Help on custom PC? Is this a good choice? (Also need help with power supply)

[Yugoslavia]

Hello! I'm interested in building a custom PC (for gaming, of course). I'll post all the specs and links below and you can tell me what you think, if it is good or not. And I also need help choosing a power supply. Thanks in advance!

NEW UPDATED BUILD:

Computer Build

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670 Haswell 3.4GHz LGA 1150 84W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics BX80646I54670

Motherboard: MSI Z87-GD65 Gaming LGA 1150 Intel Z87 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Extreme OC High Performance Triple CFX/ SLI Intel Motherboard

RAM: CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9B

GPU: ASUS GTX760-DC2OC-2GD5 GeForce GTX 760 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

Hard Drive: Western Digital WD Black WD1002FAEX 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive

PSU: OCZ Fatal1ty 550W Modular Gaming Power Supply compatible with Intel Sandybridge Core i3 i5 i7 and AMD Phenom

CD-Drive: LITE-ON Black 18X DVD-ROM 48X CD-ROM SATA DVD-ROM Drive Model iHDS118-04 - OEM

Case: COOLER MASTER Elite 430 RC-430-KWN1 Black Steel / Plastic Computer Case (16.70 in tall, 19.30 in long, 7.50 in wide)

[Yugoslavia]

I wasn't trying to insult you or anything, because your machine is really good haha. I was just going by what I read online and watched a couple of videos, but I will compare the two again and see which one is truly better. (I do have to say though that it is nice that the FX is cheaper than the i5 by about $30, but then again, it is only $30, and that isn't much for a computer builder, or at least, to me anyway).

[Marble]

引用自 Rove：

Almost all good current games use up to at least 64 cores. If they do not now then they will in the future.

BF3 uses up to 6 cores, most other games use 1 or 2.
In the future it would make sense to use an FX CPU, but likely you will have upgraded to something else by the time it becomes mainstream.
To be honest, you're not going to notice much difference between the two at all, if any. Both are overkill for current games, as they rely more on the GPU than the CPU.

[Yugoslavia]

引用自 Canti：

引用自 Rove：

Almost all good current games use up to at least 64 cores. If they do not now then they will in the future.

BF3 uses up to 6 cores, most other games use 1 or 2.
In the future it would make sense to use an FX CPU, but likely you will have upgraded to something else by the time it becomes mainstream.
To be honest, you're not going to notice much difference between the two at all, if any. Both are overkill for current games, as they rely more on the GPU than the CPU.

Alright, thanks. I currently have a i5 in this laptop, and a Nvidia GeForce 525m, and I decided that I just wanted to have a desktop, because I'm eventually going to get rid of this one. I thought that the i5 was doing pretty well, it's just that it was my 525m that was holding me back, and that instead of opening the laptop, installing stuff, ect. I thought I'd just make a desktop, (I've always prefered desktops anyway).

[Marble]

You wouldn't be able to upgrade the GPU in your laptop anyway, so you may have avoided creating an expensive paperweight by making that decision.

[Yugoslavia]

Haha, that's exactly what I was thinking.

[Rove]

Here are benchmarks:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

As you can see the FX 8 cores fall between the i5's and i7's and are closer to i7's.

They also have a huge cache and future programing advancements into multicore programming may mean that they are even better than these benchmarks show because i7 singlecore performance does not equal 2x FX singlecore performance. SO in the future the FX series might get a lot better from software. The large CPU cache also makes them good for graphics and more programmable.

[Marble]

引用自 Rove：

Here are benchmarks:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

As you can see the FX 8 cores fall between the i5's and i7's and are closer to i7's.

They also have a huge cache and future programing advancements into multicore programming may mean that they are even better than these benchmarks show because i7 singlecore performance does not equal 2x FX singlecore performance. SO in the future the FX series might get a lot better from software. The large CPU cache also makes them good for graphics and more programmable.

While this is true, by the time software exists that takes advantage of the improved architecture, this particular FX CPU model will long be obsolete.

[Rove]

Maybe. I'll probably be on the same machine 3 years from now. I know that lots of other people are still using OLD computers that are like 5-10 years old but were really nice when first built. Some even using old beasts that kinda sucked even when new :p

Regardless, by the present day benchmarks it is better value for the $ for a pure CPU for gaming because gamers with dedicated GPU will not use Intel IGP.

[Marble]

引用自 Rove：

Regardless, by the present day benchmarks it is better value for the $ for a pure CPU for gaming because gamers with dedicated GPU will not use Intel IGP.

Again, on a regular gaming PC you won't notice any real world difference between the two. Yes the AMD one will likely outlive the Intel one in terms of performance, assuming developers start pushing highly multithreaded applications, but we're talking hypothetically here and over such a very long period of time that it won't matter.

[TIGGER]

Get the Intel, better single threaded peformance, and a few extra cores for when a game or program needs/can use them.

Only my opinion.

[Yugoslavia]

Alright, thanks guys. I'll just have to really look over all of the facts and and deeply compare the two. But thanks for all of the facts and whatnot, is there anything else you guys would want suggest/prefer over my current setup?

[_I_]

instead of the 500g raptor, get a 2tb black drive $160
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136792

or a 1tb blue and a small ssd for the os
Western Digital WD Blue WD10EZEX 1TB 7200 RPM $70
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339
SAMSUNG 840 Series MZ-7TD120BW 2.5" 120GB $100
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820147188

[Rove]

Compare the FX 8350 to the i5-4670K in that same anandtech benchmark and it mostly wins. Like I said, between the i5 and i7 for most current uses. Also probably better in the future.

[Rale]

引用自 vadim：

引用自 Rove：

Here are benchmarks:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

As you can see the FX 8 cores fall between the i5's and i7's and are closer to i7's.

They also have a huge cache and future programing advancements into multicore programming may mean that they are even better than these benchmarks show because i7 singlecore performance does not equal 2x FX singlecore performance. SO in the future the FX series might get a lot better from software. The large CPU cache also makes them good for graphics and more programmable.

Lets compare FX-8350 and i7: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=836
I cannot call it "close". I'd say "far behind". As you can see, Intel core with hyperthreading much faster than AMD module.
And one reason is cache. Yes, you're right - AMD has more cache. But it Intel's cache much better. AMD had 64 kB L1 data cache per module. Intel has 32 kb per core. It seems that AMD is better. But that isn't true: AMD cache has 4 ways of associativity and Intel's has 8.
So, in terms of efficiency of L1 data cache, these CPUs are on par.
But efficiency of L1 instruction cache looks different: AMD has 32 kB per module, but every thread can use only half of cache. And it is only 2-ways associative. The same on Intel's CPU can use 32 kB of 8-ways associative cache.
As is known, the efficiency of the cache is proportional to the product of the size of the cache to its associativity. This product equal to 256 for Intel and only to 32 for AMD.
And so on... L2 cache latency equal 10-11 circles for Intel and 25-29 for AMD.
Piledriver's LLC is so slow that is nearly useless (and AMD has no intention to improve it - its APU has no L3 cache anyway and no new FX processors in its current roadmap).

Omg stop being a fanboi, you can word it how ever you like. The 8350 is neck and neck with the i5 in most games and passing it in other games.. As for rendering, the 8350 walks away with it, and its $20 bucks cheaper. Get ya 212 evo with that extra 20 bucks and oc it to 4.4/4.8Ghz, now your in the stock clock 3770k ballpark, not for rendering, but gaming wise.

[Rale]

引用自 vadim：

引用自 Rale：

Omg stop being a fanboi, you can word it how ever you like. The 8350 is neck and neck with the i5 in most games and passing it in other games..

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and allegations about the high performance AMD in games...

lol w/e crawl back into you hole when your finished here.