Finally getting back into the OC game

[BigZ1981]

Hello All,
I've been in here before under a different username with my girlfriend/fiancee at the time (no longer together), and had learned about OCing & building a rig back in '01 with the Athlon XP. That rig lasted me a long time...unfortunately, I had to count it as a loss a few years ago along with a lot of stuff...now that I'm doing well, I'd like to build another rig, but the OC world has changed quite a bit with multi-core CPUs. Now, I need to get caught up & learn what's OC'ing the best right now. Should I get quad- or octa-core & which core. I'm looking at the FX series.

 

[EarthDog]

What are you looking to do with this system outside of overclocking it? Only AMD?

 

[BigZ1981]

What are you looking to do with this system outside of overclocking it? Only AMD?

Honestly, it all depends upon procing/overclickability. I had a great OC experience with AMD and am looking to stick with it. However, if I can get better bang for my buck with Intel, I'm not opposed to it. However, I'm also looking to OC dual vid cards in XF...SLI if I do Intel/nVidia combo. Looking to do same gaming with it, but not heavy...the most heavy use would probably be using photoshop & premier...thinking about learning fireworks & illustrator too...webpage editing, standard browsing...emulating old consoles (PSX/2/GC)...for me it's the fun of seeing how far I can push a CPU. My Athlon XP2100 pushed out 333x11 on that old rig...I'm not sure what to expect with the new multi-core CPUs.

 

[EarthDog]

The better bang for your buck is AMD, no doubt. But the notably faster overall CPUs are Intel. If you are going to SLI/CFx, you will want an Intel to push the cards and remove/raise the glass ceiling.

 

[BigZ1981]

I just looked at Intel pricing on Newegg & I think I'll stick with AMD due to my budget, so let's talk AMD options...will I see much of an increase with an octa-core, or should I go quad-core? Which core should I get...the majority of options I see on Newegg are Vaishali.

 

[TheCheat]

Personally, I would wait for AMD to release Zen. You'll have buyers remorse in a year if you buy now. The FX series for overclockability is very power hungry and as a result also generates a ton of heat. Early benchmarks point to AMD Zen being much more competitive than previous generations (bulldozer -> present) to intels offerings.

 

[EarthDog]

I just looked at Intel pricing on Newegg & I think I'll stick with AMD due to my budget, so let's talk AMD options...will I see much of an increase with an octa-core, or should I go quad-core? Which core should I get...the majority of options I see on Newegg are Vaishali.

Again, this depends on what you do and if it can use more cores. I would say get the octo amd and overclock teh snot out of it.. but really since its almost Zen time, I would wait as TheCheat said...

LOL, what is Vaishali? You mean Vishera?

 

[BigZ1981]

Again, this depends on what you do and if it can use more cores. I would say get the octo amd and overclock teh snot out of it.. but really since its almost Zen time, I would wait as TheCheat said...

LOL, what is Vaishali? You mean Vishera?

Yes! I meant to type Vishera! got a coworker with that name that I usually have to coordinate with so muscle memory must have typed Vaishali...LOL

Hmmm...I can be patient. I'll wait for the Zen & check reviews before purchasing.

 

[trents]

BigZ1981, if you go with AMD and will be focusing on a big overclock of an 8 core FX then you need to factor in the price of an expensive motherboard. Anything less than an Asus Sabertooth class board will not stand up to the power draw of that task. The AMD FX 8 cores draw huge amounts of power when overclocked and the VRM (voltage regulation module) of most motherboards will not stand up to task. This issue mitigates to a large extent the more expensive CPU if you were to go with Intel since you can get by with a considerably less expensive board and be just fine when overclocking Intels. You also need to factor in the cost of high end CPU cooling, whether you go with AMD or Intel.

You might want to look at i5 6600k with a moderately priced socket 1151 motherboard as opposed to an 8 core FX and a very expensive motherboard. I think you will see the price is not much different and the i5 will perform on a par with the 8 core FX.

 

[Tír na nÓg]

Trents speaks wise words.

Big cooling, big MoBo, big PSU...

Trents, don't want to upset you, but the 6600k is certainly quite a bit faste tha any 8cores AMD CPU... Until Zen!

 

[trents]

Trents speaks wise words.

Big cooling, big MoBo, big PSU...

Trents, don't want to upset you, but the 6600k is certainly quite a bit faste tha any 8cores AMD CPU... Until Zen!

In a lot of applications, yes but applications that are heavily multi-threaded (like encoding apps) may give the nod to a (overclocked) FX-8350. Haven't looked at the numbers in a while, not since Skylake came out anyway. I could be wrong.

 

[wingman99]

AMD FX-9590 vs i5 6600K Link: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544

 

[trents]

AMD FX-9590 vs i5 6600K Link: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1289?vs=1544

Pretty much what I expected. 6600k beats it in the overwhelming majority of tasks but a few things that rely heavily on threads do better with the FX. Cinebench and Winrar, for instance.

 

[wingman99]

Pretty much what I expected. 6600k beats it in the overwhelming majority of tasks but a few things that rely heavily on threads do better with the FX. Cinebench and Winrar, for instance.

Mainly integer calculations not floating point for the FX, since it only has 4 Floating point units.