Need help choosing a CPU, other parts, and what to do about fans?

[Bogstench]

 Now, earlier about a month ago I believe, I asked around on these forums which case and components I should get. After learning a bit more I think I've narrowed it down to just needing to know which CPU, GPU, and motherboard I should purchase for what I want.

 

Apologies in advanced if this is the incorrect forum to be posting my question in, but hopefully it's not too much trouble.

 

 So, for the most part, people say Intel has about a 8%-10% FPS advantage in most cases in games, over AMD in regards to CPU's. I have a feeling that Intel is more geared towards application usage and such, therefor when a game hogs off a CPU, Intel is the winner. Then again, I see people that have tested streaming of game-play off same-grade CPU's of AMD and Intel but AMD wins? Not sure if this is because of the more cores or not. I've heard that is why. 

 

 Anyways, let me get into what I want to do with my PC; I want to be able to game on higher settings, and stream my game-play to a site like twitch.tv. That's about it. I don't do any 3D rendering, render videos, or record footage etc. It's quite difficult to create an accurate list of games I want to be able to play on medium-ultra because I buy/play so many different ones from different release dates, as well as use mods such as an ENB for different games and what not. I suppose I'd like to be able to play games from around 2006-2012 on high/ultra preset settings. Because I know these newer games seem to want more and more RAM for the 'recommended' settings. Examples would be, CoD: Ghosts or DayZ. So I guess something that could at least hold stable 60 FPS on new releases at 1080p regardless of settings.

 

 Now that my uses are out of the way, I've began to notice that some of AMD's GPU's are going up in price due to people wanting them for Bitcoin rigs. In fact, some of the after-market AMD GPU's that are up to par with the Nvidea equivalent are more than their competitors card, but this is only on the few highest end AMD cards. But I do plan to get something along the lines of a GTX 760 or higher. I've looked at hierarchy charts and benchmarks with value to performance and the 760 looks like it's the most for the money, being one of the high-end GPU's it seems, overall. I've also learned that advanced PhysX (or w/e) is only capable with Nvidea's cards. As well as them not having as much heat output (from tests, even the latest one from Linus claims this with AMD's R90X). That all could be wish-wash and only for the specific AMD cards, however, I still feel AMD is a worse choice with a 760 being this cheap. So yeah, I've looked into getting EVGA's OC'd 760 with what seems to be bronze heat pipes. I also plan to SLI with another 760 later on, once I get another free $250-$265 again. So I've had to look into spending more on a MB and a PSU that are going to be capable of handling everything with SLI, later on. 

 

 I do plan on overclocking my processor regardless with a 212 EVO, so that's something I'm a bit confused about by the way. Why do people claim that certain MB's are not capable of OCing? Is this true? Or is it just bullshit, and is over-exaggerated, and that boards at least 80$+ can handle it? I've yet to learn about that. All that aside, I'm stuck between looking at a FX-8350 and an i5-4670k. What I find weird, is that the i5 is only about 20$ more expensive and you get all the advantage it seems to have over AMD. Although, like I said before, it seems they both have their specific advantages instead of AMD just being worse overall. So I guess I'm unsure if I want to just spend 20$ less which to me seems like nothing in regards to the absurd prices of other PC parts, to get the 8350, or just spend the bit extra for the Intel. 

 

 My budget isn't that crazy, I've already bought an SSD when Cyber Monday came around, so at least I have that now. For the moment, I'd say my budget is at about 1000$ or so. I've had to substitute things like the case, HDD and such to manage a fair price with all needed. I found a ASRock Z87 Extreme3 ATX that seems to be just fine for what I want. Cheapest on PC part picker for SLI, and has enough USB ports for me. The case is very lackluster so to speak, it's a Xigmatek ASGARD 381. The case first of all, isn't very 'stylish', has no fans to come with it, and is overall probably cheap to manufacture. My point is though, I don't care one bit about what the case looks like necessarily. It just needs to have room for a CPU bracket, five fan mounts and at least fair cable management. Even though I think almost all cases at least have some cable management. I just don't see the point in purchasing a more expensive case, aside from getting better cable management, liquid cooling ringlets and room, a couple fans, easier to put in drives etc. About the fans, I am going to just replace any fans that come with the case (if the case I eventually choose comes with some) with blue LED fans, just preference. For the case I figured (listed in the imgur link ahead) that this was the best fan placement: http://i.imgur.com/sgtrZrq.jpg . Not sure if this is really good placement. Reason being is because I assume air is going to get trapped under the GPU and possibly my EVO's CPU heat being dissipated weirdly. Also, something I wonder about, what will I need to get with my six fans to connect to my power supply? I read you get 3-pin to Molex or something-pin to Molex and can connect multiple fans on one. My PSU btw is going to be a Corsair CX 750W 80+ Bronze, most likely, so unsure if that was worth mentioning.

 

Sorry for the long post, but I'm pretty stuck and wanna know. 

 

Thanks in advanced if anyone helps.

[Retro Gaming]

Well, if you have the money for it I would go with a gtx geforce 770. I currently have 2 770s in sli and they are wonderful. One of them should be fine, here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-SuperClocked-Graphics-02G-P4-2774-KR/dp/B00CZIQXBA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387942917&sr=8-1&keywords=geforce+gtx+770

[cjeffcoatjr]

That is one long-ass post, that I don't have time to read. Could someone summarize it for me in a max of three lines?

[Kobz360]

That is one long-ass post, that I don't have time to read. Could someone summarize it for me in a max of three lines?

He needs a CPU, GPU and motherboard. He wants to be able to overclock and run games at medium-ultra settings at 1080p. No 3D rendering, no video editing, just streaming to twitch and gaming. He's not sure whether he should go for Intel or AMD in terms of 4670K vs 8350 and isn't sure on GPU either as AMD's cards have increased because of mining. He also needs a mobo with quite a few fan headers and will use a 212 Evo to OC.

 

Budget is $1000 but I'm assuming that's inclusive of all the other parts so nothing ridiculously expensive. 

[cjeffcoatjr]

He needs a CPU, GPU and motherboard. He wants to be able to overclock and run games at medium-ultra settings at 1080p. No 3D rendering, no video editing, just streaming to twitch and gaming. He's not sure whether he should go for Intel or AMD in terms of 4670K vs 8350 and isn't sure on GPU either as AMD's cards have increased because of mining. He also needs a mobo with quite a few fan headers and will use a 212 Evo to OC.

 

Budget is $1000 but I'm assuming that's inclusive of all the other parts so nothing ridiculously expensive. 

Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3/FX-8320/ASUS DCUii v2 280X/CM 212 EVO

[Kobz360]

For the CPU, honestly 8350 and 4670K will perform pretty much the same, I mean the difference is not huge at all. As you're not going to be doing editing, rendering and other multi-threaded intensive tasks, the 4670K would probably suit you more, however, you should remember it costs more money and also, Z87 boards tend to cost more than the older AM3+ boards. So if you go for the 8350, you can save money on CPU and board and put more towards the GPU. Like cjeffcoatjr said above, I would even recommend an 8320. It's considerably cheaper than both CPU's and it's really good. I've got one and I just Overclocked to 4.2GHz, essentially making it an 8350 running at turbo. I use a 212 evo as well. 

 

When people say some boards aren't really good at overclocking, they're referring mainly to the power phase design and the VRM cooling etc. Boards with say a 4+1 power design will not be as tolerant as boards with a 6+2 power design and above. A fine example would be the MSI 970A G46. It has a 125W TDP and a 4+1 power design delivery, however there are numerous reports of people with those boards having their CPU's throttle badly and boards die if they even attempt to OC on it. Here's a link that explains more about VRMs.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database

 

Not all boards with 4+1 and 4+2 designs are bad though. It would just be recommended to stick with Asus and Gigabyte, especially on the AMD side as the CPU's are real hot and take a lot of power. You don't really need to be as careful on the Intel side. Just like you, I did a lot of motherboard research and I feel as if I can only provide recommendations for the AMD side, as I really only searched them. Here are some

 

Asus M5A99X Evo R2

Gigabyte GA 990FXA-UD3

Asus M5A99FX Evo R2

 

Just get any one of the 990X/FX Chipset boards so you can have the 2nd PCI-e slot running at either X8 or X16 and not X4 if you were to get a 970 board.

 

As for GPU with the AMD cards really pricey atm, just get the 760. 

[LIGISTX]

Glad you are trying to get all this info on your own! Its a bit refreshing tbh. 

 

So, my recommendations will be this, I like nvidia cards personally. I got my brother a 7950 because at the time it came with two games he actually wanted, and it is a good card. That being said, personally I only go nvidia because lower heat output, which means you can usually run them quieter which is a big deal to me. Physx is only in supported games, but it is a nice touch. Also, for streaming, nvidia is really nice because of shadowplay, basically lets you stream/record without a performance hit, very cool.

 

I also recommend intel, for same basic reasons. Nothing wrong with AMD, nothing at all. a FX-8320 or some APU does very well, but I just like intel, lol. If you go intel, just make sure if you are getting a Haswell (4000 series chip such as 4670k or 4770k( you get a Z87 motherboard like you have found. That is a fine board, and will do what you need without issue. I personally go Asus, I have had a bad experience with gigabyte (Z-77 UD5H didn't work with a 2600k worth a damn), but have so far not had bad experience with ASRock, and I have a few friends PC's running on them. Like I said, personally I go asus, and every single board I have got from them still works, except one, but I pencil modded it soooo lets call that my fault. I have maybe 20 asus boards, they all work, and none have ever came defective or broken down on me.

 

That being said, as far GPU's go, I run EVGA for the SAME reason as asus. Customer support is outstanding, and have not had issues with them. My friends 7900 or 7950 or whatever it was broke, and they sent him a 8800GT to replace it no issue at all! I had a GTX 275 fry on me, they replaced it fast with no issues at all. EVGA is baller. If not EVGA, I would go Asus or Gigabyte.

 

Hope that helps a bit, a lot of it was just me saying my preferences, but hey, experience doesn't lie! 

 

Like the poster above said, I think a 4670k would suite you better. And a 760 or 770 would be pretty sweet. Honestly, any Z87 board will overclock pretty well, I remember watching a video from asus about their z87 line, they said every board will OC identically well, because they are all made pretty good. Well, OC the same until you start to push upwards of 4.8 Ghz or something like that... Basically, if you stick with Asus z87, find the board the looks good aesthetically, has enough ports/USB's/fan headers/sata ports and buy that one

[Bogstench]

Glad you are trying to get all this info on your own! Its a bit refreshing tbh. 

 

So, my recommendations will be this, I like nvidia cards personally. I got my brother a 7950 because at the time it came with two games he actually wanted, and it is a good card. That being said, personally I only go nvidia because lower heat output, which means you can usually run them quieter which is a big deal to me. Physx is only in supported games, but it is a nice touch. Also, for streaming, nvidia is really nice because of shadowplay, basically lets you stream/record without a performance hit, very cool.

 

I also recommend intel, for same basic reasons. Nothing wrong with AMD, nothing at all. a FX-8320 or some APU does very well, but I just like intel, lol. If you go intel, just make sure if you are getting a Haswell (4000 series chip such as 4670k or 4770k( you get a Z87 motherboard like you have found. That is a fine board, and will do what you need without issue. I personally go Asus, I have had a bad experience with gigabyte (Z-77 UD5H didn't work with a 2600k worth a damn), but have so far not had bad experience with ASRock, and I have a few friends PC's running on them. Like I said, personally I go asus, and every single board I have got from them still works, except one, but I pencil modded it soooo lets call that my fault. I have maybe 20 asus boards, they all work, and none have ever came defective or broken down on me.

 

That being said, as far GPU's go, I run EVGA for the SAME reason as asus. Customer support is outstanding, and have not had issues with them. My friends 7900 or 7950 or whatever it was broke, and they sent him a 8800GT to replace it no issue at all! I had a GTX 275 fry on me, they replaced it fast with no issues at all. EVGA is baller. If not EVGA, I would go Asus or Gigabyte.

 

Hope that helps a bit, a lot of it was just me saying my preferences, but hey, experience doesn't lie! 

 

Like the poster above said, I think a 4670k would suite you better. And a 760 or 770 would be pretty sweet. Honestly, any Z87 board will overclock pretty well, I remember watching a video from asus about their z87 line, they said every board will OC identically well, because they are all made pretty good. Well, OC the same until you start to push upwards of 4.8 Ghz or something like that... Basically, if you stick with Asus z87, find the board the looks good aesthetically, has enough ports/USB's/fan headers/sata ports and buy that one

 

For the CPU, honestly 8350 and 4670K will perform pretty much the same, I mean the difference is not huge at all. As you're not going to be doing editing, rendering and other multi-threaded intensive tasks, the 4670K would probably suit you more, however, you should remember it costs more money and also, Z87 boards tend to cost more than the older AM3+ boards. So if you go for the 8350, you can save money on CPU and board and put more towards the GPU. Like cjeffcoatjr said above, I would even recommend an 8320. It's considerably cheaper than both CPU's and it's really good. I've got one and I just Overclocked to 4.2GHz, essentially making it an 8350 running at turbo. I use a 212 evo as well. 

 

When people say some boards aren't really good at overclocking, they're referring mainly to the power phase design and the VRM cooling etc. Boards with say a 4+1 power design will not be as tolerant as boards with a 6+2 power design and above. A fine example would be the MSI 970A G46. It has a 125W TDP and a 4+1 power design delivery, however there are numerous reports of people with those boards having their CPU's throttle badly and boards die if they even attempt to OC on it. Here's a link that explains more about VRMs.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database

 

Not all boards with 4+1 and 4+2 designs are bad though. It would just be recommended to stick with Asus and Gigabyte, especially on the AMD side as the CPU's are real hot and take a lot of power. You don't really need to be as careful on the Intel side. Just like you, I did a lot of motherboard research and I feel as if I can only provide recommendations for the AMD side, as I really only searched them. Here are some

 

Asus M5A99X Evo R2

Gigabyte GA 990FXA-UD3

Asus M5A99FX Evo R2

 

Just get any one of the 990X/FX Chipset boards so you can have the 2nd PCI-e slot running at either X8 or X16 and not X4 if you were to get a 970 board.

 

As for GPU with the AMD cards really pricey atm, just get the 760. 

 

Thanks for the support guys and all the recommendations. With switching to the 8320 and an Asus MB, I was able to fit in an EVGA 770 within the budget for the most part, so I think I'll get that. So it sounds like I'm good. Thanks again!

[brob]

Overclocking is different with AMD and Intel cpu. In the Intel world one cannot really overclock unless the motherboard uses the Z87 chipset (Haswell cpu and not entirely accurate - can do very minor overclocks with other chipsets) and one has a K (unlocked) processor. There is a wide variance in Intel z87 motherboards and there is a small difference in overclocking ability between the least and most expensive. What really distinguishes them is the quality of certain components and the features.

 

A 750W psu is far more than is needed for a single gpu system. It would be better, in my opinion to get a better sized psu designed for quiet operation. The RM650 is one option, but there are better units like Be Quiet BN601 and SeaSonic SS-650KM.

 

Likely you will only need two front intake fans and a single exhaust fan.

 

If you can squeeze a little more into the budget getting a better gpu would be good.

[Kobz360]

Thanks for the support guys and all the recommendations. With switching to the 8320 and an Asus MB, I was able to fit in an EVGA 770 within the budget for the most part, so I think I'll get that. So it sounds like I'm good. Thanks again!

no worries man! glad I could help

[deathjester]

This is easy. Do you play MMO's like WoW and Guild Wars 2, or Flight Simulator X? GO INTEL. The FPU on Intel is STUPIDLY faster on Intel. You will see double the frames in a game like Guild Wars 2 in big fights. If not interested in those games? AMD is fine and FANTASTIC in all newer 8 thread games. This has nothing to do with AMD being bad, and everything to do with certain games being coded for 3 cores and the Intel rockin on 3 cores and the AMD's floating point holding it back. You don't need fast floating point on a 8 thread game, you DO need it on a 3 thread game. Add to all this? FPS games have always been GPU bound for the most part.

 

Do you live near a Microcenter or will you spend time to price match the 4770k at 249.99 on Staples live chat? If so the 4770k might be the better option. Why? Cus of all this.

 

On AMD you want a good mother board. This means 990fx Asus or Gigabyte. You don't need their most expensive 990fx board but you want A 990fx board for the 8320/50. Both chips are the same one is higher binned which means it is more likely to hit 5ghz. If going for somethin glike 4.4. 4.5ghz ? Get the 8320 to save some bucks.

 

On Intel? The cheapest motherboard with the options you want will do. You can get combos at Microcenter on a z87 and a 4770k if going crossfire instead of SLI, or if going one video card for as low as a little over 300 bucks.

 

You want something like a MINIMUM of a evo 212 cooler (30 bucks) for both of them. Clocking higher then you can on a evo? Mostly gonna help you on benchmarks but if you got the money? Why not. Dual rad water is the next BIG step up. Noctua DH-14 will give you cooler temps then the evo and beat most single rad waters and  give you SILENCE if you want a middle ground.

 

You NEED a better power supply with an AMD, ESPECIALLY if combining it with a big GPU or 2 of them, and ESPECIALLY if you are OC'ing it. An Intel can rock a 280x or a 770 with a OC on a 50 dollar cx600m (cx is corsair's budget option) with 46 on the 12V. Try that on a AMD and you are going to have problems. The dies on the AMD chips are MASSIVE. They have heavy voltage running through them like older intel series. They use a metric @#$% ton of power when overclocked. You will see a savings over time with the Intel in your power bill but it isn't MASSIVE as some claim. The big benefit of intel is you can do it on a cheapo power supply and you should factor everything into price.

 

Ram. 1.5v 1600 9-9-9-24 and OC it to 1866 9-10-9-28 T1. Almost all gskill, corsair, kingston does this and will usually do it at 1.5v. 1866 cl9 is the sweet spot for memory if you are afraid to touch timings (which is easier then OC a CPU imo). Past that the price to performance ratio becomes silly and high latency 2400 can be slower then 1866 cl9 in games. 

 

Video card. A r9 270 will get you medium-high in most games and mostly high-ultra outside things like Crysis 3/BF4, but it can easily do high. It is the best deal going atm on a budget card. The MSI gaming one is great. Runs cool and quiet.

 

Past that coin miners have screwed up everything. The best deal atm is the Gigabyte windforce GTX 770. You can find them open box for as little as 279.99 with a rebate sometimes (microcenter had one and I just got one as I am sick of waiting for the 280x to be in stock). Newegg they are like 340?  The only game that wont max at 1080 p with good fps and high/ultra is Crysis 3. It will OC to like a reference GTX 780, which is very freaking fast.In addition the Nvidia offers shadowplay which you would really like as a streamer.

 

A month ago I would say R9 280x all the way. It was 299.99, mantle was coming. Now? Coin miners drove up the price to well past 400 bucks and the 770 is the better buy. You don't see a huge jump in performance past the MSI R9 270 (linus did a review on it) as far as performance for dollar until you hit a 770.

 

The 770 doesn't need mantle for 1080p. It is already fast as hell. I am not saying you need that card. If you are happy with high's in BF4? The r9 270 can do that. Streaming as well? Prob not.

 

Anyone telling you that the AMD will ever be faster then an Intel is crazy. Even AMD will only say "might be" "we think". The I5 will be fine if not streaming. All depends what games you play to decide between them, and where you live in the world (price). I would rather have a dud Haswell that only clocked to 4.2ghz over a 8350 at 5ghz all day every day. I like MMO's though and flight sims. If you don't?  Go with the AMD 8320 and go all out on a video card.

 

You can't lose either way if you are only playing the newer 8 thread games. Both Intel and AMD will be so good at them that arguing over it is pointless. See benchmarks of 4770k at 2.5ghz in BF4. The AMD is like a whole 1 fps behind when underclocked as well. Stock speeds are fine for the new games to be honest. OC'ing benefits older games. New games are all GPU bound and will be on mantle as well.

[LIGISTX]

Basically, deathjester put it pretty good. Read ^ and that is basically my opinion as well.