Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon: $1,250 Mid-Range PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Core
  • Intel i7
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
December 30, 2008 7:36:48 AM

Personally I'd get a cheaper processor and motherboard and go with a Gforce 280 video card. You can get a $180 processor and a $145 motherboard and the 280 card has PhysX built in which is really nice.
Score
-4
December 30, 2008 7:57:37 AM

I will hope to see how a high-clocked q9550/q9650 E0 will compare with a i7 920. The Motherboard and RAM will be cheaper. So, you can also get more RAM and faster RAM with the q9550 than the i7 920 with the same cash. Or the high-bandwidth/ lower total memory DDR3 tri-channel might actually do better?
I don't think a i7 920 /w 3 gigs RAM will work as quickly as a q9550 @ 4.0Ghz with a 470mhz fsb and 4+ gigs RAM -even with quad-core supported apps.
Anyway, I think the outcome will be hard to predict.
Score
6
Related resources
December 30, 2008 9:03:01 AM

I think the Q9550/i7 920 comparison would be very informative. I have been considering purchasing a Q9950 in the near future. Let's see it happen.
Score
9
December 30, 2008 9:58:30 AM

I agree with I'd agree with trying to run a comparison with the Q9550. Throwing in an nvidia card would also prove interesting.
Score
9
December 30, 2008 10:08:56 AM

Very good article. I just want to say that the Crucial 3GB triple-channel DDR3 1066 kit costs only $73.99; its price surprised me. Go Crucial! I'm definitely looking into a Crucial memory kit for my next upgrade or build, which might or might not be Core i7, depending how the price wars progress between nVidia and ATI (saying AMD still feels wierd to me when referring to video cards). I noticed how the budget had to "settle" for a 4850 X2 when they Core 2 Duo build had money for a 4870 X2. Hopefully, prices will go down faster, and soon.
Score
3
December 30, 2008 10:10:47 AM

Page 2 - E8500 has 6MB L2 cache, not 4MB.
Score
2
Anonymous
December 30, 2008 10:45:17 AM

Yes, please try the next system with the Q9550! I would love to see how this processor compares again the new kid on the block. Of course this is the processor I have and also want to see what you get out of it. It would be nice if you chose another Gigabyte board as well to get a more apples to apples comparison with this month's build.
Score
5
December 30, 2008 11:00:50 AM

Yes we want to see Q9550 against Core i7 920. Both overclocked at the same speed. Let's say 3.8 or something like that.
Score
6
December 30, 2008 11:04:48 AM

Good article, well done. At first I was a bit worried for the Core i7 was going to get humiliated against the higher clocked E8500 but you summary shows just how much progress has been made with developing software that can take advantage of multiple cores.

The Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance benchmark was surprising out of all the games you tested I expected that game to be the one which showed off what quad cores can do for games. Perhaps you could add in GTA IV into your future benchmarks as that games seems to love quad cores?

The temps were a little worrying but the Intel Stock cooler isn’t designed with overclocking in mind and you can pretty much guarantee a decent 3rd party cooler will slash those temps by a third.

One last thing it might be an idea to compare your very first mid range build to your current mid range build, it would give the readers an idea as to how much more bang for buck we get now days.
Score
3
December 30, 2008 11:11:32 AM

well 4850x2 there is only two in newegg 2gb and 1gb which not sure if ATI rly supported as far as drivers compared to its bigger brother
Score
0
Anonymous
December 30, 2008 11:22:03 AM

I read this and I suddenly start to cry ... you may have read before that figures in Euros are equal to figures in Dollars ... but things got worse and worse.

The current prices in an average shop in Spain:

Intel Core i7 920 : 293 EUR = 413 USD
GIGABYTE GA-EX58-DS4 : 219 EUR = 308 USD
Sapphire Radeon 4850 X2 2 GB : 349 EUR = 492 USD
6 GB Patriot DDR3-1333 CL7 Kit : 259 EUR = 365 USD
Score
1
December 30, 2008 11:24:15 AM

spain lol
Score
-7
December 30, 2008 11:52:02 AM

And yes, please include a GTA 4 benchmark. I got more FPS from overclock my C2D 700MHz than overclock my 9800GT 100Mhz.
Score
1
December 30, 2008 12:08:09 PM

The Q9550 would be interesting because it would show how much gain is from the change from Dual to Quad core and how much is gain from the new i7 architecture. This comparison is very relevant to everyone buying/building a new quad core system right now, especially around this price range.

What I would really like to see is the new i7s on the CPU charts.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 12:36:07 PM

I think it would have been cool if you would have used two 512mb 4870's in crossfire instead of the 4850 X2. I think there would have been a different trade off in memory amount but I think the added speed of the i7 might have offset it nicely.
Score
0
Anonymous
December 30, 2008 1:01:59 PM

I guess core i7 is strictly suited for high end systems ($2000+), where the added costs of memory, mobo and cpu are justified. for low to mid range systems it is too much to bare.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 1:28:12 PM

In the next SBM we should watch the brand new GTX 295, keep it in mind, folks ;) 
Score
1
December 30, 2008 2:12:43 PM

I'm kind of surprised that you folks chose a new i7 for a "Mid Level" system.

You've upgraded the processor, but downgraded the video cards from last month.

"Not really. The i7/4850 X2 still performs at about 80% of the level that the E8500/4870 X2 is managing to achieve."

Of course this new system performs less than the November one.
Score
-3
December 30, 2008 2:23:15 PM

I understand you keep Vista 32 to make it easier to compare to the previous systems, but in reality you should really upgrade to vista 64.

You have a total of 3.5 gigs of memory to play with in vista 32. Since you only put in a graphic card with 2gigs of video memory that leaves 1.5 gigs of memory for normal applications and the OS. Anybody that reads these system builder marathons are going to put vista 64 on their computer if they are going to use vista.
Score
1
December 30, 2008 2:46:46 PM

Your chart regarding the base and overclock settings of the Dec. pc on page 7 is inaccurate. (Ram and Graphics card.)
Score
0
December 30, 2008 3:49:15 PM

A test with Q9550 vs I7 920 at similiar clockspeed and same graphiccard would be very intresting.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 3:51:32 PM

A test with Q9550 vs i7 920 with similiar clockspeed and same graphiccard would be very intresting. =)
Score
0
December 30, 2008 4:12:24 PM

If anyone wants to compare the Q9550 to the i7 920, all they have to do is look at THG's latest CPU charts.

DUH!
Score
0
December 30, 2008 4:23:29 PM

Somebody mentioned keeping the Q9550 at a similar clock speed to this i7 (~3.8). If you guys decide to use the Q9550 next month, I say kick the speeds up as high as you can since after all the point of these articles is to find the best bang for the buck, not how the processors stack up at similar clock speeds. If the Q9550 has some extra performance in there, let it out! I want to see the best my money can buy.
Score
1
December 30, 2008 4:26:12 PM

Ach!!

I just realized you only used 3G RAM in an i7 build! Now I too am wondering if a Q9550 build with 4G RAM would be better!?!?
Score
0
December 30, 2008 4:36:11 PM

Fun article (again) and very well done. One sentence that stood out is the authors conclusion that the Q9550 would be an interesting study for the mid-range and readers point this out too. There are too many processor choices between the 8XXX series and the I7. Too big of a jump for one month. Downgrading the GPU challenges the reader to be open-minded - but that is all good and the authors reasons are all sound. I like how I7 was shown to be a viable mid-price build maybe for everything but gaming. That says "good job Intel" - again. I still think mid-price build is all about 'most bang for the buck' and 'mainstream'. I am not sure I7, 2X4870, water-cooling, and SLI/crossfire qualifies in this category. I think high end build should be reserved for those components at least until the cpu and gpu prices drop. Overclocking is fair game for all three categories. Thanks again TH.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 4:48:17 PM

Some of my thoughts
(1)What I and many readers liked about Nov.SBM was the flexible price points, back then you shifted from 1500$ to 1250$, and I think now it's relevant to shift back to the 1500 point, which can afford a 4870X2 and a decent CPU cooler.
(2)Hardware for corei7 systems are still immature, and is not suitable for a mid-range built, they are new and designed around "to be or not to be" philosophy. Unless a P55 overclocking friendly mid-range mobos become popular, it is very early to use core i7 in anything but high-end 4500$+ PC...And your article is the proof..Thanks for it.
(3)The only obvious advantage over last month's build is the future upgradibility. Sooner or Later socket 1366 CPUs will fill the market and LGA775 ones will be obsolete. At that day you'll wish you chose an X58 mobo!!
Score
0
December 30, 2008 4:59:49 PM

i'd love to see a productivity based comparison of two systems equal in price between core2 quad and the core i7, all other components being as close to the same as possible.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 5:04:06 PM

Because of the 4870 X2 clearly aiding the last build this was a bit unfair to the I7 build. You should have just done a third setup with a I7 with a 4870 X2 just to see how it would preform. This would have shown any true advantages that the I7 may have.

Though to be honest it would probably be a better investment to wait till the I7's mature before getting one anyways.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 6:15:08 PM

You know, I'd really like to be able to compare these builds with some older builds to see how much performance/price has increased. Is there anyway we can get some "Legacy" benchmarks like FEAR, Doom 3, or Oblivion like what was used int this System Builder Marathon from May 2007 . It is unlikely you still have those systems around, otherwise you could run current benchmarks on them.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 6:33:24 PM

still like the core i7, i'll just endure the less FPS on crysis than sacrifice twice performance on quadcore apps.
also, i'll get a single hd 4870 over that 4850 x2.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 6:47:18 PM

[citationSooner or Later socket 1366 CPUs will fill the market and LGA775 ones will be obsolete. At that day you'll wish you chose an X58 mobo!![/citation]

I doubt 775 will be obsolete that quickly. I would be willing to bet we will see the predecessor of the i7 before 775 becomes obsolete.
Score
1
December 30, 2008 6:53:24 PM

avatar_raq said: "Hardware for corei7 systems are still immature, and is not suitable for a mid-range built, they are new and designed around "to be or not to be" philosophy. "

I agree, but at the same time I'm glad Tom's decided to try it. It gives us something to compare the previous and future mid-range builds to.

Additionally, I also agree they should try the Core 2 Quad Q9550 in the next round.
Score
0
December 30, 2008 7:21:36 PM

I would like to know how you find out how much Watt a system is using. Thank you. Ü
Score
0
December 30, 2008 8:28:52 PM

Nice to see Ultimate succeed in so many builds, yet price is bit stilted, especially on low end by Not Including cost of ultimate 32. 13,000 vantage isn't bad, yet its bit light, of course faster card isn't much to boost to push it up notch.

Signed:p HYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART von DRASHEK M.D.
Score
-2
December 30, 2008 8:34:22 PM

Opps, took look at card & its already at Top 4870 X2. Shouldbust 20,000, maybe even 30,000 3d Vantage with crossfireX & 3 cards, where real action is at.

Signed:p HYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART von DRASHEK M.D.
Score
-2
December 30, 2008 8:58:22 PM

DXrickAch!! I just realized you only used 3G RAM in an i7 build! Now I too am wondering if a Q9550 build with 4G RAM would be better!?!?


Most systems with 32-bit operating systems can barely access more than 3GB anyway!
Score
1
December 30, 2008 9:00:49 PM

avatar_raqit is very early to use core i7 in anything but high-end 4500$+ PC...And your article is the proof..Thanks for it.


Jumping to conclusions? Read tomorrow's article!
Score
2
December 30, 2008 9:11:27 PM

When will you guys post a Benchmark of the Performance of Flight Sim X with the Core i7. We all know that game is like pure CPU and no GPU so that would be nice to see.
Score
2
December 30, 2008 10:17:04 PM

Good article, I like the series... but Q9550 is best comparison option for I7 920
Score
0
December 31, 2008 1:26:24 AM

I think (most) THG readers know a 64 bit CPU is needed to see the benifit of more than 3.5 gigs RAM.
Score
0
December 31, 2008 1:40:11 AM

Nice write up.

This is VERY useful to people who want to build a system and see what they are really going to get. Thanks and keep up with these monthly marathons!
Score
1
December 31, 2008 2:38:45 AM

I'm not sure if this one even counts since they picked a case that couldn't even fit the components they chose. Never skimp on the case or PSU. Yeah I think getting a Q9550or E8400 and overclocking them along with a 4870X2 and a bigger case is the way to go. For $1500 I really think they should have gone with at least a single 1TB Hard Drive, but that's just me.
Score
-1
December 31, 2008 4:27:59 AM

Megamanx00,

As though that little hitch completely invalidates the whole article... You have to realize the 4850 X2 is massive and if they had to move the HDD in order fit it in a case consistent with the given budget, big frickin whoop. I think the team did a fine job with this one.
Score
0
December 31, 2008 4:31:54 AM

Megamanx00I'm not sure if this one even counts since they picked a case that couldn't even fit the components they chose.


But, er... it DID fit. Just had to mod a little. :) 
Score
0
December 31, 2008 5:43:39 AM

CrashmanMost systems with 32-bit operating systems can barely access more than 3GB anyway!


I just can't imagine someone building a Core i7 system and not using 6G RAM and Vista 64-bit. It's like putting a Ferrari engine into a Honda Civic. (I could not come up with a better analogy.)
Score
0
December 31, 2008 5:53:34 AM

It is unfortunate that we don't get to see what the i7 could have done with the 4870x2 and after market cooling, but I understand the writer's need to stay in budget.

Definitely need to switch to Vista64 for standard OS in system builds. Even for DDR2 systems, it is rare to see less than 4GB in a system plus the VRAM.

Good job on the write-up.

-Still sad about Tom's Games.
Score
1
December 31, 2008 7:22:37 AM

i think the better analogy is filling gas to your Ferrari with half the capacity of the fuel tank. :) 
not fully utilized fuel tank and less range, but gives the same performance.

DXrickI just can't imagine someone building a Core i7 system and not using 6G RAM and Vista 64-bit. It's like putting a Ferrari engine into a Honda Civic. (I could not come up with a better analogy.)
Score
0
December 31, 2008 7:56:14 AM

CrashmanJumping to conclusions? Read tomorrow's article!

Well that's how I see things. Let's be honest, very few people -if any- buy a 1200$+ PC for anything other than gaming, and sacrificing gaming performance by downgrading the GPU to afford better CPU is irrelevant, therefore you either choose a Core2 1200$ system or raise your price point to include core i7 without sacrifice. Wait! did you mean by tomorrow's article the high-end build of SBM? I'd like to see that!!
Score
-2
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!