System Builder Marathon, June 2010: $550 Gaming PC
Tags:
- System Builder
-
Gaming
- Configuration
- Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Anonymous
a
b
4
Gaming
June 17, 2010 6:00:03 AM
After a few months of higher-priced builds, we're reverting back to a $550 configuration that once again deserves its value designation. Is this less-expensive model able to compete with last quarter's $750 setup? Don't forget to enter to win this box!
System Builder Marathon, June 2010: $550 Gaming PC : Read more
System Builder Marathon, June 2010: $550 Gaming PC : Read more
More about : system builder marathon june 2010 550 gaming
^ I dont like the idea of using the CM eXtreme power PSUs...
You could get a EA 430W for about $49 @newegg...
Just a thought - you could save money on the mobo by going with TOM's favorite brand ASRock board with the 770 Chipset...So with the money saved, getting a better PSU would have been a good idea...
You could get a EA 430W for about $49 @newegg...
Just a thought - you could save money on the mobo by going with TOM's favorite brand ASRock board with the 770 Chipset...So with the money saved, getting a better PSU would have been a good idea...
Score
-2
adbat
June 17, 2010 6:31:47 AM
Related resources
- Help! System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Budget Gaming PC - Forum
- Looking at System Builder Marathon (or any other PC) for New Build - Forum
- Toms hadware system builder 2010 December 500 gaming pc - Forum
- System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC - Forum
- New $1000 gaming system or System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 - Forum
archange
June 17, 2010 6:47:06 AM
Buying the same components here, online, gets me to ~800 USD. That, including my 3% Diamond Customer discount at my favorite e-tailer. Granted, the Power Color was out of stock, which led me to Sapphire and i also had to exchange the RAM for Kingston HyperX CL7.
People in the States have way to much... fun
People in the States have way to much... fun
Score
10
Crashman
June 17, 2010 7:05:54 AM
gkay09you could save money on the mobo by going with TOM's favorite brand ASRock board with the 770 Chipset...
Wait, Tom's has a favorite brand? I've heard rumors in the past that Asus got all of Tom's Hardware's attention...and Gigabyte has been getting a lot of awards so maybe them...where does ASRock come into all of this favoritism, from its use in previous low-cost SBM machines? Score
5
zooted
June 17, 2010 7:15:19 AM
noob2222
June 17, 2010 7:15:56 AM
This one and the $1000 show some pretty impressive efficiency and power savings over the previous, more expensive builds. Save some dough now and in the long haul. Imo thats pretty important on a tight budget build, you don't want it costing more over its lifetime than what you saved in building it.
Score
3
skora
June 17, 2010 7:43:05 AM
and liked the idea of incorporating a $100 Cooler Master trio in the build.
No, this month its Coolermaster.
No shame, we all have bills.
Very well balanced system. Very helpful to see a working system with just 2 gigs ram and break the stereo type that 4 is required.
CrashmanWait, Tom's has a favorite brand? I've heard rumors in the past that Asus got all of Tom's Hardware's attention...and Gigabyte has been getting a lot of awards so maybe them...where does ASRock come into all of this favoritism, from its use in previous low-cost SBM machines?
No, this month its Coolermaster.
Quote:
"and liked the idea of incorporating a $100 Cooler Master trio in the build."No shame, we all have bills.
Very well balanced system. Very helpful to see a working system with just 2 gigs ram and break the stereo type that 4 is required.
Score
1
tacoslave
June 17, 2010 8:05:52 AM
skoraand liked the idea of incorporating a $100 Cooler Master trio in the build.No, this month its Coolermaster. No shame, we all have bills.Very well balanced system. Very helpful to see a working system with just 2 gigs ram and break the stereo type that 4 is required.
You're reading that completely out of context.
Score
2
ta152h
June 17, 2010 9:25:13 AM
At this price range, I think an Athlon II x2 or Pentium E6500 system would probably do better for pure gaming.
Both have more cache, the Pentium dramatically so. The Athlon II x2 would almost certainly over clock better, since stock speed is much higher, and most sites show them generally able to get to 3.8 GHz at roughly 1.4v or lower with a stock heat sink. On top of this, they use less power. So, more cache, 250 MHz more with stock heat sink (maybe more with a better one), and more cache against an extra core. Probably for games it would be better, but not always.
The Pentium E6500 is probably better still. Getting it to around 4 GHz wouldn't be too hard, especially with an upgraded heat sink, and is generally faster clock per clock compared to an Athlon II x2. Power use is significantly lower too.
Neither are clearly better though. I would rather have a faster two core than a slower three core, but the latter certainly have advantages too.
Both have more cache, the Pentium dramatically so. The Athlon II x2 would almost certainly over clock better, since stock speed is much higher, and most sites show them generally able to get to 3.8 GHz at roughly 1.4v or lower with a stock heat sink. On top of this, they use less power. So, more cache, 250 MHz more with stock heat sink (maybe more with a better one), and more cache against an extra core. Probably for games it would be better, but not always.
The Pentium E6500 is probably better still. Getting it to around 4 GHz wouldn't be too hard, especially with an upgraded heat sink, and is generally faster clock per clock compared to an Athlon II x2. Power use is significantly lower too.
Neither are clearly better though. I would rather have a faster two core than a slower three core, but the latter certainly have advantages too.
Score
-5
wildeast
June 17, 2010 9:58:50 AM
killerclick
June 17, 2010 10:22:49 AM
demonhorde665
June 17, 2010 10:23:41 AM
wildeastif i changed the 5770 with 5870 in this build, will it be bottlenecked?
most likely
an example:
my curent pc i run a amd athy 64 X2 500+ blacked OC'ed to 3 ghz
and i have 3 gigs of ddr 2 pc 800 ram in it
I've gone trhough 3 video card upgrades since i built this rig
my first video card was a Gf 9600 GT i saw avaerage frames in Fallout 3 around 40-45 fps , my lowest frames (in are moments) were around 18 fps that's at a resolution of 1280x1024 with 4x aa and 8 samples on AF (i know low resolution but eh what the heck older monitor i ahd at the time i got newer monitor now)
then i got a GF 9800 GT , becasue my bro inlaw couldn't use it at the time , its averaged around 48-53 fps with lowerst frames beign at 19-20 on teh same settings as listed above
lastly i bought a readeon 5770 since it was amuch newer card I'll try to get win 7 soon , on the same old monitor and same settings i see frames avaerage around 55-70 however the rare moemtns of lows stil occur from time to time with the lowerst frames being 22 fps , now i know i ahve seen this card do better here at toms , on a new cpu and i highly douvbt anotehr video card upgrade with out a processor upgrade woudl give me any boost at this point. given that i can say it'ssafe bet that yeah a 5870 would be bottle necked by the cpu in this rig.
P.S. my old montior got repalced reccently i now finally have a newer widescreen monitor it's 20 inches with a max resolution of 1600x900 and better yet my radeon 5770 pushes this resolution just as smoothly as it pushed my odler montior's max res ... however it shoudlb e noted that this monitor has amax refresh rate of 60 hz whiel teh older one could do 120 so now in FO 3 (and other games ) my technicall higehst frame rate is 60 (unless i turn off v-sync which really only induces tearing)
and you don't actually see a higher frame rate since teh monitor only refreshed at 60
Score
-6
CrashmanWait, Tom's has a favorite brand? I've heard rumors in the past that Asus got all of Tom's Hardware's attention...and Gigabyte has been getting a lot of awards so maybe them...where does ASRock come into all of this favoritism, from its use in previous low-cost SBM machines?
Well I dint literally mean the ASRock is THE FAVORITE brand of TOMs, but with boards from ASRock based on the X58 chipset being one of their recommended, why not have tried their AMD chipset mobo too?
Score
-1
pauldh
June 17, 2010 10:31:09 AM
adbatI plan to build a similar machine so it's nice to see the numbers :-)Again unlocking was successful the 50-50 chance do not apply to your tests.But no surprise this is a just enough machine.
Wait... Some stability issues (even at stock clocks) with this one, so the unlock was not a success. Overclocked data is for 3-cores at 3.556 GHz.
We are 2/3 if you just count SBM's. This one joins a few other unsuccessful PII and Athlon II unlocks I've encountered so 50/50 is closer to my own findings.
Our repeated advice: Spend a few bucks more on an X4 if you desire a quad.
Score
7
ddragoonss
June 17, 2010 10:40:16 AM
pauldh
June 17, 2010 11:00:54 AM
killerclickPlus keyboard, mouse, OS...By the way I love it how Tom's makes it sound that you can unlock cores in almost every AMD CPU. I tried with 3, 2 wouldn't unlock and the 3rd didn't make it even 20 minutes through Prime95.
Plus a display too, if you need one. For us, that's $1400 alone and skews the value results a bit right?
The SBM series has never included peripherals or software. Hardware and pricing are clearly spelled out. We have complete faith our readers can add these other costs if need be.
Oh contraire regarding the unlocking. This one successfully ran many 1+ hour stents through Prime 95, but was not fully stable nor considered successful. You are completely ignoring our repeated advice of not relying on unlocking when making a processor decision.
Score
8
zodiacfml
June 17, 2010 11:03:28 AM
@TA152H
I was also a fan of dual cores back then but most games and applications able to utilize a third core now.
I only find the 2gig memory quite uncomfortable since I'm using a 2gig 64bit system right now which maxes the ram occasionally so I have enabled virtual memory which sucks.
The budget could have been $600 or could use the stock heatsink to get the system to 4GB RAM.
I was also a fan of dual cores back then but most games and applications able to utilize a third core now.
I only find the 2gig memory quite uncomfortable since I'm using a 2gig 64bit system right now which maxes the ram occasionally so I have enabled virtual memory which sucks.
The budget could have been $600 or could use the stock heatsink to get the system to 4GB RAM.
Score
3
pauldh
June 17, 2010 11:22:03 AM
ddragoonssThe "Network:Integrated" and "Sound:Integrated" in the chart was really necessary?
Does it really hurt either? It's a standard component table used month after month for every SBM I've been part of. All SBM price tables included the same at one point but the other authers have since chosen to remove those rows when integrated. I still prefer they stay, but no it is not necesary. If those are the biggest complaints, I'm satified.
Score
6
Userremoved
June 17, 2010 11:24:16 AM
spartanii
June 17, 2010 11:27:57 AM
pauldh
June 17, 2010 11:54:12 AM
gkay09 said:
^ I dont like the idea of using the CM eXtreme power PSUs...You could get a EA 430W for about $49 @newegg...
Just a thought - you could save money on the mobo by going with TOM's favorite brand ASRock board with the 770 Chipset...So with the money saved, getting a better PSU would have been a good idea...
Yeah, I always consider the Antec Eathwatt units for each build. A reliable choice, but pricing does vary week to week. Currently you can only buy the EA430D (Green) on Newegg and it's on sale for $65 not $50.
I had $45 in this budget left for a PSU. Had the system required more, sure I'd go over for $60 unit. But I'd even have good faith in the EA380D for this system, and mentioned that just for those who focus on "Watts" alone.
Score
3
I definitely agree with gkay09 about the PSU.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Cooler-Master-eX...
It's a notch or so above a Chokemax, and in this build is in a comfortable part of its range, but I would have liked to have seen a warning about it if you start with this build and upgrade. I know article lead time makes a big difference, but over the last few weeks I've seen quite a few good PSU deals; early last week I picked up a 550W Truepower New for $40 after $20 MIR; I've seen some Corsair and OCZ units discounted too.
Not dinging the build for it, because A) you mentioned this in the article, and B) cases are a very personalized choice and tend not to affect performance; but you are correct in wondering if the tool-free mounts will hold up in moving or shipping. They won't. I lost a 320GB HDD when it shook loose in shipping, and the SATA connector snapped off the circuit board. Since WD does not provide replacements for drive parts, an otherwise perfectly good drive was bricked.
Otherwise, the results obtained from this build were informative. Nice job.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Cooler-Master-eX...
It's a notch or so above a Chokemax, and in this build is in a comfortable part of its range, but I would have liked to have seen a warning about it if you start with this build and upgrade. I know article lead time makes a big difference, but over the last few weeks I've seen quite a few good PSU deals; early last week I picked up a 550W Truepower New for $40 after $20 MIR; I've seen some Corsair and OCZ units discounted too.
Not dinging the build for it, because A) you mentioned this in the article, and B) cases are a very personalized choice and tend not to affect performance; but you are correct in wondering if the tool-free mounts will hold up in moving or shipping. They won't. I lost a 320GB HDD when it shook loose in shipping, and the SATA connector snapped off the circuit board. Since WD does not provide replacements for drive parts, an otherwise perfectly good drive was bricked.
Otherwise, the results obtained from this build were informative. Nice job.
Score
1
nzprogamer
June 17, 2010 12:12:13 PM
pauldh
June 17, 2010 12:24:19 PM
wildeastif i changed the 5770 with 5870 in this build, will it be bottlenecked?
If your idea of a bottleneck is capping FPS at low resolutions...yes. But that's far different than a bottleneck that ruins playability at a typical resultion that requires this level of GPU.
I'd want to OC the X3 435 when paired with the 5870, but IMO I think you'd basically have a $800-850 machine far more capable of reaching high resolutions. You'd want to also factor in a PSU change. Something with dual 6-pin PCIe connectors along the lines of the Antec EA500. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0
wildeast
June 17, 2010 12:42:51 PM
Quote:
If your idea of a bottleneck is capping FPS at low resolutions...yes. But that's far different than a bottleneck that ruins playability at a typical resultion that requires this level of GPU. I'd want to OC the X3 435 when paired with the 5870, but IMO I think you'd basically have a $800-850 machine far more capable of reaching high resolutions. You'd want to also factor in a PSU change. Something with dual 6-pin PCIe connectors along the lines of the Antec EA500. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6817371007
what i mean is, will i play -for example, crysis- at 1680x1050 with highest settings at higher fps than the posted above? i dont care if the cpu bottlenecks the 5870, the problem is when it bottlenecks the 5770 then all higher cards will be bottlenecked to that, just dont want to waste more money..
Score
0
pauldh
June 17, 2010 1:04:44 PM
TA152HAt this price range, I think an Athlon II x2 or Pentium E6500 system would probably do better for pure gaming.Both have more cache, the Pentium dramatically so. The Athlon II x2 would almost certainly over clock better, since stock speed is much higher, and most sites show them generally able to get to 3.8 GHz at roughly 1.4v or lower with a stock heat sink. On top of this, they use less power. So, more cache, 250 MHz more with stock heat sink (maybe more with a better one), and more cache against an extra core. Probably for games it would be better, but not always.The Pentium E6500 is probably better still. Getting it to around 4 GHz wouldn't be too hard, especially with an upgraded heat sink, and is generally faster clock per clock compared to an Athlon II x2. Power use is significantly lower too. Neither are clearly better though. I would rather have a faster two core than a slower three core, but the latter certainly have advantages too.
I sure won't say the Athlon II x2 or the e6500 wouldn't be adequate, but I do think the x3 is a better option and offers more for the money. First, consider how poorly a dual-core performs in the encoding and productivity tests. In the SBM it's a huge reduction in 2/3rds the value comparison. I'd be more apt to squeeze an Athlon II X4 into our budget SBM build than step down to a duallie again.
But, you do mean in games, so lets focus on on those. Even for a pure gaming rig, $10 more for the X3 is well worth it IMO. A high clocked dual-core can still do well, but we see very good reason to have at least 3-core now.
Look at the Balanced Platform series: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc,...
I link to GTA IV for obvious reasons, but look at Far Cry 2, WIC, GRID, Crysis, etc. The lower clocked X3 720BE outpaces the X2 550 when not GPU limited.
Also look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-...
A 4.4 GHz C2D E8400 does a good job, but overall is still unable to beat a 3.7 GHz C2Q Q9550. Then look how the 3.876 E6300 Pentium Dual-core performs in comparison.
We seem benefit from dual to tripple, than tripple to quad.... but look how the lower clocked 4-core slightly outpaced the higher clocked 3-core OC: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/value-gaming-pc,257...
Also keep in mind, these test systems are as clean and released as possible. Factoring in more background tasks further favors additional cores.
Score
3
mancream
June 17, 2010 1:14:29 PM
ansar
June 17, 2010 1:19:16 PM
pauldh
June 17, 2010 1:27:15 PM
wildeastwhat i mean is, will i play -for example, crysis- at 1680x1050 with highest settings at higher fps than the posted above? i dont care if the cpu bottlenecks the 5870, the problem is when it bottlenecks the 5770 then all higher cards will be bottlenecked to that, just dont want to waste more money..
Actually, Crysis is the perfect example.
Excuse the repeat links, but check out these two:
Today's article Crysis: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-overclock,2...
Balanced Gaming PC part 3 Crysis:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/balanced-gaming-pc-...
First, see our overclcoked $550 PC is totally GPU limited with the 5770. 1680x1050 very high details = unplayable 29 fps average. But the $750 PC, same processor but two 4850s = 44 fps. Now compare to the same settings run in the other story, and you'll see even the overclocked HD 5870 is the limiting factor at 45-47 FPS no matter which of the 5 OC'ed processors. Basically the $750 machine from March was within 2-3 fps of a 4.0 GHz i7 920 + overclocked 5870. (Same test, same tester, same settings, different graphics driver version) Different levels of the games stress the CPU/GPU differently, but Crysis is about as good example as you'll find in favor of no bottleneck from the Athlon II.
Score
1
inqk
June 17, 2010 1:45:35 PM
Anonymous
a
b
4
Gaming
June 17, 2010 1:47:41 PM
This is very similar to the build that I put together about two months ago. I am very happy with the performance. The biggest difference is that I went with a faster CPU due to a combo deal on Newegg. I have games such as Dirt2, Crysis Warhead, COD: Modern Warfare, etc... All run extremely well on highest setting. Crysis is the only one that is a little slow on the enthusiast setting. But it runs perfect on the Gamer Setting at 1680x1050.
System that I configured:
Asus M4A77TD Motherboard
Asus Radeon 5770 CuCore Video Card
4GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 (Same price on newegg as above)
Seagate SATA 500GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
Very Pleased!!!
System that I configured:
Asus M4A77TD Motherboard
Asus Radeon 5770 CuCore Video Card
4GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1333 7-7-7-24 (Same price on newegg as above)
Seagate SATA 500GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
Very Pleased!!!
Score
0
sychodelix
June 17, 2010 2:04:54 PM
pauldh
June 17, 2010 2:08:23 PM
ansarWeird. You select a 320GB hard drive for the $1000 PC and a 500GB hard drive for the $500 PC?
Fair observation. Basically two different builders with two different approaches toward meeting budget restraints. Sacrifices must be made somewhere to stay near our targets.
Personally I didn't like saving $7 on a 320GB nor saving $15 on the cheapest 250GB. Had it been a deal breaker on another component (like graphics), sure I may have done so. The budget was stretched anyway, so $545, $538, or $530... not a big deal. Go for 250GB, drop to the stock CPU cooler, and put $10 less in the mobo (or case) and you could hit $500 firm or put 4GB RAM in this rig. I like the value of 500GB (cost/GB), and think at current prices it's a nice storage target for a budget machine.
Score
2
I'd just like to point out that you can do a build with 4gb G Skill RAM and equal or better components for less.
Optical
Sony $20
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM
G SKill Ripjaw ddr3 1333 $105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Case/HD
HEC Blitz and 7200.12 500gb $69
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
PSU/GPU
Corsair 550W Fatal1ty 80+ Active PFC and XFX 5770 $210 w/ $20 MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
Mobo/CPU
GIGABYTE GA-MA78LM-S2H and Athlon II x3 $120 w/ $10 MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
Total $518.93 before $30 MIR and shipping
$505.69 after MIR and shipping to NYC
Optical
Sony $20
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM
G SKill Ripjaw ddr3 1333 $105
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Case/HD
HEC Blitz and 7200.12 500gb $69
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
PSU/GPU
Corsair 550W Fatal1ty 80+ Active PFC and XFX 5770 $210 w/ $20 MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
Mobo/CPU
GIGABYTE GA-MA78LM-S2H and Athlon II x3 $120 w/ $10 MIR
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
Total $518.93 before $30 MIR and shipping
$505.69 after MIR and shipping to NYC
Score
-2
pauldh
June 17, 2010 2:17:38 PM
sychodelixVideo card was a bad pick IMHO, since even at stock stocks, certain 3D apps weren't totally stable. I know there is a limited budget, but spending about 15 bucks more for one that didn't have issues (most likely with cooling) would be a better plan.
The only instability came when the Athlon II's 4th core was unlocked. This may not have been clear in the text. It wasn't the 5770's fault DiRT 2 and Handbrake had problems with 4-active processing cores. This system suffered no stability issues during testing, stock or OC'ed. Stability is a must so 4-core data was meaningless and not shared with readers.
Score
5
sublifer
June 17, 2010 2:22:50 PM
it was nice (in a way) to see the core unlock fail in the sbm. Overall, I think you guys all did very well with your budgets. That said, and I don't know if its because budgets went down all around, but this was the least exciting round of SBM in a while. But, thats how overclocking is, you win some (with big overclocks and core unlocks) and you lose some (with mediocre overclocks) I myself have a rig at home that wasn't too friendly with overclocks but luckily its still plenty fast without.
Score
2
shovenose
June 17, 2010 2:31:10 PM
jomofro39
June 17, 2010 3:05:00 PM
tim2882
June 17, 2010 3:05:15 PM
Trueno07
June 17, 2010 3:10:29 PM
pinkfloydminnesota
June 17, 2010 3:11:17 PM
ta152h
June 17, 2010 3:43:43 PM
pauldhI sure won't say the Athlon II x2 or the e6500 wouldn't be adequate, but I do think the x3 is a better option and offers more for the money. First, consider how poorly a dual-core performs in the encoding and productivity tests. In the SBM it's a huge reduction in 2/3rds the value comparison. I'd be more apt to squeeze an Athlon II X4 into our budget SBM build than step down to a duallie again.But, you do mean in games, so lets focus on on those. Even for a pure gaming rig, $10 more for the X3 is well worth it IMO. A high clocked dual-core can still do well, but we see very good reason to have at least 3-core now. Look at the Balanced Platform series: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 77-11.html I link to GTA IV for obvious reasons, but look at Far Cry 2, WIC, GRID, Crysis, etc. The lower clocked X3 720BE outpaces the X2 550 when not GPU limited.Also look here: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 625-9.html A 4.4 GHz C2D E8400 does a good job, but overall is still unable to beat a 3.7 GHz C2Q Q9550. Then look how the 3.876 E6300 Pentium Dual-core performs in comparison. We seem benefit from dual to tripple, than tripple to quad.... but look how the lower clocked 4-core slightly outpaced the higher clocked 3-core OC: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 78-12.htmlAlso keep in mind, these test systems are as clean and released as possible. Factoring in more background tasks further favors additional cores.
The whole fallacy in your selections is that you compare two processors that have roughly the same IPC, whereas the processor you select has less IPC than either of the ones I selected.
This is particularly clear in your selection of a 720BE versus and Athlon.
In both my cases, the Athlon II x3 is slower per cycle than the two I picked, and is running at lower clock cycles.
I don't think you'd see too many situations where a 3.55 GHz triple core Athlon II would outperform a Pentium running at 4 GHz with dual cores, even if you're using all three.
It's not about using three cores or not using three cores. Even if you're using three cores, it never scales linearly. On top of this, without L3 cache and the small L2, you've got collisions for memory access, not to mention that each core suffers from the long latency to main memory. On top of all this, the Penryn architecture is generally faster anyway.
It's not nearly as clear as you make it. If you have a Pentium, give it a try. You'll see a lot where it wins too. I'm sure we're not the only two that have this curiousity. On top of all this, it uses less power too, and the numbers I found were with the stock cooler. You could use that $30 for an even better processor, or expect it to clock higher with your cooler.
So, this isn't an indictment against more than three cores, but, in this instance, a low clocking one with poor scalability, and lower IPC than the dual-cores, even on a per core basis due to the small cache. Add it all up, and it's as clear a dual core versus triple core discussion.
Score
-5
ipp
June 17, 2010 3:49:12 PM
disgorge89
June 17, 2010 4:06:39 PM
cadder
June 17, 2010 4:08:00 PM
I think you should generally keep your budgets a little bit flexible. In some past builds you have compromised on a few key components to meet the budget, and this has held back the performance of the entire machine. You are good at selecting components, and if you see that you need to spend a few more dollars to get an appropriate video card or cpu cooler, then I say go ahead and do it. If you want to stick closer to the budget then scale back somewhere that won't affect the overall performance, such as hard drive capacity or case quality.
I think it is a real feat to build a reasonably good gaming machine for under $600.
I think it is a real feat to build a reasonably good gaming machine for under $600.
Score
0
dirtmountain
June 17, 2010 4:30:29 PM
noob2222
June 17, 2010 4:36:15 PM
TA152HThe whole fallacy in your selections is that you compare two processors that have roughly the same IPC, whereas the processor you select has less IPC than either of the ones I selected.This is particularly clear in your selection of a 720BE versus and Athlon. In both my cases, the Athlon II x3 is slower per cycle than the two I picked, and is running at lower clock cycles. I don't think you'd see too many situations where a 3.55 GHz triple core Athlon II would outperform a Pentium running at 4 GHz with dual cores, even if you're using all three. It's not about using three cores or not using three cores. Even if you're using three cores, it never scales linearly. On top of this, without L3 cache and the small L2, you've got collisions for memory access, not to mention that each core suffers from the long latency to main memory. On top of all this, the Penryn architecture is generally faster anyway. It's not nearly as clear as you make it. If you have a Pentium, give it a try. You'll see a lot where it wins too. I'm sure we're not the only two that have this curiousity. On top of all this, it uses less power too, and the numbers I found were with the stock cooler. You could use that $30 for an even better processor, or expect it to clock higher with your cooler.So, this isn't an indictment against more than three cores, but, in this instance, a low clocking one with poor scalability, and lower IPC than the dual-cores, even on a per core basis due to the small cache. Add it all up, and it's as clear a dual core versus triple core discussion.
Ya, I want to build a brand new computer with a dead socket with discontinued future cpu support with a processor that cost the exact same http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168.... Do a little reasearch, since the cpu is discontinued, the prices are going up.
I love having the upgrade option of buing a new motherboard+cpu or buying a new motherboard+cpu. The least you could have done is suggested the new G6950. That would have at least been ... thinking slightly.
Score
2
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- Questions on june 2012 system builder pc Forum
- With Tom's System Builder Marathon in mind: Build a Infinite Budget PC Forum
- System Builder Marathon, May '09: $1,300 Enthusiast PC Forum
- System Builder Marathon: Sub-$4000 PC Forum
- $500 Gaming PC (From recent builder marathon) Forum
- SolvedFirst Time Builder - $550 Budget MMO Gaming PC Forum
- First time builder, $550 gaming PC inspired by Tom's Hardware Forum
- More resources
!