Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2009: $700 Gaming PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Gaming
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 5:01:20 AM

Higher prices and out-of-stock parts caused us to rethink how we could pack more gaming power in our budget build. With cheaper DDR2-800 memory, we bet on the overclocking-friendly Intel Pentium E5x00 with two Radeon HD 4870s in CrossFire.

System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2009: $700 Gaming PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon dec 2009 700 gaming

December 24, 2009 5:09:00 AM

Must be something wrong with my ThermalTake Toughpower 750watt, because even that had trouble running a pair of Radeon 4870 512mb cards in crossfire under heavy load. And I only had two hard drives and one optical drive. The only other expansion card I ran was a Wireless N card.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 5:45:12 AM

Wish there was an included SBM September in the charts, or at least a link to it. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-gaming-pc,2424.... If the numbers are consistent, and seeing how W7 is slightly faster, the september build is a tad faster with less graphic power and $50 less in the build. With the exception of max resolution, and thats the graphics card difference doing the work.

Add in the new AMD options, http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-ii-x3,2452.h..., wich takes the lead for the most part over the Phenom II x2 550, I am suprised you opted for the intel chip.

That is unless you plan on doing SBMs alternating wich manufacturer is used.

Athlon II 435 with 2 4870s would kill this build at the same price.
Score
12
Related resources
December 24, 2009 5:48:01 AM

So we are back to an intel only marathon again. i guess it was silly of me to expect at least ONE system to have an amd cpu in it. it would have been interesting to see the athlon 620+ddr3 be put in the $700 pc, it would have been a nice "are 4 better then 2?" comparison with Septembers build. would have been nice to see dual 5750s in the $700 pc too, but availability and bla bla, i know. with all those modifications though, it would have been closer to a $800pc :( . On a side note, any thoughts on nzxt beta evo vs antec two hundred?
Score
6
December 24, 2009 5:59:35 AM

looks like intel owns not only the OEM market.
Score
7
December 24, 2009 6:06:17 AM

It seems to me that in a budget computer, you are not going to be paying huge amounts for a large monitor. Why use 2 graphics cards when one will do for a smaller monitor. Games these days are still pretty CPU heavy.
Score
12
December 24, 2009 6:12:54 AM

noob2222Wish there was an included SBM September in the charts, or at least a link to it. http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2424.html If the numbers are consistent, and seeing how W7 is slightly faster, the september build is a tad faster with less graphic power and $50 less in the build. With the exception of max resolution, and thats the graphics card difference doing the work.Add in the new AMD options, http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2452.html, wich takes the lead for the most part over the Phenom II x2 550, I am suprised you opted for the intel chip. That is unless you plan on doing SBMs alternating wich manufacturer is used.Athlon II 435 with 2 4870s would kill this build at the same price.



You beat me to this.

Have to wonder why the author used a dead socket with no upgrade path.
Score
13
December 24, 2009 7:14:15 AM

where are the photos of the actual build?
Score
10
December 24, 2009 9:12:54 AM

5750 availability problem ???? you gottas be joking, i had no problem having my hd 5770 while the 5850 where nowhere findable. They could seriously have took the 57xx serie route and the 5750 and 5770 are doing very good in crossfire setup. Sometime with the big overclock margin they have, a pair 5770 can beat a pair of 4890 in crossfire.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 9:19:54 AM

noob2222Wish there was an included SBM September in the charts, or at least a link to it. http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2424.html

Last round’s data was left out of the charts because of the migration to Windows 7 and updated benchmark versions. However, a link to the September $650 PC was provided in the opening paragraph of the intro, and comparisons made throughout the data analysis.
noob2222
If the numbers are consistent, and seeing how W7 is slightly faster, the september build is a tad faster with less graphic power and $50 less in the build. With the exception of max resolution, and thats the graphics card difference doing the work.

The gaming benchmarks are especially comparable, and yes as we note, this rig was behind the Sep PII at the lower settings/resolution and had a graphics advantage taking over at the higher settings. But note, the September build was MORE expensive when this system was ordered, not $50 cheaper. Had we opted to use up this whole “price adjustment” budget and build a $750 machine, a kit of CAS 5 DDR2 (like the AMD build) would have done this one wonders, even more so than expected.
noob2222
I am suprised you opted for the intel chip. That is unless you plan on doing SBMs alternating wich manufacturer is used.
Bingo; Notice all AMD last round even at the high end, and all Intel this round, even at the low end. Something we wanted to try, but will not be continuing.
noob2222
Athlon II 435 with 2 4870s would kill this build at the same price.

That is exactly the plan for next round, although getting a pair of 4870s will likely not be an option. At $87, pairing with an aftermarket cooler will then raise the CPU+cooler budget a bit over the $102 from Sep, or the $92 from December. One of the goals set for this Intel rig back in September was to keep an equal CPU budget to last round, and if possible put the extra money into a graphics step up, although more along the lines of 4850 1GB not 4870’s. There was nothing exciting to challenge the PII at stock clocks, instead the focus was on an aftermarket cooler and better OC. Unfortunately this E5300 was a bit of a dud compared to previous E5200’s.

I wouldn’t say the 435 would kill these past two rigs though. I suspect it will trade blows in the apps, and likely take a few nice wins(at low res) in the games.
Score
3
December 24, 2009 9:23:31 AM

hi
price per hd4870 is 230$

and for 2 hd4870=460$
but in your table is 250$
how?
Score
-8
December 24, 2009 9:27:54 AM

snorojr5750 availability problem ???? you gottas be joking, i had no problem having my hd 5770 while the 5850 where nowhere findable. They could seriously have took the 57xx serie route and the 5750 and 5770 are doing very good in crossfire setup. Sometime with the big overclock margin they have, a pair 5770 can beat a pair of 4890 in crossfire.

Nothing available around $125 could come close to this 4870, or a pair for $250. 5700's were available, but overpriced and out of budget. Why pay significantly more for 5750's and get less performance? Where would you have shaved an extra $40-50 from this budget to even pay for 4750's?
Score
2
December 24, 2009 9:35:49 AM

clearly amd is the best choice for this price & i dont understand why they choosed intel platform

i gusse they love intel or ...
Score
-7
December 24, 2009 9:37:34 AM

saeedxfxhiprice per hd4870 is 230$and for 2 hd4870=460$but in your table is 250$how?

As the text spells out, the system was configured at $701, and purchased at $722. Those who paid attention to Newegg GPU pricing will these 4870's were in and out of stock at $125.

But you are right, 4870's are about gone now. $175 each (before rebate)buys you an IceQ 1GB: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

A $220 pair of 4770's are a step down in performance, but offer good value and keep the system within budget. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Or take advantage of falling 5750 prices.
Score
1
December 24, 2009 9:41:21 AM

nikaanclearly amd is the best choice for this price & i dont understand why they choosed intel platformi gusse they love intel or ...

No love for either, but we decided to give both a shot at each price point during these past two rounds. Read the conclusion and clearly you should see you assumption on love is wrong.
Score
3
December 24, 2009 10:12:11 AM

qwertymac93So we are back to an intel only marathon again. i guess it was silly of me to expect at least ONE system to have an amd cpu in it. it would have been interesting to see the athlon 620+ddr3 be put in the $700 pc, it would have been a nice "are 4 better then 2?" comparison with Septembers build. would have been nice to see dual 5750s in the $700 pc too, but availability and bla bla, i know. with all those modifications though, it would have been closer to a $800pc . On a side note, any thoughts on nzxt beta evo vs antec two hundred?

Were you equally upset to see three AMD builds last round? Let's keep things in perspective please.

There's potential to get either the X3 735 or X4 620, and a pair of 5750s into the next round, this will likely call for an $800 PC.

Reader input will help decide if we need more flexibility in this system's budget to build such a rig, or if we should lower the budget back to the $500-600 range and focus on lower resolutions and a single GPU. Time will tell, but we value your feedback and aim to cover the price ranges readers want to see.
Score
5
December 24, 2009 10:30:12 AM

@ qwerty - forgot the case. Biggest drawback for me with the beta evo is the supplied cooling. There's potential for big airflow, but adding exhaust fans to complement the single (included) intake fan could be costly.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 10:32:57 AM

Congratulatins for the effort! But.....

U have here 2 nice articles on how to build a balanced gaming PC. All lost time, i may say after reading the last 2 marathon builds of this year.
This last build for example a waste of money ,time and intellectual resources. What point in a building based on a clumsy Core Duo,even nicely overclocked paired with 2 quite powerful video cards if is not doing a good job at hi resolution. What for a 4870 CF? One single 4890 slightly overclocked combined with a Core Due Quad (if u stick with Intel by force ) is enough powerful to handle some good frames on hi res with the option on a later add for a CF in case of high demanding games to come next year. Or get the AMD way to build a good gaming machine on a budget. Is more common sense. And a budget machine is not meant to run games on a 2560x1600 display...is just not a budget display anymore. I hope is the last time that i see this nice CPU e 5xxx series on a gaming machine with modern games on hi res. U are specialists here with a tech magazine to run, i expect something more elaborated and realistic on your technical articles.
If the budget don't fit anymore change the budget, is ok.

Anyway there are some changes to do in order to remain a good credible hardware magazine. Now u are more like some gossip PChardware magazine with some rare good reviews. Even the forum is going down despite the efforts of some good guys that have like a "second job" here and they do the best to moderate and\or answer to many "crazy" questions and problems.
Score
-5
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 10:50:54 AM

I don't get your guides, you keep talking about buying two graphic cards. Why the hell would I want two graphic cards, if I'm ONE user with ONE PC ? It just doesn't ass up, maybe you can't do maths or maybe you're some kind of two-headed, four-eyed mutant I relal don't get it.
Score
-10
December 24, 2009 11:02:48 AM

I'm going say this budget needs to be backed off a bit. When the goal is to show an entry level gaming system, it should automatically limit this to a single GPU subsystem unless you're using 2 GPUs that cost significantly less just to see. If I'm trying to build a gaming rig for as little as possible, there's no way I'd consider 2xGPUs.

Don't listen to all the conjecture about should have done this, should have done that. These articles are very useful in the sole fact that they think outside the box and challenge the perceived status quo. The only way to know if popular opinion is correct is to test the unpopular. Anyone spending enough time to doing research and some forum help can develop a safe build. These systems will find some great solutions, but more often than not, find flaws so we the readers/users, can avoid those mistakes. Thanks for saving our butts.
Score
9
December 24, 2009 11:19:00 AM

technuttso said:
Congratulatins for the effort! But.....

U have here 2 nice articles on how to build a balanced gaming PC. All lost time, i may say after reading the last 2 marathon builds of this year.
This last build for example a waste of money ,time and intellectual resources. What point in a building based on a clumsy Core Duo,even nicely overclocked paired with 2 quite powerful video cards if is not doing a good job at hi resolution. What for a 4870 CF? One single 4890 slightly overclocked combined with a Core Due Quad (if u stick with Intel by force ) is enough powerful to handle some good frames on hi res with the option on a later add for a CF in case of high demanding games to come next year. Or get the AMD way to build a good gaming machine on a budget. Is more common sense. And a budget machine is not meant to run games on a 2560x1600 display...is just not a budget display anymore. I hope is the last time that i see this nice CPU e 5xxx series on a gaming machine with modern games on hi res. U are specialists here with a tech magazine to run, i expect something more elaborated and realistic on your technical articles.
If the budget don't fit anymore change the budget, is ok.

Thanks for the feedback.

I sure don't agree this is a waste. Keep in mind, with a $70 dual core, this December PC was designed to fail at stock clocks.... it's pure intent was to be overclocked and fit in big graphics. It put up by far the best 19x12 numbers to date for our budget gaming PC's. I think you may be a bit surprised when part 3 of the balanced pc series(overclocking) rolls around.

Any of the Core 2 Quad's are far more expensive CPU's than we have put into the budget gaming PC leaving too little GPU budget for graphics. I wouldn't bother with a stock cooled Q8x00 and a sacrifice in GPU budget; it would not be a step up in gaming. A single 4890 is nice, but paired with an Athlon II, Phenom II or Core i5, depending on budget and system use.

Agreed, 2560x1600 is not even a normal SBM resolution and not any concern for this budget build; One reason 512MB cards were acceptable. I do disagree with the notion some have made that budget gamers do not care about 1920x1200. 1680x1050 - 1920x1200 are the sweet spot IMO of affordability and wow factor. Look how cheap 23" 1080P monitors are now, and at the highest details with eye candy that can take a serious amount of graphics muscle.
Score
3
December 24, 2009 11:55:10 AM

skora said:
I'm going say this budget needs to be backed off a bit. When the goal is to show an entry level gaming system, it should automatically limit this to a single GPU subsystem unless you're using 2 GPUs that cost significantly less just to see. If I'm trying to build a gaming rig for as little as possible, there's no way I'd consider 2xGPUs.

Don't listen to all the conjecture about should have done this, should have done that. These articles are very useful in the sole fact that they think outside the box and challenge the perceived status quo. The only way to know if popular opinion is correct is to test the unpopular. Anyone spending enough time to doing research and some forum help can develop a safe build. These systems will find some great solutions, but more often than not, find flaws so we the readers/users, can avoid those mistakes. Thanks for saving our butts.

Thanks; It's hard to cover sub $1000 gaming on just one system and I value both the $500-600 build you speak of, as well as the far more capable $750-850 build also. Both are being considered and we appreciate your feedback. Another option that varies slightly is the upgradeable $600-650 PC, built with a single GPU but with a mobo all set for a second.

The only change I would now have made in this Intel system would be spend the extra $17 on DDR2-1066, especially since the mobo increase raised the $700.68 system anyway. This would still have kept the system under the cost of re-building the Sep $650 PC. We didn't get lucky with an easy 4.0GHz CPU like in the past, but I was a bit surprised to learn (through further testing) just how much the RAM hurt the OC gaming performance. Minimal difference at 25x16, but a notable difference in the other resolutions. With that RAM, the system would have accomplished all the goals set for it.
Score
2
December 24, 2009 12:24:21 PM

Great job. I LOVE reading these type of articles but not as much as "Building a balanced PC" I would have opted for this cooler instead http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I would have also went with a single 4870 and went with a Q9550 purchased from Micro Center brand new retail for $170. It is amazing the kind of prices on CPU's Micro Center has like the I5 for $150, the I7 920 for $200, etc. I would have also went with the Antec 300 for $55 shipped free. As always keep up the great work and please release part III and part IV of "building a balanced PC" pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaase
Score
-1
December 24, 2009 12:58:18 PM

darthfett said:
It seems to me that in a budget computer, you are not going to be paying huge amounts for a large monitor. Why use 2 graphics cards when one will do for a smaller monitor. Games these days are still pretty CPU heavy.

That depends. I don't see a 23" 1080P or even 24" 19x12 out of the question for a budget minded gamer. Of course, that's only if the budget allows a graphics solution to match. Often a single 4800 series GPU means reducing details or disabling AA.

Game benchmarking does seem quite CPU limited to an extent, but an overclocked E5300 can still get the job done in almost all cases.

Try Crysis or Stalker:CS at max even without AA, and OC'ed E5300 + Dual 4870 will do far better at 16x10 or 19x12 than a i7 920 + single 4870, and do it for far less money.

Check out 16x10 Very High in Crysis (or 19x12 in Stalker) for an examples:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-balanced-plat...
Score
0
December 24, 2009 1:09:42 PM

i am not an amd boy, but to see all the systems with intel cpu-s...that hurts the feeling of the amd guys.another thing, why getting that motherboard (106$ p45 dfi)when u can get onother one for much less, an p45 mobo u can get now for 75-80 $.But if u want to stick with the plan spending 105$ for the mobo then get the 110$ x48 dfi( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... )
BTW newegg is different now, 3 days shipping is not that anymore. So i personally started to shop with another e-tailers(buy.com, zipzoomfly.com etc)
Score
0
December 24, 2009 1:30:18 PM

Since your stuck with an Intel build, one can really see how amd tramples intel on the sub $100 market.
Score
3
December 24, 2009 2:11:40 PM

agreed with skora, this isn't a budget build, 2560*1600!, 2GPU!

if you wonder a little bit on the built forum, u'll see lower-end gaming builds are almost always single GPUed, and then you would be looking for "budget" resolutions, something like 1280*1024, 720p or so..,

i was expecting something around 500$, and now i'm disappointed
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 2:22:23 PM

I have not seen the latest stats but if memory serves I think the typical gamer only uses one video card.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 2:25:34 PM

I would like to see you guys run a single GPU and show us some results.
I imagine you could drop the price down even further and still get respectable frame rates.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 2:25:44 PM

I have an honest novice question that maybe someone can answer. I see you spent $70 on a cpu and $250 on two gpus. Perhaps it depends on the application or game, but what if you spent $150 on a cpu and $170 on a gpu (Phenom II X4 + 5770)? Would a beefier cpu and a single video card setup give better gaming performance? Is that question much too generalized for a one word answer?

I'm just trying to take notes for my next build. Thanks.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 2:29:05 PM

Much love for the intel dual cores but I'm with the multi-core bandwagon here. A decent AMD tri/quad CPU/combo could be bought for about the same price with room to grow in case theres a need for an upgrade path in the future. I'm no genius when it comes to computer building like most people here but it doesn't make any sense to me to do a "new" build using a dead socket.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 2:57:55 PM

skoraI'm going say this budget needs to be backed off a bit. When the goal is to show an entry level gaming system, it should automatically limit this to a single GPU subsystem unless you're using 2 GPUs that cost significantly less just to see. If I'm trying to build a gaming rig for as little as possible, there's no way I'd consider 2xGPUs. Don't listen to all the conjecture about should have done this, should have done that. These articles are very useful in the sole fact that they think outside the box and challenge the perceived status quo. The only way to know if popular opinion is correct is to test the unpopular. Anyone spending enough time to doing research and some forum help can develop a safe build. These systems will find some great solutions, but more often than not, find flaws so we the readers/users, can avoid those mistakes. Thanks for saving our butts.

Very good points, but the second one trumps the first; i.e. trying multiple GPUs, which few think to do in a budget build. We've seen a few creative solutions recently, featuring up to FOUR GPUs, which have challenged assumptions.
I agree about lowering budgets. The people most in need of help typically have the lowest budgets. Someone spending $2K can "waste" ten or twenty percent; someone spending $500 needs every dollar to matter; or, it is hard to build a truly bad gamer for $2K, but it is almost as hard to build a good one for $500.
And, finally, I didn't like this build. It's a one-off, a non-upgradable dead end. Add a $200 upgrade in six months, and you've probably made little difference in FPS. Add $200 in six months to a budget AMD build, and you likely have a dramatic difference in FPS. Budget builders typically need that upgrade potential.
Score
1
December 24, 2009 3:07:51 PM

AdamB5000 said:
I have an honest novice question that maybe someone can answer. I see you spent $70 on a cpu and $250 on two gpus. Perhaps it depends on the application or game, but what if you spent $150 on a cpu and $170 on a gpu (Phenom II X4 + 5770)? Would a beefier cpu and a single video card setup give better gaming performance? Is that question much too generalized for a one word answer?

I'm just trying to take notes for my next build. Thanks.

Too complicated for a one word answer. It depends on your games, resolution, desired level of eye candy, and willingness to overclock. If you don't overclock, the story changes and you'll need more CPU.

The game settings we currently use in the SBM suite have been toned down from our old settings just to help the budget PC show up, but still one sub $200 GPU is often not nearly enough and settings will need to be reduced.

Example: Compare an overclocked Core i5 @ 3.8 GHz with one 5770 here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5770,2446...

.... to the numbers from this SBM. Crysis and WIC are both comparable settings. The cheaper OC'ed SBM combo wins by remaining playable at far higher settings.

I'd value a 45 fps to 35 fps win far greater than a 80 to 60 fps win in a less graphically demanding game/setting.



Score
0
December 24, 2009 3:23:51 PM

I really don't like this build. The biggest problem for me is the decision to get dual GPUs and a crappy processor. If I'm spending $700, I'm going to get a system that has some future-proofing, which means I want the best processor I can get, and I'll 'settle' for a good gfx card that can be be paired with another for cheap later on, or simply replaced when needed and when prices drop.

Here is a system I just priced out with some parts from Newegg, and some from Microcenter which has killer cpu prices:

150 - Intel Core i5 750
120 - Gigabyte UD4P
74 - ram in article
170 - Radeon 4890
50 - 640 GB Caviar black
45 - case in article
70 - power in article
25 - dvd in article

Total: $704

I would take this build any day over the one in the article. If/when more GPU power is needed, the prices will have come down and you can easily pick up another 4890 for probably less than $100 in a year. This makes much more sense to me than buying a CPU/mobo combo that will need to be replaced waaaay before a core i5 would, and be a huge hassle and more money compared to just picking up another gfx card.
Score
-1
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 3:37:34 PM

Sorry, if you get the RAM from this article, you'll need to pay another $90 or so for some DDR3. Otherwise I agree that your build does offer a much better upgrade path.
Score
1
December 24, 2009 3:46:08 PM

The build was alright. Being able to squeeze two 4870's into a "budget" gaming rig was awesome, but I think that the system would have been better off with an Athlon II x3 OCed.
Score
1
December 24, 2009 3:49:41 PM

the one extra factor for budget builds that doensn't generally apply for 1300$ or 2500$ builds is the room for future upgradability, that is because a guy living on budget cannot afford a short-term 300$ upgrade!

the e5xxx on LGA is excellent had intel not introduced two more sockets!

I would definitely trade little bit of right-now-max-fps for little bit of future upgradability.
Score
1
December 24, 2009 3:53:37 PM

^^^good call. I think you meant "you'll need to pay $90," not _another $90, right? So total build cost would be approx $720ish.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 4:11:56 PM

what's the point of having a budget if you're just gonna blow by it by 100 dollars anyway?

isn't the idea to see how good a system you can build for 650?

cut the extra graphics card and stick to the budget
Score
1
December 24, 2009 4:22:32 PM

pauldhWere you equally upset to see three AMD builds last round?...


yes, yes i was. i know intels pretty much got the high end all for themselves, but i expected the low end system to have amd since its a segment i think amd is actually competitive in.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 5:07:14 PM

pauldhThat depends. I don't see a 23" 1080P or even 24" 19x12 out of the question for a budget minded gamer. Of course, that's only if the budget allows a graphics solution to match. Often a single 4800 series GPU means reducing details or disabling AA. Game benchmarking does seem quite CPU limited to an extent, but an overclocked E5300 can still get the job done in almost all cases. Try Crysis or Stalker:CS at max even without AA, and OC'ed E5300 + Dual 4870 will do far better at 16x10 or 19x12 than a i7 920 + single 4870, and do it for far less money. Check out 16x10 Very High in Crysis (or 19x12 in Stalker) for an examples:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 469-8.html


Paul's response here encapsulates the real lesson to be learned from not only this build, but all of the overclocked dual-core Intel builds on the last year or so.

People are forgetting, or never learned that the vast majority of games are single-threaded, and will continue to be designed as such so long as they have an online or networking capability. Quad-core online FPSers or MMORPG is not going to happen. Thus the faster you can get a single core running, the better the machine will game. This is why a higher clocked dual core will smoke all triple and quad core processors in games. More cores isn't always better!

This is a GREAT build, as we clearly see that an oc'd dual-core 5xxx isn't going to cpu-limit even a 4870 x2 setup!

An interesting question remains; at what point would a 4.0ghz 5xxx run into trouble managing high-end graphics; or would it run into trouble at all? Could a 5xxx handle an Eyefinity setup gaming across a trio of decent res 24" screens?

Score
-4
December 24, 2009 5:18:14 PM

/rant

I'm not sure why some people continue to use Microcenter as a reference when building new computers. $150 for i5/i7 is a great steal but rarely accessible to people who live outside of the 22-odd stores.

/end rant :D 
Score
3
December 24, 2009 5:19:57 PM

Ahh. Socket LGA 775 back again!! Where's that AMD Athlon II X 4 620?
Score
4
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 6:08:41 PM

This and the 2500$ pc were both pretty disappointing. With a 700$ budget, one could easily afford an i5 or PII 955 machine with a single 4870 or 5770. With this you'd have a better upgrade path and no need to worry about a cpu-bottleneck, a dead socket, and ddr2 ram. However, you wouldn't be able to get a very good overclock on stock cooling.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 6:12:24 PM

pauldh said:
Thanks; It's hard to cover sub $1000 gaming on just one system and I value both the $500-600 build you speak of, as well as the far more capable $750-850 build also. Both are being considered and we appreciate your feedback. Another option that varies slightly is the upgradeable $600-650 PC, built with a single GPU but with a mobo all set for a second.


There definitely are huge gains to spend just a little more than entry level gaming can provide. Here's an idea to turn this segment into a true marathon. (The benchmarking that would have to be done alone would be a marathon.) You have $4500 wrapped up in equipment now between the 3 builds. I propose you start with an entry level build, like the $600 bracket. Sub $100 CPU on an upgradeable CF/SLI mobo. Right now it would be like the 790GX and you'd have enough lead time for the i3s to hit. Make the rolling build AMD and then intel for 2 SBMs out. Single GPU, aftermarket HSF, and the rest of the required parts. Bench it. Then, add $200 or so worth of parts. Bench it. Keep doing that till you end up with an unacceptable bottleneck. I'm guessing you'd still have enough to do 2+ platforms. It might steer the higher systems to test 3-4 middle GPUs (like the quad 4850 setup did) but that fulfills my out of the box curiosity. Along the way, you'd also find what the range of effective balance is with for the parts you're using.


To all those who are hellbent against a socket 775 system: If someone is building a rig and on this tight of a budget, look to see what they are upgrading from. More often than not, you're going to still find most entry budget builders coming from P4s. They hold onto their systems for 4-5 years. The reality is, they won't be upgrading their CPU in the next few months, and probably not the next few years. This isn't across the board, but getting a cheap CPU, that has the OC potential to last does make sense. The CPU they buy now will be run into the ground and any money put into upgrades will be put into the GPU as they generally won't hang much past 2 years anyway.

Score
-1
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 6:15:17 PM

It would be interesting to add an internal contest to each SBM. Another author gets the exact same budget (not a penny more; but maybe using less adds points) to try and outdo the SBM machine. The winner is used in the giveaway. Constraints of the sort "must use Intel," or "must use ATi" do NOT apply to the challenger, but budget, noise, power, form factor, all DO apply.
Score
2
December 24, 2009 6:37:21 PM

I think that constantly increasing the budget by $50 per article is cheating. It defeats the point of having only a set amount of budget to use, and shifts the best-for-the-money build closer and closer to the over $1000 build. It isn't the idea to simply build the best system, its to build the best system for those with a strapped budget.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 7:03:05 PM

I don't agree with this build. Why would you get such a dated and underpowered processor in exchange for SLI.

Beef up that CPU and get a lesser GPU setup. You should always prefer single GPU setups when possible because some games still do not support SLI/Crossfire. And waiting for a new driver to implement support is a hair razing experience.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 24, 2009 7:37:30 PM

You're all forgetting that Tom's Hardware is a site for hardware enthusiasts. True, you can get great 1920x1080 performance in almost all games with a single $130 GPU, an $80 CPU and a $50 motherboard... but that wouldn't attract the kind of visitors the advertisers want.
Score
0
December 24, 2009 8:08:35 PM

This system is weak, if you find some sweet combo deals on new egg you can build a system with a phenomII x3 and a 5850 for the same price.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!