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 93  

post #921 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Actually would be nice if you gave the link from where these came from. The Thief bench I have seen and you left out the fact that they think something screwy is going on with the code and in no way do they blame it as an AMD performance issue.

All the game charts are from: http://www.techspot.com/reviews/graphics-cards/

Yet another game that I left out. Again, it is pretty obvious that an FX-8320 or 8350 will bottleneck even ONE high end GPU like a 780 or 290X.

The difference between a 4770K and a FX-8350 here is smooth experience and a non-smooth, sub-60 FPS experience.

CPU_02.png

EDIT: And one more:
CPU1.png



Alright, so go ahead and explain how an AMD FX CPU does not bottleneck a high end graphics card when all of these benchmarks show otherwise. Maybe try a little harder and don't give all the usual excuses this time.

Quote:

CPU_01.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_03.png

CPU_001.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_03.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_01.png

Edited by 996gt2 - 3/28/14 at 5:03pm
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
5 GHz SFF Box
(18 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7-2700K @ 5.0 GHz, 1.38V Asus Maximus IV GENE Asus GTX 670 DC II 4x4GB Samsung 30nm @ DDR3-2133 9-9-9-21 1.5V 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Plextor M3 SSD WD Velociraptor 500GB WD Caviar Black 1TB WD Caviar Green 2TB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Thermalright HR-02 (GT AP-15 Push/Pull) Windows 7 Pro x64 LG 27" 2560x1440 S-IPS (Calibrated with Eye-One) CM Quickfire Rapid 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-750 Silverstone SG09 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK 
Audio
Asus Xonar DX + Shure SRH840 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
Core i5-3570K Gigabyte H61N-USB3 Mini-ITX 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3 Samsung 830 128GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
WD Scorpio Blue 500GB Win 7 Pro x64 Antec 90W DC-DC/Delta power brick Antec ISK 110 
  hide details  
post #922 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeo01 View Post

Yes but a FX-8320 will last 2 years in longevity too. Seen as multi-threading is becoming more popular it's a safe choice.

Yes it has better performance but it completely depends on will you use that performance? It really completely depends on the application smile.gif

Both are great for different reasons. They both perform good for a modern day processor.

Both have shoddy processors too on the low-end biggrin.gif You can't touch Intel's higher end though, socket 2011 stuff such as their hex cores. AMD have nothing really to compete there.

I clearly said 2 years more, as in the 4770K will last 2 years more than the 8350 at least.

Let's get real.....most people buy a PC with performance in mind. It can come down to the point where regardless of if you need the performance or not, the longevity factor plays a huge role.

And it's not like people buy one PC then never another one, so that's a reoccurring cost no matter how small of performance you need.

Let's say I only need a dual core....obviously I have a need for a PC in the first place right? So, instead I get a 4770k or one of its cheaper equivalents, and that PC lasts me 7-10 years vs if I got an actual dual core and it lasted me maybe 3-5 years (and that's pushing it). Guess what? The 4770K still ends up being far more cost effective in the long run, while delivering far more performance the whole time, even if it only factors into longevity. and a 4770K owned over those 10 years is going to use half the energy of say an 8350.

People often don't realize how much time they would save with a faster PC, even if they're only doing general tasks. It might add up to only 10 or 20 minutes or day, or a whole lot more depending on what you do, but if it saved you even just 5 minutes a day for 3 years, you're looking at a difference of almost 4 whole days of your life saved. Heck, if you put those 4 days into more work/making money, you'd offset the cost of the 4770K with much to spare.

So any way you look at it, Intel actually wins in the price to performance ratio area, even with Intel offerings that are initially more expensive than AMD offerings.

Upgrading from AMD offerings is like moving from crutches to a cane.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/28/14 at 5:05pm
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 #923 of 1593
on the thief bench,the cpu comparison,are these the average fps or the max?
and we know thief does not scale well with cores.
cpu is on 4800.thief is version 1.of course with the updates everything is better

Edited by Thanos1972 - 3/28/14 at 5:18pm
Thanos pc
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8350 4.9ghz Asus Sabertooth  Gigabyte R290 with Mk-26 Black 2X4gb Kingston hyper x grey 1600mhz DDR3 cl9 + ... 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Caviar aaks WD320gb Ocz Agility III 60gb Coolermaster Nepton 280L Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung SyncMaster 2433BW Microsoft Sidewinder X6 Coolermaster V700 Coolermaster HAF X Nvidia edition 
Mouse
Microstoft Sidewinder Mouse 
  hide details  
Thanos pc
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
8350 4.9ghz Asus Sabertooth  Gigabyte R290 with Mk-26 Black 2X4gb Kingston hyper x grey 1600mhz DDR3 cl9 + ... 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Caviar aaks WD320gb Ocz Agility III 60gb Coolermaster Nepton 280L Windows 7 Ultimate Sp1 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung SyncMaster 2433BW Microsoft Sidewinder X6 Coolermaster V700 Coolermaster HAF X Nvidia edition 
Mouse
Microstoft Sidewinder Mouse 
  hide details  
post #924 of 1593
1. An OC and Mantle does give AMD a nice boost:
http://imgur.com/a/FA6AB - numbers courtesy of gamegpu.ru

2. Also see PClab.pl's numbers here: http://pclab.pl/art56897-3.html
You can see comparisons the 4350, 6350, 8350 vs. the i3 4330, G3420 Pentium, and of course the 4670K/4770K. I'm guessing the Haswell K-series were not overclocked, considering the 4670K graph shows basically the same score as the 4770K at 4.7Ghz.

The conclusion though is that with the combination of both Mantle and an OC, the dual/tri-module Piledrivers are fair competitors. I'm not saying good, but fair. But you do need both - and this is just to meet stock Intel chips.

3. Regarding the Techspot numbers, this point in particular shows just how little IPC has advanced on the AMD end. I know, you shouldn't judge IPC in a vacuum, but the clocking headroom for AMD has not panned out either. If the Kaveri was hitting say 5.5-5.8Ghz with consistency *and* was carrying the increased IPC they have now, it would be a vastly different story.
http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
Main
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670K @ 4.7Ghz [1.284v] Z87X-UD4H [F7] MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X 2x4GB Samsung MV-3V4G3; 10-10-10-28 @ 2133Mhz [... 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Samsung 850 Pro 256GB 1x Crucial M500 960GB 1x WD4003FZEX 1x WD30EFRX 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
NH-D14 3x A15s @ 600RPM 2x Phanteks F140SP BBK (front), SFF21E (bottom) Win 10 Pro x64 Catleap 2B @ 119hz +1 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
U3014 eVGA 750G2 Fractal R5 - Blackout Edition MS WMO 1.1a 
Mouse PadAudio
fUnc 1030 Creative Sound Blaster Z 
  hide details  
post #925 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durquavian View Post

Actually would be nice if you gave the link from where these came from. The Thief bench I have seen and you left out the fact that they think something screwy is going on with the code and in no way do they blame it as an AMD performance issue.

All the game charts are from: http://www.techspot.com/reviews/graphics-cards/

Yet another game that I left out. Again, it is pretty obvious that an FX-8320 or 8350 will bottleneck even ONE high end GPU like a 780 or 290X.

The difference between a 4770K and a FX-8350 here is smooth experience and a non-smooth, sub-60 FPS experience.

CPU_02.png

EDIT: And one more:
CPU1.png



Alright, so go ahead and explain how an AMD FX CPU does not bottleneck a high end graphics card when all of these benchmarks show otherwise. Maybe try a little harder and don't give all the usual excuses this time.

Quote:

CPU_01.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_03.png

CPU_001.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_03.png

CPU_01.png

CPU_01.png

FPS isn't the end all measurement for gaming performance in my opinion, it's big part of it, but more fps does not necessarily = better experience.

One thing that stands out , not an FX-9xxx in any of those comparisons, what are they afraid of?

Take hitman absolution for instance , if you use the 8300's score vs the 8350's and scale that to 9590 clockspeeds it would be virtually a tie for the top spot.

Farcry 3, same thing scale those scores to 9590 speeds and it would be on top, yes?

smile.gif
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
post #926 of 1593
Just wanted to post this in regards to the above medium settings one...



medium settings clearly contained effects that weren't using all features of the game, much like mesh quality on BF3 and 4 in the 'graphics settings' is actually more of a cpu setyting.

A whopping 1fps behind.. clearly a major bottleneck for the titan rolleyes.gif


From the sounds of it... my rig makes zero sense to some of you and yet I have a great gaming experience no matter the game
Edited by SoloCamo - 3/28/14 at 6:29pm
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
The Struggle (4k)
(20 items)
 
File Server
(12 items)
 
Lenovo G50-45
(6 items)
 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Athlon II X2 250u Nvidia 6150SE  2gb DDR3 1066mhz Windows 10 Home 64 bit 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
AMD A8-6410 AMD R5 Crucial Ballistix 8GB DDR3L 1866 CAS10 Crucial BX100 250gb 
Optical DriveOS
DVD Windows 10 Home 
  hide details  
post #927 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

FPS isn't the end all measurement for gaming performance in my opinion, it's big part of it, but more fps does not necessarily = better experience.

One thing that stands out , not an FX-9xxx in any of those comparisons, what are they afraid of?

Take hitman absolution for instance , if you use the 8300's score vs the 8350's and scale that to 9590 clockspeeds it would be virtually a tie for the top spot.

Farcry 3, same thing scale those scores to 9590 speeds and it would be on top, yes?

smile.gif

And then immediately lose when you throw it against a Haswell chip pushed as much

9590 = 8320/8350 that costs over twice as much and is factory oc with maybe slightly better binning, so it doesn't make any sense to buy as you lose the strong point of the chip (multithreaded value) and keep all of the weaknesses

If you're paying that much for a chip, it's a bad choice

This has been discussed at least half a dozen times so far in this thread
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
Insert Name Here
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k Asus Maximus VIII Hero Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme 1080ti Corsair LPX 2x8GB 3200c16 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Old Seagate HDD Samsung 850 EVO Thermalright Silver Arrow SB-E SE Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Asus PG258Q (240hz + Gsync) WASDKeyboards.com v1 semi custom w/ mx browns, ... Superflower Golden Green HX550 Air540 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech G Pro Qck+ 
  hide details  
post #928 of 1593
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

FPS isn't the end all measurement for gaming performance in my opinion, it's big part of it, but more fps does not necessarily = better experience.

One thing that stands out , not an FX-9xxx in any of those comparisons, what are they afraid of?

Take hitman absolution for instance , if you use the 8300's score vs the 8350's and scale that to 9590 clockspeeds it would be virtually a tie for the top spot.

Farcry 3, same thing scale those scores to 9590 speeds and it would be on top, yes?

smile.gif


except, the FX 9XXX series is $300 for the chip alone, and requires at least a $60-$80 liquid cooling kit, and has virtually no overclocking headroom because it's just a massively overclocked 8XXX, and uses a massive amount of power, requiring a high power motherboard, and still is slower than the 4770K at stock.

So it costs more, uses almost 3 times more power, isn't as fast, and requires a more expensive motherboard......It loses on all fronts.


Core per core, AMD would have to clock its octa cores to 6-7Ghz or more, in order to compete with intels best quad core.

At the price of the 9XXX, I'd go for an intel six core instead.....after energy costs and savings I bet it'd even come out cheaper or just as expensive, with a massively significant boost in performance.
Edited by AMDATI - 3/28/14 at 6:39pm
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 #929 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 996gt2 View Post

All the game charts are from: http://www.techspot.com/reviews/graphics-cards/

Yet another game that I left out. Again, it is pretty obvious that an FX-8320 or 8350 will bottleneck even ONE high end GPU like a 780 or 290X.

The difference between a 4770K and a FX-8350 here is smooth experience and a non-smooth, sub-60 FPS experience.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
CPU_02.png

EDIT: And one more:
CPU1.png

Alright, so go ahead and explain how an AMD FX CPU does not bottleneck a high end graphics card when all of these benchmarks show otherwise. Maybe try a little harder and don't give all the usual excuses this time.
Well lets start with there are a lot more benches out there in existence. I am not fond of using any and prefer using users experiences to get a better idea of actual performance but I do have a few to help.

http://www.cpu-world.com/benchmarks/AMD/FX-8350.html
You will need to go to link and see that the 4770K at best in the graphs shows 20% over the 8350 both at stock. In other portions it is 5%. Not seeing a home run here, as most of you would love to have others believe.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/65031-amd-kaveri-a10-7850k-a8-7600-review.html
Good thing about this review is it gives quite the number of CPU/APUs to compare.


For Skyrim remember this is without the BDC by Stilt (the one that allows X87 code on the Visheras/Zambezi and likely the Kaveris).

Again nothing huge here either. These were with a 670 2Gb, not extreme highend but given a general idea. Its ok though because the next helps loads to the Case of a single High-end GPU.

This is from the same site you used, rather, that you CHERRYPICKED from.



The latter being a 290X and again I am not seeing a home run here. Actually looks a great deal like a tie. AMAZING.

And for Thief by a poster on this site with the 8350 SGT BILKO http://www.overclock.net/t/1429303/amd-mantle-discussion-thread/2000#post_21971505
Quote:
Now i ran the same again in Mantle but i also did exclusive fullscreen so i'm assuming that's why i couldn't take a screencap.

Min: 62.4
Max: 104.4
Avg: 80.8

EDIT: Again the mantle test was Single card.
I mean for a single 290 those numbers look good. And how about a 1090t with a 280X http://www.overclock.net/t/1429303/amd-mantle-discussion-thread/2060#post_21990598


Getting some miles here too.

And both are playing the games and enjoying them too.

Now this is the moment where you should casually leave. It is obvious you have no intent on being open and fair to the facts. I posted benches that did little to prove AMD better, although it can be done. I prefer being as fair as possible and not selectively posting what suits my needs.
post #930 of 1593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyro999 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cssorkinman View Post

FPS isn't the end all measurement for gaming performance in my opinion, it's big part of it, but more fps does not necessarily = better experience.

One thing that stands out , not an FX-9xxx in any of those comparisons, what are they afraid of?

Take hitman absolution for instance , if you use the 8300's score vs the 8350's and scale that to 9590 clockspeeds it would be virtually a tie for the top spot.

Farcry 3, same thing scale those scores to 9590 speeds and it would be on top, yes?

smile.gif

And then immediately lose when you throw it against a Haswell chip pushed as much

9590 = 8320/8350 that costs over twice as much and is factory oc with maybe slightly better binning, so it doesn't make any sense to buy as you lose the strong point of the chip (multithreaded value) and keep all of the weaknesses

If you're paying that much for a chip, it's a bad choice

This has been discussed at least half a dozen times so far in this thread

The fact remains that the 9XXX would outperform the Intel offerings stock vs stock in more than just a few situations. I've demonstrated that many times in this thread smile.gif
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  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?