Console Killer - "i did it my way"


i'm a long time "fan" of the tek syndicate and a few weeks ago i watched the "kill your console" videos and thought "hey, you can do that, too, since one of my friends is considering to buy a PS4". Also i thought, that i could share this build and the benchmarks i ran on it. So where better to that, then on the tek syndicate forum? ;-) So this is my first Post here, and please have a little mercy, since i'm from germany and english isn't my native tounge :D

So basically i "upgraded" the Console-Killer for 600 $ a little bit, because Hardware is a little bit more expensive in germany, then in the US. 600 bucks for you are about 450 Euros for us and i put 100 Euros on top of it. Anyway, the Price is not that interesting, because hardware costs are very different in all the countrys (even inside the EU there are huge differences).

Since i'm a huge AMD "Fanboy", Intel was never an Option. It had to be a quad core, and since Intel Quad-Cores start at around 150 Euros - it just wasn't possible with the Budget. Oh and then you "only" get an Ivy-Bridge. And to get a Socket 1155 Mainboard that has (neraly) the same configuration as the FM2A88X would also have been impossible, for under 150 Euros. (PCIe 3.0 x16, another PCIe 2.0 x16, 4x USB 3.0 external, 2x USB 3.0 internal, more then 6x SATA 6Gb/s...)

It was also Important to my frind, that the thing is going to be silent.

So the Specs are:

  • AMD Athlon X4 760K

  • ASRock FM2A88X Extreme4+

  • 8 GB TeamGroup Elite Series DDR3-1600

  • Gigabyte Radeon R9 270X Windforce 3x OC

  • Kingston SSD Now V300 60 GB

  • be quiet! Straight Power E9 400 Watt 80+Gold (over 90% efficiency - was important to me, wich i'm going to explain later why)

  • Thermalright HR-02 Macho 120

  • Cooltek Antiphone Silver

Since the first time i build the first PC completely myself (started with a 386 from my granddad (Windows 3.1 - "Hey, do we need the windows folder? No, probably not...let's delet it..."), got to an AMD K-6 350 and then build my first PC, wich was an Athlon XP 2400+, one of the fastest CPUs at the time), i always wondered, why everyone was using so high powered PSUs. Somehow i always "swam against the current" in using 550, 600 or even 800 Watt PSUs on PC's, that at most consumed maybe 400 Watt.

Long story short: I always was some kind of "advocate" for power efficiency. (Never the less, i'm a huge AMD Fan :D ). I also have an old 600 Watt Thermaltek PSU laying around here and compared those two:

80+ Gold PSU and the System above, with the CPU clocked at 4,6 GHz:

Idle: 38 Watt

Unigine Valley Benchmark: ~ 190 - 220 Watt

OCCT Full Load: ~ 290 Watt

The old 600 Watt PSU:

Idle: ~ 45 - 50 Watt

Unigine Valley Benchmark: ~ 210 - 240 Watt

OCCT Full Load: ~ 320 Watt

Well, the difference is quite obvious.

As i mentioned above, the CPU is clocked at 4,6 GHz. It get's up to 4,9 but isn't 100% stable in Prime95 (throws errors on Core 2 after about 8 Minutes, Temps ~ 59°C) and needs 1,55 VCore wich is - IMHO - to much for Piledriver. My Trinity 750K runs with 1,47 VCore @ 4,4 GHz and is quite happy with it (At least over the 7 Months i've had it now^^)

The System is absolutely quiet under load - sometimes the GPU get's out a little noise, but the room is also absolutely quiet, so it's very obvious to hear. But it's not annoying or something, it's barely noticeable.

So, now we get to the interesting part, the Numbers: (Testing was done on a fresh Install of Windows 7 with SP1, no other Updates, AMD Driver was 13.11 Beta, UEFI Version 1.3)

Luxmark @ Stock 1588 Points. @ 4,6 GHz 1780 Points.

PassMark ~ 4900 Points @ Stock. @ 4,6 GHz 5539 (wich is more then the Intel i5-3350P for 150 Euros mentioned above).

Geekbench 3.1 @ Stock 2148 Single-Core Points and 6159 Multi-Core Points. @ 4,6 GHz we are at 2422 SC-Points and 7206 MC-Points. 4,9 GHz are 2794 SC-Points and 8104 MC-Points. (I didn't test the other with 4,9 GHz)

3DMark11 Basic: 6833 3DMarks. I didn't test it @ Stock...

Metro 2033 (integrated Benchmark "frontline"): DX11, Quality: Very High, AA: MSAA 4x, AF16x, Adv. PhysX: Disabled, Tesselation, Enabled, DOF: Enabled.


@ 4,9 GHz

Avg. Framerate: 29.50

Max. Framerate: 81.85

Min. Framerate: 9.83

@ 4,6 GHz

Avg. Framerate: 29.50

Max. Framerate: 54.45

Min. Framerate: 9.91


@ Stock (with Turbo @ 4,3 GHz)


Avg. Framerate: 29.50

Max. Framerate: 49.00

Min. Framerate: 8.81


So it looks like, Metro 2033 cares a bit about the Clock. If we activate Adv. PhysX, the whole thing get's a lot more clearer:

@ 4,9 GHz

Avg. Framerate: 27.50

Max. Framerate: 131.25

Min. Framerate: 8.73


@ 4,6 GHz

Avg. Framerate: 23.50

Max. Framerate: 118.48

Min. Framerate: 6.41


@ Stock (with Turbo @ 4,3 GHz)

Avg. Framerate: 18.50

Max. Framerate: 84.00

Min. Framerate: 3.91


I couldn't get the Crysis 2 Benchmark tool to work, but it runs it easily with everything turned up to Max., DX11 and the High-Res Texturepack at 40+ FPS.


Anno 2070 - pfft, with ease above 50 FPS and everything maxed, even after playing about 7 Hours and having ~ 11.000 residents.


Unigine Valley Benchmark:

Preset "Basic" ("CPU-Test") (1280x720)

@ Stock (with Turbo @ 4,3 GHz)

Score: 2545

Min FPS: 21.7

Max FPS: 92.1

Avg FPS: 60.8


@ 4,6 GHz

Score: 2879

Min FPS: 20.9

Max. FPS: 106.6

Avg FPS: 68.8


Preset "Extrem HD"

@ Stock (with Turbo @ 4,3 GHz)

Score: 1499

Min FPS: 16.2

Max FPS: 67.2

Avg FPS: 35.8


@ 4,6 GHz

Score: 1515

Min FPS: 17.0

Max. FPS: 67.4

Avg FPS: 36.2


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Benchmark
I only tested it at 4,6 GHz:

@ 1280x720
Score: 8200
Avg. FPS: 71

@ F-HD
Score: 6083
Avg. FPS: 50.1

Grid 2 Demo never dropped below 50 FPS. 

So, to ramp it all up: Maybe an FX-6300 would have been somewhat "better", but personally i think AM3+ is rather dead and can develop some nasty driver problems with all those add on chips for USB 3.0 and so on. Also the features would not have been that much on a Board for around 65 Euros.
But for 550 Euros, i am very impressed with the System and the friend of mine is absolutely happy to play some real games now :D If anyone want some other Tests/Benchmarks i can run them also^^




PS: I hope this is the right section of the Forum...


David, greetings, welcome to the Tek forums.  I think your experience is a great example how it isn't important to get the fastest CPU for games.  I spent US$750 on an Intel Core i5 4570 system, with a 7870 that is similar to your GPU.  And overclocked you beat my Luxmarks (sala scene).

For the Geekbench CPU benchmarks I get scores of 3325 single and 10499 multi.

One question, what is "OCCT"?  I haven't noticed my system go above 200 W during Luxmark, but I don't know if that's the most power hungry benchmark.


I always appreciate posts like this . Good work . Thanks for the info .

Thanks for the welcome. Well, some games probably will be limited with the 750K, but i don't think it will get "unplayable". And considering that even the Next-Gen Consoles will be running some new games at 720P...and i hope that Mantle is using some OpenCL for physics, wich would help all AMD's...

Well, the i5 is a "proper" Quad-Core, it would be somewhat unrealistic to expect the 750K to be near it^^

OCCT is a "stability checking" tool. It has the ability to generate 100% CPU Load and also at the same time 100% GPU Load. I don't think there is any chance that you get anywhere near those wattages in gaming/video editing.

Thx, i like doing those things^^

Thanks, I didn't realize you were referring to a program, looks like they run Linpack and GPU3D.

I'm interested what games are CPU bound and what they turn out to be using the CPU for.  It seems like AI / pathfinding can all be cut back as necessary to fit into a frame.  I am sure there is some intensive work that the CPU is still best for but I don't know what it is...


Good read. Very interesting thankyou for your effort!

Good english by the way!

Nice work!

Well, i thought something like this would be pretty much what the tek is about and what people here would like to read^^

Thx, i'll try my very best to write proper english - i believe speaking it would reveal a very obvious german accent xD

Yep, Linpack and GPU3D...and i doubt any game would tourture Hardware like that^^


Well, i think the Unigine Benchmark is a little CPU-Limited, but it's only measurable...i can't really see any noticable difference between 4 and 4,9 GHz., but in the end, the avg. Framerate is considerably higher.

And atm i don't have any "new" games at my disposal to Test it. But i agree, it would be very interesting where the CPU work is going and what the game is doing with it...

Nice post,

could you test starcraft 2 and see how well it run also test some emulator like dolphin the gamecube emulator those two are quite cpu intencive  i have a frend that want a gaiming desktop and im not quite sure about the cpu if it able to run those program please

I don't have Starcraft 2, so unfortunately i can't Test it. But, Anandtech had a very good Benchmark with a lot of CPU's. The 760K is definately above the A10-5800K, so it will be playable above 45 FPS, if your friend has a decent GPU.

Unfortunately i don't have a Wii / a Gamecube, so i can't Dump any games and run them. But i'm quite sure it will run it without effort. Single Thread Performance on the 760K isn't as bad, as the 5800K, it's about 10-20% higher.

im loving all the pics.

quick question

is your passmark score for the cpu only?

it would make sense if it was, if it wasnt I would be very jealous :P

Could you post the full v8 score?

Here is mine

ps, crazy high disk score is from ram caching with deferred read/write.

Yes, it's for the CPU Only^^

I never thought Windows 8.1 is going to have such a big impact...but well, it has. The CPU Mark has gone down with Win 8.1.