Build. Any final suggestions?

[firesoul453]

Ok I've been planing on making this PC for a while and I should buy the parts this weekend.


Before when I asked people recommended this motherboard
GA-970A-UD3P
People said it would be a great board that works really well if I want to overclock the 8350 in the future.

However I am now looking at an 8320 and can buy a deal with this motherboard

ASUS M5A97 R2.0 AM3+ AMD 970



So my final parts list

Cooler Master Elite 431 Plus - $46
EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 650 G 80 PLUS GOLD Certified 650W Active PFC - $85
Corsair Vengeance Blue 8 GB (2X4 GB) PC3-12800 1600mHz DDR3 240-Pin SDRAM - $75
AMD FX 8320 and ASUS M5A97 - $180
Crucial M500 240GB SATA 2.5-Inch - $120
GIGABYTE GV-R929WF3-4GD Radeon R9 290 - $399 plus $20 rebate...
Windows 8 - bought through school
So total cost around $905 plus tax.

This a solid build? Any other suggestions? I'll buy a larger hard drive soon enough. Anywhere I can cut corners? I really didn't want to spend this much.

Thanks.

 

[Blaylock]

You still need an aftermarket cooler. On a budget the CoolerMaster 212 EVO is the best bang/buck.

I would also switch PSU to this one.
http://www.microcenter.com/product/425476/CS650M_80_Plus_SEMIMOD_ATX_PSU

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Keep the PSU in the OP, it's a superior unit to that Corsair that was linked.

Grab a 212 EVO, but change the RAM to something with shorter heat spreaders to make sure the heatsink doesn't hit the stick.

Don't get the M5A97, it has an inferior power section to the Gigabyte you were originally looking at.

 

[Mandrake4565]

Don't get the M5A97, it has an inferior power section to the Gigabyte you were originally looking at.

This^^^^^

 

[Blaylock]

Keep the PSU in the OP, it's a superior unit to that Corsair that was linked.

Grab a 212 EVO, but change the RAM to something with shorter heat spreaders to make sure the heatsink doesn't hit the stick.

Don't get the M5A97, it has an inferior power section to the Gigabyte you were originally looking at.

Hmmm, I see the SuperNova 1000W and 1500W listed in the sticky but not the 650W. I'm not questioning which is better, just wondering why it's not listed.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Hmmm, I see the SuperNova 1000W and 1500W listed in the sticky but not the 650W. I'm not questioning which is better, just wondering why it's not listed.

Check JonnyGuru also.
The SuperNova G2 650/750/850 are all made by Super Flower, so they're high quality.

Much higher than a Corsair Builder PSU

Just remember, that list we have stickied isn't a comprehensive list. Its just a sample.

 

[Mandrake4565]

If it's not in the stickies Blaylock always check JohnnyGuru as Atminside stated, it's my go to resource.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

If it's not in the stickies Blaylock always check JohnnyGuru as Atminside stated, it's my go to resource.

If that is a fruitless search, also check the UL code to see who the OEM is.

 

[Mandrake4565]

I like this thread also

 

[firesoul453]

Thank you guys

Would
ASRock MB-970EX4
or
GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD3

be better or just as good as the
GA-970A-UD3P
?

The first one would cost less than the GA-970A-UD3P and the second one would cost just a bit more than the GA-970A-UD3P.

Thanks!

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Avoid the ASRock, the power section is weak.

Either Gigabyte will be fine.

 

[firesoul453]

Avoid the ASRock, the power section is weak.

Either Gigabyte will be fine.

I feel like your biased lol, just joking.

Would the other one be worth the $15-$30 more? Motherboards are probably something I know the least about computerwise.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

I feel like your biased lol, just joking.

Would the other one be worth the $15-$30 more? Motherboards are probably something I know the least about computerwise.

The only advantage to the 990FXA is that it supports SLI/Crossfire.

If you're only running a single GPU, the 970A will do everything the 990FXA does.

 

[firesoul453]

The only advantage to the 990FXA is that it supports SLI/Crossfire.

If you're only running a single GPU, the 970A will do everything the 990FXA does.

Thank you for the suggestion.


One more quick question. The R9 290 is a pretty high end card. Would the 8320 be a bottleneck? Even if I don't overclock it right away?

 

[ATMINSIDE]

Thank you for the suggestion.


One more quick question. The R9 290 is a pretty high end card. Would the 8320 be a bottleneck? Even if I don't overclock it right away?

I'll be surprised if the 8320 is a bottleneck.

 

[firesoul453]

I'll be surprised if the 8320 is a bottleneck.

OK thanks. Hopefully everything will go well.

 

[Theocnoob]

If I may interject at such a late hour playing the part of Devil's advocate- For a mere $100 or so extra, (less if you get a mobo/CPU combo from Newegg, Microcenter, Fry's, etc), you could get into an i5 4670K system. Intel CPUs are greatly superior for gaming as the per-core performance is much stronger. A 4 core i7 4770K can beat an 8350 at most things. So if we take from that fact that 1 AMD core is 50% as powerful as 1 intel core, and we consider that most games run on 2 to 4 cores, the logical decision is to go Intel for a gaming build IMO. I recommend the ASUS Z87-A (as do many others) if you want to go Intel. Seriously think about it. I don't know if you have an extra $100 or maybe you want to tweak the build to get your $100 that way but I'm just saying, if I was building a gaming rig with your kind of budget, it'd be Intel. Also, if you have a hot room in the summer, an 8350, overclocked and running all out will heat your room better than a ceramic space heater. A 4670K won't.

 

[Bobnova]

AMD-anything CPU wise is a bottleneck with a top/high end GPU.
How much of a bottleneck depends on the game and the resolution.

Is it enough of a bottleneck to actually worry about? That depends on the game and the resolution you're going to be playing at.

I personally see no reason to use AMD chips on a gaming build, except if you're going for iGPU APU type stuff. Or, for that matter, any build where CPU power is important, unless it's strictly integer calculations and very well multithreaded (the one situation where AMD eats Intel alive). Other than that, Intel Intel Intel Intel.

 

[firesoul453]

If I may interject at such a late hour playing the part of Devil's advocate- For a mere $100 or so extra, (less if you get a mobo/CPU combo from Newegg, Microcenter, Fry's, etc), you could get into an i5 4670K system. Intel CPUs are greatly superior for gaming as the per-core performance is much stronger. A 4 core i7 4770K can beat an 8350 at most things. So if we take from that fact that 1 AMD core is 50% as powerful as 1 intel core, and we consider that most games run on 2 to 4 cores, the logical decision is to go Intel for a gaming build IMO. I recommend the ASUS Z87-A (as do many others) if you want to go Intel. Seriously think about it. I don't know if you have an extra $100 or maybe you want to tweak the build to get your $100 that way but I'm just saying, if I was building a gaming rig with your kind of budget, it'd be Intel. Also, if you have a hot room in the summer, an 8350, overclocked and running all out will heat your room better than a ceramic space heater. A 4670K won't.

I certnaly welcome any an all suggestions! Thank you for your input.
As to why I choose amd.

I know last year I was all ready to buy intel after looking at it, but this year it seems like your average game takes good advantage of the 8 cores, since just about every benchmark I looked at the 8320 and 8350 were just above the i5. Now I would totally buy an i7 but it would make my cpu + motherboard together cost almost twice as much and just doesn't look like its worth that extra cost.

Looking at the benchmark you have there it doesn't show i5's anyway.

AMD-anything CPU wise is a bottleneck with a top/high end GPU.
How much of a bottleneck depends on the game and the resolution.

Is it enough of a bottleneck to actually worry about? That depends on the game and the resolution you're going to be playing at.

I personally see no reason to use AMD chips on a gaming build, except if you're going for iGPU APU type stuff. Or, for that matter, any build where CPU power is important, unless it's strictly integer calculations and very well multithreaded (the one situation where AMD eats Intel alive). Other than that, Intel Intel Intel Intel.

Thank for your input by the way.

I wouldn't mind a link to something that shows it is or isn't a bottleneck. I know in CPU intensive games like rts games it might not be the best overall but it seemed like most people thought it would be fine and you could still turn your graphics up all the way.

With the consoles the way they are I can't see too many games here in the future not taking advantage of 8 cores and I it just didn't seem like it was worth the price.



I have ordered everything but the motherboard and cpu so that still up in the air.

 

[Bobnova]

CPU reviews are the way to go, here's the 4770k review from the OCF frontpage: http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-4770k-haswell-cpu-review
Here's the only gaming slide, this is with the 3770k and 4770k at 3.9GHz, because Asus boards are punks and pretty literally cannot run purely stock.



Now if those aren't the games you play, I would look around the other top tier review sites and check out their results (actually I'd do that anyway), techpowerup, hardware secrets, anandtech (and others) should all have AMD:Intel comparisons. I haven't actually checked, but they have in the past anyway.

The AMD setup will work fine and I expect you'd be perfectly happy with it, I just have a hard time settling for anything but the best for whatever I'm doing. Even if it means spending more money to get extra frames that'll get cut to meet vsync anyway. It's a curse.
I would look into the games you plan to play though, sometimes there are huge differences between AMD and Intel chips, sometimes there aren't.