Twin Build (Opinions and Feedback Kindly Wecome)

Like the title says...I'm looking for some feedback on these two builds I am thinking about doing...also any way to save money without losing looks/performance is welcome as well...just be nice (this is my first post).


My Build Part List

My Fiance's Build Part List 

As I have said above any feed back and suggestions are welcome here, just go easy :) Thanks in advance. Also I am looking at buying the parts around Black Friday/Cyber Monday. Also there are a few requirement's I have to meet.

  • They have to be full towers with windows...only because they will be sitting on the floor and both of our desks are 27" + high.
  • They need to be able to play Skyrim, Watchdogs, GTA V (and below), Call of Duty Ghosts (and below), Sims 2, 3, and 4 (All Expansions), Batman (Whole Series), NFS (All Games), Tomb-raider, & Runescape and some lower graphical games, on decent settings.
  • The Intel (Fiance's Build) must be WiFi.

What is total budget?

two of this? -

add a wifi card for one of the builds - and change case colour for a 'his' and a 'hers'

Eh no offense, but when im spending 5,000 dollars on 2 computers, I want them to look different. Also you didnt notice I had 2 optical drives in mine? My fiance only uses optical drives. I think the cases are going to be a NZXT Phantom 820 (with windowed panel) and a Corsair 760D (Black edition), I am trying to do a corsair build with an I7 and corsair liquid cooler, and then an AMD with a NZXT liquid cooler and NZXT case. Besides what about the monitor, windows 8 (for the corsair build only), speakers, keyboards, and a mouse (NZXT build) They all have to be included in the budget as these are enthusiast builds...I want them looking good (color wise)

Why would you choose the 9590? There is next to no overclocking headroom and you are spending i7 money on an inferior chip. 

OK - What is your TOTAL budget, and if they have to look different, what colour(s) do you prefer

To answer your question...I am not Intel or AMD bias (very truly non-bias people exist), I chose the FX-9590 because with its stock speed I have no use in overclocking simply puts Intel in the dirt for what I use it for...end of story....while Intel is great in many many fails to touch AMD FX series where multitasking is important....when I video encode with 4 cores in AMD I still have 4 more cores for gaming while its encoding...where as the Intel i7 simply can't encode or game on pure before anyone answers anything read my post before I delete it...I said in my last post 4,500 to 5,000 for 2 computers....I'll do the math for you......2,250-2,500 dollars max...however I don't really want anything changed from what it is...unless its like a water cooler or something....I have it how I want it...I just wanted opinions on the build.

Get a bigger SSD, 128gb is just not enough with windows updates and a bunch of programs. You might also want to get another HDD or just a 2tb HDD. Also DO NOT BUY THOSE CYBER ACOUSTIC SPEAKERS!!!!! I had those exact ones and within a month of normal use something in the sub made a pop and the whole thing died. I recommend these in the price range.

They are what i got to replace the cyber acoustics and they sound better, they are louder and they have not broken after three months of daily use. Just my two cents.

OK well opinions; Dont get a 3tb drive - they ahve a high(er) failure rate than I would like - stick to 2tb 

A R9 290X is $20 more than a GTX780 and will ROLFSTOMP it - if you HAVE to use nVidia - stretch for the 780ti

I dont like EVGA PSU's - get seasonic for both builds 

for the 1150 socket if you really want 16gb of ram - do 2 8gb sticks it puts less load on the controller than 4 x 4gb sticks and for gaming 8gb is heaps

Dont use a wireless keyboard (my opinion - YMMV)


Why wouldn't an i7 be able to utilize 4 threads for rendering and 4 for gaming? That's not something I've ever heard before. I don't know about gaming, but for video encoding 2c/4t Intel seems even with 4c/4t AMD if not a little ahead, not to mention Intel has far superior single threaded performance. You'll have both setups though, so I guess you'll be able to say better than anyone once those machines are built.

Your Build:

  • CPU: I know you have your reasons for the 959 but I would still go 8350 and OC or 9370, the 9590 is just silly.
  • RAM: You said you were doing video editing so 16GB makes sense but is that speed and the expense it incurs necessary? You could get slow for cheaper and still not have much if any noticeable impact on performance.
  • SSD: 250gb
  • HDD: Why a 1TB and a 3TB? Why not two 2TB drives?
  • GPU: Get a 290x, not much more, none if it is on sale, and relevant for longer.
  • PSU: 1000w? 850w is more than enough and something in the quality of seasonic.
  • Mouse: Wireless? Get wired unless you have serious reasons for wireless.
  • Toolkit: Unless you literally only have one ill sized screw driver there is no need for this.

Fiance Build:

  • CPU: I now you said you were video editing but what is the reasoning behind an i7? If she is only gaming an i5 is perfect.
  • RAM: 16GB for gaming?
  • SSD: again 250GB
  • HDD: Get a 2TB
  • PSU: Again 1000w is super overkill. 850w and Seasonic or something of that ilk.
  • Keyboard: Wireless, unless there is a good reason get wired, also there is no mouse on this build.

Over all I see two sets of speakers, speakers are nice sometimes but if you are both in the same house headphones are also very nice thing to have. Those PSU cables on your fiance's build are not sheathed, as in all the cables are separate, might get messy I suggest cable ties.

There are lots of different shops involved, might be some extra shipping in there that might increase the budget a little, just a small thing I am sure you have factored this in.

Um first off AMD FX-9xxx series has 8 cores/no threads vs. Intel 4 cores 4 threads...reason is Intel encodes faster yes...since it excels in single core performance ratio...however you can not play a game on just hyperthreading and most programs make no use of hyperthreading at all would be splitting the core in half performance wise on the intel...half the core would be fore gaming...the other half would be for encoding only resulting in 4 total cores split into too...hyperthreading...where as amd can make full use of every single core it has...tho it may not be as efficient or as I said no bias people on this topic.

If you want to go for thread utilisation, an i5 would be just fine. No point purchasing something with HT, if you're not going to use it. I know you understand, since you've observed this. And the 8350 is a perfectly capable alternative. Just ensure you get a decent motherboard for the 8350.

Concerning the 780 vs 290X... no it won't... in a lot of games the 780 is still better... and the higher end models with an overclock will put out noticably more frames if you have the monitor to see them... the 290x scales better for 1440p, but there's certainly still an argument to be had for the 780 over a 290x...

the problem is the 290's are such a good price, and such good performance (though not THAT close to a 780 or 290x) they are hard to pass up... the 780ti's really aren't that big of an improvement over the high-end 780's... I know I've surpassed some benchmarks on my overclocked 780 classified that stock 780 ti's were said to have... but really it's all a moot point if you're still at 1080p...

point being, 290X does NOT ROFLSTOMP a 780... for the $30 more, though, a 290 might ROFLSTOMP a 770...

A thread is basically a logical cpu. Intel's hyperthreading means each core is treated as two logical cpu's (threads). AMD does not have hyperthreading, therefor 8 cores = 8 threads. There is no such thing as a cpu with no threads as far as I know. And I did provide some benchmarks showing a 2c/4t i3 beating out a 4 core fx 4300 at video encoding, and here are some benchmarks of the i3 (2c/4t) in gaming compared to AMD chips: ACIV, Metro LL, Watch Dogs, Splinter Cell, far cry 3, Battlefield 4, Tomb Raider, and Bioshock Infinite. Out of all of those benchmarks, Tomb Raider  was the only game I could find where the i3 could not match or surpass the performance of the 4 core fx chips. Yes, hyperthreading hurts the per thread performance for the intel chips, but the per core performance on the Intel chips are light years ahead of anything AMD has ever produced. This means the only time that AMD ever keeps up is in heavily threaded applications (like video encoding), but it still doesn't pass Intel. 

I don't know that I've ever seen a benchmark that a 9590 beat a 4790k in? Maybe in streaming 1440p? Dunno... the i7's a MUCH better chip though... I mean bias doesn't really enter the equation... a devil's canyon i7 is faster in pretty much everything at stock speed, and it has headroom for overclocking...

I mean, I dunno why you'd post something for opinions, then not take any of them into account... but hey, it's your money... I don't see where the market is for the 9590... the 8350? sure...

Hmm I love all these opinions, and as to answe your questions on why I would post this is because I like people's experiances with things before I buy an I7, well my old work computer had an I7 with cards and very light use and it froze all the time...but that could of been the internet tho. I just dont want to send 400 dollars are regret the decision I made on the processor.

Let me put it this way... workplaces... in general (when they don't employ me in IT or as an IT consultant) buy pre-built OEM systems. The OEM generally advertises the processor, ram, and storage like they're the only specs that matter

Last time I tore apart an OEM "work build i7" it had an i7-2700k (stock cooler) on a generic H61 mATX mobo (no VRMs), with 1x8GB DDR3-1066 RAM, no GPU, and a 1TB Toshiba HDD in a case I cut myself on 3 times trying to get the mobo out for testing... of course when you look it up all it says is i7, 8GB memory, 1TB storage... which from an outside "I know the basics about computers" perspective, looks good...

The guy had apparently looked up the system specs and saw he had a k model CPU... tried to overclock his computer because it was running slow.... annnnnd fried his motherboard and CPU...

Point being, the CPU doesn't control how fast a computer is... the sum of it's parts do... I've never seen a reason to go completely overkill on $200+ mobos, but a nice mobo with strong VRMs does get a much more efficient overclock... it took me forever to convince the owner that I should build any computer we buy, but after I did, he said fine... build ME one... let's see... So I was allowed half the budget he had been putting into his systems (cause I ran my mouth too much) and built him a $700 budget computer... I've been hand-building and upgrading my past builds to modern standards since then... (and he's since given me the regular budget for systems that require a workstation GPU)

There's a certain art to building a beast system that requires restraint to go with price/performance of parts... for instance... the 8320 has definite market niche, as it's the same processor as the 9590, it's just the D quality silicon that comes off the line... that means it won't get the 4.7 GHz overclock or likely not even a 4.5... but it'll easily hit the 4GHz mark an 8350 stocks at... when you pay for a 9590, you're getting the exact same chip as the 8320, it's just the A silicon... but as it's already been overclocked to pretty much it's max, you're basically just paying for AMD to overclock your chip with a guarantee it'll hit 4.7...

And TECHNICALLY... it isn't a true 8-core processor, it's got 4 Piledriver module which handle 2 threads and act as 2 individual CPU cores... but isn't as efficient in it's day as the old Phenom's which were actually separated cores...

A Devil's Canyon i7, per core, is ~58% faster... keep in mind a vast majority of programs don't use but 2 threads while doing "CPU intensive tasks"... now you have to get into SMT theory to understand hyperthreading... just to dumb it down completely... it has 4 cores that are working... it can handle 8 threads as it processes... whenever an active thread on the core becomes dormant, instead of waiting on the thread to become active again, it just processes the secondary thread in the meantime... there's also preloaded triggered threads and a lot of other things that SMT does to make the core more efficient...

Now, gaming doesn't really use hyperthreading... but...

There's that... the i7 would purely be for video processing, virtualization, streaming, encoding, etc... things that actually USE 4 threads that you need done quickly...

IMHO, I'd buy one i7 and one i5... unless you're both running Linux and virtualizing Windows for gaming... or both streaming... the 9590 falls at a bad price point into Intel's performance territory... the 8320/50 are good buys for price/performance... but really at this price you could even consider dropping some computer bling and bringing in a 6-core socket 2011 which will murder everything from a processing standpoint (wouldn't improve gaming at all, but you never really said what you're doing with the PCs specifically)...

Back to the GPU talk... the 290 swamps a 770... a 780 will outperform a 290, and hang with the 290x (unless you're overclocking your GPU, and the high end 780's will overclock a lot better)... obviously the 780ti is the best GPU on the market, but a good 780 can overclock to ti performance as well... however, as far as price/performance... the 290 is DEFINITELY the best buy on the market for a high-end GPU...

I understand if you want to just buy what you originally intended... but if you ask the board to redesign something for $2500, you might find yourself getting some very good input as most of the people here are extremely knowledgeable in current hardware... GL with your builds...

Shh... the cpu doesn't matter when gaming, remember???

P.S: This comment has nothing to do with the OP, just a general comment for everyone who says the cpu doesn't matter in games when giving build advice. 

EDIT: To be fair, his results (in the video) do seem more favorable for intel than most other review websites. 

This one's on a rig that has no bottlenecks... that video was on a decent rig... but this is more of true CPU test...

anyways, for gaming the i5 is better than 9590 pretty conclusively...

...for one ever said I was doing any gaming....hell no one even asked...just assumed....I will be doing heavy video encoding, gaming, & music encoding/ripping into 320 kbps ratings....which is why I need I might just save up and get a 6 core i7, would that be worth it?