Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end? - Page 83  

post #821 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

http://www.zdnet.com/nvidia-announces-next-generation-gpu-codenamed-pascal-7000027704/

well would you look at that.

What is the implication? AMD's APU design is already made completely irrelevant for anything beyond the lowest of the low end in GPU performance.

With what CPU? Arm?

They either use ARM, or they try and get their proprietary NVLink onto x86 motherboard, which means working with Intel and AMD on chipset design. Oh what's that? AMD and Intel's CPU/APUs all have their chipsets built into the CPU itself now? nVidia would need to add their proprietary technology to their competitors products in order to be relevant in the least? Well that's a shame. Maybe they could work with IBM on PowerPC, but that probably won't happen either.

Alright, so it's settled. nVidia either;
1) Is stuck using this new tech on only Tegra, AKA mobile only.
2) Opens up the NVLink and UMem standards for other ARM devs to use.
3) Opens up the standards to everyone to replace PCI-e entirely.
4) Is stuck with standard PCI-e 3.0 x16 on Intel and AMD computers, with no UMem since the chipsets do not support it.

2 and 3 are not likely to happen, so have fun with your HSA-like things without the benefit of hQ on a tegra-only platform since PCI-e is not fast enough. thumb.gif
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
post #822 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsc1973 View Post

Of course. Because we all know that AMD is going to stop developing and advancing its own graphics technology immediately, and therefore will have no competitive response to something that is supposedly coming out in 2016.

*sarcasm mode off*

AMD doesn't even have plans to compete with its own past products, let alone others.

*downloading unit 1973 to its place*
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #823 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

With what CPU? Arm?

They either use ARM, or they try and get their proprietary NVLink onto x86 motherboard, which means working with Intel and AMD on chipset design. Oh what's that? AMD and Intel's CPU/APUs all have their chipsets built into the CPU itself now? nVidia would need to add their proprietary technology to their competitors products in order to be relevant in the least? Well that's a shame. Maybe they could work with IBM on PowerPC, but that probably won't happen either.

Alright, so it's settled. nVidia either;
1) Is stuck using this new tech on only Tegra, AKA mobile only.
2) Opens up the NVLink and UMem standards for other ARM devs to use.
3) Opens up the standards to everyone to replace PCI-e entirely.
4) Is stuck with standard PCI-e 3.0 x16 on Intel and AMD computers, with no UMem since the chipsets do not support it.

2 and 3 are not likely to happen, so have fun with your HSA-like things without the benefit of hQ on a tegra-only platform since PCI-e is not fast enough. thumb.gif

I anticipated such an argument.

You don't need NV link. It's not just about bandwidth, it allows the CPU to manipulate GPU memory, and the GPU to manipulate CPU system memory directly through the PCI bus regardless of bandwidth.

On top of that, I don't see any huge hurdles in getting an NV link into motherboards. Even then, PCI 4.0 will pretty much double the bandwidth of PCI 3.0.

Besides, you can hinge on NV link all you want......but then what does that say about AMD's APU's? After all, APU's are limited out of the box by system memory bandwidth over PCI-E cards......so obviously even PCI-E isn't an issue when it comes to good performance. Not to mention the power savings of Maxwell architecture, which is pretty significant. The 750ti may not be a high end card, but it sure as heck does a lot for the size and wattage. We haven't had decent GPU's that didn't even need a power pin since the 8600gt era or around there.

It seems NV link is the only thing payed attention to, but considering the 3D ram improves bandwidth 10 fold and energy efficiency 3 fold, that's obviously not the entire story.

A lot of people like to point to PCI-E bandwidth, while seemingly ignoring the fact that it's VRAM bandwidth that matters more than PCI-E bandwidth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have 100+GB/s VRAM's with only 10-20GB/s SYSRAM.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/25/14 at 1:41pm
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #824 of 1593
At this point you are just trolling. AMD's APU's are actually a real, shipping product. At this point it is the best product of its kind.
post #825 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

With what CPU? Arm?

They either use ARM, or they try and get their proprietary NVLink onto x86 motherboard, which means working with Intel and AMD on chipset design. Oh what's that? AMD and Intel's CPU/APUs all have their chipsets built into the CPU itself now? nVidia would need to add their proprietary technology to their competitors products in order to be relevant in the least? Well that's a shame. Maybe they could work with IBM on PowerPC, but that probably won't happen either.

Alright, so it's settled. nVidia either;
1) Is stuck using this new tech on only Tegra, AKA mobile only.
2) Opens up the NVLink and UMem standards for other ARM devs to use.
3) Opens up the standards to everyone to replace PCI-e entirely.
4) Is stuck with standard PCI-e 3.0 x16 on Intel and AMD computers, with no UMem since the chipsets do not support it.

2 and 3 are not likely to happen, so have fun with your HSA-like things without the benefit of hQ on a tegra-only platform since PCI-e is not fast enough. thumb.gif

I anticipated such an argument.

You don't need NV link. It's not just about bandwidth, it allows the CPU to manipulate GPU memory, and the GPU to manipulate CPU system memory directly through the PCI bus regardless of bandwidth.

On top of that, I don't see any huge hurdles in getting an NV link into motherboards. Even then, PCI 4.0 will pretty much double the bandwidth of PCI 3.0.

Besides, you can hinge on NV link all you want......but then what does that say about AMD's APU's? After all, APU's are limited out of the box by system memory bandwidth over PCI-E cards......so obviously even PCI-E isn't an issue. Not to mention the power savings of Maxwell architecture, which is pretty significant. The 750ti may not be a high end card, but it sure as heck does a lot for the size and wattage. We haven't had decent GPU's that didn't even need a power pin since the 8600gt era or around there.

And the bias shows through when NV link is the only thing payed attention to, considering the 3D ram improves bandwidth 10 fold and energy efficiency 3 fold.

You didn't anticipate anything since your one and only excuse is "it isn't needed", which is wrong.

You do not understand HSA or what it does if you think bandwidth is not a concern. There is a reason nVidia made NVLink and AMD put the GPU directly on the die, and it wasn't to look pretty.

I'm not going to get involved with any of your other rants that are completely irrelevant to what you posted the first time, but if you ever want to actually understand HSA let me know. There's far more to it than the rather weak response nVidia came up with, though it's understandable since nVidia isn't in the CPU market. Intel is far more likely to provide actual competition to HSA eventually.
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
Forge
(17 items)
 
Forge-LT
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7-5960X (4.625Ghz) ASUS X99-DELUXE/U3.1 EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid EVGA 1080ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
64GB Corsair Dominator Platinum (3000Mhz 8x8GB) Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 512GB EK Predator 240 Windows 10 Enterprise x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
2x Acer XR341CK Corsair Vengeance K70 RGB Corsair AX1200 Corsair Graphite 780T 
MouseAudioAudioAudio
Corsair Vengeance M65 RGB Sennheiser HD700 Sound Blaster AE-5 Audio Technica AT4040 
Audio
30ART Mic Tube Amp 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4720HQ UX501JW-UB71T GTX 960m 16GB 1600 9-9-9-27 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
512GB PCI-e SSD Windows 10 Pro 4k IPS 
  hide details  
post #826 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

AMD doesn't even have plans to compete with its own past products, let alone others.

*downloading unit 1973 to its place*
Whatever. AMD competes awfully well in the graphics space for a company that supposedly has no plans to compete.
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
     
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Athlon X4 870K 4700mhz 1.63v ASUS A88X-PRO Radeon HD 6970 G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston V300 Toshiba 2.5" laptop HDD, 1TB Micron C300 SSD Generic 2TB HDD WL2000GSA1672 (external) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Seagate Momentus XT 500GB ASUS DVD-RW Prolimatech Black Series Megahalems Linux Mint 18 Cinnamon "Sarah" 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 ViewSonic VG2030wm IBM Model M Fractal Design Newton R3 600W 
CaseMouseAudioOther
Phanteks Enthoo Pro Logitech Marble Mouse Behringer UCA222 Upgraded Realistic Minimus-7 speakers, Lepai 20... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Duo Mobile T9900 Dell 0G848F Intel Mobile 4 series 4GB Crucial DDR2-6400 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
OWC Mercury Electra 3G 44GB SSD stock DVD-RW Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.1 "Rebecca" 1366x768 WXGA 
  hide details  
post #827 of 1593
What is the OP doing on his PC?


I went from Phenom II to FX, and it was night and day.

I mean...the Intels are better, but you pay at least 25% more.

It really depends on what you're doing on your PC. And before you lose your mind about shared L2 cache. Consider this: Hardware equivalent of Intel's hyperthreading. The OS treats it as a physical quad core, with 8 logical cores.

Boom! mind = blown

Here you are OP.
Work horse
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.24 GA-MA970-UD3 R9 280X 2x4GB G.Skill 1931MHz 9-10-10-30-1T 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Several Stock air Windows 7 + Solus OS 2560x1080 LG 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair CX750M white HAF932 Deathadder 
  hide details  
Work horse
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.24 GA-MA970-UD3 R9 280X 2x4GB G.Skill 1931MHz 9-10-10-30-1T 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Several Stock air Windows 7 + Solus OS 2560x1080 LG 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair CX750M white HAF932 Deathadder 
  hide details  
post #828 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

You didn't anticipate anything since your one and only excuse is "it isn't needed", which is wrong.

You do not understand HSA or what it does if you think bandwidth is not a concern. There is a reason nVidia made NVLink and AMD put the GPU directly on the die, and it wasn't to look pretty.

I'm not going to get involved with any of your other rants that are completely irrelevant to what you posted the first time, but if you ever want to actually understand HSA let me know. There's far more to it than the rather weak response nVidia came up with, though it's understandable since nVidia isn't in the CPU market. Intel is far more likely to provide actual competition to HSA eventually.

Prove otherwise then, Prove that PCI-E bandwidth is worse for performance than SYSRAM bandwidth on an APU.

APU's can't really get much faster, even with HSA, because they are already limited by SYSRAM bandwidth out of the box, despite the GPU/CPU being able to share memory space. All they can really do is reduce bandwidth requirements through compression, and even then that doesn't work because it requires too much processing power to handle that compression quick enough to offset the bandwidth overhead.

Imagine a GTX 770 with a 10-20GB/s VRAM bandwidth. And this is why APU's cannot really get much better.

I already covered this extensively when I talked about onboard RAM for APU's, and how even if that is the inevitable evolution of computing, it's not going to happen anytime in the next few years.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/25/14 at 3:10pm
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #829 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear of Oneself View Post

What is the OP doing on his PC?


I went from Phenom II to FX, and it was night and day.

I mean...the Intels are better, but you pay at least 25% more.

It really depends on what you're doing on your PC. And before you lose your mind about shared L2 cache. Consider this: Hardware equivalent of Intel's hyperthreading. The OS treats it as a physical quad core, with 8 logical cores.

Boom! mind = blown

Here you are OP.








The difference between a PhII X3 or x4 and the FX 6300 and 8XXX is about double, and in many cases, slightly less than double. I wouldn't exactly call that night and day since FX cores actually perform worse on their own.......even with double the cores. Let's keep in mind, Phenom II came out in ~2009. It's 2014. That's well over 5 years......just to get a 100% increase in performance (and that's primarily from more cores)......with no signs of anything beyond quad core APU's in the future....unless of course, you get an Opteron and socket G34.

The problem with FX isn't even just the shared cache, it's virtually everything......very small performance margins core per core over PhII, shared scheduler, shared FPU, The only actual benefit FX mostly provides is the lower power draw per core, but even then AMD's power draw is obviously still pretty high especially when compared to Intel.

The truth is, FX is primarily designed around cheap production costs (which is why they did it in 32nm and went with the module design). Sure you get more performance than previous AMD generations, but clearly the main focus of the design was to make production costs cheaper so AMD could profit more. they don't exactly pass the saving on to you, they just make the product cheaper to produce so they can take a larger cut.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/25/14 at 3:30pm
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
Not Yours
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4790k ASRock Z97E-ITX/AC MSI GTX 1080Ti G.SKILL DDR3  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
SAMSUNG 830 OCZ Deneva 2R WD Scorpio Noctua U14S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Acer XB270HU IPS CM Quickfire Rapid Fractal Design 650w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Node 304 SteelSeries Rival 700 SteelSeries Qck Sennheiser HD598 
  hide details  
post #830 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMDATI View Post

The difference between a PhII X3 or x4 and the FX 6300 and 8XXX is about double, and in many cases, slightly less than double. I wouldn't exactly call that night and day since FX cores actually perform worse on their own.......even with double the cores. Let's keep in mind, Phenom II came out in ~2009. It's 2014. That's well over 5 years......just to get a 100% increase in performance (and that's primarily from more cores)......with no signs of anything beyond quad core APU's in the future....unless of course, you get an Opteron and socket G34.

The problem with FX isn't even just the shared cache, it's virtually everything......very small performance margins core per core over PhII, shared scheduler, shared FPU, The only actual benefit FX mostly provides is the lower power draw per core, but even then AMD's power draw is obviously still pretty high especially when compared to Intel.

The truth is, FX is primarily designed around cheap production costs (which is why they did it in 32nm and went with the module design). Sure you get more performance than previous AMD generations, but clearly the main focus of the design was to make production costs cheaper so AMD could profit more. they don't exactly pass the saving on to you, they just make the product cheaper to produce so they can take a larger cut.

I suppose, but there isn't really an alternative. I mean...Intel's chips could be a thousand times faster, but money's money. Saving $200 between a CPU and motherboard alone can allow you to pump a little extra into a GPU, or hang out with friends for a couple nights. Or, you simply don't use your PC enough to justify that extra coin, or, you simply can't afford it.

Based on your argument about per core performance being worse....May as well keep all 8 cores enabled then...?

EDIT: If you find an Intel CPU + Motherboard + Apogee GTZ bracket combination for <$300 after taxes and shipping (at regular price outside of the US) that performs as well as this http://valid.canardpc.com/s6pjt6

Then by all means, I'll jump on the AMD hate train too
Edited by Fear of Oneself - 3/25/14 at 4:14pm
Work horse
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.24 GA-MA970-UD3 R9 280X 2x4GB G.Skill 1931MHz 9-10-10-30-1T 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Several Stock air Windows 7 + Solus OS 2560x1080 LG 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair CX750M white HAF932 Deathadder 
  hide details  
Work horse
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.24 GA-MA970-UD3 R9 280X 2x4GB G.Skill 1931MHz 9-10-10-30-1T 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Several Stock air Windows 7 + Solus OS 2560x1080 LG 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair CX750M white HAF932 Deathadder 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD No longer a viable option for mid-high end?