Almost at the limit, but still got some wiggle room left, I wouldn't dare run furmark though. :P

Corsair HX/AX PSU's can actually out-put more wattage than they are rated for, GPU's are at stock.
And being a C2 Core i7 3930K I was able to hit that clock at only 1.25 volts, at idle it's even more efficient in the range of 20-30 watts.
Even at 4.8ghz, it's still more efficient than my old AMD FX processor at 4.6ghz.
I have pushed it to 5.2ghz, but I need to push the volts to 1.42, and shit starts to get hot to the point where my Corsair H100 can't keep up.



If I did hit the wattage wall, the Corsair PSU would just shut off, but it's been flawless for almost a year now.

Besides. When you drop in a 3rd graphics card the amount of power your graphics set-up consumes doesn't automatically increase by 33% it's substantually less as the scaling isn't that great with tri-fire so the cards are never utilised 100%.
One thing it does eliminate though is micro stutter.

I do suggest you read this though: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2624

Anandtech debunked allot of Power supply myths, more often than not people buy a PSU that exceeds their needs by a large margin.

Also about a week ago I finally ditched my 3x Asus 1920x1080 TN panels for 3x glorious 2560x1440 Dell IPS panels, crap never looked so epic! But. No Crysis for me at max. :P

Makes sense... Yeah Corsair has quite a reputation for quality PSUs. Besides your PSU does come with 6 PCIe connectors so they obviously intended it for 3 way SLI/Crossfire.

I can only imagine how nice games look at that res. One of these days when I decide to rebuild my gaming rig it will be very hard for me to decide if I want 3X IPS and 2560x1600 or TN and 1980x1080 and 120 hz. Right now I have a single 120hz monitor and it sure does make a difference, but WQXGA and IPS is beautiful too. May just go with a tripple projector setup, if I have room... I have to buy a house first though lol.

As far as Crysis, it sure looks nice but as a game I find it overrated as a game. I think that at that resolution and tripple monitors you could actually benefit from going quad crossfire/SLI. 

Follow up benchmarks video posted the The Tek, using a GTX 670 and overclocked. AMD continues to surprise. The power consumption part at the end of the video is hillarious IMO, considering people constantly bring up the power difference. 

disolitude, great link. I loved their STFU formula for electricity costs. Hilarious. I think AMD's main weaknesses for FX8350 lie in perception and in honesty there are some popular titles that are only dual-core threaded (Bethesda games like Skyrim, or Blizzard games like Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 and WOW). If more games were multi-threaded properly like BF3 or Arma II series, then FX8350 would be a bargain for $199 (actually 8320 even more so at $169). For now there there are certain cases where the performance of FX8350 isn't optimal but hopefully with PS4/720 consoles, more and more games will shift to being threaded for 4 cores and beyond. Seems like AMD bet that software would become more highly multi-threaded a lot earlier than it actually will be. Bulldozer/Vishera were great in theory IF software was highly threaded today, but unfortunately due to the long tail-end of the PS360 generation and so many PC console ports being shoddy/only scale with 2-3 cores, FX8350 often can't show its true potential.

Granted someone spending $800-1000 on GTX680/7970GE CF is probably not going to flinch at the $125 premium that i7 3770K has over the 8350 but someone getting just 1 single GPU like a GTX670 shouldn't be calling AMD chips "completely crap", etc. It's overblown, that's for sure unless you spend a 90% of your time playing WOW, SC2, Skyrim, etc.

So like I mentioned in another thread, I got my 8350 and new mobo yesterday for my home server(up from OC'ed i3-540 lol....) and so far it's working great, though it pretty much ate my 300W flex PSU after 1 hour(shit was hot as hell when it died haha) so I currently have an old ass 430W laying outside the case for it while waiting for the new PSU lol....

I'm not exactly thrilled with the default fan noise and the amount of heat it generates compared to the old i3 but I do like it a lot better since I run a 4 camera surveillance setup that gets streamed online at 1280x960 via xsplit and it's using about 50% CPU power with no OC compared to the 80-100% OC'ed i3, which is very good since I also run PS3 Media Server, a Mumble server, and a FTP server, it also hosts a ton of data off the internal and external USB3 3TB HDD drives so more CPU head room for all those is always a good thing to have!

At this price level, it's excellent for server purposes even if it does use a little more power considering that I got the Newegg deal at 185 USD so I highly recommend it! The motherboards are cheaper too!

@all: Please! please! please don't use Quick Sync or GPU for video encoding! You guys are killing me! The quality from those are shit! Just stick to x264 for now! PLEASE!

Yeah...According to the benchmarks they did, even for Skyrim it appears that you are hitting 60 fps with the stock 8350. So I would say that unless you are playing Skyrim and have a 120 hz monitor and need more frames per second than 60, you are absolutely fine with an 8350.

I made this thread a few days ago about building a sub 1000 dollar gaming rig - http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=153434&page=1#18

I really can't find a single reason to go intel if you have 1000 dollars to spend. Even higher spec'd rigs can go AMD and not see any performance loss. For example if I am about to go 3 X 1080p eyefinity or 3D surround even. This is all GPU... You will have 3 X GTX 680 in tri SLI and I guarantee you that the CPU isn't going to bottleneck anything at 6010x1080 3D vision enabled or 3 X 1080p @60 hz. 

It's only if you are doing synthetic benchmarks, folding@home or have 120hz monitors that intel comes in handy as far as I see it. (when it comes to gaming)