Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD FX (Bulldozer) Owners Club!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD FX (Bulldozer) Owners Club! - Page 145

post #1441 of 8112
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66racer View Post

Yeah I agree on this, besides you dont have to go farther than phenom II anyways. At the end we are spoiled now a days, any of these cpu's will do good for gaming im sure, limitations probably show above 1080 obviously but like the magic internet says 60fps and above the eye cant see the difference anyways, I dunno 40 and 70 seems the same to me anyways lol

'limitations' ? i can assure you they dont show up where i am sitting - eyefinity 3 monitor with 5040x1050. with a single 6950 2gb.

limitations 'may' show up when you do eyefinity 6 monitor, but then those limitations would probably be gpu bound.
Berserker
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Phenom II 965 BE Gigabyte 990FXA-D3 Sapphire HD 7970 OC Sapphire HD 7970 OC 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston HyperX Corsair F60 SSD Seagate Barracuda LG DVD-RW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Thermaltake Contac 29 Cpu Cooler - 12 cm fan 3 x 24 cm, 1 x 14 cm Case fans on Haf X  Win 7 64 Ultimate, Win Xp 32 pro, Ubuntu 11.04 28 Inch Viewsonic vx2835vm 16:10 - 1920x1200 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
2 x 22 Inch Samsung 1680x1050 32 inch LG 32LW5500 3D TV (occasionally) Logitech 750 Watts Inwin Commander PSU 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Coolermaster Haf X Ideazon Razor Gaming Mouse Thermaltake M-Audio Fast Track Pro USB 
  hide details  
Reply
Berserker
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Phenom II 965 BE Gigabyte 990FXA-D3 Sapphire HD 7970 OC Sapphire HD 7970 OC 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston HyperX Corsair F60 SSD Seagate Barracuda LG DVD-RW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Thermaltake Contac 29 Cpu Cooler - 12 cm fan 3 x 24 cm, 1 x 14 cm Case fans on Haf X  Win 7 64 Ultimate, Win Xp 32 pro, Ubuntu 11.04 28 Inch Viewsonic vx2835vm 16:10 - 1920x1200 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
2 x 22 Inch Samsung 1680x1050 32 inch LG 32LW5500 3D TV (occasionally) Logitech 750 Watts Inwin Commander PSU 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Coolermaster Haf X Ideazon Razor Gaming Mouse Thermaltake M-Audio Fast Track Pro USB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1442 of 8112
What CPU are you using Unity?
post #1443 of 8112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared2608 View Post

What CPU are you using Unity?

phenom ii 965 be. i havent yet overclocked it. nor the card.
Berserker
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Phenom II 965 BE Gigabyte 990FXA-D3 Sapphire HD 7970 OC Sapphire HD 7970 OC 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston HyperX Corsair F60 SSD Seagate Barracuda LG DVD-RW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Thermaltake Contac 29 Cpu Cooler - 12 cm fan 3 x 24 cm, 1 x 14 cm Case fans on Haf X  Win 7 64 Ultimate, Win Xp 32 pro, Ubuntu 11.04 28 Inch Viewsonic vx2835vm 16:10 - 1920x1200 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
2 x 22 Inch Samsung 1680x1050 32 inch LG 32LW5500 3D TV (occasionally) Logitech 750 Watts Inwin Commander PSU 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Coolermaster Haf X Ideazon Razor Gaming Mouse Thermaltake M-Audio Fast Track Pro USB 
  hide details  
Reply
Berserker
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Phenom II 965 BE Gigabyte 990FXA-D3 Sapphire HD 7970 OC Sapphire HD 7970 OC 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Kingston HyperX Corsair F60 SSD Seagate Barracuda LG DVD-RW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Thermaltake Contac 29 Cpu Cooler - 12 cm fan 3 x 24 cm, 1 x 14 cm Case fans on Haf X  Win 7 64 Ultimate, Win Xp 32 pro, Ubuntu 11.04 28 Inch Viewsonic vx2835vm 16:10 - 1920x1200 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
2 x 22 Inch Samsung 1680x1050 32 inch LG 32LW5500 3D TV (occasionally) Logitech 750 Watts Inwin Commander PSU 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Coolermaster Haf X Ideazon Razor Gaming Mouse Thermaltake M-Audio Fast Track Pro USB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1444 of 8112
Check out my 5.02Ghz Overclock stabablization attempt using prime and let me know what you think.

I have posted a thread regarding this as well.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Video Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRafBZxj8gg

Note that there are 8 parts to this video and they should play through automatically but if not go to my videos.

Please let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions for getting the chip stable at 5.02Ghz.

Thank you for your time and your help.
FUSION
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD Llano A8-3870k ASUS F1A75-M Pro FM1 uATX Corsair Vengeance Corsair Force 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi ASUS DVD Burner Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VE247H 24" 1080p Razer Lycosa Corsair CX500 Fractal Define Design R3 ATX 
Mouse
Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
FUSION
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD Llano A8-3870k ASUS F1A75-M Pro FM1 uATX Corsair Vengeance Corsair Force 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi ASUS DVD Burner Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VE247H 24" 1080p Razer Lycosa Corsair CX500 Fractal Define Design R3 ATX 
Mouse
Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1445 of 8112
Quote:
Originally Posted by unity100 View Post

phenom ii 965 be. i havent yet overclocked it. nor the card.

I like the 965. You should be able to overclock to 4.0-4.2Ghz no problem. Nicest amd quad core out there IMO. Very nich chip for gaming and overclocking. Temps stay pretty low too but I was using my H80 when I had it.

Anyway, nice choice on the 965. That is the quad core processor that I recommend even though I haven't had a chance to experiance the FX-4100.

If you have any questions with the 965 please feel free to ask. I have done tons of testing on this chip and its limits.

Hope I could help.
FUSION
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD Llano A8-3870k ASUS F1A75-M Pro FM1 uATX Corsair Vengeance Corsair Force 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi ASUS DVD Burner Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VE247H 24" 1080p Razer Lycosa Corsair CX500 Fractal Define Design R3 ATX 
Mouse
Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
FUSION
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD Llano A8-3870k ASUS F1A75-M Pro FM1 uATX Corsair Vengeance Corsair Force 3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Hitachi ASUS DVD Burner Cooler Master Hyper TX3 Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
ASUS VE247H 24" 1080p Razer Lycosa Corsair CX500 Fractal Define Design R3 ATX 
Mouse
Razer DeathAdder 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1446 of 8112
Demonkev666 here is my stock validation for the list on

890FX board

Demonkev666-FX 8120- M489TD pro/usb3.0
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2108103
Edited by Demonkev666 - 11/21/11 at 5:36pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
amd Phenom II x6 1090T gigabye UD7 990FX 5870 G.skill flare 2 x 4gbs 2000mhz  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
westerdigital cooler master eisberg 240L Vista 64 bit spceptre 1920 x 1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
muli-media ftw lol 1200 watt silverstone none another cheap one $20 
Mouse PadOther
none ATi 650 pro theater  
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
amd Phenom II x6 1090T gigabye UD7 990FX 5870 G.skill flare 2 x 4gbs 2000mhz  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
westerdigital cooler master eisberg 240L Vista 64 bit spceptre 1920 x 1200 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
muli-media ftw lol 1200 watt silverstone none another cheap one $20 
Mouse PadOther
none ATi 650 pro theater  
  hide details  
Reply
post #1447 of 8112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan805 View Post

Spartan805 - FX-4100 - GA-880GA-UD3H
2101852.png

When will you add me?
AMD Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320 ASUS Sabertooth 990FX EVGA GTX 460 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M5S ASUS 22X SATA DVD BURNER LG BH12 12X BLURAY BURNER  Corsair H50 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 X64 HOME PREMIUM DELL SR2320L LED 23" 1920x1080 LOGITECH  Antec NEO ECO 620C 
CaseMouse
COOLER MASTER ELITE 430 Anker 2000 DPI 
  hide details  
Reply
AMD Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8320 ASUS Sabertooth 990FX EVGA GTX 460 Corsair Vengence 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M5S ASUS 22X SATA DVD BURNER LG BH12 12X BLURAY BURNER  Corsair H50 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 X64 HOME PREMIUM DELL SR2320L LED 23" 1920x1080 LOGITECH  Antec NEO ECO 620C 
CaseMouse
COOLER MASTER ELITE 430 Anker 2000 DPI 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1448 of 8112

I just posted this in another thread and I figure it may interest you guys so I will also post it here:

 

I think comparing the 4100 and a Phenom II x4 using Cinebench in such way is extremely unwise:

9ae01d6f_BD4100.PNG

If any of you actually know how this module-based architecture is designed,you will know that the scaling of performance is NOT linear as you increase the amount of cores being used.  If the scaling was linear, the FX would be getting well above 5 points in Cinebench.... but it's not, and it's because of the module-based design.  You only get 80% of what the performance is compared to if the scaling were linear, but a tradeoff of this is better power consumption and smaller die space for each component.  Of course a 5GHz FX-4XXX is going to fail against a Phenom II x4 at 3.2.  That is because a Cinebench multi-threaded test is an absolutely terrible comparison between this gen and the previous.

 

Things may change though, if you actually know how the architectures work and make use of Cinebench wisely in such a comparison.  If you use the 80% loss estimate for the FX, and a calculation of single-threaded performance by dividing that score by 4, the FX-41XX has a stagnant per-core performance lead over the Phenom II at 1.26 (FX 5GHz) vs 1.04 (x4 3.2GHz).

 

For another comparison, here is the result of a Phenom II x4 at 4GHz in Cinebench 11.5 from OCN's Cinebench 11.5 thread:

2lxjwwh.png

If you divide this result by 4, you get a result of approximately 1.14 points.

 

I will also throw up this other image, which includes the result of an i3 2100, an x4 975, and a single-thread 1090T:

cinebench.gif

You can see that the 1090T scores a 1.04 in a single threaded test.  That core is running at 3.2GHz.  So we can assume my division of 4 for that Phenom II x4 3.2GHz result to be somewhat accurate.  Also note the Core i3 2100 result of 1.24 per core, and the accurate result of a Phenom II x4 975.

 

So basically:
Phenom II x4 at 3.2GHz - 4.16 all cores, approx. 1.04 per core

Phenom II x4 975 at 3.7GHz - 4.23 all cores, 1.09 per core
Phenom II x4 at 4GHz - 4.57 all cores, approx. 1.14 per core

FX-4100 at 5GHz - 4.032 all cores, approx. 1.26 per core (calculation: all core result divided by 0.8 [to represent the 80% or so performance loss vs a linear approach], then divided by 4).

i3 2100 - 3 all cores, 1.24 per core


And that is my point proven.  The FX-4100 may not provide better multithreaded performance than a Phenom II x4, but it provides better instructions per second (IPS, per-core performance) than the Phenom II x4, which is great for the majority of games that are out there.  It even goes head to head with the i3 2100 in single threaded IPS when overclocked to 5GHz, while still providing better multithreaded performance that benefits any games and apps that happen to be multithreaded.  And what else?  It will consume less power in doing so:

Power.png

Source: LegionHardware

 

And cost less than all of its competitors (just $110 at Amazon, compared to $112 for an x4 955 and $122 for an i3 2100).

 

This is why I love the FX-4100 and recommend it often for builds at a certain price point.  So for those who are saying that the FX is more of a bottleneck than a Phenom II x4 AND a terrible choice at its price, you may want to think again.  It's hardly any more of a bottleneck than even an i3 2100 is.


Edited by xd_1771 - 11/20/11 at 11:43am
post #1449 of 8112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan805 View Post

When will you add me?

done
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post

I just posted this in another thread and I figure it may interest you guys so I will also post it here:

I think comparing the 4100 and a Phenom II x4 using Cinebench in such way is extremely unwise:
[IMG]http://www.overclock.net/image/id/1066034/width/348/height/563/flags/LL[/IMgG][/URL If any of you actually know how this module-based architecture is designed,you will know that the scaling of performance is NOT linear as you increase the amount of cores being used.  If the scaling was linear, the FX would be getting well above 5 points in Cinebench.... but it's not, and it's because of the module-based design.  You only get 80% of what the performance is compared to if the scaling were linear, but a tradeoff of this is better power consumption and smaller die space for each component.  Of course a 5GHz FX-4XXX is going to fail against a Phenom II x4 at 3.2.  That is because a Cinebench multi-threaded test is an absolutely terrible comparison between this gen and the previous. Things may change though, if you actually know how the architectures work and make use of Cinebench wisely in such a comparison.  If you use the 80% loss estimate for the FX, and a calculation of single-threaded performance by dividing that score by 4, the FX-41XX has a stagnant per-core performance lead over the Phenom II at 1.26 (FX 5GHz) vs 1.04 (x4 3.2GHz). For another comparison, here is the result of a Phenom II x4 at 4GHz in Cinebench 11.5 from OCN's Cinebench 11.5 thread:[IMG]http://www.overclock.net/image/id/1065864/width/600/height/338/flags/LL[/IMgG][/URL If you divide this result by 4, you get a result of approximately 1.14 points. I will also throw up this other image, which includes the result of an i3 2100, an x4 975, and a single-thread 1090T:[IMG]http://www.overclock.net/image/id/1065925/width/550/height/626/flags/LL[/IMgG][/URL You can see that the 1090T scores a 1.04 in a single threaded test.  That core is running at 3.2GHz.  So we can assume my division of 4 for that Phenom II x4 3.2GHz result to be somewhat accurate.  Also note the Core i3 2100 result of 1.24 per core, and the accurate result of a Phenom II x4 975. So basically: Phenom II x4 at 3.2GHz - 4.16 all cores,approx. 1.04 per core
Phenom II x4 975 at 3.7GHz - 4.23 all cores, 1.09 per core

Phenom II x4 at 4GHz - 4.57 all cores, approx. 1.14 per core
FX-4100 at 5GHz - 4.032 all cores, approx. 1.26 per core (calculation: all core result divided by 0.8 [to represent the 80% or so performance loss vs a linear approach], then divided by 4).
i3 2100 - 3 all cores, 1.24 per core


And that is my point proven.  The FX-4100 may not provide better multithreaded performance than a Phenom II x4, but it provides better instructions per second (IPS, per-core performance) than the Phenom II x4, which is great for the majority of games that are out there.  It even goes head to head with the i3 2100 in single threaded IPS when overclocked to 5GHz, while still providing better multithreaded performance that benefits any games and apps that happen to be multithreaded.  And what else?  It will consume less power in doing so:
[IMh]http://www.overclock.net/image/id/1065895/width/484/height/700/flags/LL[/IMgG][/URL
Source:
LegionHardware

And cost less than all of its competitors (just $110 at Amazon, compared to $112 for an x4 955 and $122 for an i3 2100
).

This is why I love the FX-4100 and recommend it often for builds at a certain price point.  So for those who are saying that the FX is more of a bottleneck than a Phenom II x4 AND a terrible choice at its price, you may want to think again.  It's hardly any more of a bottleneck than even an i3 2100 is.

interesting way to look at it. If we ever go back to vB remind me to +rep you. If I don't use my Maximus Gene for my HTPC, I'll probably end up getting a 4100 (or 4170 if it is out by then,)
Alienware M9700
(14 items)
 
Wackbook pro
(12 items)
 
Mpowerlicous
(12 items)
 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
AMD Turion ML-42 2.4GHz AMD Turion ML-40 Alienware nForce3 2X nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS SLI 
RAMHard DriveOSMonitor
1GB DDR 333MHz Samsung Spinpoint 250GB Windows XP Professional 1920X1200 Integrated LCD 
Case
Alienware M9700 chassis 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i7 3615QM @2.3GHz Apple Logic Board Intel HD 4000 Nvidia GT 650M 512MB 
RAMHard DriveOSMonitor
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 500GB Samsung 840  OSX 10.10 1440x900  
PowerAudioAudioAudio
85W PSU Schiit Modi Schiit Magni 2 Über DT770 Pro 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K MSI Z77 Big Bang MPower Radeon R9 270X 4X4GB G.Skill  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel X25-V Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Life without walls? Who needs windows? Acer 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 Raidmax RX-1000AE Brooks shoebox  Acer G500 
  hide details  
Reply
Alienware M9700
(14 items)
 
Wackbook pro
(12 items)
 
Mpowerlicous
(12 items)
 
CPUCPUMotherboardGraphics
AMD Turion ML-42 2.4GHz AMD Turion ML-40 Alienware nForce3 2X nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS SLI 
RAMHard DriveOSMonitor
1GB DDR 333MHz Samsung Spinpoint 250GB Windows XP Professional 1920X1200 Integrated LCD 
Case
Alienware M9700 chassis 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Core i7 3615QM @2.3GHz Apple Logic Board Intel HD 4000 Nvidia GT 650M 512MB 
RAMHard DriveOSMonitor
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 500GB Samsung 840  OSX 10.10 1440x900  
PowerAudioAudioAudio
85W PSU Schiit Modi Schiit Magni 2 Über DT770 Pro 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 3770K MSI Z77 Big Bang MPower Radeon R9 270X 4X4GB G.Skill  
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Intel X25-V Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Life without walls? Who needs windows? Acer 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 Raidmax RX-1000AE Brooks shoebox  Acer G500 
  hide details  
Reply
post #1450 of 8112
Quote:
Originally Posted by xd_1771 View Post

I just posted this in another thread and I figure it may interest you guys so I will also post it here:

I think comparing the 4100 and a Phenom II x4 using Cinebench in such way is extremely unwise:
348x563px-LL-2bc1dba3_9ae01d6f_BD4100.PNG
If any of you actually know how this module-based architecture is designed,you will know that the scaling of performance is NOT linear as you increase the amount of cores being used.  If the scaling was linear, the FX would be getting well above 5 points in Cinebench.... but it's not, and it's because of the module-based design.  You only get 80% of what the performance is compared to if the scaling were linear, but a tradeoff of this is better power consumption and smaller die space for each component.  Of course a 5GHz FX-4XXX is going to fail against a Phenom II x4 at 3.2.  That is because a Cinebench multi-threaded test is an absolutely terrible comparison between this gen and the previous.

Things may change though, if you actually know how the architectures work and make use of Cinebench wisely in such a comparison.  If you use the 80% loss estimate for the FX, and a calculation of single-threaded performance by dividing that score by 4, the FX-41XX has a stagnant per-core performance lead over the Phenom II at 1.26 (FX 5GHz) vs 1.04 (x4 3.2GHz).

For another comparison, here is the result of a Phenom II x4 at 4GHz in Cinebench 11.5 from OCN's Cinebench 11.5 thread:
LL
If you divide this result by 4, you get a result of approximately 1.14 points.

I will also throw up this other image, which includes the result of an i3 2100, an x4 975, and a single-thread 1090T:
LL
You can see that the 1090T scores a 1.04 in a single threaded test.  That core is running at 3.2GHz.  So we can assume my division of 4 for that Phenom II x4 3.2GHz result to be somewhat accurate.  Also note the Core i3 2100 result of 1.24 per core, and the accurate result of a Phenom II x4 975.

So basically:

Phenom II x4 at 3.2GHz - 4.16 all cores, approx. 1.04 per core
Phenom II x4 975 at 3.7GHz - 4.23 all cores, 1.09 per core

Phenom II x4 at 4GHz - 4.57 all cores, approx. 1.14 per core
FX-4100 at 5GHz - 4.032 all cores, approx. 1.26 per core (calculation: all core result divided by 0.8 [to represent the 80% or so performance loss vs a linear approach], then divided by 4).
i3 2100 - 3 all cores, 1.24 per core


And that is my point proven.  The FX-4100 may not provide better multithreaded performance than a Phenom II x4, but it provides better instructions per second (IPS, per-core performance) than the Phenom II x4, which is great for the majority of games that are out there.  It even goes head to head with the i3 2100 in single threaded IPS when overclocked to 5GHz, while still providing better multithreaded performance that benefits any games and apps that happen to be multithreaded.  And what else?  It will consume less power in doing so:
484x700px-LL-1ad14c10_Power.png
Source: LegionHardware

And cost less than all of its competitors (just $110 at Amazon, compared to $112 for an x4 955 and $122 for an i3 2100
).

This is why I love the FX-4100 and recommend it often for builds at a certain price point.  So for those who are saying that the FX is more of a bottleneck than a Phenom II x4 AND a terrible choice at its price, you may want to think again.  It's hardly any more of a bottleneck than even an i3 2100 is.

You bring up a great point in the fact that even though benchmarks that are out there are good, they are not adjusted to the new way BD is designed thus the software is hindering performance.
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
BULLDOZER!!!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8120FX Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 2ea MSI r9-270x 16gb G-Skill Snipers 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD 3x1tb greens, 1x1tb black Adata S599 120gb LG DVDR/RW, LG Blueray CM V8 Win7 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG2762D Microsoft Antec TPN-750 CM HAF 932 
MouseMouse Pad
Microsoft X5 Generic 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD FX (Bulldozer) Owners Club!