 3.0GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($174.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: ASRock H81 Pro BTC ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($40.00 @ Amazon)
Total: $214.99
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-11-10 04:22 EST-0500

 

You could even spend $10 more to get a Z87 Motherboard, which gives you an upgrade path to an unlocked i5 or i7.

[Faceman]

If this is a gaming rig mostly then no to the i7.

He said he does calculations.  It is not just a gaming rig.  I know its late man, but I'm able to read the fine details.

[Ryxios]

Thanks so far, especially to faceman

 

To remind everybody budget is 400-500 US$ for motherboard + CPU

 

It has to be ok for gaming (Civilizations BE, StarCraft 2, I play moba's sometimes but I don't think this is a problem,...so NO high end stuff... altough its nice if those games run too)

I will often use Siemens NX 9.0 or probably further versions of Siemens NX on it.

 

I admit that the FX-8350 isn't a good choice, but what do you guy think about a FX-9590, with a bit more than 200US$ i think it's pretty nice priced.

If you take the i7 4770K as compare i am saving 100$.

Downside is the power consumtion of allmost 150W more...