i got you man, just give me like 15 mins

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Really cannot be bothered to trot around on the US websites as they are so bad.

If you need keyboard & mouse, its really user preference so do what you like

Xiggy wrote [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Really cannot be bothered to trot around on the US websites as they are so bad.

If you need keyboard & mouse, its really user preference so do what you like

It's a decent set up, but for $1,000 You might as well go a bigger processor.
The AMD FX-6350 is better than the i5 you chose and the FX-6350 is $100 less. You'd have to swap out the motherboard, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Ahh right. Kewl story you have there bro.

Tell me why the out dated, old architecture, low core performer is better than the new(ish) architecture, high core performance and better upgrade capabilities 4690k?

Xiggy wrote Ahh right. Kewl story you have there bro.

Tell me why the out dated, old architecture, low core performer is better than the new(ish) architecture, high core performance and better upgrade capabilities 4690k?

lol alright or we can be an ass hole about it.
Go to novabench.com
People test scores of their computer parts based on best performance. And if you look through it, even the FX9590 Eight Core scores on average 220 points higher than the i5 you chose for the same price.
Some of the scores-
Most tested/best i7: 1073
FX9590: 759
FX 6350: 563
your i5: 528

AMD isn't out of date. It's Intel's top competitor and outperforms tons of their processors. Clearly you know nothing about computers.

Bleach wrote

Xiggy wrote [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Really cannot be bothered to trot around on the US websites as they are so bad.

If you need keyboard & mouse, its really user preference so do what you like

It's a decent set up, but for $1,000 You might as well go a bigger processor.
The AMD FX-6350 is better than the i5 you chose and the FX-6350 is $100 less. You'd have to swap out the motherboard, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Ok, so why is the 8350 better? is it because it has a higher clock speed? Clock speed means naf all, just epoon which when it's factory OC'd, means nothing.

Terrabytez wrote

Bleach wrote

Xiggy wrote [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Really cannot be bothered to trot around on the US websites as they are so bad.

If you need keyboard & mouse, its really user preference so do what you like

It's a decent set up, but for $1,000 You might as well go a bigger processor.
The AMD FX-6350 is better than the i5 you chose and the FX-6350 is $100 less. You'd have to swap out the motherboard, but that shouldn't be an issue.

Ok, so why is the 8350 better? is it because it has a higher clock speed? Clock speed means naf all, just epoon which when it's factory OC'd, means nothing.

No not based on the clocked speed. It tests better. Just because it's intel doesn't mean it's better. There are DOZENS of intel processors. Where as the FX series AMD processors only has 4 or 5 (i think). Yes the best intel processor runs better than the FX9590, but the FX 9590 out runs EVERY i5 and most i7's

Yes, but the 9590 is A HUGE wast of money.... you have to have drunk bleach and lived to buy one because Intel provides a far better line-up. For example, The 9590 has the same architecture as an 8320, just better silicone and moar GHz. Intel's top of the line i7 (4790K or 5690X, whatever floats your boat here) pffer hyper-threading and a far greater performance per core, not mentioning AMD's stupid 220W TDP. Now don't get me wrong, I run a 6300 at 4.4GHz but I wish I went with Intel because the 8320 isn't worth the upgrade and if I want to see a performance boost, there is only one route in which I can take.

Why have we moved on to the 9590? We was talking about the 6350

But here we go. Enjoy getting rekt hard kid.

6350 has weak core performance
4690K has much stronger core performance.
This allows the 4690k to have the edge in games where no more than 4 cores are used as it has the better core performance.

9590 is just an overclocked 8320 [which i myself have][Which also has similar core performance of the 6350]

The 4690k matches the 9590 whilst - Being less hot and more quite [obviously]

It takes a monumental amount of power to run the 9590, not to mention a decent rig which can get the heat out ASAP. That chip runs so hot, it will heat your house in the winter.

The 4690k on the other hand will be alright on the stock cooler and doesn't need high-end equipment.

I know plenty about CPU's and by the looks of it, far more than you.

I suggest reading up on some before:
Posting here again
Messing with me on the wrong day sunny boy.

Edit: And he buckles. Key word here which shows you know nothing

Bleach or whatever hes name was wrote Where as the FX series AMD processors only has 4 or 5 (i think).