I need some third party suggestions as I am conflicted.

Daily greetings everyone!

I'm right now gathering a parts list for my new puter rebuild later early next year, FINALLY, AMD's new APU lineup is FINALLY available for retail for the desktop! And new motherboards too!!

So I was perusing the Newegg and I decided to look at the liquid cooling sets they have. I remember two years ago with my last rebuild, I was pondering that as an option but later felt it wasn't cost effective as I was right, air cooling was totally fine for my Athlon processor, even overclocked pretty hard. But, as the APU I'm looking at has a modded Radeon 7660 onto of a quad core AMD processor that I do believe is overclockable, I may need to look at liquid cooling seriously now. My options I'm preferring are the closed-loop systems, where the radiator attaches to the back of the case, and the water block plops onto the APU, and that's it, no external tanks or remote possibilities of leaking. Sounds nice, but it might conflict with my airflow setup. I have two 92mm case fans that can blow 120 CFM, loud, but that's what case fan controllers are for! If I had the two fans set up, on top of an extra fan pulling about 50 CFM, I'll have a negative flow which isn't really ideal. Methinks I could make or find a jumper to connect to the motherboard CPU fan pins so it doesn't freak out at boot, and attach my case fan to the radiator and call it good. I would adjust the fan speed accordingly to usage, but I think if I have even just 50 CFU (fans running at 5 volts) that should be plenty enough. I would do that especially since I don't believe I can fit the radiator and case fan on the backside as my case I'm rebuilding (literally) which dates back to the trusty, inefficient days of the P4. Should I go for it?

Next, BOB SAGET, is the motherboard itself. I don't have much to say, only I need to vent. THEY'RE EITHER TOO BIG OR TOO SMALL!!!! I CAN'T FIT SEVEN SLOTS IN MY CASE AND I GET STRAPPED WITH FOUR SLOTS!!!! Damn it.

But speaking of such, I have me a question regarding PCI E 2.0 backwards compatibility. I discovered a SSD that is on the PCI E 2.0 x4 interface. My only available motherboard has two PCI E 2.0 x16 slots, and two PCI E x1 slots. Now, with my graphics card that will abolish using one PCI E x1 slot (I'll have to use a ribbon cable extender so I can use a built in wifi card) I'm left with two of each x16 and x1. Can I plop in the SSD (PCI E 2 x4) into the PCI E 2 x16 slot? I know they have backwards compatibility, but part of me calls BS.

To the system tweakers/overclockers out there, is it that difficult to overclock RAM? I've read how it's done, and the gains you can get especially with the new APU. But it seems like the scene in Star Trek: The Next Generation where the computer has to navigate the Enterprise out of an asteroid field as the calculations are immense and precise, except YOU are the computer.

Oh, one last bit. Does anyone use case fan filters on their rigs? If so, I'm assuming air flow is impeded, but is it significant? And does anyone have/know/use anything or have tips to share to quite the noise in the case? I bet when all is done, a roaring beast will roar...

And to those that will question some items, this rebuild is a legitimate future proofing build to last AT THE VERY LEAST, five years of hardcore performance, with the possibility and likelihood of upgrading the new APU "Kaveri" next summer as AMD claims 25 percent performance gains overall and still on the FM2 socket. We'll see. But hardcore performance entails, HD video playback, 1080p gaming at highest settings as possible, video converter/video authoring, Photoshop, AutoCAD, power efficiency, and overall performance so fast you'll slap your mother.

Coke Robot said:

Oh, one last bit. Does anyone use case fan filters on their rigs? If so, I'm assuming air flow is impeded, but is it significant? And does anyone have/know/use anything or have tips to share to quite the noise in the case? I bet when all is done, a roaring beast will roar...

Click to expand...

I run cases that include filters. I don't necessarily have filters on the fans themselves, but I have filters over the entire air intake area on the front of the cases. I would not have it any other way. My cases stay sparkling clean inside and I clean that filter out very regularly and I'm amazed at how much stuff it stopped.

I overclock my boxes (albeit only slight to moderate), I continue to use my stock fans on my Intel coolers and I only have 2-3 fans in my case, all spinning as slow as they can and I have next to now problems.

Coke Robot said:

And to those that will question some items, this rebuild is a legitimate future proofing build to last AT THE VERY LEAST, five years of hardcore performance, with the possibility and likelihood of upgrading the new APU "Kaveri" next summer as AMD claims 25 percent performance gains overall and still on the FM2 socket. We'll see. But hardcore performance entails, HD video playback, 1080p gaming at highest settings as possible, video converter/video authoring, Photoshop, AutoCAD, power efficiency, and overall performance so fast you'll slap your mother.

Click to expand...

My current rig at home, is now 3.5 years old and going strong. It wasn't outrageously expensive when purchased (~$1,200), I was just particular about my parts. The only upgrades I have made is a new video card and a few years ago I added an SSD. Other than that, it's still flying. This box is a Q9550 CPU, 8GB of DDR2-800RAM, 80GB Intel SSD, 1TB Caviar Black, GTX570 and it's great. I have a brand new Core i7-3770 at work, with 16GB of DDR3, and a 2GB Seagate hard drive and I don't find it to be that much faster in many tasks than my box at home.

I assume you are just an AMD fan? If it were me, I wouldn't even consider AMD at the present time. Intel more or less spanks 'em as far as performance goes. But if you are AMD loyal, I can understand sticking to their products.

Yes, I'm an AMD fan. I choose AMD's new desktop lineup of APUs over Intel. I was going to consider Intel when I found out that the new FM2 motherboards won't have PCI E 3.0 until later, but I got over that as a new Radeon 7x graphics card will still run on PCI E 2.0 x16 just fine as the bandwidth for it isn't being overly taxed for graphics. The revision entails more for enterprise/server SSD performance. A few reviews give the quad core A10 a run for an i5's money in the graphics arena. An APU WHOOMPS an Intel equivalent. And for the price of an i3, you get a chip that is roughly on par with an i5-2400 and graphically on par with an NVIDIA GTX 550, AMD hands down wins again with performance per dollar. With the money saved versus the Intel/NVIDIA route, I'll have more money to pop in a Radeon 7870, overclock it if possible, and see real decent frame rates in games at very great settings. Yes, an i7 will beat down the A10, but at HUGE cost that I may or may not experience.

Coke Robot said:

Yes, an i7 will beat down the A10, but at HUGE cost that I may or may not experience.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to go look up the prices, because I just build a Core i7-3770 at work and it was only $300 for the CPU....which I didn't think was that expensive.

Edit: But after looking at the price of the A10 at NewEgg (around $129), it makes a $309 seem very expensive. Might finally have to give AMD a look again. I haven't had one since the AMD Athlon 64X2...back when they were kicking Intels' butt.

But then again, these numbers seem to show that in most areas a Core i5 costing $75 more, performs better in many, many areas.
AMD Trinity A10-5800K vs Intel Ivy Bridge i5-3470 - Reviews with Synthetic Benchmarks don't matter right? by VR-Zone.com

Integrated graphics performance is a non-issue for me, as I will either have a dedicated graphics card, or wont' require intense graphics.

Did some reading, and I have to say I will continue to pass on these new Trinity AMD chips. They are attacking the low cost front, but they aren't bringing the performance.

Hothardware had this to say (AMD A10 and A8 Trinity APU: Virgo CPU Performance - HotHardware)

Performance Summary: In last week’s article detailing GPU performance, AMD’s latest Trinity-based APUs put up scores that easily outpaced Intel’s integrated graphics offerings. Today’s look at CPU performance, however, tells an entirely different story. The A10-5800K and A8-5600K generally offer better performance than the previous-generation Llano-based APUs they’ll be supplanting in AMD’s desktop APU line-up. Versus Intel’s similarly priced desktop offerings, however, the picture isn’t as rosy. The dual-core Core i3-3220 and i3-3225 keep pace with and in many cases significantly outpace AMD’s latest APUs.

The competitive landscape doesn’t change all that much with the release of AMD’s latest A-Series APUs. The lead in processor performance Intel has maintained over the last couple of generations remains firmly intact. And the superior integrated graphics performance AMD has offered since the introduction of Llano continues. The deltas have simply shifted a bit. The Trinity-based A10-5800K and A8-5600K are a little more competitive with Intel’s offerings at their respective price points in terms of CPU performance, but AMD has extended their lead a bit in terms of integrated graphics performance.

Speaking of price point, we’re sure many of you are wondering how much these things will cost. Fortunately, AMD is being aggressive on that front. The flagship A10-5800K will be priced around $122 and the A8-5600K will be about $101. The lower-end A6-5400K and A4-5300 will be only $67 and $53, respectively. Considering the kind of graphics performance offered by the A10-5800K and A8-5600K we tested, their somewhat improved CPU performance, and decent overclockability, AMD’s latest APUs represent a good value. If you’re looking to build an entry-level system with good graphics performance, AMD’s Trinity-based A-Series APUs and the Virgo platform are an affordable, no-fuss, solution.

Click to expand...

Personally, I'm not looking for entry level systems with good graphics performance.

Some of the water cooled systems recommend having the radiator fan as an intake so cooler air is used. Also the cpu fan header controls the pump and the fan so this may work for you. I have the Antec Kuhler H2O 620 on two of my systems and they work just fine. I have 8 fans on my system and try to balance for a slight positive pressure. I have seen some good filters that reduce the airflow by 15%.

Jim

Intel always outdoes AMD in the processing arena, but even an i7 with its integrated graphics get blown away by Radeon. I've looked into many reviews and benchmarks, the ones that I care about are real world graphics/gaming performance. One test was with an i5 paired with a Radeon 7870 (with a motherboard I believe had PCI E 3.0) and an A10 using just the dedicated graphics card, it did pretty well. The i5 beat the A10 in some instances, the A10 was on par with other scenarios.

Then pair the A10's built in Radeon chip in CrossFire with a dedicated Radeon 7870, frame rates are pretty great. Personally, as long as 60 FPS is achieved with high settings, I'm good. The human eye can't really process past 60 FPS, so having a game play at 130 FPS is a bit overkill for my person.

300 dollars is a bit high compared to the A10, especially when that's without a separate graphics card, which would be almost 500. For that price, an A10 and a Radeon 7870 or 7970 in CrossFire. More bang for buck. I might upgrade to the new APU next summer as 25% overall performance is expected to be achieved, as well as having the GPU accessing CPU memory.

Anybody using an i7 with integrated graphics is not gaming, but instead using the system just as I am running vms, watching videos and movies.

Any gamer is going to be both concerned with both processing power and their gpu. So unless they are on a very tight budget, I would see them going for a fast cpu and a dedicated graphics card.

I always see the same thing with amd fans...going to buy something now and upgrade later as AMD is always promising great things down the road. Unfortunately, they often come out with huge hype and only so-so performance and leave diehard fans disappointed and defensive against all of us saying, "told ya so".

I don't think you would be disappointed with the a10, but if you want a system that will truly hold up for the next 5+ years, I don't suggest a budget processor today.

True, I could do Intel. But Intel is kind of the same,there will ALWAYS be something better behind the corner. Right now, they're at a tick in improvement before the tock of next gen chips that promise something better.

In the long run, I can still upgrade to a new APU yearly as money savings will be there to do so. AMD is promising better support for the FM2 socket, which I like because Intel seems to have a new socket every generation of chips they release. There currently six AMD sockets to choose from, Intel is like double that currently.

I personally don't care too much in simple synthetic comparisons as I do for real world performance. If I have a chip paired with a dedicated card, not in CrossFire, and it performs similarly with an i5 in game frame rates and is still less overall to buy and operate; that's what wins me over. That, and more graphical bang for buck when the APU is in a CrossFire setup with that dedicated card over the Intel/NVIDIA/AMD setup, that also wins me over.

To me, I'd rather upgrade to a newer APU versus looking back and realizing the Intel route might had been overkill for my needs. The A10 will suit me now, and the next one will as well, I don't mind that as I do have plans to make upgrades when necessary.

Coke Robot said:

The human eye can't really process past 60 FPS, so having a game play at 130 FPS is a bit overkill for my person.

Click to expand...

The human eye processes (sees) about 24fps maximum.
You're good to go with 60fps.

It was just my suggestion as you wanted something for the long term. I don't like to upgrade and make changes, when it comes to cpu and mobo. I tend to just build new about every 3 years. I'm at 3.5 years now and no complaints with my current box. It should suit for another 1-2 years.

I can't comment on much, but what I can say is....

The 60FPS thing is true, but a bit of a misnomer with graphics in games.
A higher FPS is always better, now, the 130FPS is overkill, but in all cases, anything higher than 60FPS makes for smoother gaming video. it's not so much that you can see it all, it's contributes to less flicker and ghosting/tearing. Even at 60FPS, in some games, the FPS drops below that and you get all that, with a better system that can provide a higher FPS, if it does drop, theoretically if the system can handle the drop it recovers better and becomes unnoticeable.

So, it's not of what we can see as it is based on performance of the system as a whole.

However, you have to have an LCD that can handle, most are locked at 60FPS.


************
The system in my specs is about 6 years old, I am playing BL2 at moderate graphics levels and Skyrim the same, I have to down, the Shadows, but other than that, it handles games really well...

I base my performance, not off of FPS at all, I never check it, ever.

I base it off of what I see as I am playing and tweak till it suits me, that is it. And they play wonderfully and look great. So, I am happy with whatever FPS I am getting and don't waste or concern myself with FPS at all.
*********
However, the above wtill holds true, especially when you start getting into the more Life Like Add-Ons and graphics such as ENB in Skyrim and other games.

pparks1 said:

It was just my suggestion as you wanted something for the long term. I don't like to upgrade and make changes, when it comes to cpu and mobo. I tend to just build new about every 3 years. I'm at 3.5 years now and no complaints with my current box. It should suit for another 1-2 years.

Click to expand...

I know you're well intentioned, thanks for the input. I thought my build from two years ago would be ample enough, but I built like a year before new technology was released. I don't like building during technology cycles.

New technology is always being released. When I bought my q9550, the core i# series was out, but pricey...and not compatible with a project I was working on. So, I went with the q series with 12mb of cache and its been great.

AMD Trinity A10-5800K vs INTEL core i5 3550 gaming benchmarks + overclocking - YouTube

This is my main reason why I'm choosing AMD's A10 over the Intel i5 counterpart. The chip is less expensive, and it has overclocking flexibility versus some of Intel's chips, meaning more value is added. I read today that apparently, the A10 even with stock cooling, can achieve a stable 5.1 GHz over the 4.2 it can reach; and 7.3 GHz stable with liquid nitrogen cooling. That to me gives futureproofing assurance as I can overclock the CPU and GPU independently as needed and get playable graphics. Then there's the CrossFire setup, whoa Nelly!

I think AMD has a huge window open with Windows 8 tablets as they're rather power efficient, and can provide the thin form factor needs while also providing graphical power. Consider that a LOT of software these days(after IE 9's release?) has been taking further advantage of the system's graphics chip from video converters, Photoshop obviously, CAD, internet browsers, and even Windoes 8's immersive apps are rendered solely by the graphics chip. I believe they have a great product at a great cost to offer, but they need to offer them. I haven't seen a single AMD powered tablet so far and if AMD is used, there's a potential 50-100 dollars in cost savings for tablets.

That's my rant for the day...

Yes, buy a cheap budget chip and instead spend a whole lot more on a liquid nitrogen cooling solution. Thats the way to go for sure.

I'm not saying that I'm going to buy a liquid nitrogen cooling setup, I just merely stated an example of AMD's added value through overclocking. And the video I mentioned sure does represent that.

Like the video eluded to right at the start, nobody is going to build a gaming rig around built in graphics. I don't know of a single gamer friend of mine, who is using the built-in graphics capabilities of their cpu.

I just don't see the inherent "value" in getting better on-board graphics if you are going to be running an external video card anyway. I would focus therefore entirely on the CPU itself and the power and performance that it brings to the table.

A core i5-3550 is $195 at NewEgg and the A10 is $129. So, about $65 more for the Intel chip. And looking them up on this chart, PassMark CPU Lookup, shows the A10 at around 6,900 and the Core i5-3550 at 7,400. My 3.5 year old Q9550 is around 4,300. And the Core i7-3770 that I bought at work is at 10,300+.

I still feel that the A10 is shortchanging yourself if you are trying to build a "future-proof" gaming rig that will last 3-5 years.

I think you might be overshooting the runway here. Theoretically, yes the A10 isn't skewed for gaming as it is for AIO PCs, but that doesn't mean it's not built for decent gaming. It does both. I'm not saying that I'll be using JUST the built in GPU. The value-added benefit I see here is taking a dedicated AMD Radeon 7870 card and pairing that in a CrossFire setup, where both the A10's Radeon chip and the dedicated 7870 are working together. Together, they reduce any frame rate drops as two graphics chips are better than, just as a dual core CPU is better than a single core. As I've said before, lots of software are using the GPU for visual rendering as you can see that first hand with any modern browser when you turn off hardware acceleration, internet content rendering drops and CPU usage ticks up and I've seen on more impotent systems, that affects overall usability. More value-added benefits is overclocking. The A10 is pretty overclockable just on stock cooling and from the video, a 200 MHz jump in the GPU and faster RAM speeds added about 10 FPS without anything else, whereas the i5 was stuck at about 10-15 frames. Yes, for 65 dollars more I could go with an i5, but then I'd need to spend the 280 or so dollars for a decent GPU just to get closer and above those framerates that the A10 can single handedly do.

To me, the number side of the argument doesn't matter too much when you're gaming. If at least the playable minimum of 30 FPS is achieved with high quality, and the gaming standard of 60 FPS and more is achieved with a CrossFire set up, along with overclocking; I feel pretty fine for a future proofed build. I can upgrade to a better APU next year if I feel necessary, or I can just overclock until then, the CPU, onboard GPU, and dedicated GPU.

You said when you built your system, it was about $1,200 before a video card and SSD. I did the numbers, that's my ENTIRE system with dedicated graphics, a PCI E based SSD, and all other add on cards. With the price of your additional upgrades, that's almost two four TB hard drives, realistically one.

Maybe in the long run, I might end up with Intel, but seeing as how realistic daily usage is concerned, AMD isn't a bad route, to me that is.

Coke Robot said:

I think you might be overshooting the runway here. Theoretically, yes the A10 isn't skewed for gaming as it is for AIO PCs, but that doesn't mean it's not built for decent gaming.

Click to expand...

But frankly very few people build a pc for decent gaming. Either they want good gaming, or don't care about gaming.

Coke Robot said:

It does both. I'm not saying that I'll be using JUST the built in GPU. The value-added benefit I see here is taking a dedicated AMD Radeon 7870 card and pairing that in a CrossFire setup, where both the A10's Radeon chip and the dedicated 7870 are working together.

Click to expand...

From my reading, the A10 GPU won't crossfire with a 7870. And I have had friends who have screwed around with Crossfire, and many have dropped it in favor of a single high end graphics card.

Coke Robot said:

Together, they reduce any frame rate drops as two graphics chips are better than, just as a dual core CPU is better than a single core. As I've said before, lots of software are using the GPU for visual rendering as you can see that first hand with any modern browser when you turn off hardware acceleration, internet content rendering drops and CPU usage ticks up and I've seen on more impotent systems, that affects overall usability.

Click to expand...

Depending upon the software, dual core is not always better. And you aren't going to have any i3,i5,or i7 struggling with browser videos.

Coke Robot said:

More value-added benefits is overclocking. The A10 is pretty overclockable just on stock cooling and from the video, a 200 MHz jump in the GPU and faster RAM speeds added about 10 FPS without anything else, whereas the i5 was stuck at about 10-15 frames. Yes, for 65 dollars more I could go with an i5, but then I'd need to spend the 280 or so dollars for a decent GPU just to get closer and above those framerates that the A10 can single handedly do.

Click to expand...

It won't take an i5 and a nearly $300 video card to outperform that A10. You can get a Radeon 6670, which is more or less what the A10 packs for $49.99 from NewEgg. Newegg.com - SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 6670 1GB 128-bit DDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP Ready Video Card (11192-22-20G). Coupled with the dedicated video RAM, and the faster processing power than the A10, and for about $110 more you will likely get a fair amount more performance.

Coke Robot said:

You said when you built your system, it was about $1,200 before a video card and SSD. I did the numbers, that's my ENTIRE system with dedicated graphics, a PCI E based SSD, and all other add on cards. With the price of your additional upgrades, that's almost two four TB hard drives, realistically one.

Click to expand...

Keep a few things in mind, the $1,200 was 3.5 years ago. Back then, an 80GB Intel SSD was around $550. It did include a video card, it was just an Nvidia 9800GTX+ at the time, which was later replaced when BF3 came out and I needed more graphics performance. It included a $175 case, a modular power supply (which was about $165 back then), and it included the cost of my operating system..which was a Vista 64bit Ultimate OEM copy which was close to $180 if I remember correctly. Add those 3 items up, and you have $520 of my build costs.

Coke Robot said:

Maybe in the long run, I might end up with Intel, but seeing as how realistic daily usage is concerned, AMD isn't a bad route, to me that is.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with AMD. I've owned quite a number of them over the years. Just in the last few years, the power to performance ratio just hasn't made sense for me. It used to be they were dramatically cheaper and offered 95% of the performance. Now, it seems they are a bit cheaper, offer a decent amount of performance...but it's always the "next thing" which is really going to put them back in the game. I just don't trust 'em for the next thing right now. For 2.5 years they guaranteed that the Bulldozer was going to make the Intel chips look absolutely silly. But when it actually came out, the highest end 8 core AMD, was only on par with the middle of the road core i5. They didn't set the world on fire, and instead had to simply lower the price and get the budget builds as their performance wasn't anywhere near as awesome as they indicated it would be.