Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon: Performance and Value

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Performance
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
October 31, 2008 4:40:04 AM

Three dramatically different builds face off in show of performance, defining the real value of each. Our mainstream system is designed to meet the needs of most users. Who should spend more and who can live with less?

System Builder Marathon: Performance and Value : Read more

More about : system builder marathon performance

October 31, 2008 4:55:00 AM

Looking forward to the side by side Intel vs AMD build-offs for the $500 bracket(hopefully you start doing this)

Also, in future write ups, can you please provide power consumption charts?
Score
3
October 31, 2008 5:17:37 AM

Slomo4shOLooking forward to the side by side Intel vs AMD build-offs for the $500 bracket(hopefully you start doing this)Also, in future write ups, can you please provide power consumption charts?


Slo,
I'll toss the idea around with our authors. Don't see it being a problem--just have to get everyone outfit with the same equipment and methodology. Thanks for the suggestions!
Score
4
Related resources
October 31, 2008 5:48:57 AM

what about a $750 or $1000 machine - is this not a more realistic price point for most people?
Score
5
October 31, 2008 6:43:28 AM

based on these systems, a person should have an idea to build his 750 or $1000 dollar machines.
i like most the $500 machine,the best value,simplicity and efficiency,
only upgrading it to a quad core because i encode HD videos to H264 while surfing the net or watching a video.
only games crysis and supreme c. required more than 3Ghz so a quad is not a big loss to duals in gaming.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 7:38:54 AM

id very much like to see the benchmarks from a machine costing somewhere between the $500 and $1500 builds
i bet it would hit the sweet spot!
Score
0
October 31, 2008 7:40:50 AM

hi tom's could you tell me where you got the
Quote:
2x 20 GB Patriot Viper PC2-6400 CAS 4
ram ?
I could use some more then my 8gb i've got now. ;)  :p 
Score
0
October 31, 2008 8:48:58 AM

boostercorphi tom's could you tell me where you got the


You missed it! That was our limited-time $500 super-computer build. ;-)
Score
0
October 31, 2008 8:54:17 AM

And you stuck it in the $1500 machine? I knew you were holding out on that $500 build! :p 
Score
0
October 31, 2008 9:11:51 AM

I really enjoy these System Builder Marathons, yeah i'd pick some different components and price brackets, but great stuff anyways. Going with Newegg as a sponsor is a great idea and i sure hope you continue it in the future for other SBM articles. Having a quality retailer like Newegg supply easily available components should really cut down on the logistics of doing these builds and hopefully they can come a bit more often. I'd like to see other SBM brackets e.g. $600 AMD vs. Intel build. Budget quad core builds - AMD 9950 vs. Q6600. Bracket $750 $1,500 $3,000 builds. How about a reader suggested build? Post a bracket, have folks post suggested builds and pick one or a combination of ideas and have your guys put one together. Any way, great job by the staff, good information, brilliant sponsorship by Newegg and a hell of a lot of fun to read, good job.
Score
1
October 31, 2008 10:20:03 AM

I'd suggest you upgrade your next $500 build to $650! or lower the $1500 to $1100 or so.
According to a newsletter I received 4 days ago from one of the leading danish retailers, A basic pc costs $350, a basic gaming pc costs $600, and a 'good' (in their terms) gaming system costs $1000 - they're not selling any base pc with better graphics than an 4850, but it still means that they consider the $1000 to be the mainstream, and $600 to be lowend. Ofcourse the actual component price will be lower, but it's not going to be 25% lower.
Score
1
October 31, 2008 10:25:50 AM

I like these too, especially the bottom-dollar build which is probably easiest to tweak to improve a specific area.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 10:49:23 AM

Nice! Congrats on these four articles!

I read all four of them and I must say I've learned a lot. Although the builds were clearly game-orientated the benchmarks covered a wide range of classical applications used today by most of us, besides games. The synthetic benchmark though don't really help much and, personally, I'd prefer if they would've been replaced with power consumption charts.

Also, in future System Build Marathons, why not build 2 systems in the mid-range price (1200$-1500$), one of which would be game-orientated (dual-core processor+high end graphics card) and the other application-orientated (> 4 GHz overclocked new quad-core processor+mid range graphics card) ? I'm not suggesting to do the same thing for more than one price range because the work would be collosal.

Keep up the good work!
Score
0
October 31, 2008 10:58:59 AM

luciiacobNice! Congrats on these four articles!I read all four of them and I must say I've learned a lot. Although the builds were clearly game-orientated the benchmarks covered a wide range of classical applications used today by most of us, besides games. The synthetic benchmark though don't really help much and, personally, I'd prefer if they would've been replaced with power consumption charts.Also, in future System Build Marathons, why not build 2 systems in the mid-range price (1200$-1500$), one of which would be game-orientated (dual-core processor+high end graphics card) and the other application-orientated (> 4 GHz overclocked new quad-core processor+mid range graphics card) ? I'm not suggesting to do the same thing for more than one price range because the work would be collosal.Keep up the good work!

Adding power consumption fine - relevant for some people. But don't cut the synthetics ! They may not be relevant for building a pc, but they are relevant for seeing how the old rig at home stacks up. So you know if your 1½ year old $800 rig is still adequate, or if you should build a new $500 rig.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 11:01:59 AM

I´d like to see some other game benchmarks besides crysis. lets face it, not every one likes that game an there are some newer games that don´t need that kind of power. some racing games wold be nice.

BTW. great systems. the $500 its awesome
Score
0
October 31, 2008 11:22:15 AM

neiroatopelcc

True! Synthetics do help when it comes to that comparison. I didn't think of it. Sorry.

On the other hand, I honestly believe that no 800$ 1½ years old rig can stand up to a today's 500$ rig (so...no need for a synthetic benchmark when it comes to this decision :)  ). That's because prices drop at half after 1 year and today's overclocking capabilities are way better that 2 years go. Also, bear in mind that applications and games also need newer technologies to be supported by the hardware, not just higher frequencies and capacities.

Also, are you really going to spend 500$ on a new rig if you've spent 800$ 1½ years ago? Since my first Pentium 1 PC, about 10 years ago, I've always doubled the amount of money that I spend on a new PC every two or three years.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 11:31:29 AM

Go Crashman !!!! It is good to see someone doing these types of articles. Instead of the fluff advertising articles we normally get.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 12:00:24 PM

luciiacobTrue! Synthetics do help when it comes to that comparison. I didn't think of it. Sorry.

On the other hand, I honestly believe that no 800$ 1½ years old rig can stand up to a today's 500$ rig (so...no need for a synthetic benchmark when it comes to this decision ). That's because prices drop at half after 1 year and today's overclocking capabilities are way better that 2 years go. Also, bear in mind that applications and games also need newer technologies to be supported by the hardware, not just higher frequencies and capacities.

Also, are you really going to spend 500$ on a new rig if you've spent 800$ 1½ years ago? Since my first Pentium 1 PC, about 10 years ago, I've always doubled the amount of money that I spend on a new PC every two or three years.

Just under years ago I built an intel system for a friend. It had a ga-965p-ds4 board and an e6400 cpu. That cpu still today runs at 3,4ghz - that's more than the e2180 used here. More cache on the new models doesn't make that much of a difference really, so the old $800 mashine would stand up, if just the graphics would be upgraded. Now his mashine sported an all new 8800gtx back then, but we could've gone with a 7950 back then and compared that to the 8800gt now. Anyhow, my $800 was more of a theoretical number than a real one. Just meant to say that synthetics are key for comparison between their build and ours.

As for your upgrade strategy - sounds sensible, but I've only started from scratch twice in my life. When going from my p200 to an athlon 1000 back in 2001 or so, and when I changed from my athlon 2100 to a northwood 2.8 - and I only started over because poor inhouse electrics had broken pretty much all hardware in the old one.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 12:02:07 PM

You left out the stock scores in the charts :(  That was a valuable piece as a lot of people like to see what they can get for their money by overclocking and seeing if it makes it to that next tier. e.g.
($1500pc overclocked) = ($4500pc stock)

Is there anyway you can add it to your charts there?

Thanks!
Score
4
October 31, 2008 12:03:27 PM

Another topic for a article: Eco-friendly system. I want to see how low powered a system can be without loosing much performance.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 12:21:56 PM

neiroatopelccJust under years ago I built an intel system for a friend. It had a ga-965p-ds4 board and an e6400 cpu. That cpu still today runs at 3,4ghz - that's more than the e2180 used here. More cache on the new models doesn't make that much of a difference really, so the old $800 mashine would stand up, if just the graphics would be upgraded. Now his mashine sported an all new 8800gtx back then, but we could've gone with a 7950 back then and compared that to the 8800gt now. Anyhow, my $800 was more of a theoretical number than a real one. Just meant to say that synthetics are key for comparison between their build and ours.

As for your upgrade strategy - sounds sensible, but I've only started from scratch twice in my life. When going from my p200 to an athlon 1000 back in 2001 or so, and when I changed from my athlon 2100 to a northwood 2.8 - and I only started over because poor inhouse electrics had broken pretty much all hardware in the old one.

Wow, freaky. I built my current system in Q1 2007 with an E6400, P965, 7950GT and overclock to 3.4GHz @ 1.45v but step back to 2.56GHz @ 1.1v. Two weeks ago I replaced the 7950 with a 9800GT (8800GT refresh) and gaming performance more than doubled.

And yes, you’re right. My $1000 system still beats the value build.
Score
1
October 31, 2008 12:22:54 PM

Slomo4shOAnother topic for a article: Eco-friendly system. I want to see how low powered a system can be without loosing much performance.

That doesn't exist I think! if you buy a low power system, it means it'll be too slow faster than another system, and you'll replace components faster, thus spending more time on recycling parts than the electricity company on providing you with more power.
The request is valid if you disregard enviroment and only look at power consumption/maintainance costs though.
Score
1
October 31, 2008 12:26:07 PM

@ pei-chen : we didn't actually go with the 7950 though - he had an 7800gtx in his old system, so in order for him to feel a proper difference we went with the biggest gun we could. And got our stuff from newegg as it happends - and then shipped to denmark before the parts were available here :) 

Anyway - your rig probably could've handled a 4870 just fine - why compromise?

Score
0
October 31, 2008 1:35:50 PM

Quote:
A look back at the gaming benchmarks would reveal that only the $4,500 PC is adequate for playing demanding 3D games like Crysis at high-quality settings and medium or higher resolutions.


I agree with your assessment but the fact that Crysis sucks IMO makes me always go with a budget system. If a great game comes out that deserves a $4,500 PC, which I doubt.....then maybe but otherwise stick with a budget system.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 2:33:56 PM

Crysis is the yardstick for graphics and physics enabled games. Wether the game itself is good (I like it, and paid for it) is irrelevant to the benchmarks. There aren't any games worth paying a 4500 bucks rig to play, but if you like gaming in general, it may be sensible to have a computer that can actually play the games the way the developers expect them to be played. A budget system just can't if you prefer games that aren't 3 years old. If you only play cs or age of empires 2, then sure a budget system is the best choice for you, but for anything new a budget system is only good enough for those willing to compromise.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 2:44:15 PM

What about taking the approach from the other end of the spectrum?

Find what benchmarks are "acceptable" for most gamers in your evaluation categories, and then see how cheap you can build a machine for that will meet your performance specification?

How much can you pull out of various components and get the desired levels of performance?

Then what you might do as a follow-up, if it wasn't too much to ask...set them up in a "burnout" mode to see how long those performance levels can be held before you burnout the hardware.

I'd like to not only know what a system can do performance wise, but how overclocking and what not will affect the durability of that hardware.

Just a suggestion...however long-winded I might be. lol
Score
0
October 31, 2008 2:49:17 PM

I agree with the idea that a $700-800 price point would be nice. Price points of $750, 1500, and 3000 would also be nice and symmetrical. On the other hand, if everyone else is building in these price points, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of posts in the forums about them, just nice to have Toms seal on it sometimes (ie you know at least someone has gotten the components to work together). Always love the SBM articles, cheers.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 2:49:43 PM

Heya,

I liked this series. Kept me coming back to read over and over.

My one complaint is that the benchmarking of the 3d games is showing mostly off in Crysis. There are a lot of other games out there. Lots. And I think it would be a huge selling point to people to see that while yea, that $500 and $1500 system don't rock Crysis as hard as dual 4870x2's will, but they will play virtually every other game out there at highest settings and maxed resolution just fine. Very few games actually require more than what that $500 system is capable of. And I think it's very silly to spend $4500 or even $1500 to get `playable' frame rates at Highest settings in Crysis, when a $500 computer runs nearly all other games just fine. I'd be more likely to say "just don't bother with Crysis".

Cheers, :) 
Score
0
October 31, 2008 2:53:37 PM

My one complaint is that the benchmarking of the 3d games is showing mostly off in Crysis. There are a lot of other games out there. Lots. And I think it would be a huge selling point to people to see that while yea, that $500 and $1500 system don't rock Crysis as hard as dual 4870x2's will, but they will play virtually every other game out there at highest settings and maxed resolution just fine. Very few games actually require more than what that $500 system is capable of. And I think it's very silly to spend $4500 or even $1500 to get `playable' frame rates at Highest settings in Crysis, when a $500 computer runs nearly all other games just fine. I'd be more likely to say "just don't bother with Crysis".

I agree with you on your benchmarking statement, but won't I don't agree with you on is that $500-1500 PC's can't max out Crysis. This isn't true at all my $1500 rig can play Crysis on Very High settings with 4x AA.

My build -

Q6600 @ 2.4ghz, MSI P7N 750i Platinum, 4GB OCZ PC8500 Platinum Ram, 2x XFX 9600GT's in SLI


Score
0
Anonymous
October 31, 2008 3:21:18 PM

That $1500 build is being totally embarrassed by the $500 build. The decision to use a Q6600 didn't really work out -- a dual-core processor with air cooling would have worked much better, saved some money, and maybe even allowed some other upgrades (other folks suggested graphics card upgrades in the original $1500 build article).

I do hope people read these articles fully before deciding they're going to plonk $1500 down on an experimental Tom's Hardware build, because the components chosen really aren't the best bang-for-buck in this case. I'm now reading these things as much more of an experiment than a system building guide.
Score
1
October 31, 2008 3:31:11 PM

Can't believe such a wrong and miss leaded review by such a big web site as Tom's Specially for the mid and low budget systems.

Tom's articles are going like "roller coaster" lately.
Score
-6
October 31, 2008 3:37:32 PM

Quote:
I'm now reading these things as much more of an experiment than a system building guide.


I agree. I would like to see them not listed "gaming" builds etc, but rather just set price points and see what benchmark scores you can hit. (Within reason, obviously no one is going to spend 4500 and put one SSD drive w/ minimal storage.) It would seem that anyone who would be building their own PC would be doing so for a reason, most likely to get the most performance for their budget range. The most usefull information to the consumer would seem to be what speeds certain components can achieve together, not what interesting bits can be purchased with X dollars. Anyone who is going to build their own PC will most likely be able to extrapolate the benchmarking information into their own build and modify it with the peripherals/HD space/etc to fit their needs. It is always good to broaden your horizons though, and I can appreceate a little different flavor the the builds from time to time.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 4:04:46 PM

this should be called "Intel system building marathon"
Score
-1
October 31, 2008 4:26:06 PM

Just my two cents... I think it was a pretty good article but I think the benchmark spread was skewed by a bad choice of componants in the $1500 "mainstream" system. While I spent a lot more on case and power (and all the extras like a monitor left out of the article) below is similar and w/ my 8500 at 4.37 the $4500 system would not have looked as good except in some synthetics and encoding. I just don't think there was any reason to compromise using a a Q6600, X38, DDR2-800 and obsolete Seagate .10 drives to keep a 1500 budget. IMO if your on a budget money is best spent on CPU, Mobo, memory, graphics and HD's first. Saving a little on fluff you can also have a 4870X2 instead of the two 4850's. Some of these prices are even a bit cheaper now.

180 CPU E8500 (or spend a little extra for E8600 and ~do 4.6+)
65 CPU Cooler Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme/Scythe Slipstream 110CFM
290 Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula X48
95 Ram 2x2gb Ocz 1066 5-5-5-15 2.1V
180 HD 2 x WD Caviar SE16 WD6400AAKS 640GB in Raid 0
28 Optical Samsung 22X LightScribe, SATA SH-S223Q
480 Graphics Radeon 4870 X2 (lowest I have seen w/rebate)
80 Case Any number of cheap cases
100 Power Some ~750
-----
1498
Score
0
October 31, 2008 5:27:50 PM

charlesalexandreCan't believe such a wrong and miss leaded review by such a big web site as Tom's Specially for the mid and low budget systems.Tom's articles are going like "roller coaster" lately.


Can't do much about that unless you list examples.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 5:31:24 PM

fadirocksthis should be called "Intel system building marathon"


Tell your buddies at AMD to step it up, last time Tom's built an AMD system for builder marathon, it was obliterated by the others, and everyone cried.
Score
-2
October 31, 2008 6:48:50 PM

Hey I really like these comparisons. I do think that maybe you guys should add one more system tho..

Something like High End > Medium High > Medium Low > Low end.. There is just to big of a gap between the builds.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 7:51:23 PM

xlastshotxHey I really like these comparisons. I do think that maybe you guys should add one more system tho.. Something like High End > Medium High > Medium Low > Low end.. There is just to big of a gap between the builds.


Something like 500/1000/2000/4000? Or maybe 600/1200/2400/4800?
Score
0
October 31, 2008 8:22:04 PM

the latter of them if anything.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 31, 2008 8:23:09 PM

I think $650 would be a good price point for the lower end system. Raising it by $150 brings the overall performance of the system up in all benchmarks and games by a noticeable amount. Not only that, but the $650 total system would come closer to $550 after rebates. Newegg also has tons of "combo" deals where you can get a videocard + ram or Mobo+Cpu or any other type of combo at an even better price bringing total costs down.
For system price points I would say $650, $1300 and $3500. I think these price points are a bit more realistic.
A comparison of full system power consumption would be great.
Watercooling on the $1500 system was overkill, a good air cooling solution at less then half the price would of been just fine.
Thank you for the articles, you guys did a nice job. I really like the benchmark comparisons of all 3 systems.

Score
2
October 31, 2008 8:53:47 PM

One of the things I like about building my own machine is that individual components often have rebates. I just built a $1500 machine but ended up with about $200 in rebates.

Also, I bought my parts from Mwave and paid to have them assembled. It cost be an extra $79 but they do a nice job and they still send you all of the original packaging so you can still submit rebates.
Score
0
October 31, 2008 10:20:03 PM

Crashman


Yeah, something like $500, $1000, $2000, $4000.

Score
0
November 1, 2008 1:24:24 AM

luciiacob

So you're saying that an E6600 on a good P965 mobo from a year and a half ago won't stand up to a E2180 on a P35? I beg to differ. The biggest improvements between these 2 rigs might be that the video cards have gotten slightly better with a much lower price today. DDR2-800 is cheaper now, but still clocks the same.

I will concede that I'm disappointed that my $500 7800 GTX gets beat by my new $110 9800GT.....that's $400 I'd like to have back!

























Score
0
November 1, 2008 3:21:34 AM

I think it's funny that $400 every year gets more value per dollar than $800 every 2 years.
Score
1
November 1, 2008 6:01:27 AM

i strongly agree to that. it just shows the profit margins on those more expensive components. it goes the same with all tech products.
there's a lot that can be save on video cards, someone who wants bang for the buck should stay away from cards more expensive than $200.
Score
0
November 1, 2008 7:39:12 AM

Well in general, the "Super PC" users usually end up paying for the R&D costs involved to improve technology.
Score
0
November 1, 2008 9:08:12 AM

Slomo4shOWell in general, the "Super PC" users usually end up paying for the R&D costs involved to improve technology.


Well someone has to really, so I suppose it's only fair taht those who want the most pay the most :) 

And to be realistic - the g92 chip costs them the same to produce no matter which board they put it on - so the faster you buy your card the more of a profit they make. But that's fair too really.
Score
0
Anonymous
November 1, 2008 11:35:49 AM

I would go for this:

CPU: intel C2Q Q9650
RAM: 2x2GB DDR3-1xxx
Graphic: ATI HD4870x2
HDD: 1.0 TB Samsung x1
and etc...
Score
0
November 1, 2008 4:24:40 PM

Quote:
but if you like gaming in general, it may be sensible to have a computer that can actually play the games the way the developers expect them to be played. A budget system just can't if you prefer games that aren't 3 years old.


That is pretty funny, I usually play the games the way I want to play them. To me being sensible is buying a system that can meet your individual needs and then can be upgraded as needed. Also my system, AM2 6000+ and my 3850 can play Farcry2 and Grid at 1280X1024 with all the settings maxed out. Those are not 3 year old games. I could play Crisis with medium settings. I played the demo and really did not think the game was all that great.
Score
0
November 1, 2008 6:26:36 PM

True, but you have to remember you're playing the new games on a rather old monitor. If you'd bought a monitor at the time you got your 3850 you'd have a 22" running 1680x1050, and then your sensible choice would've been a waste of money.

Anyway, as you point it out, you buy what you deem right. That's a good thing, but it does mean you're not running the software as the developers had expected.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!