Build List

[EarthDog]

Yes. It said that before. I edited and added at the bottom. Read the link before you buy that board and plan on dropping a 9 series fx cpu in it.

@ Bob... Microcode bub. Microcode. though you are more or less right that it is a more highly binned cpu, it's microcode is different labeling it a different cpu. I wouldn't tell someone it would work when it's not on the cpu compatibility list.

 

[bob4933]

Yes. It said that before. I edited and added at the bottom. Read the link before you buy that board and plan on dropping a 9 series fx cpu in it.

@ Bob... Microcode bub. Microcode. though you are more or less right that it is a more highly binned cpu, it's microcode is different labeling it a different cpu. I wouldn't tell someone it would work when it's not on the cpu compatibility list.

Cool, learn something new every day. One thing thats still not overly clear, is that direct question. Assuming all three chips had the same level of voltage requirements at a given frequency, will they run different? Im saying, is an 8320 running at 4.5ghz running any differently than a 9370 @4.5ghz?


Finally, I'm certainly NOT telling him to run an 9000 series on a fatal1ty killer! Im simply saying those boards are strong enough to easily handle anything an 83x0 can throw at it. If anything, I've been trying to make sure he gets the sabertooth and the 83x0.

If you missed my previous post deathscreton, don't waste your money on a raptor drive.

 

[Theocnoob]

I don't do Intel. I prefer AMD for many other reasons. And CPU's aren't based on just gaming. I might be doing video editing, or photo rendering (though I'm more of a video person myself), or I may stream, or I enjoy having the headway for future compatibility with other programs or games. I also enjoy being able to multitask without having to worry about anything. It's not overkill, at least I don't see it that way. Besides, plenty of people go with AMD eight cores. They're affordable, and they perform nicely. Also, I fail to see how the I5 has 4 more powerful cores than an AMD's 8 core design. I can only assume you're not talking in terms of clocks since both can either be higher or lower than one another on either side. So there's that. As for the gaming side of it, People said the same thing about quad cores in the past, why should I not prepare for the future by getting an eight core? As for the watercooler, I plan on overclocking, so I needed a firm and reliable cooling solution. Nothing wrong with that right?

EDIT: Oh, almost forgot about the PSU, I'll be sure to check out other solutions. If anyone has any ideas or recommendations, feel free to leave them here and I'll give them a looksee.

Each individual Intel core is much more capable than each individual AMD core. You can get better performance out of an overclocked DevCan Pentium dual core than you can out of an OC'd AM1 or AM2+ 4 core athlon in gaming applications.

If you're feeding all the cores information in a way the CPU likes, the 8 core will defeat the Intel 4 core, but most of the time, Intel's 4 more powerful cores defeat AMD's 8. If you want future compatibility I'd be buying an Intel 6 core over an AMD 8 core. JM2C.

 

[bob4933]

Each individual Intel core is much more capable than each individual AMD core. You can get better performance out of an overclocked DevCan Pentium dual core than you can out of an OC'd AM1 or AM2+ 4 core athlon in gaming applications.

If you're feeding all the cores information in a way the CPU likes, the 8 core will defeat the Intel 4 core, but most of the time, Intel's 4 more powerful cores defeat AMD's 8. If you want future compatibility I'd be buying an Intel 6 core over an AMD 8 core. JM2C.

Knowing what I know now, I am pleased with the performance of my 8320. THAT SAID, if I went back in time, my butt would DEFINITELY be buying an i5 instead of an 8320!

The ONLY thing that may favor 8 core cpu's in the future is AMD's jaguar platform for gaming. If they do manage to make the games run on 8 cores, that would be the time the 8 core chips would see performance gains over its intels brethren.

 

[Mandrake4565]

Hey peeps, sorry I was away for a bit. I told Deathscreton, not to buy the Asrock Fatal1ty Killer for a couple of reasons. First, originally the Cpu chosen when I said this was the Fx 9590, which wasn't on the Cpu support list. Second, I wouldn't think the Asrock Fatil1ty killer would run it well at stock clocks nor be able to overclock it past that, which were the intentions when originally stated. That said if bob4933's Fx 8320 in post #10 passed 2 hours prime at the 5.0 speed shown I stand corrected. I had loosely followed his review thread of his Fatil1ty killer and though that he was only able to get 4.6 stable on that board.

 

[Deathscreton]

Indeed. I was certainly confuses with the input of information. However, i will be comparing the two options against one another. The Sabertooth seems to be in everyones favor, however, the Asrock is much cheaper, and still seems to be favored by many gamers.

 

[bob4933]

Hey peeps, sorry I was away for a bit. I told Deathscreton, not to buy the Asrock Fatal1ty Killer for a couple of reasons. First, originally the Cpu chosen when I said this was the Fx 9590, which wasn't on the Cpu support list. Second, I wouldn't think the Asrock Fatil1ty killer would run it well at stock clocks nor be able to overclock it past that, which were the intentions when originally stated. That said if bob4933's Fx 8320 in post #10 passed 2 hours prime at the 5.0 speed shown I stand corrected. I had loosely followed his review thread of his Fatil1ty killer and though that he was only able to get 4.6 stable on that board.

Nope! I can run it at 5.0, but it gets HOT now. That particular test was in the middle of winter, where the temp next to my computer was probably in the 20-30F mark. The clock is stable, the temps were not.

Again, with the price reduction of the sabertooth, thats DEFINITELY the board to get!

Indeed. I was certainly confuses with the input of information. However, i will be comparing the two options against one another. The Sabertooth seems to be in everyones favor, however, the Asrock is much cheaper, and still seems to be favored by many gamers.

This is coming from a guy with a relatively monster clocking 8320 and the board in question. With these chips, if you want deep overclocks, you will need to get a motherboard that will stand up over time. I have NO IDEA how long my motherboard would last at 5.0, and I would trust the sabertooth over the killer any day of the week. For a 30$ price difference, I must insist you get the sabertooth. Its the "better board", although the killer "will work". If you need to save some cash, you can drop down to an 8320, and that will make up the difference between the two boards. I would much rather run 8320 + sabertooth over an 8350 + killer

 

[tungureanu]

Indeed. I was certainly confuses with the input of information. However, i will be comparing the two options against one another. The Sabertooth seems to be in everyones favor, however, the Asrock is much cheaper, and still seems to be favored by many gamers.

my 2c: get the saber, peeps recomended the ud3 and at some point the rev3 came and it went to sheeet. Now i wish i'd have gotten the saber....

 

[Deathscreton]

That's what it looks like I'm going to be doing really soon. I'll just be glad when I have everything finally put together and can set aside this whole building thing for a year or so.