Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2010: Value Compared

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Performance
  • Systems
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
September 9, 2010 6:00:04 AM

Three systems represent our builders' best performance and value hopes for budget, mainstream, and high-end users. Last quarter's marathon demonstrated how each system compared to its predecessor, and today we find out how these compare to each other.

System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2010: Value Compared : Read more

More about : system builder marathon sept 2010 compared

September 9, 2010 6:21:54 AM

oops double post...

Anyways, I didn't really like the builds this SBM but I learned quite a bit. Thanks for the great read.
Score
6
September 9, 2010 6:54:07 AM

Yeah the $2000 system did not make much sense. Only spending 10% of your build money on the CPU seems wrong. The two GTX480s and Nvidia mobo was bizarre. I guess they felt they had to throw the AMD CPU guys a bone. The lack of a solid state drive in a $2000 build was also odd to me. Which could be explained if your going after raw gaming power, where they did with the dual 480s, but then they gimped it with that AMD cpu. Why pair dual GTX 480s with a Phenom Hexacore; which are subpar for anything that uses 4 threads or less. For the same $2000, I think you would get a much better system with a core i7 950, 6gb of ddr3 1600, a 120gb SSD, and 2 GTX 460 1gb.
Score
21
Related resources
September 9, 2010 7:09:23 AM

I usually skip over the power and efficiency pages of the high-end SBM build, because the power usage is mostly irrelevant for such a high-end build... but when I saw it in the efficiency comparison...

ONE KILOWATT? seriously!?
Score
5
September 9, 2010 7:12:34 AM

stm1185For the same $2000, I think you would get a much better system with a core i7 950, 6gb of ddr3 1600, a 120gb SSD, and 2 GTX 460 1gb.
-1 for the SSD comments since these have always hurt the system's overall score in the benchmark-based value analysis.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 7:13:46 AM

One of the odd things encountered in the $2000 build is the results of Dirt2. This game bears the AMD logo, and in one benchmark the intel system scored almost double!! OMG!! AMD guys really need to do something about their CPUs and their relations to game developers.
Score
-5
Anonymous
September 9, 2010 7:42:18 AM

SLI does not seems to work in AMD system or it is throttling.
Score
-4
September 9, 2010 8:13:17 AM

MayPSLI does not seems to work in AMD system or it is throttling.
The CPU is throttling the rest of the system. Most of the benchmarks show a CPU-capped pattern.
Score
9
Anonymous
September 9, 2010 8:40:21 AM

I'd like to have seen CS5 tests rather than CS4, considering you're using a Win 7 x64 build.
Score
8
Anonymous
September 9, 2010 8:56:51 AM

"The CPU is throttling the rest of the system. Most of the benchmarks show a CPU-capped pattern."

There is noway i5 can be twice as fast as x6. Simply no way. Something is wrong. Unless there is an artificial limitation in the SLI board to prevent it running faster than that. Even 5670 is closer to SLI 480. Simply Dirt2 benchmark is wrong. And I sense SLI is not working. Better to try with Cross Fire setup.
Score
7
September 9, 2010 11:06:49 AM

TheCapulet it's just plain unbelievable that the builder didn't do his homework.

If you read the article thoroughly you would know the reasons behind the CPU choice! And Thomas was honest about the results and he clearly said 'we failed'. Besides it IS nice to see someone try that and inform us so that we don't repeat the same, or similar, mistakes!


TheCapulet This will be the first month that people sign up hoping to win the 1k machine instead of the 2k.

Free is always good! For me, I wish I win the $2000 build, simply because the 2 gfx cards alone worth almost as the mid-priced build ($920 vs $1000)!
Score
22
September 9, 2010 11:31:30 AM

I do understand that the staff hears what the community has to say about how the next builds should look like, but really, if you spend money on 2 x 480 and you know beforehand that the performance will be limited by your choice of cpu (since benchmarks of it existed before the build was done)then it's up to you to make that weird combination work. I know, the standard cooling on the mobo wasn't great so NB overclocking was out of the question, but still an after market cooler, a simple fan pointed at the chipset could have made a difference. Just to build a 2000$ system to see it fail isn't being responsible with your money and doesn't make any sense (maybe in the "we told you it would kind of way"). As for the rest, i only have one question ... what were the bios settings for the SpeedStep and C1E on the intel side .. since the x6 had it's C&Q disabled.

All in all this was the most ... weird .. SBM to date.
PS: kudos to Paul Henningsen, his build/review takes the cake this round.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 12:53:42 PM

In Dirt 2 I get the same results, and I only have 1 HD5870. My 1090T is clocked at 4.2ghz and I have the NB/HT OC'ed as well. 2x GTX480 should of been alot faster, at least thats what I would of thought. At 1920x1080 and above with anti alising I thought the load was more on the GPU/GPUs. Something seems strange to me. What happens when you use one card? Do the FPS stay the same at 2560x1600 with AA also? I'm just curious, that's all. The FPS didn't even go up when you lowered the resolution. Weird stuff for sure.
Score
6
September 9, 2010 1:07:06 PM

Why didn't they bump up the Six core Phenom to it's big brother. you get 400 more MHz and an unlocked multiplier. I looked it up on newegg and they could have stayed in the $2000 limit. There's my two cents.
Score
2
September 9, 2010 1:14:36 PM

Can't say that I'm surprised with the results. Thanks again Tom for another SBM!
Score
0
September 9, 2010 1:28:41 PM

Wow. a few months ago I built a +-$400 equivalent budget-gaming box for someone and I used exactly the same stuff....scary
Score
1
September 9, 2010 1:32:50 PM

I hope I win the 2000 build!!! Worst high performance build yet on Toms but best situation for whoever wins it.

Strip out the power hungry 480's and sell them for a grand and buy a 5850 or 460 for 300 bucks.

Brand new system and $700 in my pocket, what can be better than that!!!!!!!!
Score
16
September 9, 2010 1:43:21 PM

THG have test results tat nVidia graphic cards are sensitive to CPU computation power (unlike Radeon). In fact AMD 6 core CPU is of very limited use (if any). General rule is : if you on tight budget buy AMD system if you need high end computer stick to Intel and nVidia.

It would be very interesting to have a tool to compare any 2-3years old SBM systems among themselves with current newegg prices. This way it would be clear that any SBM system is just part of bigger picture and is not necessarily the best choice for the money.
Score
3
September 9, 2010 1:43:25 PM

Hmm, wow, to think about a month ago I thought all games were GPU limited. This certainly opens my eyes.
Score
3
September 9, 2010 1:54:59 PM

cknobmanI hope I win the 2000 build!!! Worst high performance build yet on Toms but best situation for whoever wins it. Strip out the power hungry 480's and sell them for a grand and buy a 5850 or 460 for 300 bucks.Brand new system and $700 in my pocket, what can be better than that!!!!!!!!


That was a unit line in WarCraft 3!!
Score
-5
September 9, 2010 1:59:49 PM

This was a very interesting SBM series, with lessons to be learned at each price point. Knowing what NOT to do can be as useful as knowing what TO do. I'd love to win any of them, with these results:
1. $2K PC: I'd remove and sell the two GPUs (my games don't need them), and add a single GTX460 or HD5850 and a SSD. Would become my primary system.
2. $1K PC: I'd just add a SSD. Would also become my primary system.
3. $400 PC: I'd toss the junk PSU and install a 380W Earthwatts, and probably add a quiet after-market CPU HSF. I'd probably swap the GPU for my HD4850, add a second larger HDD, then it would become a Christmas gift for my sister's family.
Score
5
September 9, 2010 2:10:25 PM

I for one will be glad when this series is over. I just dont think this effort is relevant to the majority of PC builders - and trying to educate the crowds that are inept is pointless. Any one set of choices leaves questions for the other set of choices not used.

The forums are full of people who cannot figure out how to make a system choice (what speed RAM, what GPU, what CPU, how much to spend, etc) and then once they build it and it doesnt work, are back asking how to make it all work, why is it overheating, why does it crash and so on.

Im not sure what this accomplishes - the ones who can build dont need this series and the ones who cant build will mess it up anyhow - even if you give them a complete parts list.

This site continues to slide backward trying to increase its readership by reaching the lowest person instead of setting a high water mark with compelling articles (like the 2D video acceleration issue with AMD - now that was good).

Peace
Score
-14
September 9, 2010 2:16:45 PM

for the next round:

if the cheapest build don't have a decent video card, should spend more.

the midle budget at least need a GTX 460 1GB SLI.

the expensive budget needs SSD.
Score
-2
September 9, 2010 2:43:15 PM

What I don't get is why the budget PC is called "Gaming PC" and still has to go through the non-gaming benchmark suite. The more expensive builds are never labeled "Gaming" at all. The benchmark suite is not strictly a gaming suite. Sure, they're there, but the productivity tests are there too. And without the focus on overall performance, the $400 PC could have focused purely on gaming - an area where 3 faster cores might have offered better performance than 4 slower ones. (Or was the Gamers: Do You Need More Than An Athlon II X3? article simply a fluke?

Anyway, I'd just like to see the productivity and gaming portions separated into two distinct competitions. This would allow users to see each build compared from whichever perspective is more important to them.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 2:47:46 PM

TheCapuletAnd honestly, it's just plain unbelievable that the builder didn't do his homework.


I think mostly it was done as a crowd pleaser... I've seen several posts stating such-and-such build would be so much better if a phenom II X6 was used instead of anything else... it's proven (again) that an AMD hexa-core is not that good for a gaming machine and probably an intel hexa-core is not a very good value either

an ssd wouldn't add any performance benefit yet it still would improve the experience of lower boot times, I personally see it as a frivolity... one which I'll allow myself come December =P

I liked the marathon this time... showing BAD build decisions is very valuable to me as a consumer and gives me reference material to show clients about what makes a good one and what a bad one as well... thanks a lot (now just make the giveaway worldwide available and we'll be cool =P)
Score
6
September 9, 2010 2:49:32 PM

CrashmanThe CPU is throttling the rest of the system. Most of the benchmarks show a CPU-capped pattern.

But I bet that cpu wasn't using anywhere near 100%... It'd be interesting to find where the real limits are being imposed there. Is Nvidia playing some nasty driver tricks again or can they seriously just not write drivers that can efficiently use a hexacore processor. Seriously, I know clock for clock AMD is behind but it had two extra processors that were apparently un-utilized and somehow it still seemed gimped compared to what a Phenom II vs core i5/i7 should look like.
Score
8
September 9, 2010 2:53:50 PM

okay... i got caught up on the dirt results. Must have been a driver bug probably a SLI problem rather than anything else. Elsewhere the Phenom II looks to have done quite well.

AMD's Fermi power usage campaign seemed to have been spot-on. That power draw is scary. HAHAHA
Score
3
September 9, 2010 3:55:08 PM

marraco said:
for the next round:

if the cheapest build don't have a decent video card, should spend more.

the midle budget at least need a GTX 460 1GB SLI.

the expensive budget needs SSD.

1. The cheapest build DID have a decent video card. For the price, it does a great job. Can settings in the latest titles be maxed at the highest resolutions? Of course not. For people playing older and/or less demanding games, or willing to lower some settings, this card is a great mainstream choice.
2. I'd like to see GTX460 SLI too, but they weren't available when this build was done. Maybe next time, although with the HD6xxx coming out, who knows...?
3. Using the current benchmark suite, a SSD would make no difference; but I see that as a problem too, especially where balance is a (or the) goal. I'd like to see some benchmarks created or added that would show how much a SSD improves the user experience. Having used one, I don't see ever again building a rig for myself without it. If I've got 10-15 minutes in the morning to check email, Slickdeals, and the daily Woot (and the Tom's lead story), I probably don't have 2-3 minutes to waste just booting up.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 4:45:26 PM

Learned lots of stuff this week:

1. Considering the timing of the $2000 build, I'd upgrade the processor and go for 2x470s in SLI. Or 2x5870s in Crossfire. Now that the GTX 460s are out and after reading this article, I'd spend my $2000 (if I had 'em) on an i7 platform and 2x460s. I agree with cknobman's plans for this build, though: Strip out the power hungry 480's and sell them for a grand and buy a 5850 or 460 for 300 bucks. For the third time this week: I love the case!

2. The $1000 build was marred only because the builder forgot to tweak the memory properly (forgot? memory? oxymoron?). I'm now thinking what could be skimped on the setup to put in 2x460s. Nevermind. It's great as it is.

3. For the $400 build, I already gave my two cents in the comments section of that article. Personally, I think it was well built. Yes, it's wanting in several departments but then folks who can only afford such entry-level builds have a lot of compromises to deal with: I'd choose a different PSU, wrack my brains on alternative GPU options, get better cooling, etc., etc...

Too bad I'm not a resident of the US of A. I'd like to have a shot at any of these systems.

Hey Tom's, for the Christmas SBM, could let those abroad join, too? You don't have to do it on all succeeding SBMs... just once a year, during the Holidays.

Amen.
Score
2
September 9, 2010 4:47:37 PM

An interesting comparison indeed. Sad to see the X6 being a bit too weak though. While the X6 does seem to do well for threaded apps, the disappointing game performance certainly seems to make the dual 480s a bit of a waste. It just confirms that for gaming the Phenom II X4s will do just as well as the X6 and for the price of an X6 an Intel Setup is a better gaming option. AMD needs Bulldozer now.
Score
2
September 9, 2010 4:49:52 PM

I think something is wrong with the Dirt 2 results. I benched my pair of 5850s to over 80 fps average...

As for the builds themselves, they're ok but nothing spectacular. I think the forum builds have better.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 4:59:05 PM

i've been reading a lot about the great three way sli scaling with the gtx 460, i wonder why they chose two 480's for the 2000 sb
Score
-2
September 9, 2010 5:14:50 PM

I think that this might be the most informative of the SBMs, if not the crowd favorite.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 5:23:15 PM

I like that the $2000 system simultaneously illustrates the folly of design by committee AND my desire to own said machine. I like it.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 5:35:02 PM

Quote:
Like I said in another comment, This will be the first month that people sign up hoping to win the 1k machine instead of the 2k.


Well, I hope to win any of them. I wouldn't use the 2 higher systems as is, though. If I won the low end machine, it would become my TV/Hulu/Netflix machine, with a change in the hard drive for one of my left over 1TB drives. If I won the 1k machine, I'd throw the GTX470 into my main machine and run SLi, then put the rest together for a system for my dad with a Radeon 4870 I have sitting around. If I won the 2k machine, the video cards would go into my machine, that machine would get my current GTX470 and go to my dad. My dad would likely love to get a new machine right now.

Only the low end machine is really balanced. To much GPU and not enough CPU for both the 1k and 2k machines. They just can't get the performance out of the video cards they should because of gimped CPUs. I've neveer build machines like that.

Why don't people just go for the Core i7 930 as a base? It's a good value, overclocks well, and can handle the higher end video cards. With the 2k machine, I'd go with the 930 with a 6GB memory kit and offset the cost with a pair of GTX470s instead of GTX480s. It would wipe the floor with this 2k machine.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 6:45:11 PM

Epic fail by AMD
Score
-4
September 9, 2010 7:05:09 PM

Always love these articles. It's interesting to see the same debates happening that we see in the forums about choices.

Bummer about the big rig not being quite what you'd hoped. Better luck with the next one.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 7:17:07 PM

I think you guys are just trying to establish a baseline so that Sandy Bridge chips look good when dropped into a low-end system in lieu of separate low-end CPU/GPU combinations ;) 
Score
-3
September 9, 2010 7:36:28 PM

In the beginning of reading of this article I tend to explain inefficiency of the 2000$ machine as the strong dependence of 480s on CPU power. But at the end after going through some very strange benchmark results I tend to think there is much more going on there. For instance, how is that in Crysis on Very High details 1000$ machine with a single 470 card beats 2x480 for 2000$ one? AMD was running 4GHz, thats not such bottle neck that 2 cards should be slower than one SLOWER card. This just does not make sense unless there is something more going on. Could you test this issue more? Otherwise, people may tend to think its impossible to pair AMD with SLI from now on, but it is not clear why. Is it only CPU? If yes, does it means because Nvidia uses for the SLI calculations only single core? Or is it some bottle neck of motherboard, where 2x480 in SLI were not running full speed? Is there an issue with drivers, after all 480s are quite new, etc.

It would really help to have CPU and GPU usage plotted while benchmarking this AMD machine and it would also help to put there only one 480 and 470 from 1000$ machine for comparison. Also, changing of motherboard. We have plenty of reports on 2x480 running on Intel platforms (mobo+cpu) pretty fine, but there is no deep study on SLI on AMD platform and these published results tell it does deserve some more time.

Is it possible that SLI is broken/gimped on motherboards for AMD cpus in general or something like that?
Score
6
September 9, 2010 8:05:52 PM

I bet there are some guys at AMD pulling their hair out right now.. That Hexa Core is pure fail. Even the i5 in the second build would have done a much better job. I was a big AMD fan boy back in the Athlon days, but I gotta admit, AMD ain't up to snuff now. Hope they come up with something to even out the playing field soon! One thing I have to say is that they could've stuck an HD5970 in the place of those 2 GeF480s and invested that extra cash on the MoBo and CPU, an i7 930 OCed can give even the i7 6 Core a run for it's money in some things, and it doesn't break the bank! Would have made a lot more sense.. But, their intentions were good: give people a choice besides Intel, unfortunately Core i5 & i7 are just to good for AMD right now..
Score
-2
September 9, 2010 8:50:35 PM

For the next SBM I would love to see Tom's attempt to build a DIY water cooled rig. I have been thinking about switching from air cooling to water cooling in order to make my rig less loud, but the number of choices is a bit daunting. What pump is quiet, powerful and reasonably priced? How many low speed fans do I need for a 4x140 radiator? In what order should I hook up the CPU/GPU/MB. A 2500 budget might be appropriate for a good dual GPU water cooled rig.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 8:55:42 PM

mattmockFor the next SBM I would love to see Tom's attempt to build a DIY water cooled rig. I have been thinking about switching from air cooling to water cooling in order to make my rig less loud, but the number of choices is a bit daunting. What pump is quiet, powerful and reasonably priced? How many low speed fans do I need for a 4x140 radiator? In what order should I hook up the CPU/GPU/MB. A 2500 budget might be appropriate for a good dual GPU water cooled rig.


That and making SSD obligatory for 2000$+ builds.
Score
-2
September 9, 2010 9:25:02 PM

I'm glad to see Tom's attempt more balanced builds this go around. Personally I only play games 25% of the time and its always frustrating to see builds where 50% of the money is spent on graphics cards, although it seems like the $2k build didn't quite hit the mark. Maybe next go around you can make a better effort at hitting a balanced build on the high end.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 9:31:24 PM

mcvfThat and making SSD obligatory for 2000$+ builds.
Nope, they're worthless in the benchmarks and they add cost. I don't care how many times people ask, I can continuously refer to past SBM's where they were used, and made the system fall even lower in the value analysis.

You'd might as well be asking for a $700 case...ooops, been there done that too.
Score
1
September 9, 2010 9:32:19 PM

mcvfThat and making SSD obligatory for 2000$+ builds.


This has been explained over and over. The point of the Marathon is to build the best performance on their benchmark suite under the price limit. SSDs do not help it. The end.

mcvfThere's something fishy with the AMD, needs more testing


I agree with this. Despite the fact that the build was meant to appease the AMD fans clamoring for a spot in high-end testing, I think it will only make them feel angry and mis-represented. It was nice of Tom's to respond and own up to their mistake, but at the same time the disparity is so great as to be pretty strange, and imply there's some deeper problem with the system than "LOL MASSIVE AMD FAIL." There have been some pretty enlightening discussions regarding bottlenecks and AMD's interface with SLI.. I'd really like if Tom's held onto the system to do some more testing and fed us some more comparisons.

It almost seems like the poor AMD was set up to appear a failure, paired with a way overpowered graphics card configuration and running applications it wasn't designed to shine in. Maybe the conclusion, as seeemed to be at the end of the $2k machine's article, should just be "for powerful graphics solutions, AMD is insufficient." I'm not sure if it deserves being dismissed like that, though, especially with that really wonky stuff going on in the benches.
Score
3
September 9, 2010 9:38:15 PM

I just remembered: Where are the tom's-inspired newegg bundles that Chris once promised to launch with this SBM? (or was it the next SBM?)
Score
0
September 9, 2010 10:04:51 PM

CrashmanNope, they're worthless in the benchmarks and they add cost...

In the current benchmarks, true. Particularly when discussing balanced builds, however, please introduce one or more benchmarks that can show how much a SSD can improve the user experience. It can't always be about FPS.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 10:07:11 PM

This has been explained over and over. The point of the Marathon is to build the best performance on their benchmark suite under the price limit. SSDs do not help it. The end.


Yes, we understand. This isn't some immutable law though. What people are doing is expressing interest in a SBM that includes other things. Perhaps some loading/booting benchmarks could be added that would show the effect of HDD performance. System sound level could be measured.
Score
2
September 9, 2010 11:05:24 PM

The 2000 dollar system could potentially be worth purchasing if you were running a 2560X1600 display.
Score
0
September 9, 2010 11:20:02 PM

I would try to fit the 2x 480s on an intel i7 930.
Probably be hard but definitely worth it.
Even P55 might have been better.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!