Does dis pc need a watercooling system?

[pingmasterofpong]

Ok so i made a previous forum about this pc but i need to know if it would need a watercool or just fans on the outside. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3e2G3

[Luca$]

you can overclock with a decent air cooler water coolers are for a more extreme overclock you get past 4ghz with a air cooler

[_I_]

if you go amd, pick a 970 or 990 board recomended from here
http://www.overclock.net/t/946407/amd-motherboards-vrm-info-database

212evo will allow for around a 10-15% overclock on a fx 125w cpu
(212+/evo can match h50-60 liquid coolers)
silver arrow or d14 will allow for a higher oc
(they can match h80-105 liquid coolers)

[ZigZach]

Your build is fine, don't second guess yourself because people tell you AMD sucks. I'm using a fx-6200, and using both CPU-Z and Core Temp each individual core reads between 3612.5Mhz and 3861.12Mhz. Don't let people tell you that an i3 with hyperthreading is better than a fx-6300 for close to the same cost. Stick with your gut, lots of blind support for Intel out there. I support the underdog(AMD). I am continually surprised by consumers' decision to support the larger company in a market comprised of 2 manufacturers. If AMD had more support from consumers then it would force Intel to lower it's prices, making the market much more fair priced. Blindly choosing Intel over AMD is akin to buying a Honda over a Hyundai because "everyone says they're better".

With all this said, I want to make it clear that Intel is superior in certain situations. In heavy computing applications day in and day out I would absolutely choose Intel, but strictly for gaming you will be just fine using AMD, and you will not have any issues running DayZ. I've tested the FX-6200 simply by opening my task manager and watching the CPU usage as i open and navigate through different applications. Running Arma 3, Assassin's Creed 4, Planetside 2, DayZ, multiple internet tabs(both using Chrome and Firefox) with youtube running, and wandering around in Skyrim my usage has barely tipped over the 60% threshold. Along with this my average running temperature ranges from 15C-50C(at idle-full use during gaming).

[pingmasterofpong]

:D Thx man cant wait to get this and try out dayz!

[_I_]

amd will no longer make desktop cpus, they even said that years ago

their core performance beyond the pii series has been very small

this is from 3 years ago
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3,14114.html#AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3%2C14114.html?&_suid=139579649872106690408193266572

they were competing against intel cpus, intel igp, nvida gpu, nvidia mobile cpu/gpu, and various other mobile cpu mfgs
its impossible for a company to win so many battles, esp when so far behind intel at this point

[pingmasterofpong]

So what do you mean when you say that?

[ZigZach]

引用自 _I_：

amd will no longer make desktop cpus, they even said that years ago

their core performance beyond the pii series has been very small

this is from 3 years ago
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3,14114.html#AMD-APU-Z-Series-ARM-Tegra-3%2C14114.html?&_suid=139579649872106690408193266572

they were competing against intel cpus, intel igp, nvida gpu, nvidia mobile cpu/gpu, and various other mobile cpu mfgs
its impossible for a company to win so many battles, esp when so far behind intel at this point

The expression goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket". By spreading their technology over many different platforms and hardware AMD will increase their chances of finding a niche where they can settle.

In 2006 AMD purchased ATI and expanded their name to cover both CPU and GPU hardware. This was an ingenious move in the long run to consilidate both processing units under one roof, most likely leading them to the blossoming APU market which AMD has more recently declared to start focusing on.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2085300/amd-to-move-away-from-cpuonly-chips-for-gaming-rigs.html

http://www.chiploco.com/amd-stops-making-cpus-focus-on-apus-roadmap-30939/

Also you state that it's impossible for a company to win battles on so many fronts, yet Intel has done almost exactly that with the consumer's support. My point was simply that if AMD had recieved the same sort of consumer support that Intel has we would have more evenly distributed CPU market prices in the current state. I also don't pretend to suppose that AMD has superior CPUs to Intel, but only that in a strictly gaming platform AMD is well enough sufficient, and little to no performance loss will be noticeable if system requirements are met for a particular game.

I go back to my opinion that many many people purchase Intel only because they are told by a vast majority that it is far superior, and in most cases "absolutely necessary" if they don't want to "throw money away", ignoring the fact that Intel CPUs are easily twice as much as AMD CPUs that feature similar, if not exceeding specs.

[_I_]

if you want to stick to your 5yr old performance go ahead
but for newer builds, faster cpus are available for around the same price

[ZigZach]

Well if my "5 year performance" is able to play CPU heavy games like Arma 3 without even getting close to using a large portion of my CPU power then I will do just as you suggest.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501
Is that what you mean by a faster CPU for around the same price?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
This product looks to have very similar specs, except 8 actual cores and a much lower price.

If power usage is your argument for superiority I will accept that.

[_I_]

amd 8000s do have 8 cores, but the l2 is cut into 4 banks (2 cores + 1 l2 bank = 1 module)

i7 adds ht, most games do not make use of it
compare the i5, and you can get a cheaper board for it

going to the i5 4670k
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
53% better single thread
multithread/ram are skewed from the ram ammount/speed
since its 4g of 1866 ram used on the amd build vs 2g 1600 on the intel build
even the intel gpu score is higher using the same 6670

a pc 5yrs old can still play games
but push it another 5 years and itll be a no-go

[Bad 💀 Motha]

If that newer gen CPU has similar power specs, but has more L2/L3 cache, then I would highly consider the one with higher cache. Especially if u are trying to compare a CPU or Chipset that used DDR2 as opposed to ones that use DDR3. You will be much better off with overall performance by using a CPU that has higher L-cache amounts, as well as being able to utilize faster RAM.

[ZigZach]

引用自 _I_：

amd 8000s do have 8 cores, but the l2 is cut into 4 banks (2 cores + 1 l2 bank = 1 module)

i7 adds ht, most games do not make use of it
compare the i5, and you can get a cheaper board for it

going to the i5 4670k
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/446/AMD_FX-Series_FX-8350_vs_Intel_Core_i5_i5-4670K.html
53% better single thread
multithread/ram are skewed from the ram ammount/speed
since its 4g of 1866 ram used on the amd build vs 2g 1600 on the intel build
even the intel gpu score is higher using the same 6670

a pc 5yrs old can still play games
but push it another 5 years and itll be a no-go

So you are suggesting that he spend more money on a CPU that is half the size, slower speeds, has a smaller L3 cache size, and no L2 cache in exchange for better single thread performance? I would argue that having 8 cores that don't perform perfectly is more valuable than 4 cores that do in the long scheme of things. Yes he said he will be using the pc for gaming mostly, but why limit yourself if you can spend less money and get more? He will still see no difference in his gaming using the AMD, and he's also prepared himself for the future.

As someone who is currently using an FX-6200 and I use my PC primarily for gaming, and work, I do not even come close to using up my CPU's potential. So it comes down to this; Do you want to buy a more expensive CPU that runs very efficiently at a slower speed, but will have to be upgraded sooner, or one that costs less, runs faster and less efficiently, but you won't have to upgrade in the next 2 years? I chose the latter, and I'm happy I did, my "5 year old pc" can run just about every game to current date on max settings with no bottlenecking at the CPU.

Again for comparison...

Intel i5 4670 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116898

AMD FX-8350 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284

[_I_]

um
intle 2.5ghz = amd 4ghz

and the i5 4670 is $20 more
but you can get good a z87 board for for $20 less than a qulity 970/990 board

for games that use fewer cores an i3 will beat the 8350 at 4.5ghz

ex. in bf4 the i3 3220 is not far behind 8350, and ahead of the 4170
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-4-graphics-card-performance,3634-10.html

and in metro ll i3 stays clearly ahead of the 8350 both with the r9 280x
http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/5/