Will the FX 8350 bottleneck 7970 CF?

get 1500W just in case :)... Just kidding... I'd say you get a 1000W psu, even though you probably won't be too close to 1000W... 1000W is just a bit more than the 900W psu's and it will be future proof in your next builds. 

Newer gen. games will start to utilize 8 cores because of the newer consoles (PS4 will have 8 cores) so the FX would be better than the 3570k in future gaming.

There will be some slight bottleneck, but honestly it's pretty much nothing comparing to a socket 2011 processor... Maybe like 10-13% .....

Your build is good other than the PSU.

I won't crossfire now!! I will have only one CARD!

If you're doing 7970 CF, I would get at least a 750W. I would feel better with an 850W PSU, though. Something from SeaSonic, like the SeaSonic X 850W 80+ Gold, or the higher-end Corsair AX850W 80+ Gold.

If you only have 1 card, a 550W PSU will do. But, you would have to by a new one to upgrade to 2x 7970s, so it would be cheaper to get a nice, high-quality,large PSU now, rather than 2 separate ones.

yes, in some games it will bottleneck others it wont.



http://pcpartpicker.com/p/GqYp


the above is a better build, I can tweak that a bit more to get it closer to your price but, this would give you the ability to run fancycache on your ssd and hdd, also would give you a better ssd with more space.


ssd will speed boot times(but who shuts their system down these days?) and will help load times, and can help with streaming textures(stuff streamed form hdd)


you can also use fancycache to get a similar effect on game load/texture load/level load times when using an hdd.


the one warning I give people about using ssd's is, even a 256gb one is very restrictive space wise, and you never want to fully full an ssd(on a 256gb its best to leave 20-50gb free at all times)  long and short of it is, if you fill the drive it cant ware level properly and it also wont have space to recover bad sectors to in many cases.


the build I would do personally http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Gr66  I would then partition the first drive with 120-160gb for OS and apps like office and such(tools/utilties) then partition the rest of the first drive for games and such, install fancy cache drive edition, give that drive 24gb of cache, this will cache most used data from both C:(windows drive) and D:(games drive) speeding load times, you want to enable delayed write the default 10 seconds is fine, you can go up to 600 seconds but, personally, I would only do 600 if you use Volume Edition and then only give cache to the games partition say 16gb, with 600 sec delayed write give C: 1gb cache(plenty for most people) this will make getting to desktop and loading most commonly used apps much faster, delayed write on windows drive I leave at 10sec.


the configuration I suggest Will not have the blazing boot times of an ssd but will give you more storage and more reliability, it will also give you a 2nd hdd for more storeage and/or a backup of the data on the first, It will be very fast for games.


I have not yet had a chance to test it but have been told that the L2cache in fancycache is persistant between reboots, you can use an ssd(Even one with slow write speeds or thats pretty small/old) so that when the systems restarted, fancycache can cache the most used data back to ram during boot, meaning, if you play a specific game or load a specific app alot, it will already be cached.


windows superfetch is sposta do something like this but, its quite unrealiable honestly......


well thats my suggestion, its what I would do, and my current systems are


sabertooth 990fx(both systems)



8120/8130(work/home)



16gb ram/32gb ram(work/home)



dual 6870/dual 7870(work/home)



hdd wise, to much to list, the work system has 8gb of 16 dedicated to cache, 2 on the main windows/apps drive(320gb seagate pulled from a dell) and a 500gb seagate for games/videos gets 6gb cache(yes i can game at work during down time) 


I have owned a few ssd's, and have put alot of ssd's into friends/clients computers, i have not been impressed with their long term surviveability, have rma'd more ssd's in the last 4 years then I have hdd's in the past 20......this includes every major brand of ssd....and a number of minior ones.


the main issue is, ssd's really dont deal well with heavy write/rewrite situations in my exp, some are better then others(adata900's and samsung 800 range) but still, I have seen a few 840's die in months due to heavy write-rewrite use....


I have NEVER see system memory die due to heavy use......


http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/romex-fancycache-review-ssd-performance-at-13gbs-and-765000-iops-in-60-seconds-flat/


http://thessdreview.com/Forums/ram/1924.htm


http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18243823


http://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/fancy-cache/


my buddy directed me to http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227932, said to use that for L2, its cheap and its designed to use as a cache drive. 

Any OC'ing of the card and/or the CPU and you will probably nuke the PSU. A 550 for those components is really pushing the envelope. Logan has explained several times why not to cheap on the PSU. Remember, you can put $1200 into your build, but if your PSU shits and should take the build with it, no one will cover it under warranty. Just spend the extra $40 and get one that won't blow up.