New Gaming Rig build

[Zeo2002]

I've been toying with the idea of building a new rig for a while and now Newegg finally has some sales I'm interested in! Please also read below the specs as to why I have chosen some items. This computer is mainly for gaming, though I may work from home and want a respectfully fast computer for working in multiple programs (think home business). I will not be doing any video editing and very minimal picture editing if any.

 

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU:  AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor  ($169.99 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler:  Swiftech H220 55.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($119.99 @ NCIX US)
Motherboard:  Gigabyte GA-970A-D3P ATX AM3+/AM3 Motherboard  ($54.99 @ Newegg)
Memory:  Crucial Ballistix Sport 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($132.59 @ Amazon)
Storage:  Kingston SSDNow V200 Series 256GB 2.5" Solid State Disk  ($159.99 @ Newegg)
Storage:  Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($82.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card:  Gigabyte Radeon R9 290 4GB Video Card  ($405.91 @ Newegg)
Case:  Thermaltake VO200M1W2N (Black) ATX Full Tower Case  ($109.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply:  Corsair Enthusiast 850W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply  ($127.98 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive:  LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer  ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System:  Microsoft Windows 8.1 - 64-bit - OEM (64-bit)  ($99.98 @ OutletPC)
Monitor:  LG IPS231B-BN 23.0" Monitor  ($196.14 @ Amazon)
Total: $1675.53
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-12-03 14:39 EST-0500)

 

My old computer is going on 5 years with little to no upgrades, I will only be salvaging a couple of parts, the PSU, the GPU (HD 4870 - go ahead and laugh) and the Audio card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102049) which may be a limitation to the motherboard I can get.

 

Case: I have built my past few computers with Thermaltake cases and I like their big sturdy cases. I was going to buy this case anyways, I was just waiting for it to go on sale, which it did today (for about 40% off).

PSU: I have the one listed above, except it's the previous (discontinued) version, I believe it should work fine at least until I get a second 290.

Monitor: I've already got one and like it. I will be waiting until it goes back on sale (at least 10% off) before I get another and in time I'll get a third unless I get convinced to go larger middle (main) monitor.

Video Card: I'm waiting for the non reference cards before buying - so I have to suffer with my HD 4870 until then.

Motherboard/CPU: This is where I'm a bit excited and not too sure. Newegg has the FX 9370 for $200 (just $30 more than 8350). I don't believe the board I have listed will work for the 9370. If anyone has a good idea of a board that will work for the 9370 and have an unblocked PCIEx1 slot with at least two open PCIE x16 slots for the 290's that would be great. One I found that I think may work is (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005584ZD0/?tag=pcpapi-20) Any suggestions - lots of others don't seem to have the free PCIE x1 slot or are in stock.

OS: Newegg has this for $20 cheaper than what's listed above. If someone has a reason to go for Professional version, I've always contemplated it but went for budget right now. Also, I am sure I will hate Win 8(8.1/8.2) but I've heard there are some benefits to speeds and drivers (and it will be supported longer).

Ram and SSD/HD:  I'm not 100% settled on these, I am thinking 16GB Ram (2x8); 256GB (or thereabouts) SSD for OS/Microsoft Office and Star Citizen and house a couple of other games (I heard it slows down if it gets too full, so I assume there would be some headroom) The other drive is for everything else and 2TB is more than enough (I could probably get 1TB and not fill it for 5-10 years).

 

Top end of my budget is about $1500 without the monitor (as I can survive off one) and I would like to keep it on the lower end so I can splurge on GPUs.

Initial (current) outlay of cash is ~$793 for CPU(and cooler), Mobo, OS, Case and RAM/SSD/HD.

I plan to piecemeal some items not needed (like I am thinking of 8GB Ram now and another 8 or 16 later if needed). If you think I shouldn't salvage something or need to get better, let me know why and offer a suggestion. Thanks for your time and comments!

[Onidi]

Seems great for gaming a very future proof I like it actually 

[Fate]

Overall looks pretty good, but you might want to go with 8 gigs of ram for now and buy 8 more gigs later since prices are so high... Ram will probably go back to $40 for 8gigs soon so I wouldn't waste my money on 16.

[Guest GRRigger]

You dont want this mobo for an overclocked 8 core processor.

[lachyman]

Get a 990FX board with 8GB RAM. Other things seem fine to me.

[brob]

You may want to consider a newer model SSD, http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-internal-hard-drive-ssdsc2bw240a4k5, Samsung MZ-7TE250KW or Kingston SV300S37A/240G.

[aithos]

If you're doing mostly gaming and regular productivity stuff (not video editing/3d modeling) I'd strongly suggest an Intel chip.  I don't want to start a war here (I've built both AMD and Intel systems for different purposes), but the Intel chips are a lot better for gaming and without video editing or highly threaded applications you just won't get as much benefit out of the AMD chip you're looking at.  I'd honestly look at the i5-4670k since you probably don't even need HT, you can pick one up around $200...or if you live near a Microcenter you can get a i7-4770k for a similar price.

 

Everything else looks decent.  The aftermarket 290s will be solid, an EVGA 780 classified would be amazing too if you have a little wiggle room in your budget for it (it overclocks like a beast).  For MB I'd look at asus z87 plus or maximus vi hero  but there are plenty of other good boards from MSI, ASRock and Gigabyte as well.

 

Just to be clear:  don't mistake extra cores or multi-threading with the ability to run multiple programs at once.  Any modern 4 core processor with a decent amount of RAM can *easily* run any number of normal applications without issue.  When people look at 8 core or multi-threading what they are really interested in are heavily optimized, heavily threaded applications.  Video encoding, 3d modeling and rendering, multiple virtual machines for software development, etc.  Games, office, firefox, mediaplayer, etc...you can easily have all those running at once without issue on any modern CPU. 

 

When I talk about Intel chips being better for what you're doing it is just because they are better at brute force tasks like gaming.  They are just plain faster.  AMD's architecture is geared towards compute (heavily threaded), it's largely why AMD GPUs are usually better miners than all but the Pro NVIDIA cards, but the CPUs are similar.  Put an i5 vs the 8350 in 3d modeling and the AMD chip will destroy the Intel, put them head to head for gaming and the i5 will at WORST break even and at best win by 40-80fps (which it will win in most games, even BF4 which supposedly favors AMD).

[Zeo2002]

You may want to consider a newer model SSD, http://pcpartpicker.com/part/intel-internal-hard-drive-ssdsc2bw240a4k5, Samsung MZ-7TE250KW or Kingston SV300S37A/240G.

 

Thanks for the ideas. I haven't spent much time on SSD's yet as I was planning to wait a year before actually building (and hope SSD prices continued to drop at this rate). The Intel one definitely sounds good, I'll look over the others.

 

If you're doing mostly gaming and regular productivity stuff (not video editing/3d modeling) I'd strongly suggest an Intel chip.  I don't want to start a war here (I've built both AMD and Intel systems for different purposes), but the Intel chips are a lot better for gaming and without video editing or highly threaded applications you just won't get as much benefit out of the AMD chip you're looking at.  I'd honestly look at the i5-4670k since you probably don't even need HT, you can pick one up around $200...or if you live near a Microcenter you can get a i7-4770k for a similar price.

 

Everything else looks decent.  The aftermarket 290s will be solid, an EVGA 780 classified would be amazing too if you have a little wiggle room in your budget for it (it overclocks like a beast).  For MB I'd look at asus z87 plus or maximus vi hero  but there are plenty of other good boards from MSI, ASRock and Gigabyte as well.

 

Just to be clear:  don't mistake extra cores or multi-threading with the ability to run multiple programs at once.  Any modern 4 core processor with a decent amount of RAM can *easily* run any number of normal applications without issue.  When people look at 8 core or multi-threading what they are really interested in are heavily optimized, heavily threaded applications.  Video encoding, 3d modeling and rendering, multiple virtual machines for software development, etc.  Games, office, firefox, mediaplayer, etc...you can easily have all those running at once without issue on any modern CPU. 

 

When I talk about Intel chips being better for what you're doing it is just because they are better at brute force tasks like gaming.  They are just plain faster.  AMD's architecture is geared towards compute (heavily threaded), it's largely why AMD GPUs are usually better miners than all but the Pro NVIDIA cards, but the CPUs are similar.  Put an i5 vs the 8350 in 3d modeling and the AMD chip will destroy the Intel, put them head to head for gaming and the i5 will at WORST break even and at best win by 40-80fps (which it will win in most games, even BF4 which supposedly favors AMD).

 

You bring up some good points, I'm generally an AMD person because of low price point and "raw power". Though I do understand and have to give it to Intel that they are the better CPU for what I'm really interested in (except their costs). As to the FPS, from what I've seen Intel generally gets better FPS on games (all but Mobo/CPU being the same). Though I don't see the 40-80 fps marks you're talking about, it's usually fairly minimal from what I recall (less then 10). In addition, and this is why I ultimately wanted to wait a year (not to mention possible advances for Star Citizen) for Mantle and other new technology.

 

You've got me thinking that I may revert back to my plan of waiting a little longer for the full build and get the big discount on the case now... I have heard (for the salt it's worth) that AMD doesn't plan on announcing a new CPU 2014, so waiting a year and getting the same stuff isn't really what I'm looking for.

 

EDIT: I also am pretty sure Star Citizen will be at least a 6 core game, so at the moment, I would be wanting to look at hex core Intel chips. Basically, if I am building this thing, I don't want to have to repay major expenses again in a year or two. Ever promise yourself you would wait, only to see beautiful candy and go "I can resist... I can resist... I don't want to!" - that's me right now.

 

Get a 990FX board with 8GB RAM. Other things seem fine to me.

 

ASRock 990FX boards all block the PCIE x1 station where I would place the Audio card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102049) which the link apparently didn't make it to the first post.. That is one of the limited factors that I am having problems trying to find boards in stock and that could work.

[Ja Krispie]

Thanks for the ideas. I haven't spent much time on SSD's yet as I was planning to wait a year before actually building (and hope SSD prices continued to drop at this rate). The Intel one definitely sounds good, I'll look over the others.

 

 

You bring up some good points, I'm generally an AMD person because of low price point and "raw power". Though I do understand and have to give it to Intel that they are the better CPU for what I'm really interested in (except their costs). As to the FPS, from what I've seen Intel generally gets better FPS on games (all but Mobo/CPU being the same). Though I don't see the 40-80 fps marks you're talking about, it's usually fairly minimal from what I recall (less then 10). In addition, and this is why I ultimately wanted to wait a year (not to mention possible advances for Star Citizen) for Mantle and other new technology.

 

You've got me thinking that I may revert back to my plan of waiting a little longer for the full build and get the big discount on the case now... I have heard (for the salt it's worth) that AMD doesn't plan on announcing a new CPU 2014, so waiting a year and getting the same stuff isn't really what I'm looking for.

 

EDIT: I also am pretty sure Star Citizen will be at least a 6 core game, so at the moment, I would be wanting to look at hex core Intel chips. Basically, if I am building this thing, I don't want to have to repay major expenses again in a year or two. Ever promise yourself you would wait, only to see beautiful candy and go "I can resist... I can resist... I don't want to!" - that's me right now.

 

 

ASRock 990FX boards all block the PCIE x1 station where I would place the Audio card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102049) which the link apparently didn't make it to the first post.. That is one of the limited factors that I am having problems trying to find boards in stock and that could work.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514

 

That mobo should work perfectly.

 

Also keep in mind, you can stick a X1 adapter in an X16 slot, it will still work as it should.

[WoodenMarker]

Slight edits: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2eDqW

[Zeo2002]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514

 

That mobo should work perfectly.

 

Also keep in mind, you can stick a X1 adapter in an X16 slot, it will still work as it should.

I saw that nice looking mobo, was a little worried that the audio card wouldn't clear the heatsink behind it. I didn't realize there was an adapter from x16 to x1 - I know there are some risers, but I need the card to be firmly seated

 

Slight edits: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2eDqW

 

Other than the fact that the H220 seemingly disappeared... why choose that CPU cooler? I was thinking Watercooling for better OC and lower running temps. I currently have an EVO 212 (looks very similar to what you recommended) and I would worry that the fans would block some of the Ram dimms from fitting in (another reason to watercool).

[WoodenMarker]

Other than the fact that the H220 seemingly disappeared... why choose that CPU cooler? I was thinking Watercooling for better OC and lower running temps. I currently have an EVO 212 (looks very similar to what you recommended) and I would worry that the fans would block some of the Ram dimms from fitting in (another reason to watercool).

The h220 will be better. The issue is that it's much more expensive and it really isn't worth paying so much for a cpu cooler when what you're doing is gaming.

The Havik 140 is quite better than the 212 Evo. 

The fans would cover the dimm slots but the ram would fit just fine.

[aithos]

Thanks for the ideas. I haven't spent much time on SSD's yet as I was planning to wait a year before actually building (and hope SSD prices continued to drop at this rate). The Intel one definitely sounds good, I'll look over the others.

 

 

You bring up some good points, I'm generally an AMD person because of low price point and "raw power". Though I do understand and have to give it to Intel that they are the better CPU for what I'm really interested in (except their costs). As to the FPS, from what I've seen Intel generally gets better FPS on games (all but Mobo/CPU being the same). Though I don't see the 40-80 fps marks you're talking about, it's usually fairly minimal from what I recall (less then 10). In addition, and this is why I ultimately wanted to wait a year (not to mention possible advances for Star Citizen) for Mantle and other new technology.

 

You've got me thinking that I may revert back to my plan of waiting a little longer for the full build and get the big discount on the case now... I have heard (for the salt it's worth) that AMD doesn't plan on announcing a new CPU 2014, so waiting a year and getting the same stuff isn't really what I'm looking for.

 

EDIT: I also am pretty sure Star Citizen will be at least a 6 core game, so at the moment, I would be wanting to look at hex core Intel chips. Basically, if I am building this thing, I don't want to have to repay major expenses again in a year or two. Ever promise yourself you would wait, only to see beautiful candy and go "I can resist... I can resist... I don't want to!" - that's me right now.

 

 

ASRock 990FX boards all block the PCIE x1 station where I would place the Audio card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102049) which the link apparently didn't make it to the first post.. That is one of the limited factors that I am having problems trying to find boards in stock and that could work.

 

The reason you don't always see the 40-80fps mark is because a lot of times the games are GPU limited and that narrows the gap a bit.  There is an article over on Anandtech (I'd have to be at home to get the link) where they did a CPU comparison using a SLI Titan setup and in every game but one (Tomb Raider) the Intel chips won by over 40 frames.  Even if you look at BF4 benchmarks (just google some) you'll see the i5 beats the 8350 (barely, but BF4 is supposed to be super threaded and AMD favored).

 

I used to be a big AMD guy too, my first several builds were AMD machines.  I think they still have their place, it just isn't in gaming centered builds.  Honestly, that's why they are getting out of the high end CPU (enthusiast) market, it isn't profitable enough for them.  Instead they will focus on what makes them money, their APUs.  I applaud AMD for having the guts to make the hard decisions and do what is best for the company...

[brob]

I saw that nice looking mobo, was a little worried that the audio card wouldn't clear the heatsink behind it. I didn't realize there was an adapter from x16 to x1 - I know there are some risers, but I need the card to be firmly seated

 

No adapter is needed. Any PCIe card that completely fits in a PCIe slot can be plugged into that slot. In other words a x1 can plug into a x4 or x16 slot. A x4 can plug into a x16 slot, but not a x1 slot.

[Zeo2002]

No adapter is needed. Any PCIe card that completely fits in a PCIe slot can be plugged into that slot. In other words a x1 can plug into a x4 or x16 slot. A x4 can plug into a x16 slot, but not a x1 slot.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that fact, I assumed it wouldn't lock in or have a bit of give and if moving the case cause some problems. This is great to know as it will limit me a whole lot less than I expected.

 

The reason you don't always see the 40-80fps mark is because a lot of times the games are GPU limited and that narrows the gap a bit.  There is an article over on Anandtech (I'd have to be at home to get the link) where they did a CPU comparison using a SLI Titan setup and in every game but one (Tomb Raider) the Intel chips won by over 40 frames.  Even if you look at BF4 benchmarks (just google some) you'll see the i5 beats the 8350 (barely, but BF4 is supposed to be super threaded and AMD favored).

 

I used to be a big AMD guy too, my first several builds were AMD machines.  I think they still have their place, it just isn't in gaming centered builds.  Honestly, that's why they are getting out of the high end CPU (enthusiast) market, it isn't profitable enough for them.  Instead they will focus on what makes them money, their APUs.  I applaud AMD for having the guts to make the hard decisions and do what is best for the company...

So I think I've spent about 3 hours researching and looking at reviews and trying to be open minded to Intel. As for the analysis you talked about, I'm seeing a general trend (especially in Anandtech) that they are using lower resolutions. I'm 1920x1080 and looking to expand in time to 2-3 of the same monitors. In low resolution games, Intel CPU's definitely seem to be winning out in FPS. In higher resolution games, they seem to be evening out quite a bit. It doesn't make sense to me why higher resolution would be GPU limiting, but only to Intel and not AMD. I could not find the specific scenario you talked about however, so what I'm basing it off of was going through their bench numbers - in which there isn't much information but their numbers. I also don't care much for some of the reviews I've seen showing Intel far ahead when they use different hardware/software. I believe it was teksyndicate where they used different CPU cooler/ram/SSD and changed the AA/AF for each of the games they showed.

 

As for multi-threaded, I agree there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there for games right now. AMD seems to basically be saying "We're pulling out of high end multi-core technology" and moving more into the APUs so that does worry me about getting an 8350 (or higher) as if AMD is pulling out, why would games develop for all the additional cores. What I "want" to bank on is the future in terms of games like Star Citizen and hoping it'll be heavily optimized for multi cores and the FX would pull ahead of Intel.

 

What else I found - a video review series (4 parts) from Linus on this (not to say he's the "god of knowledge" and infallible).

It does seem to show the 3570k (which in doing a small bit of research is roughly the same as your recommended 4770k) pulls ahead in a few games by a large margin. It also isn't always the winner (but not by the huge margin the 8350 loses in some games) but generally has a higher minimum FPS. However, it seems to talk about upcoming games being better designed for multiple cores and that is where AMD seems to be pulling ahead. So far my opinion is that the 8350 is a little lower but comparable right now and may have a chance to flex it's muscles to get stronger in the next couple of years. What does this mean to my purchase decision... LOTS OF HEADACHES!

 

EDIT: Apparently Windows 8.1 does help the scores in some games that Linus reviews as well. Score one point (only point it can?) for Windows 8 over 7.

[WoodenMarker]

So I think I've spent about 3 hours researching and looking at reviews and trying to be open minded to Intel. As for the analysis you talked about, I'm seeing a general trend (especially in Anandtech) that they are using lower resolutions. I'm 1920x1080 and looking to expand in time to 2-3 of the same monitors. In low resolution games, Intel CPU's definitely seem to be winning out in FPS. In higher resolution games, they seem to be evening out quite a bit. It doesn't make sense to me why higher resolution would be GPU limiting, but only to Intel and not AMD. I could not find the specific scenario you talked about however, so what I'm basing it off of was going through their bench numbers - in which there isn't much information but their numbers. I also don't care much for some of the reviews I've seen showing Intel far ahead when they use different hardware/software. I believe it was teksyndicate where they used different CPU cooler/ram/SSD and changed the AA/AF for each of the games they showed.

As for multi-threaded, I agree there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there for games right now. AMD seems to basically be saying "We're pulling out of high end multi-core technology" and moving more into the APUs so that does worry me about getting an 8350 (or higher) as if AMD is pulling out, why would games develop for all the additional cores. What I "want" to bank on is the future in terms of games like Star Citizen and hoping it'll be heavily optimized for multi cores and the FX would pull ahead of Intel.

What else I found - a video review series (4 parts) from Linus on this (not to say he's the "god of knowledge" and infallible).

It does seem to show the 3570k (which in doing a small bit of research is roughly the same as your recommended 4770k) pulls ahead in a few games by a large margin. It also isn't always the winner (but not by the huge margin the 8350 loses in some games) but generally has a higher minimum FPS. However, it seems to talk about upcoming games being better designed for multiple cores and that is where AMD seems to be pulling ahead. So far my opinion is that the 8350 is a little lower but comparable right now and may have a chance to flex it's muscles to get stronger in the next couple of years. What does this mean to my purchase decision... LOTS OF HEADACHES!

Low resolution settings are used to isolate the cpu's performance.

The purchase decision is up to you. Can't really go wrong with either.

[aithos]

Low resolution settings are used to isolate the cpu's performance.

The purchase decision is up to you. Can't really go wrong with either.

 

This.  At 1080p with a couple high end GPUs your computer will be CPU limited.  That's why when you look at the numbers on Anandtech it shows the Intel so far ahead.  Once you switch to higher resolutions it becomes much more GPU limited.  If you ran at 1440p the numbers would be closer between Intel and AMD CPUs because the GPUs need to be more powerful.  The simple thing that's true is this:  SLI and CF setups both scale better with Intel CPUs.  There are a couple articles over on Tom's Hardware that looked at this and actually found that AMD GPUs run better on Intel CPUs.  They also looked at SLI and CF scaling and came up with two conclusions:

 

1) SLI scales better than CF in a general sense

 

2) CF scales much better on Intel than AMD systems

 

If you're planning to go with a 3 monitor gaming setup then your GPUs are going to be a lot more important than your CPU, but you'll still get better scaling with the Intel chip.  Also, the 3570k is not even close to comparable with the 4670k or the 4770k.  That's not the same level chip (3770k) AND it's the older generation which has far lower memory performance.  Here, I'll go get you some links:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html

 

Those are the articles I was referring to, take a look.  I know you have a preference for AMD, and if you decide to go with it the 8350 isn't a bad chip, it's just not as good for what you've stated is your purpose for your build.  Ultimately though, it's your money and you can do what you want.  I only want you to make an informed decision, I'm not here to pass judgement on what you decide...

[Zeo2002]

This.  At 1080p with a couple high end GPUs your computer will be CPU limited.  That's why when you look at the numbers on Anandtech it shows the Intel so far ahead.  Once you switch to higher resolutions it becomes much more GPU limited.  If you ran at 1440p the numbers would be closer between Intel and AMD CPUs because the GPUs need to be more powerful.  The simple thing that's true is this:  SLI and CF setups both scale better with Intel CPUs.  There are a couple articles over on Tom's Hardware that looked at this and actually found that AMD GPUs run better on Intel CPUs.  They also looked at SLI and CF scaling and came up with two conclusions:

 

1) SLI scales better than CF in a general sense

 

2) CF scales much better on Intel than AMD systems

 

If you're planning to go with a 3 monitor gaming setup then your GPUs are going to be a lot more important than your CPU, but you'll still get better scaling with the Intel chip.  Also, the 3570k is not even close to comparable with the 4670k or the 4770k.  That's not the same level chip (3770k) AND it's the older generation which has far lower memory performance.  Here, I'll go get you some links:

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review/5

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scaling-bottleneck,3471.html

 

Those are the articles I was referring to, take a look.  I know you have a preference for AMD, and if you decide to go with it the 8350 isn't a bad chip, it's just not as good for what you've stated is your purpose for your build.  Ultimately though, it's your money and you can do what you want.  I only want you to make an informed decision, I'm not here to pass judgement on what you decide...

You know, they (tomshardware) had a great point in the "price to performance" ratio. When you take in the cost of the whole rig, it's not so huge for the outcomes you get. I will say one "flaw" I saw is that they matched the "OC Ghz" of both the Intel and AMD chips to 4.4Ghz when we all know that Intel is superior to AMD in Ghz. I believe I've read a guide on these forums (outlined the different architectures of each companies CPUs) saying that AMD needs to be at least 500 Mhz better than Intel to get comparable results. Plus, if you're OCing one CPU 25.7% and the other 10% - results can theoretically get skewed more (unless that's the most that both cards can OC too using the same cooling options). It also appears like they used two different coolers for these tests since neither worked on the other chip. While they did OC both cards, they seemed to suggest that OC didn't help the lows much (makes sense - x % addition to a small number is still small).

 

Lastly, the Intel boards scaling better with SLI/XF compared to AMD scaling better with Nvidia than AMD... just wow... That is not something I would have expected at all, and I thought governments were bad at inter-company communication/collaboration. So, the decision seems to come down to 8350 with (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514) for $305, I5 4670k with mobo (newegg combo) for approximately $340 (haven't done much research into this yet), or 9370 with Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z ATX for $400 (would be 425, but there is a newegg combo with the RAM I would be purchasing anyways (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1499491). Intel has some really good promises with all that I've been shown and it's hard to bench how the 9370 compares (though I see stable reviews of 5.2Ghz OC with h100i AiO WC).

 

I definitely want to thank you both (@aithos and @WoodenMarker) for your continued insights and help in determining key pieces of the build. I also want to curse you two for making my decision much tougher as I wasn't considering Intel before! :-)

[aithos]

You know, they (tomshardware) had a great point in the "price to performance" ratio. When you take in the cost of the whole rig, it's not so huge for the outcomes you get. I will say one "flaw" I saw is that they matched the "OC Ghz" of both the Intel and AMD chips to 4.4Ghz when we all know that Intel is superior to AMD in Ghz. I believe I've read a guide on these forums (outlined the different architectures of each companies CPUs) saying that AMD needs to be at least 500 Mhz better than Intel to get comparable results. Plus, if you're OCing one CPU 25.7% and the other 10% - results can theoretically get skewed more (unless that's the most that both cards can OC too using the same cooling options). It also appears like they used two different coolers for these tests since neither worked on the other chip. While they did OC both cards, they seemed to suggest that OC didn't help the lows much (makes sense - x % addition to a small number is still small).

 

Lastly, the Intel boards scaling better with SLI/XF compared to AMD scaling better with Nvidia than AMD... just wow... That is not something I would have expected at all, and I thought governments were bad at inter-company communication/collaboration. So, the decision seems to come down to 8350 with (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514) for $305, I5 4670k with mobo (newegg combo) for approximately $340 (haven't done much research into this yet), or 9370 with Asus Crosshair V Formula-Z ATX for $400 (would be 425, but there is a newegg combo with the RAM I would be purchasing anyways (http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1499491). Intel has some really good promises with all that I've been shown and it's hard to bench how the 9370 compares (though I see stable reviews of 5.2Ghz OC with h100i AiO WC).

 

I definitely want to thank you both (@aithos and @WoodenMarker) for your continued insights and help in determining key pieces of the build. I also want to curse you two for making my decision much tougher as I wasn't considering Intel before! :-)

 

NP.  If you want my personal recommendation I'd just get the i5-4670k and call it good.  For motherboard I'd consider either the ASRock z87 extreme4 or one of the Asus z87 series (A would probably be the equivalent).  The only other suggestion I'd make would be to make sure the monitor you have picked out doesn't have input lag.  I didn't notice it initially but you've selected an IPS panel and the higher resolution ones (1440p+) virtually always have input lag and many of the 1080p ones do as well.  If you play any online multiplayer games 20-30ms of input lag will significantly impact your experience (in a bad way).  It would be like adding at least that much to your ping except that it's built into your monitor and never gets any better.

 

For a similar amount of money I'd consider the Asus VG248QE or the BenQ XL2420TE.  The BenQ is a bit more expensive but most people think it has slightly better colors (Linus gave it a good review as well).  You won't get as wide a range of colors with those monitors, but you will get no input lag and a much faster refresh rate.  Refresh rate will give you a smoother picture, more responsive feel and lightboost will virtually eliminate motion blur (which makes your picture look better when you're moving around).  Unless you're getting an IPS for a higher resolution I don't think it's worth it.  That's just my opinion of course, but I thought I'd mention it.