Cooler Master MasterWatt Lite

[JIMSL1CE]

Looking for advice on PSU

Interested in getting Cooler Master MasterWatt Lite 500W 80+

https://www.pccasegear.com/products/38111/cooler-master-masterwatt-lite-500w-power-supply

Will be for parts I already have

AMD FX-8120 8core

8gb DDR3

Will be either adding either a GTX 1050 or GTX 1060

[Droidbot]

Splash down like $20 more and get the Corsair CX450M. 

 

Much better unit with a longer warranty and a DC-DC design, which means better voltage regulation and is better suited to a modern system like that. 

[JIMSL1CE]

1 hour ago, Droidbot said:

Splash down like $20 more and get the Corsair CX450M. 

 

Much better unit with a longer warranty and a DC-DC design, which means better voltage regulation and is better suited to a modern system like that. 

Actually it's only another 10 AUD, cheers

Will 450W be okay with the FX-8120 if I OC?

[STRMfrmXMN]

6 hours ago, JIMSL1CE said:

Actually it's only another 10 AUD, cheers

Will 450W be okay with the FX-8120 if I OC?

With a 1060 yes. That said, the 8120 is a huge bottleneck to what is equivalent in performance to a GTX 980.... plan on upgrading that CPU soon?

[JIMSL1CE]

10 hours ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

With a 1060 yes. That said, the 8120 is a huge bottleneck to what is equivalent in performance to a GTX 980.... plan on upgrading that CPU soon?

No, I just got the CPU, mobo, case & ram from a friend

Not needing most parts is what prompted this build

Only need PSU & GPU, I wanted to get a GTX 1050 for the person who it's for, but they insist that it wont be good enough for how cheap it is...

I assumed the CPU was going to be a bottleneck, so was wondering if the PSU could handle overclocking the CPU to around 4.5GHz & if it would relieve enough bottleneck

 

Edit: It will most likely be for 1080p, he want's it to last 5yrs, so I felt that the 6GB card with the quadcore would be good for 5yrs @ 1080p

Isn't the GTX 980 comparable to the GTX 1060?

[Stefan Payne]

On 6.8.2017 at 7:16 PM, STRMfrmXMN said:

With a 1060 yes. That said, the 8120 is a huge bottleneck to what is equivalent in performance to a GTX 980.... plan on upgrading that CPU soon?

In modern games, it's on par with old sandy bridge 4 Core CPUs.

So there isn't a real need to replace it...

OK, it is the old Zambesi and not Vishera, that could be a reason, but Bulldozer is fine in modern games...

[STRMfrmXMN]

8 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

In modern games, it's on par with old sandy bridge 4 Core CPUs.

So there isn't a real need to replace it...

OK, it is the old Zambesi and not Vishera, that could be a reason, but Bulldozer is fine in modern games...

Not really..

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-FX-8120-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500/m173vsm517

 

The single-threaded performance of a Sandy Bridge i5 is still nearly 50% greater and an i5 struggles plenty with modern games (especially at 144 Hz), coming from someone who had a 4670K and upgraded to an i7.

[Stefan Payne]

19 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Not really..

Really:
http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/lawbreakers-test-gpu-cpu

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-2013-retro-test-gpu-cpu

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/watch-dogs-2-test-gpu

 

In some of those tests the FX8350 is on par with an i5-6600. In some it's far away.

And the FX8350 only cost as much as an i3....

So the Bulldozer is not as bad as some people make them out to be...

They can perform very well if it is optimzied well...

 

Quote

The single-threaded performance of a Sandy Bridge i5 is still nearly 50% greater and an i5 struggles plenty with modern games (especially at 144 Hz), coming from someone who had a 4670K and upgraded to an i7.

The Single Threadded performance is utterly unimportant. That's just cherry-picking...

And why are you mention 144Hz gaming?! Was that something we talked about?! Not it wasn't...

Another thing you miss (and you don't want to admit) is the price of the CPU! An FX8350 costs way less than an i5 and is in the range of most i3 these days, with i3 going up to ~150 bucks. 

That a 300 bucks CPU should be way faster, should be obvious, shoudn't it?! 

 

But the Bulldozer can compete with a 300 bucks CPU sometimes while costing way way less than that...

 

 

[STRMfrmXMN]

27 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Really:
http://gamegpu.com/mmorpg-/-онлайн-игры/lawbreakers-test-gpu-cpu

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/crysis-3-2013-retro-test-gpu-cpu

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/watch-dogs-2-test-gpu

 

In some of those tests the FX8350 is on par with an i5-6600. In some it's far away.

And the FX8350 only cost as much as an i3....

So the Bulldozer is not as bad as some people make them out to be...

They can perform very well if it is optimzied well...

 

The Single Threadded performance is utterly unimportant. That's just cherry-picking...

And why are you mention 144Hz gaming?! Was that something we talked about?! Not it wasn't...

Another thing you miss (and you don't want to admit) is the price of the CPU! An FX8350 costs way less than an i5 and is in the range of most i3 these days, with i3 going up to ~150 bucks. 

That a 300 bucks CPU should be way faster, should be obvious, shoudn't it?! 

 

But the Bulldozer can compete with a 300 bucks CPU sometimes while costing way way less than that...

 

 

Single-threaded performance is the single most important performance metric for games.. are you serious...? This is why a 7600K at 5 GHz outperforms my Core i7 4770S in many games despite not having as many threads. Games like Overwatch and GTA V are the few that benefit from more threads and cores.

 

Keep in mind the FX is so old it doesn't even have native support for USB 3.0. Those are add-in features motherboard vendors add. The platform a year ago was often outperformed by dual core Pentiums.

 

I mention 144Hz gaming as it's the quickest growing segment of the PC gaming market as referenced here.

Sure, the price is low because the CPU is based on an architecture that's 7 years old. You wouldn't buy an i7 2600K nowadays, would you?

 

I don't know about prices in Germany but you did say "for $300." By now most people have stopped suggested Core i5s for people and have moved on to recommending Ryzen 5 and 7 processors instead of Core i5s and basically everything that's between the G4560 and 7700K.

 

Also check out frame times and .1% lows with the games tested where the 8350 would "keep up" and see how low they are. Also check out the somewhat old post here that goes over basically everything here.

 

[Stefan Payne]

31 minutes ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Single-threaded performance is the single most important performance metric for games.. are you serious...?

 

Yes, because it's not true, what you are saying.

Single Thread Performance isn't that important no more. Multicore Performance gets more and more important. Especially since both important consoles have rather low clocking 8 core CPUs.

 

That's why you see better frametimes and so on with 6 core CPUs instead of 4 Core CPUs...

 

Just take a look at that:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-1-2016-Spiel-54981/Specials/Battlefield-1-Technik-Test-Benchmarks-1210394/

 

85/91 for 2C/4T, 147/160 for 8C/16T.

 

Quote

This is why a 7600K at 5 GHz outperforms my Core i7 4770S in many games despite not having as many threads.

No, thats Bullshit!

The 7600K performs better because of Memory Bandwith and other improvements...

And the i7-4770S is only clocked at 3.1GHz...

What are we talking about?? DDR3-1600 vs. DDR4-2400 or 2666??

 

Quote

Games like Overwatch and GTA V are the few that benefit from more threads and cores.

There are more and they become more and more...

Because it's the only way to increase the performance of the game!

That's why we don't see 8GHz Single COres these days - it just wasn't possible to increase the 'Single Thread Performance' Further.

 

Quote

Keep in mind the FX is so old it doesn't even have native support for USB 3.0. Those are add-in features motherboard vendors add. The platform a year ago was often outperformed by dual core Pentiums.

 

Who cares?!
WHY is that important at all?!
 

And what was years ago is irrelevant. Now is now and that's what counts. and:

AMD FX vs Intel for gaming - 2015 Edition

Are you serious?!
Why would you mention something from 2 years ago?!
Things change a lot in 2 Years!!
 

Not to long ago, you'd throw away your computer if it was 2 years old...

Like Pentium 133 vs. Pentium MMX 233 or Pentium MMX vs. Pentium 3...

Pentium MMX was released in 1997, the Pentium 3 Coppermine came in 1999.

 

[STRMfrmXMN]

13 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, because it's not true, what you are saying.

 

No, thats Bullshit!

 

Who cares?!
WHY is that important at all?!

Are you serious?!
Why would you mention something from 2 years ago?!
 

Do you ever wonder why people get really sick of you around here? Like at all? 

 

The review you pointed out had a 6900K at 4.0 GHz with DDR4 RAM. To compare the pseudo i3 they created by disabling cores and an FX which doesn't have the same single-threaded performance doesn't make a point now, does it..? 

 

I get some of your words are lost in translation as you are German and you're doing your best in English but you don't seem to get the concept of "single-threaded performance."

 Yes, as technology progresses we will have CPUs with more and more cores and clockspeeds will likely not increase drastically, but do you get what IPC or "instructions per clock" are? That's important and is inherently tied to single-thread performance. A 4790K at 4 GHz is slightly worse than a 6700K at 4 GHz due to IPC. 

 

When comparing my i7 to a 7600K at 5 GHz, memory bandwidth would not be a relevant factor when the sheer amount of power that each of those 4 cores packs at 4 GHz makes up for the lack of threads and CPU cache vs. my i7 at turbo speed (3.9 GHz).

 

I mention that thread from two years ago as most of those games are still relevant and even with DX12 updates don't really benefit from having much worse single-threaded performance (8350) vs hyper-clocked i5s (7600K).

 

I'm not sure why you're arguing this at this point anymore. The point of this thread was to ask a question about a PSU, a couple of us addressed that you shouldn't be buying a 4350 7 years after its release for brand-new prices, and you're viciously upset over comments on the internet - this seems to be a theme of yours on the PSU Tier list. 

 

I'm done here. I'll report both our comments if you want to continue bickering because this threads is hopelessly derailed at this point.

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, STRMfrmXMN said:

Do you ever wonder why people get really sick of you around here? Like at all?

Because I know my Stuff?!

And I don't follow the mainstream and think about stuff for myself.

 

Quote

 Yes, as technology progresses we will have CPUs with more and more cores and clockspeeds will likely not increase drastically, but do you get what IPC or "instructions per clock" are? That's important and is inherently tied to single-thread performance. A 4790K at 4 GHz is slightly worse than a 6700K at 4 GHz due to IPC. 

Why do you feel the need to tell that? I know that stuff. 

And where is the 'more Clockspeed' Thing?!

Ryzen doesn't have a (much) higher clock speed than Sandy Bridge had, hell it even has _LESS_ clockspeed than Bulldozer had...

In ~ 10 Years, since the E8600, we are talking at 3.33GHz up to 4.5GHz. But until the i7-4790 was released it was less, much less....

Since Sandy Bridge (E2700K) we are talking about much much less - 500MHz normal Core CLock and 600MHz Turbo - at best...

Since the new, second Generation Haswell we are talking about 100/200MHz more, depending on how you look at it...

And for the HEDT Plattforms it looks worse. Much worse...

The i7-6950X has only 3GHz and a turbo up to 3,5GHz - wich equals to -333MHz default and +167MHZ since the E8600....

There are some 6 cores with 3.6GHz base and 3.8GHz Boost...

 

 

If you know your stuff, you should have known that increasing clock speed isn't really something that's done today. Because it's just not possible...

You should have learned that with Netburst over 10 Years ago.

Because if we take those into account and argue with a Pentium 4 661 it looks worse, much worse. That one was clocked at 3,6GHz (and there also was a Dual COre version with also 3,6GHz)

And there was an Extreme Edition with 3,73GHz...

After that, the clock rate was lost a standard Core 2 Duo only clocked at around 2-3GHz...
And now let's take a look at the LGA1366 Plattform. That one's from 2008.

Started at 2.66GHz went up to 3,2GHZ (3,47 Turbo) with the i7-960. The Extreme Edition 975 was able to reach 3.6GHz with 1 Core Turbo...

The 32nm Westmeres were released with 3,33GHz (3.6GHz Turbo), i7-980. And the i7-990X went up to 3,47 and 3,733GHz.

 

Where do you see an increase in clock speed? Even compared to 10 Year old ones, the clock speed didn't went up.

And depending on how you compare it, you can clearly see it going down.

 

Look at the AMD FX vs. Ryzen.

FX was released with 4GHz (FX8350)

Ryzen was released with up to 4GHz

 

But lets compare i7-4790 with the 7770K and what do we see? 200MHz more at best...

 

So no, Clockpseed don't improve much these days...

That's just not really possible/viable.

Just look at Pentium 4 or Bulldozer what you have to sacrifice...

With high clocks, the power consumption goes through the roof...

 

Quote

When comparing my i7 to a 7600K at 5 GHz, memory bandwidth would not be a relevant factor when the sheer amount of power that each of those 4 cores packs at 4 GHz makes up for the lack of threads and CPU cache vs. my i7 at turbo speed (3.9 GHz).

You need Memory Bandwith to feed the cores. If you don't have enough, what should the cores calculate??
Some calculations can be done in cache, but some can not. 

 

I can easily prove my point with this:

 

There are many of those benchmarks

 

Quote

I mention that thread from two years ago as most of those games are still relevant and even with DX12 updates don't really benefit from having much worse single-threaded performance (8350) vs hyper-clocked i5s (7600K).

That's just an excuse...

 

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Spiele-Thema-239104/Specials/PC-Spiele-2016-1168561/

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Spiele-Thema-239104/Specials/PC-Spiele-2017-1199212/

That's how many games? 

 

Quote

I'm not sure why you're arguing this at this point anymore.

I'm not, you are.

I just said that the AMD FX isn't as bad as you sad it was, proved my point. Why are YOU still at it?!

 

 

Quote

The point of this thread was to ask a question about a PSU, a couple of us addressed that you shouldn't be buying a 4350 7 years after its release for brand-new prices, and you're viciously upset over comments on the internet - this seems to be a theme of yours on the PSU Tier list. 

Is there any better CPU than the FX4350 for 50 bucks or less??

Maybe Athlon X4 845 or 860K, but those are also Bulldozer based, so whatever you can get cheaper (with board) works...

 

 

And before you mention the Pentium G4400 or Celeron G3900:
Those can't run all games! 

Some new games require a quad core CPU or Dual Core with SMT enabled. 

 

So the statement that it's a good CPU for 50 bucks or less is true...