Hey guys I want to know if you think this build will be cutting the power supply a little too close? Its estimated wattage is 596 and the psu is only 650 watts. The reason I ask is because I've been looking at CoreTemp, to observe my processor speeds/temps, and since I added the second videocard my processor is showed running at ~1000-1500mhz where as before I added the 2nd card it showed it running at its full 3.5ghz on all cores... I'm not very familiar with the CoreTemp program so if this is a known issue with it or a sign of danger to my computer.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD FX-8320 3.5GHz 8-Core Processor ($169.99 @ NCIX US)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($24.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX PRO R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($139.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($92.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($92.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Corsair Force Series 3 240GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($219.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card (CrossFire) ($239.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 2GB Video Card (CrossFire) ($239.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Rosewill BlackHawk ATX Mid Tower Case ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Enthusiast 650W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Monitor: Asus VE278Q 27.0" Monitor ($297.95 @ Mac Connection)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8 (OEM) (64-bit) ($87.99 @ NCIX US)
Mouse: Logitech G600 MMO Gaming Mouse Wired Laser Mouse ($63.79 @ Amazon)
Total: $1830.63
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-01-09 21:30 EST-0500)

Processors throttle down when idle. This is normal.

Thanks for the info.

most PSUs have no problem delivering 20% over their rated wattage, they just are supposed to stay in spec at a certain rating. a 650W 80+ bronze might be a 700W 80+, though typically the manufacturer tries to get the highest rating rather than the highest wattage.

Since you have so much money to burn, get a kill-a-watt meter and laugh at yourself for worrying. You'll pull 450W max.

"Got me a hundred gigabytes of RAM, I don't feed trolls and I don't eat spam. . . " - Weird Al Yankovitch, circa. 1999

32GB in your system, another few years and. . .

Am I behind the times or is 32 GB of RAM just overkill to the point of not even being useful?

It's overkill. 16GB is overkill for most people. 8GB is even more than a lot of people need. Hell, I get by on 4GB on my laptop, and I run RAM-hungry applications like games and developer tools (Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc.). 8GB seems to be the magic number right now, and since prices drop over time, there's no point upgrading higher until you actually need it.

Of course, if you wanted to try to utilize all that RAM, I guess you could do this.

Please note, that using 16 CPU Threads, instread of 8, will require 90GB of RAM, instead of 45

I spent more on 1 GB of ddr2-667 ram than he did on 32 GB of ddr3-1866 ram.

Also, compressing something that much is a silly waste of time. The resources required to decompress that behemoth is just silly.

Well, honestly I can't use all 32gb on my mobo. My heat sink is too large and covers the first slot, so I'm only using 24gb at the moment. There were a couple reasons I have so much, firstly its fairly cheap in terms of everything else. Secondly, I'll be doing a lot of audio recording and editing with this system and I don't want to be held up by a sluggish system.

If you buy this system at least for 3-4 years - I bet, that 24GB (or lower) will not be enough for you in 2016/2017 for example, and you will become angry, that you bought only 24GB in 2013.

I was anrgy in 2012, realising, that 4GB (bought in 2009) is not enough for me nowadays. But in 2009 I thought, that 4GB is enough.

Also, even 8 GB is not enough for me nowadays, because I use virtual machines and 7-zip compression now.


Scenario: you need to send large amount of information to your friend (or co-worker), and he has slow internet connection.

The time required to download uncompressed files for him is just silly (in comparison to "download archive and decompress it").

This scenario is often scenario for me.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Jan 17 2013, 6:46 am by theleo_ua.

I don't think even when DDR2's were brand new you had to spend $200 on 1 GB of it. I'd like to see proof of that claim.

No need to get angry. There's a bunch of reasons why spreading costs is better:
- more money to spend on the original build
- more money due to interest of saved money
- RAM gets cheaper over time, so the 2nd 4 GB DDR3 are cheaper when bought a couple years later
- you get a brand new component which hasn't aged yet

To make use of this you have to plan your build accordingly: Get at least 4 mobo slots and only fill 1-2 slots initially with relatively large single modules. (e.g better buy one 4GB stick than four 1GB sticks.)

I'm running 4GB from 2007 and haven't had any problems.

Black Bahamut is a big boy I'm sure, if he's spending 1800 on a build anyway, WHY NOT GET 32GB OF RAM???!?!?!?! Seriously though he's a big boy and as long as he understands what it means, whats the big deal with him buying it? It's his $$

that ram was on sale a little while ago for $55. My RAM was over $110 7 years ago.

If you will buy 2x2GB of Samsung RAM in 2009, and 2x2GB of Kingston RAM in 2012 - you will receive a lot of glitches. And this is related not only to "same manufacturer" - even model, timings and manufacture date should be same (for being sure, that you will not receive any problems with compatibility of RAM sticks).

So the only option is "Sell 2x2GB of Samsung RAM in 2012" and "buy 4x2GB of Kingston RAM in 2012".


Imagine, that you bought only 1 GB in 2007

But he spent over $180, not $110

Compatibility issues are rare these days, and they continue to get less frequent. You have to be quite unlucky to run into that problem.
and you can avoid it entirely by buying the same RAM.

Why would I imagine that? That makes no sense. I bought 4gb in 2007 because it was the sensible price/size option to go with (standard build then probably would have been 2gb) and I planned on using this computer for 5-6 years.

Since then I've upgraded it with an SSD and large data drives and bought another graphics card last year, but otherwise it's still going strong and I probably won't upgrade it till early-mid 2014 because there's really nothing wrong with the system as it is. Recently played through Farcry 3 on 'High' pre-set graphical settings without any real problems (even 'Low' looked pretty good, couldn't see any benefit in going to 'Ultra').

Did he? I though he already had this computer.

I have no idea what you're getting at with that response, but I'll make mine clearer:
16GB @ $90 + 16GB @ $90 = 32GB @ $180
$180 is more expensive than the $110 you paid.

Although it still supports that it's cheaper to buy "enough" when you get the system and buy more later than going overkill and forget it for the lifetime of the system.