Currently I have a FX6350 @ 4.6Ghz & 8GB of ram but that's not cutting it. I want faster Photoshop Render/Merge times and I want to remove the bottleneck on my r9-290 and play more games AND finally get raid'd SSDs for my OS
Ultimately I want 3 things.
Ability to utilize Raid 0 ssds, (currently 1 is OS the other is Games)
Get better IPC performance & overall performance.
16GB of ram.
I'm unsure how much I will be able to spend this summer but I've come down to two contenders.
LGA-2011-3
5820K
8GB DDR4
x99
Pros - Very powerful and won't have to upgrade for a long time Cons - Very expensive and I'd have to get the second set of 8GB ram later down the line. The x99 Mobo is not going to be cheap either
LGA-1150
4790K
x97
16gb ddr3 1866
Pros - Powerful - Another 8gb ram kit to get me to 16 costs me $50 out of pocket compared to ddr4 Cons - Not as powerful as x99 and I may have to upgrade slightly sooner to please my enthusiast heart
I guess it comes down to how much I'll spend. and un sure of that at this time. What would you recommend TS forum? also what motherboard would you recommend for each chipset?
You could just wait for AMD's Zen Architecture. personally i wouldnt jump to Z97 knowing DDR4 is out. right now if i were in your shoes, i'd buy a 8350 and hold out till next year.
I've already got a 6350 and an extra two more cores is not going to much since I need some more IPC performance for the programs that are only using 2/4 cores
I'm ready for it this summer around late June. Zen is too far away, and I'l very skeptical about it this far in advance. Especially knowing their current Predicament.
that's just it I WOULD get 2011-3 But the cost of the platform and DDR4 is just so high, IIRC skylake is confirmed ddr3 (both?) and broadwell-E is delayed for a much longer period of time than I'd like.
Allegedly it will have both DDR3 and DDR4. Honestly, im going to make a big prediction that it's going to still be DDR3. DDR4 kit prices are still insane right now. You can wait for Skylake. But if you need something now at this moment Z97 is something to consider.
Yeah, I personally wouldn't be able to justify an X99 rig. Sure, the performance is nice, but the law of diminishing returns hits real hard, real quick.
EDIT: Oh, and I've also found that I need to add another 8gb of RAM soon. I'm using between 4-6GB with just Firefox/Chrome and stuff I've got running 24/7.
Try running one core per module and see if that helps. In theory, this is suppose to increase per core performance by 10-20% on applications that need IPC and aren't optimized well for multi-threading, but I've only read about it being done on Bulldozer/Zambezi.
Unless you are making money off the content you make, or more specifically, unless you are losing money from slower render times, I'd avoid X99 - too expensive for only marginal improvement for most uses. And it sounds like you're having troubling utilizing the 6 cores offered by the FX. I can't really see you fully utilizing X99 and it sounds like it would be a massive waste of money for you.
Can you definitively prove the FX is bottle-necking the 290? If GPU usage is under 90% with an uncapped framerate without v-sync, and you aren't seeing any performance benefit from turning down graphics settings, then you might be hitting a CPU bottleneck (of course, it could also be a poorly optimized game). However, most games are GPU bound and a good enough CPU tends to be... good enough. Again, running the FX in a Tri-Core config (1C per Module) might help alleviate any CPU bottleneck, as by in large, gaming doesn't handle more than 4 threads well. You can do a quick check to see if you'd benefit from such a config by running a game and opening task manager and manually setting the game's process' affinity to every other thread. Of course, you'd want to run the same game with the same run with default affinities to get a baseline.
Also, RAID 0 SSD's for an OS drive makes about as much sense as dropping a super-charged V8 engine in a car that's going to be racing in a small japanese parking garage. OS drives are about low que-depth random I/O, and RAID doesn't really help that (RAID 1 might help with read i/o). RAID will help with sequential access which makes lots of sense for things a like a scratch disk, but strictly as an OS drive, doesn't really help much. Just use a single SSD, maybe a PCI-e/M.2 one if you really want every last ounce of performance as that would eliminate SATA overhead since SATA was designed for Hard Drives, not SSDs.
I'm an enthusiast and this is what I do. I want to upgrade because I don't "need" and upgrade I want better performance even if my 98 lumina with 230K miles already gets me from A to B, I crave more, more with a little bit more under the pedal.
I've done official and un official benchmarks with hardware. I've officially tested my friends 980 against my 290 on my cpu and this was the result I've unofficially tested his 4820k against my 6350 and guess who smoked who.
I also play a lot of games that are not developed properly and/or are still in development, People in those communities with similar GPUs get higher framerates with a better cpu and those with the same gpu as me get lower framerates with an even worse cpu. Advertising a low IPC, high core chip is logicaly stupid on the false premise that Devs will better optimize for it, They Don't. Or rather their pace is too slow to justify it considering time.
I'm not going to disable core just to edge out single core performance, I do a wide variety of stuff, some of it actually using all 6 cores and I'm not going to limit my chip for that reason.
I have 2x 850evo 250GB drives right now, One for OS and one for games. My plan was to Raid 0 them (remember I'm an enthusist) but due to some mobo issues I couldn't overcome I couldn't get it to work. also, 250GB is big enough for today with my programs and a few games, But I do want to move a few more games over to SSD