System Builder Marathon, December 2010: Value, Compared
Tags:
- System Builder
- Hardware
-
Systems
- Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
December 20, 2010 4:00:04 AM
New benchmarks, new test methods, and new hardware mark exciting updates to this month’s System Builder Marathon. Today, we cover the most exciting part of all: the value competition. Remember, we're giving all three systems away, so enter to win them!
System Builder Marathon, December 2010: Value, Compared : Read more
System Builder Marathon, December 2010: Value, Compared : Read more
More about : system builder marathon december 2010 compared
Tamz_msc
December 20, 2010 4:17:39 AM
shovenose
December 20, 2010 4:33:22 AM
Related resources
- Toms hadware system builder 2010 December 500 gaming pc - Forum
- Looking at System Builder Marathon (or any other PC) for New Build - Forum
- Help! System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Budget Gaming PC - Forum
- why is the system builder marathon 2013 based on mini itx plat form? - Forum
- No Newegg SuperCombo for the current System Builder's Marathon? - Forum
dEAne
December 20, 2010 4:38:28 AM
wribbs
December 20, 2010 4:53:22 AM
I really enjoy these SBM articles but you need to start putting out these systems/articles faster because by the time you post these configs no one would build them. These "December" systems all use November parts. When you know an important part (CPU/GPU) is going to be replaced by a newer model before the article will post, just wait a few days for it.
That said, SSD is a great addition as well as some of the other difficult to measure in value parts.
That said, SSD is a great addition as well as some of the other difficult to measure in value parts.
Score
4
Anonymous
December 20, 2010 6:30:16 AM
Twoboxer
December 20, 2010 6:39:08 AM
I don't understand introducing SSDs into these builds. Buying an SSD is a binary decision: if you want faster load times, you add an SSD . . . if not, you don't.
These builds are targeted at a fixed budget, and (at the moment, with these budgets) money should never be spent on an SSD at the expense of more cpu or graphics power.
Dropping SSDs would also stop convoluting the "value" comparison.
These builds are targeted at a fixed budget, and (at the moment, with these budgets) money should never be spent on an SSD at the expense of more cpu or graphics power.
Dropping SSDs would also stop convoluting the "value" comparison.
Score
2
ethaniel
December 20, 2010 7:59:54 AM
tapher
December 20, 2010 9:02:52 AM
This has been a very informative triple build review, and this article sums up the lessons nicely! The point about the $1000 PC and games being fine with dual cores was gratifying to see echoed in the summation.
The fact that problems were encountered during the builds, such as the issue with memory, and the issue with the bios; these are important practical lessons that make the articles well worth the time to read.
Overall, I can't imagine a better choice of builds, nor a better outcome, given Sandy Bridge on the horizon.
The fact that problems were encountered during the builds, such as the issue with memory, and the issue with the bios; these are important practical lessons that make the articles well worth the time to read.
Overall, I can't imagine a better choice of builds, nor a better outcome, given Sandy Bridge on the horizon.
Score
2
jestersage
December 20, 2010 9:06:50 AM
How about timing the marathon differently. It seemas doing it at the end of the quarter isn't such a good idea because of new tech launch schedules this half of the year. Maybe release the article in the middle of every quarter?
In any case, the $500 build rocks my boat. I just feel it isn't right to saddle the $1000 build with a dual core, hyper-threaded or not. An AMD triple/quad core with bad-@ss cooling (at the same price) might have been better.
In any case, the $500 build rocks my boat. I just feel it isn't right to saddle the $1000 build with a dual core, hyper-threaded or not. An AMD triple/quad core with bad-@ss cooling (at the same price) might have been better.
Score
3
Crashman
December 20, 2010 9:40:15 AM
canting_dissentorYour 'flexible' statistics are a joke! We'd really like the $2000 system to win to so we'll shovel in the hard drive figures with massive over-emphasis... It's bollocks.
d00d, that's what a bunch of readers wanted. We all know that SSDs waste money for most users, but the site was overwhelmed by readers who claimed they couldn't wait for four seconds on a process that should open in three. Score
3
nevertell
December 20, 2010 9:43:18 AM
Crashman
December 20, 2010 9:43:50 AM
TwoboxerI don't understand introducing SSDs into these builds. Buying an SSD is a binary decision: if you want faster load times, you add an SSD . . . if not, you don't.These builds are targeted at a fixed budget, and (at the moment, with these budgets) money should never be spent on an SSD at the expense of more cpu or graphics power.Dropping SSDs would also stop convoluting the "value" comparison.
That's exactly what I've been saying for months, but you're going to have to start a war with readers who disagree with you to fix this: It's no longer my fight. Score
1
geok1ng
December 20, 2010 9:57:07 AM
The $500 machine was the best on the history of the SBMs; triple core, 4GB memory, great mid-range GPU.
The $500 value skyrockets when we take the most demanding gaming resolution a budget machine will face on the next two years of life: 1080p. The $500 will be gaming at 1080p without AA for the next years without a problem.
The $500 value skyrockets when we take the most demanding gaming resolution a budget machine will face on the next two years of life: 1080p. The $500 will be gaming at 1080p without AA for the next years without a problem.
Score
4
mrmotion
December 20, 2010 11:08:29 AM
Still like the upgrade path of the 1000$ build. Its perfect for someone who wants to throw in a bigger CPU later and double down on performance. I think this months builds highlight the best aspects of all three price ranges. The 500$ has kick butt power for the price. The 1000$ lets you expand while never being left behind. The 2000$ does what it should and owns the competition. Great SBM guys!
Score
1
Anonymous
December 20, 2010 12:10:29 PM
canting_dissentor, Twoboxer, mayankleoboy1, Crashman:
I really don't understand your points of view on the SSD issue. It's WAY overdue on these builds. I'd go so far as to say that you'd be a fool to build a $2000 system without putting an SSD in it. When value is important, it's critical to spend your money on things that actually make a difference to your everyday experience with the system. If a system is already capable of 90FPS in Crysis at 1920x1080 on HQ settings, then what's the point in spending another $200 to push that up to 100FPS? You won't notice the extra 10 frames, just like you won't notice the 50 frame difference between the $500 build and the $2000 build. What you will notice with an SSD is that levels will load in 1/8th the time, and that for every other practical usage scenario (internet, productivity, file copying, booting, program installation etc...) you'll notice a huge difference by spending a few bucks on an SSD.
It's all about diminishing returns, and that's why it makes sense to put an SSD in the $2000 build, and probably even the $1000 build but not the $500 build.
You guys are too hung up on maximizing frame rates, even though you don't get anything for it but bragging rights.
I really don't understand your points of view on the SSD issue. It's WAY overdue on these builds. I'd go so far as to say that you'd be a fool to build a $2000 system without putting an SSD in it. When value is important, it's critical to spend your money on things that actually make a difference to your everyday experience with the system. If a system is already capable of 90FPS in Crysis at 1920x1080 on HQ settings, then what's the point in spending another $200 to push that up to 100FPS? You won't notice the extra 10 frames, just like you won't notice the 50 frame difference between the $500 build and the $2000 build. What you will notice with an SSD is that levels will load in 1/8th the time, and that for every other practical usage scenario (internet, productivity, file copying, booting, program installation etc...) you'll notice a huge difference by spending a few bucks on an SSD.
It's all about diminishing returns, and that's why it makes sense to put an SSD in the $2000 build, and probably even the $1000 build but not the $500 build.
You guys are too hung up on maximizing frame rates, even though you don't get anything for it but bragging rights.
Score
3
the $500 PC with a $100 A.Data 64 GB SSD is still a fantastic $600 PC.
as it is, It is probly the best gaming PC for the dollar in this quarter's marathon. Games don't play any fastre on an SD. and you lose a few second in game loads over the SSD. The rest of it is great. It can play any game you throw at it for at least a year or two into the future, which is my criteria for games.
as it is, It is probly the best gaming PC for the dollar in this quarter's marathon. Games don't play any fastre on an SD. and you lose a few second in game loads over the SSD. The rest of it is great. It can play any game you throw at it for at least a year or two into the future, which is my criteria for games.
Score
1
caamsa
December 20, 2010 12:22:09 PM
This is just a guide.....just build whatever type of machine you want to. I would say that within an individuals budget it is best to spend the most on the core parts of your system like the cpu, gpu, memory, mb psu....etc in that order if you are looking at a gaming machine. I worry less about the case since that sits under my desk. As long as it has decent air flow that is all you really need to worry about.
Score
2
accolite
December 20, 2010 12:34:54 PM
Twoboxer said:
I don't understand introducing SSDs into these builds. Buying an SSD is a binary decision: if you want faster load times, you add an SSD . . . if not, you don't.These builds are targeted at a fixed budget, and (at the moment, with these budgets) money should never be spent on an SSD at the expense of more cpu or graphics power.
Dropping SSDs would also stop convoluting the "value" comparison.
The $2000 pc is about performance, and SSD load times are performance enhancement,
Is it not faster? it's only load times, yeah but it's faster!
Score
2
pauldh
December 20, 2010 12:35:28 PM
canting_dissentorYour 'flexible' statistics are a joke! We'd really like the $2000 system to win to so we'll shovel in the hard drive figures with massive over-emphasis... It's bollocks.
Just to be clear, this weighting wasn't an afterthought. Tweaking the value equation was a team discussion that took place prior to ordering components, so no data was in place to pre-select a winner. Something needed to be done to demonstrate the benefits of (the often requested) SSDs.
The problem (and your outrage) likely stems from the limitation we faced of using theoretical performance from a synthetic rather than an implementation measuring real-world benefits. Just remember, the SBMs are a work in progress, directed by reader feedback. We appreciate and encourage constructive discussions that can better the series.
=)
Score
2
wasupmike
December 20, 2010 12:46:50 PM
"We wanted our HDD performance tests to represent programs, not just Windows startup, because most enthusiasts don’t restart their systems often enough to make an OS-only SSD worthwhile. That means having a system partition that’s at least 100 GB plus breathing room, with realistic consideration going to drives rated at 120 GB or more." -> from the 'Value Conclusion' summary page
Great article as usual... However I'd like to disagree with the editor on the fact that you need at least a 120GB system drive. At the time I wanted to delve into the SSD world, I couldn't afford more than the smallest drives, and so I purchased the OCZ Vertex 30GB SSD.
Now I had to figure out how to load my Windows 7 (64bit) and as many apps as I could on it... to take advantage of this expensive 30GB drive I just bought...!
Alas - I was able to load the OS, ALL my everyday apps (including large ones such as MS Office 2007, Adobe PS CS5 + Adobe Premiere Elements 8) and still have breathing room left to spare (approximately 6GB free space left - which is a 1/5 of the drive - which is just enough to leave free). Only my games were installed on the HDD
Here's how to do it:
- Turn off 'System Restore' right after the initial first-time-boot of your OS. Then finish your Windows installation (latest drivers, Windows updates, etc...) -> Then turn it back on when you're done and limit how much drive space it takes to about 2% only (If you use 'System Restore' to restore your computer - you won't want to go more than a couple restore points back anyways)
- Move your 'virtual memory' to the mechanical HDD -> By going to: System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance -> Settings -> Advanced -> Change -> and moving the 'page-file' to your mechanical HDD (**tip: in your 'power settings' options -> configure the HDD to 'Never Turn Off', as so to not wait for it to spindle up if it's "sleeping" when your OS decides to go to the 'virtual memory')
- Move your data folders to the mechanical HDD
- 4th thing to do is of course keep your system clean by periodically cleaning out temps and junk every once in a while
So that's all on a measly 30GB drive. Now SSD prices are not as crazy high as they were, even just a year ago... So a 50-60GB drive would still save you LOADS of money compared to a 100-120GB SSD, while being, I'm sure more than adequate for your OS... all of your daily apps... and depending on how many games you play... most of them, if not all of them will fit in there too..! (I recently upgraded to a 60GB SSD on my main system... have all my games now on it... loads of room to spare)
To sum up... you don't need a minimum 100GB SSD for your system drive... If budget is an issue - you'll be more than fine with a 50-60GB SSD
Great article as usual... However I'd like to disagree with the editor on the fact that you need at least a 120GB system drive. At the time I wanted to delve into the SSD world, I couldn't afford more than the smallest drives, and so I purchased the OCZ Vertex 30GB SSD.
Now I had to figure out how to load my Windows 7 (64bit) and as many apps as I could on it... to take advantage of this expensive 30GB drive I just bought...!
Alas - I was able to load the OS, ALL my everyday apps (including large ones such as MS Office 2007, Adobe PS CS5 + Adobe Premiere Elements 8) and still have breathing room left to spare (approximately 6GB free space left - which is a 1/5 of the drive - which is just enough to leave free). Only my games were installed on the HDD
Here's how to do it:
- Turn off 'System Restore' right after the initial first-time-boot of your OS. Then finish your Windows installation (latest drivers, Windows updates, etc...) -> Then turn it back on when you're done and limit how much drive space it takes to about 2% only (If you use 'System Restore' to restore your computer - you won't want to go more than a couple restore points back anyways)
- Move your 'virtual memory' to the mechanical HDD -> By going to: System Properties -> Advanced -> Performance -> Settings -> Advanced -> Change -> and moving the 'page-file' to your mechanical HDD (**tip: in your 'power settings' options -> configure the HDD to 'Never Turn Off', as so to not wait for it to spindle up if it's "sleeping" when your OS decides to go to the 'virtual memory')
- Move your data folders to the mechanical HDD
- 4th thing to do is of course keep your system clean by periodically cleaning out temps and junk every once in a while
So that's all on a measly 30GB drive. Now SSD prices are not as crazy high as they were, even just a year ago... So a 50-60GB drive would still save you LOADS of money compared to a 100-120GB SSD, while being, I'm sure more than adequate for your OS... all of your daily apps... and depending on how many games you play... most of them, if not all of them will fit in there too..! (I recently upgraded to a 60GB SSD on my main system... have all my games now on it... loads of room to spare)
To sum up... you don't need a minimum 100GB SSD for your system drive... If budget is an issue - you'll be more than fine with a 50-60GB SSD
Score
0
helpme3948
December 20, 2010 12:55:25 PM
fishstikcanting_dissentor, Twoboxer, mayankleoboy1, Crashman:I really don't understand your points of view on the SSD issue. It's WAY overdue on these builds. I'd go so far as to say that you'd be a fool to build a $2000 system without putting an SSD in it. When value is important, it's critical to spend your money on things that actually make a difference to your everyday experience with the system. If a system is already capable of 90FPS in Crysis at 1920x1080 on HQ settings, then what's the point in spending another $200 to push that up to 100FPS? You won't notice the extra 10 frames, just like you won't notice the 50 frame difference between the $500 build and the $2000 build. What you will notice with an SSD is that levels will load in 1/8th the time, and that for every other practical usage scenario (internet, productivity, file copying, booting, program installation etc...) you'll notice a huge difference by spending a few bucks on an SSD.It's all about diminishing returns, and that's why it makes sense to put an SSD in the $2000 build, and probably even the $1000 build but not the $500 build.You guys are too hung up on maximizing frame rates, even though you don't get anything for it but bragging rights.
There's a flaw in what you're saying. If the hardest game to run was Counter Strike and everyone could already max it out at over 90FPS constantly, then buying a better GPU would be stupid. As it is now, only the overclocked $2000 build can get over 60FPS AVERAGE at 1080p in Crysis at Very High, that's not even taking minimums into account. There's also no AA turned on in those tests. Any of those builds would still benefit from more GPU power and it would show up as more AA and more FPS on the screen, not just discarded frames. There's also some people who like 2560x1600 monitors. What if someone wanted to use that $2000 build to play Metro 2033 at 1080p with all the settings maxed? There's no way having more GPU power would be "just for bragging rights." He'd actually get FPS closer to what his screen could output. Whether or not X part is worth the extra cost is up to the individual, but you can't say there would be no benefit from having a better GPU. Also, yes, people can tell the difference between ~30FPS and ~60FPS ($500 vs $2000). Now, I'm not saying whether an SSD or a better GPU would be a smarter choice. I'm just saying that a better GPU wouldn't be a complete waste. This point really comes down to what the priorities of the builder are and that gets pretty subjective, IMO.
Score
1
jtbm
December 20, 2010 1:51:48 PM
As often as I jump around between programs, I consider it unlikely I'll ever build a machine for myself that doesn't have a SSD in it. Just think about the value comparison, artificial or not, if you were to put a 64GB SSD into the $500 machine.
Looking back on them, even the "unconscionable" decision of an i3 in a $1000 machine, ALL of them serve as excellent starting points, to be tweaked in whatever direction necessary. I'd love to win any of them.
Looking back on them, even the "unconscionable" decision of an i3 in a $1000 machine, ALL of them serve as excellent starting points, to be tweaked in whatever direction necessary. I'd love to win any of them.
Score
1
coldmast
December 20, 2010 2:02:53 PM
cadder
December 20, 2010 2:10:05 PM
caamsa
December 20, 2010 2:12:33 PM
TeraMedia
December 20, 2010 2:16:57 PM
I really like what this article did in an effort to capture the value of having a faster storage system. I think maybe a fraction other than 25% (perhaps 10% or 15%?) might better represent the impact of faster storage on overall user experience, but it makes sense to at least put something in there.
For a future SBM, it would be nice to see HTPC functionality targeted. A potential list of target criteria could be:
- 1080p video output (or even 3x this for eyefinity)
- DVD playback
- Blu-ray playback
- Blu-ray 3D playback
- "light" gaming
- Gaming in 3D
- Dolby Digital / DTS pass-thru output or decoding and analog out
- Dolby TrueHD / DTS Master Audio pass-thru output or decoding
- Status display (nothing; LCD, VFD; touchscreen)
- Control (KBD,Mouse/Touchpad/Trackball/Motion,Remote; Wired/IR/RF/BT)
- Analog (cable/satellite) TV tuning, number of tuners
- Digital TV tuning, number of tuners
- Storage for recorded TV, music, pics and video
- Low noise level
- Form factor / appearance
By targeting high-efficiency, low-power CPUs and GPUs, and with form-factor and peripherals factoring in, you would have a very different set of trade-offs from the current CPU vs. GPU (vs. SSD) scenario.
For a future SBM, it would be nice to see HTPC functionality targeted. A potential list of target criteria could be:
- 1080p video output (or even 3x this for eyefinity)
- DVD playback
- Blu-ray playback
- Blu-ray 3D playback
- "light" gaming
- Gaming in 3D
- Dolby Digital / DTS pass-thru output or decoding and analog out
- Dolby TrueHD / DTS Master Audio pass-thru output or decoding
- Status display (nothing; LCD, VFD; touchscreen)
- Control (KBD,Mouse/Touchpad/Trackball/Motion,Remote; Wired/IR/RF/BT)
- Analog (cable/satellite) TV tuning, number of tuners
- Digital TV tuning, number of tuners
- Storage for recorded TV, music, pics and video
- Low noise level
- Form factor / appearance
By targeting high-efficiency, low-power CPUs and GPUs, and with form-factor and peripherals factoring in, you would have a very different set of trade-offs from the current CPU vs. GPU (vs. SSD) scenario.
Score
0
Crashman
December 20, 2010 2:34:57 PM
ScrewySqrlthe $500 PC with a $100 A.Data 64 GB SSD is still a fantastic $600 PC.
I just rechecked with the new benchmarks, and we're down to around 82GB for the test programs. If someone were to use anything less than 82GB for the system drive, I'd scratch those results and give them zero for cheating. Realistically we could drop to a 100GB minimum now.coldmast929 W for the $2000 overclock (that's peak load) but still that 850W PSU is getting maxed.
Not really, it's really 808W since the power supply is 87% efficient.http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/psu_reports/SILVERSTON...
Score
1
tom thumb
December 20, 2010 2:51:45 PM
Quote:
What you will notice with an SSD is that levels will load in 1/8th the time, and that for every other practical usage scenario (internet, productivity, file copying, booting, program installation etc...) you'll notice a huge difference by spending a few bucks on an SSD.SSDs are a lot faster but you are overestimating their speed. If you are comparing the SSD raid you have in this build with, say, a 7200 RPM HDD, load times will NOT be 1/8th as long. The best you can do with most games is about 1/3 - despite the fact that the SSD array is more than 3 times as fast. You have to consider other potential bottlenecks.
Score
0
pauldh
December 20, 2010 2:57:12 PM
caamsa said:
Again I am not sure why the X3 445 was picked over the 450 or the 455. You would have gotten a small boost in speed and less power draw.Pricing and availability. The X3 455 was introduced Dec 7th, after these arcticles were finished. So, being the top clocked X3 at order time, the 450 was more money ($87 I believe). The 445 was the quickest Athlon II X3 that didn't increase cost over the the model below it.
This isn't exactly accurate today, but to illustrate let's say the current options were 1) X3 445 or 450 for $75 and 2) X3 455 for $87. I'd then either go with the 450 for $75 or attempt to fit in a quad. The 445 would make no sense, and the 455 a bit hard to justify when already maxing the budget.
Score
1
caamsa
December 20, 2010 2:57:57 PM
Yuka
December 20, 2010 3:13:07 PM
helpme3948There's a flaw in what you're saying. If the hardest game to run was Counter Strike and everyone could already max it out at over 90FPS constantly, then buying a better GPU would be stupid. As it is now, only the overclocked $2000 build can get over 60FPS AVERAGE at 1080p in Crysis at Very High, that's not even taking minimums into account. There's also no AA turned on in those tests. Any of those builds would still benefit from more GPU power and it would show up as more AA and more FPS on the screen, not just discarded frames. There's also some people who like 2560x1600 monitors. What if someone wanted to use that $2000 build to play Metro 2033 at 1080p with all the settings maxed? There's no way having more GPU power would be "just for bragging rights." He'd actually get FPS closer to what his screen could output. Whether or not X part is worth the extra cost is up to the individual, but you can't say there would be no benefit from having a better GPU. Also, yes, people can tell the difference between ~30FPS and ~60FPS ($500 vs $2000). Now, I'm not saying whether an SSD or a better GPU would be a smarter choice. I'm just saying that a better GPU wouldn't be a complete waste. This point really comes down to what the priorities of the builder are and that gets pretty subjective, IMO.
Not quite subjective. Like you stated at the end, we build PCs with the bottom line in sight: gaming, "productivity" (excel, word and internet), "pro-work" (3DSM/blender, Photoshop, local data bases, etc). So it ain't "blurry" when you want to build something. In this case, they offered a "balanced" system.
Now, we should debater the meaning of "balanced". What I understand in balance is that for every task I throw at my PC, he's going to respond in a good/superior way to that of the not specific task oriented PC. In this case, the 2K build is not balanced at all; it excels in every way, but power (not efficiency, brute power consumption), which is good IMO.
Now, the value proposition was lost on the 1k and 500 build, since those were merely gaming oriented PCs; at least, that's the way I see it.
Cheers!
Score
0
K2N hater
December 20, 2010 3:42:14 PM
gm0n3y
December 20, 2010 4:10:24 PM
Overall, a good SBM. I like that you guys keep making changes and taking risks. Even if there is a tried and true component, what's the point in continually adding it to every build?
As for the SSD debate. I think that testing out a change like this was a good idea (again, its good to try new things). However, it definitely skewed the results too much, maybe it needs to be 10% of the score instead of 25%. Or you could cap the amount it is allowed to affect the score.
As for the SSD debate. I think that testing out a change like this was a good idea (again, its good to try new things). However, it definitely skewed the results too much, maybe it needs to be 10% of the score instead of 25%. Or you could cap the amount it is allowed to affect the score.
Score
3
hellwig
December 20, 2010 4:40:48 PM
While I think that for $1000 or less, sdd is too pricey, I'm not sure what could have been put into the 2000 build instead. I also don't think it should have counted for a full 25% of the total performance. I think instead of having hard drive specific tests, just include a list of application load times. How much faster does windows boot, how much faster does a game go from loading screen to playable? Rather than showing me that it scores 5000 more points in HDD Embarrasser 2010, show me that I'll save 10 seconds loading up office 2007. That is a much better way to help us decide if the performance gain is worth the tremendous cost increase. Besides, your tests are unrealistic becausE no true gamer's collection could fit on a 120gb sdd. I have over 260gb downloaded off steam alone.
Score
1
pauldh
December 20, 2010 4:53:51 PM
caamsaI also question the choice of the video card for the 500 build. You get an AMD/ATI chipset that can run crossfire but then you do not get an AMD/ATI video card?
For the Dec $500 Gaming box, I looked to maximize the bang within the budget, and AMD did not have a Radeon that could touch the GTX 460 for $160.
Are you saying we should avoid a better performing NVidia card just to allow potential of someday utilizing the 770's x16/x4 Crossfire capabilities? I wouldn't recommend that approach, but if so it's certainly not a bad option to save money and step down to an HD 5770 like was used in the June $550 PC.
We didn't have the option at the time, but now jumping to a 6850 is also an option to consider. But IMO x16/x4 Crossfire'd 6850s isn't exactly an optimal upgrade path (if that's the plan).
Score
3
terr281
December 20, 2010 4:53:54 PM
My most recent home builds used Intel M 30 GB drives (mid range) for the OS, fast mechanical drives for applications, and slow/large drives for data storage. With this basis and experience...
Including the SSD drives at 25% for the entirety of the value comparison is ridiculous. They have their uses, but not for your entire benchmarking suite. If you had not, in my opinion, wasted the extra $110 on the 2nd SSD, you could have done a couple/some of the following:
1. Guaranteed yourself quality ram. (Your own admission of issues.)
2. Up'ed the ram to 12 GB. (Your "How much ram do you need?" article.)
3. Spent an extra $20 on a 2nd DVD+R drive for optical redundancy. (A personal issue for me on all systems. Especially for copying disks.)
4. Up'ed the storage drive from 1 TB to 1.5 or 2 TB. (More data storage.)
5. 2x AMD 5870 CF instead of the 2x Nvidia GTX 470. (Slightly faster in some benchmarks.) [Since the new cards weren't available yet.)
Take you pick(s) for the money. But, any of them would have made the system better overall for true "use".
Including the SSD drives at 25% for the entirety of the value comparison is ridiculous. They have their uses, but not for your entire benchmarking suite. If you had not, in my opinion, wasted the extra $110 on the 2nd SSD, you could have done a couple/some of the following:
1. Guaranteed yourself quality ram. (Your own admission of issues.)
2. Up'ed the ram to 12 GB. (Your "How much ram do you need?" article.)
3. Spent an extra $20 on a 2nd DVD+R drive for optical redundancy. (A personal issue for me on all systems. Especially for copying disks.)
4. Up'ed the storage drive from 1 TB to 1.5 or 2 TB. (More data storage.)
5. 2x AMD 5870 CF instead of the 2x Nvidia GTX 470. (Slightly faster in some benchmarks.) [Since the new cards weren't available yet.)
Take you pick(s) for the money. But, any of them would have made the system better overall for true "use".
Score
-1
Crashman
December 20, 2010 5:14:48 PM
terr281My most recent home builds used Intel M 30 GB drives (mid range) for the OS, fast mechanical drives for applications, and slow/large drives for data storage. With this basis and experience...Including the SSD drives at 25% for the entirety of the value comparison is ridiculous. They have their uses, but not for your entire benchmarking suite. If you had not, in my opinion, wasted the extra $110 on the 2nd SSD, you could have done a couple/some of the following:1. Guaranteed yourself quality ram. (Your own admission of issues.)2. Up'ed the ram to 12 GB. (Your "How much ram do you need?" article.)3. Spent an extra $20 on a 2nd DVD+R drive for optical redundancy. (A personal issue for me on all systems. Especially for copying disks.)4. Up'ed the storage drive from 1 TB to 1.5 or 2 TB. (More data storage.)5. 2x AMD 5870 CF instead of the 2x Nvidia GTX 470. (Slightly faster in some benchmarks.) [Since the new cards weren't available yet.)Take you pick(s) for the money. But, any of them would have made the system better overall for true "use".
1.) No, the CASE would have been cut back to get the higher-priced RAM if anyone thought the "wrong parts" might show up.
2.) No, because the benchmarks used in the SBM don't benefit from it.
3.) No, because two optical drives could have just been two DVD-R's and, with the expensive case, still would have left room for the RAM upgrade that nobody knew would be needed.
4.) No, because too many readers complain about drives larger than 2TB being useless for anything but warez and it's not worth arguing with them about.
5.) No, because THERE WAS NO SUCH THING.
#5 of course is the most important because it proves you didn't inform yourself before commenting.
Score
-2
bounty
December 20, 2010 5:29:47 PM
robisinho
December 20, 2010 5:41:48 PM
editor is right about the $1000 build with ssds .. and I kinda appreciate the honesty even if any weakness in the presentation faults a $1000 build in price/performance comparisons. Now, next month they should turn around and do a $1200 system with that 120GB SSD on the $1000 build framework and add that to the comparisons
Score
0
burnley14
December 20, 2010 5:48:50 PM
caamsa
December 20, 2010 5:48:51 PM
pauldhFor the Dec $500 Gaming box, I looked to maximize the bang within the budget, and AMD did not have a Radeon that could touch the GTX 460 for $160. Are you saying we should avoid a better performing NVidia card just to allow potential of someday utilizing the 770's x16/x4 Crossfire capabilities? I wouldn't recommend that approach, but if so it's certainly not a bad option to save money and step down to an HD 5770 like was used in the June $550 PC. We didn't have the option at the time, but now jumping to a 6850 is also an option to consider. But IMO x16/x4 Crossfire'd 6850s isn't exactly an optimal upgrade path (if that's the plan).
If you were to upgrade the cpu and add another card in crossfire I see noting wrong with the x16/x4 crossfire. Most tests show you only loose about 5% with the pci-e 2.0 x4 slot. But that is a good price for the GTX 460 and the AMD SLI boards are overpriced IMO.
Score
-1
caamsa
December 20, 2010 5:50:35 PM
burnley14Wow, seeing how newer "weaker" cards (GTX 460) are powerful enough for nearly all games at most resolutions, spending hundreds and hundreds on the bleeding edge just got even more absurd.
It has kinda always been like that. I will never pay more than 200 dollars for a video card ever again! Did it once and boy was it a mistake.
Score
1
Crashman
December 20, 2010 6:05:09 PM
caamsaIf you were to upgrade the cpu and add another card in crossfire I see noting wrong with the x16/x4 crossfire. Most tests show you only loose about 5% with the pci-e 2.0 x4 slot. But that is a good price for the GTX 460 and the AMD SLI boards are overpriced IMO.
Tom's Hardware lost around 5% going from x16 to x8, and there has to be more than 0% difference going from x8 to x4. Score
2
terr281
December 20, 2010 7:02:51 PM
Crashman1.) No, the CASE would have been cut back to get the higher-priced RAM if anyone thought the "wrong parts" might show up.2.) No, because the benchmarks used in the SBM don't benefit from it.3.) No, because two optical drives could have just been two DVD-R's and, with the expensive case, still would have left room for the RAM upgrade that nobody knew would be needed.4.) No, because too many readers complain about drives larger than 2TB being useless for anything but warez and it's not worth arguing with them about.5.) No, because THERE WAS NO SUCH THING.#5 of course is the most important because it proves you didn't inform yourself before commenting.
1. Yes, you could have cut back on the case cost. However, the most important thing about a first time purchase system of this cost is getting a quality case. Since the purpose of the SBM is to build an entire new system, then you shouldn't cut the cost of getting a quality case. Did you spend too much ($250) on the case? In my opinion, yes. However, some people would disagree. As a result, I didn't touch the case cost.
2. So, just because the benchmarks don't benefit from it... means that a gaming computer shouldn't have it? From the Tom's article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ram-memory-upgrade,...
"Based on our measurements and impressions (and taking falling prices into account), we thoroughly recommend a minimum RAM size of 8 GB. Using 12 or 16 GB only makes sense if you're planning on using 4 GB of more of this higher amount as a RAM disk, helping accelerate the reading and writing of temporary files. This applies equally to file compression, video encoding, and heavy image editing.
Other than this, you might want more RAM so the graphics card can allocate more system memory for its own use. We saw this pay dividends in GTA IV, for example. You won't see an overwhelming performance increase unless you're using very memory-hungry programs, but you will get a system with enough RAM for the foreseeable future."
There is also the issue of /trying/ to future proof, which is another arguable point. But, with prices as they are now... there is no reason, in my opinion, to not guarantee you will get the same TYPE and MODEL of ram for all slots by filling them at creation. The system will benefit in 2-3 years from this. (Example: Your ram fiasco.)
3. My post directly states "couple/some" in regard to my upgrade options. Upgrade your OEM drive (assuming the link is accurate in the $2k SBM article) to a retail one for the proper software to even read BR disks. Then, pay ~$18 for an OEM DVD+/-R drive. (Or, if your picture in the article is accurate, keep the Retail BR drive you chose and buy the OEM DVD+/-R.)
4. If the SBM was changed to include SSD drives, then it can be changed in this regard as well. Further, no where did I say to go past 2 TB... as I agree with your Warez comment. (I said 1.5 or 2 TB.)
5. I just confirmed that A. The chosen MB supports CF. And, since when could you have not bought 2 AMD 5870's? (Or, should I have incorrectly stated ATI 5870's, since the company label has changed... but the current boards are still listed as ATI?). Yes, I know the ATI 6xxx series and the Nvidia 5xx series didn't exist. There was reason I didn't mention them.
Yes, I'll agree number 5 was the most important. It means you either didn't read the 5870 portion (assuming I meant the 6xxx series), or the ATI to AMD label change isn't being considered. (Yes, Newegg is still listing the cards as ATI. This doesn't mean they are accurate, the product packaging that was pre-printed 6 months ago is accurate, or anything of the such.) Informed users, as many here at Toms are, know that ATI = AMD and that the 5870 "existed." (Those same people, however, probably never remember past "today" to realize that the 6xxx AMD or 5xx Nvidia cards didn't exist, nor that it takes you 2-4 weeks from part ordering to print for these articles.)
One of the first rules of buying from Newegg is to not look at the pictures as stated fact and to not treat Newegg comments as 100% accurate.
In the end, none of the above changes one very important fact. With the change to the value comparison, no computer in the SBM series will be able to win the value category and be a "gaming" computer without a SSD drive. Change the SSD value, or make that portion of the series useless to most users (and readers).
Score
1
xAlex79
December 20, 2010 7:03:16 PM
Good SBM overall.
I think SBM Should not include SLI or CF builds though, I understand that sometimes from a value point they are good, but I have the following issue with those builds.
1-there is still too many issues with them (Driver problems and good support only in mainstream games)
2-Blocks future upgrading path bar selling your current GPUs (at a loss)
3-Often in a budget build to go Dual GPU you end up buying a generation behind meaning you sacrifice on features (directx, new architechtures)
I think most users that build a PC on a budget would benefit more from a single GPU considering that 1 year down the road they could pay very little for adding a 2nd GPU (since they would have gone down in price alot due to new GPUs comming out)
With that in mind it would also allow to get a better motherboard with two 16x pcie and a better CPU that would have enough horse power to support the later addon GPU.
On the SSD Issue I dont think it should be added to the score either. Simply because as it was mentionned before buying/wanting an SSD is just frills, if you want the faster loading times you just have to spend 100$ extra and you will get them no matter what system class you are after. I think it is much more interesting to see CPUGPU value comparisons because it causes much more bottlenecks and finding a good balance is hard unlike adding an SSD which is a 0/1 factor.
I think SBM Should not include SLI or CF builds though, I understand that sometimes from a value point they are good, but I have the following issue with those builds.
1-there is still too many issues with them (Driver problems and good support only in mainstream games)
2-Blocks future upgrading path bar selling your current GPUs (at a loss)
3-Often in a budget build to go Dual GPU you end up buying a generation behind meaning you sacrifice on features (directx, new architechtures)
I think most users that build a PC on a budget would benefit more from a single GPU considering that 1 year down the road they could pay very little for adding a 2nd GPU (since they would have gone down in price alot due to new GPUs comming out)
With that in mind it would also allow to get a better motherboard with two 16x pcie and a better CPU that would have enough horse power to support the later addon GPU.
On the SSD Issue I dont think it should be added to the score either. Simply because as it was mentionned before buying/wanting an SSD is just frills, if you want the faster loading times you just have to spend 100$ extra and you will get them no matter what system class you are after. I think it is much more interesting to see CPUGPU value comparisons because it causes much more bottlenecks and finding a good balance is hard unlike adding an SSD which is a 0/1 factor.
Score
-1
iamtheking123
December 20, 2010 7:09:07 PM
I'm in the "no ssd" crowd. They're just too expensive per gb to justify using as a program drive (over say 1TB Caviar Blacks in raid 0 for $130), and it doesn't matter if Windows boots in 15 seconds vs 20 seconds or Microsoft Word opens a half second faster. The unrealistic hard drive score (ie you're not really going to see 8x the performance) definitely taints the value results.
Score
0
wasupmike
December 20, 2010 7:27:50 PM
If you're a casual user who's biggest app is MS Word... then ya... who cares about 1/2 a second
But, if let's say you're a hardcore Photoshop CS5 user (and yes, it opens with an SSD as fast as 'My Doc's', literally a blink of an eye), than it's quite the pleasure to have... video editing apps? game loading? forget about it... it's amazing
and you can compare the "slickness" and speed of an SSD over a HHD.. much like you would compare how it's worth it to spend a little extra on the better video card... just for that little more frame-rates... and higher efx settings
and for a clean install (especially for all you people who install their OS often... (hopefully not too often
) -> Windows 7 64 will install in about ~10 minutes... like the days of Windows NT4 Workstation... ahh...
But, if let's say you're a hardcore Photoshop CS5 user (and yes, it opens with an SSD as fast as 'My Doc's', literally a blink of an eye), than it's quite the pleasure to have... video editing apps? game loading? forget about it... it's amazing
and you can compare the "slickness" and speed of an SSD over a HHD.. much like you would compare how it's worth it to spend a little extra on the better video card... just for that little more frame-rates... and higher efx settings
and for a clean install (especially for all you people who install their OS often... (hopefully not too often
) -> Windows 7 64 will install in about ~10 minutes... like the days of Windows NT4 Workstation... ahh...Score
1
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014? Forum
- SolvedAre System Builder Marathon Rigs Suitable for a First Build? Forum
- System Builder marathon $500 Forum
- System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC Forum
- New $1000 gaming system or System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 Forum
- Real Winners of the System Builder Marathon marc. 2012? Forum
- System Builder Marathon Giveaway Winner announcments? Forum
- "System Builder Marathon" $1200 Rig? Forum
- How to enter the System Builder Marathon competition ? Forum
- Next System builder Marathon Forum
- System Builder Marathon Contest Forum
- With Tom's System Builder Marathon in mind: Build a Infinite Budget PC Forum
- System builder marathon notebook edition Forum
- Card Alternative from the System Builder Marathon Article Forum
- System Builder Marathon, May '09: $1,300 Enthusiast PC Forum
- More resources
!