Enzo03 wrote:Not what I would've built, but that's a great rig!
I would've went with an i5 or maybe i7 (or maybe just go down to 8350 -- 9590 is the same processor, just OC'd and binned to handle it), forgo the liquid cooler for a Hyper 212 EVO, get an EVGA 1000W GQ. The 1000GQ is (at the moment) about 10-20 bucks more, is efficient throughout its wattage range, has more reliable parts, and has EVGA's kickass warranty. If only getting one storage drive I'd have strongly encouraged one large SSD like the Samsung 850 EVO 500GB. Otherwise, I'd have still recommended getting a smaller SSD for booting Windows and maybe holding a few games. For larger storage, I'd save a little and go with WD Blues instead of WD Blacks. I'd also be tempted to go with a cheaper mobo and either stay with the ASUS brand (I've heard RMAs are a nightmare) or get an EVGA brand if possible (again, kickass warranty and support).
That's just me though. Your rig still kicks ass, it's just not what I'd get. For what it's worth, what I've got now is not what I'd get. I personally overspent on RAM, motherboard, and case at least.
As for monitors... I run 3 VG248QEs. They're 24" 1080p monitors with 144Hz refresh rate. Some people tell me I should have gone with an Ultrawide monitor or a 1440p monitor instead. It probably would have been cheaper but I like to rotate a monitor when coding or playing a shmup. It's also a little convenient to be able to run games that *dont* have windowed/fullscreen window support and still be able to see other programs like Steam or my browser. If I'm really so bothered by them, I can just turn them off. Playing across triple monitors is nice, too. I used to play Battlefield 3 and GRID 2 exclusively across three monitors. The difference in fluidity between 60 Hz and higher refresh rates like 120 or 144 is night and day. Most 144Hz monitors lack color quality though, and much farther above 90 most people can't see much improvement in general cases (flashing light levels can be seen in extremely high refresh rates).
A 390 should do great on a 1440p monitor, maybe even a 144Hz one at that resolution, but it'll put a greater strain on your card for given graphics settings. If you go with 1440p you'll probably wind up with a 27" monitor and 1080p is usually 24", so bear that in mind. A lot of 60Hz monitors (IPS panels in particular) have far better color quality and are still quite a bit cheaper. Recently some 144Hz IPS panels have come out that have the best of both worlds, only issue is they're all 1440p 27" monitors, meaning they have everything that could make them expensive wrapped up into a single monitor.
I personally wanted to go strictly AMD, stick what I'm use too.
I knew the 8350 = 9590 expect not as high as heat issues and no liquid cooling required.
I went with the 9590 purely for a pride reason, wanted the latest AMD FX chip period! Haha, I'll be making
a 2nd build once ZEN comes out.
Is 24" inches ok? That seems so small for me, I use a 42inch and 32inch ( dual monitor setup ). Can't
imagine going down, is it really worth it? I really only care about doing ULTRA 1080p rather than 4K
if that helps my monitor issues any.
One has 60HZ and the other 75HZ - people on a FB group say it's "bad".
It's a bummer because the 42" is new.