Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, March 2011: Value Compared

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Performance
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 29, 2011 4:00:05 AM

Day 4 of our System Builder Marathon compares performance achieved to money spent. With outright speed the top priority, can either of our high-end systems beat the low-cost build when it comes to value? Or will the middle machine strike the best balance?

System Builder Marathon, March 2011: Value Compared : Read more

More about : system builder marathon march 2011 compared

March 29, 2011 4:34:06 AM

A $500 build, together with a Sony FW900 or equivalent monitor, could be had for under $800 total. Wow!
Score
1
March 29, 2011 4:46:58 AM

Did you just say "$300 monitor on a $500 box"? Really?
Score
4
Related resources
March 29, 2011 5:10:21 AM

hmp_gooseDid you just say "$300 monitor on a $500 box"? Really?


how much is a good surround sound system?
how much is a blu-ray player?
I rest my case.
Score
0
March 29, 2011 5:37:47 AM

What if you scaled down from 100% as opposed to up from 100%? If the 2kOC machine had 100 in each category, the SSD would be "naturally" toned down. The $500 machine would be at ~40% for gaming, A/V and productivity, and ~10% for storage.

Taking a simple average you'd get that the $500 machine is typically about 30% the speed of the $2000 OC machine. An SSD does improve the day-to-day performance of a computer significantly.
Score
2
March 29, 2011 5:40:00 AM

Being the poor college student I am, the blue bar is my favorite. And that O/C'd $1000 build is looking pretty good in my book. I've built AMD systems since the Athlon XP days because the price/performance ratio of Intel chips just wasn't worth it to me. But, I shall have to take a close look at the Intel i5 for my next build.

qwertymac93how much is a good surround sound system?how much is a blu-ray player?I rest my case.

1) Surround sound system = not worth it.
2) Blu-ray player = Definitely not worth it.
3) $300 monitor = not worth it.

Of course, this could be the my inner poor college student talking. I'm sure for some people it is worth it.
Score
4
March 29, 2011 7:17:26 AM

you can get good LED monitor of decent size in under $100 and that would be perfect for $500 build.
Score
4
March 29, 2011 8:19:40 AM

A job well done Tom! Thankyou.
The $500 AMD machine underperformed in the CPU department. I think the Intel i3 2120 paired with a H61 motherboard would have been the better choice.
$1,000 rig was near perfection.
$2,000 rig suffered from CPU bottlenecks at resolutions lower than 2560x1600 so it should be paired with at least $600 worth of display(s).
Score
3
March 29, 2011 8:20:19 AM

Well I think we are all thinking the same thing and that is holy jebus SSDs are awesome. 60GB SSDs are at around $120 now so maybe in a year the $500 builds will get an SSD.

Your second to last paragraph needlessly bashes the $500 system. So a cheap build is bad for a user that only wants performance? Well, duh.

Your $500 build was titled as a gaming PC and now that only counts for 30% of average performance. Mixing all of the stats into one performance bar is useless to everyone. Keep the gamer/av/production separate as that is more useful.
Score
4
March 29, 2011 12:07:08 PM

If you wanted to alter these PCs from "Gamers Rig" to "Programmers Rig" (ie. capable of running several virtual machines, with Ubuntu 64 as host). What would you alter?

I was thinking of taking the $2K model and
-- doubling up the RAM from 8 to 16
-- cutting from 2 SSD to 1
-- downgrading the graphics card, to I don't know what
-- deleting the CPU cooler.. I will not be over-clocking
-- leaving the rest as is

I propose downgrading the 2K PC vice upgrading the 1K because I feel ASUS/INTEL/Ubuntu64 combo is better for virtualization than AROCK/INTEL.

Maybe the 1K PC can do it also.
Score
2
March 29, 2011 12:36:37 PM

In the conclusion:
Quote:
the $2000 machines twin SSDs

the $2000 machine[missing single quote for possessive]s twin SSDs
Score
2
March 29, 2011 1:08:03 PM

Wow, AMD chips are just getting murdered these days. Hopefully they can pull something out of their hat here soon.
Score
2
March 29, 2011 1:15:34 PM

First of all great series Toms. This is one of the most well rounded marathons I have ever seen. In fact the OC 2000 build almost approaches a %100 value and this is the first time I have ever seen the high end build not get obliterated in value.

Second:
Quote:
Ed.: or drop it altogether in favor of Crysis 2

I LOL'd at this. No disrespect but why in the h3ll would you replace the original PC dx10 Crysis with the dumbed down console port dx9 Crysis 2?

Anyways I would be proud to own any of these systems.

I hate to say it(as an AMD stock holder) but the performance gap is so large on AMD procs vs. Intel procs it wont be long before it will be hard to justify using AMD in even the budget builds.
Score
3
March 29, 2011 1:41:29 PM

cknobman.I hate to say it(as an AMD stock holder) but the performance gap is so large on AMD procs vs. Intel procs it wont be long before it will be hard to justify using AMD in even the budget builds.


Sooooo many people hating on AMD when they really should be appreciating that they are still(just barely) managing to keep up with intel.

Obviously Intel is several generations ahead of AMD, and performance and prices show. That being said, AMD released the Phenom II x4 chips back in JANUARY OF 2009(THATS ALMOST 2008 PEOPLE!!!) and they are STILL chugging along, at a VERY affordable price. You guys can't possibly expect chips from early 09 to compete with chips in 2011 can you? People need to appreciate the fact that because of AMD you can build a pretty god damn solid gaming computer with $500 worth of parts.

Anyways, bulldozer is coming out this summer, and IM FUCKING PUMPED, because its going to AWESOME. Can't wait for the $200 bulldozer quad-cores that can keep up with(and beat?) $300 i7's.
Score
5
March 29, 2011 1:54:44 PM

@amk09

Im not hating, but I am living in reality. Im pumped about bulldozer as well, just wish it didnt take so fracking long to get here.

I need an infusion in my stock prices damnit!!!!!!
Score
3
March 29, 2011 2:07:43 PM

amk09Sooooo many people hating on AMD when they really should be appreciating that they are still(just barely) managing to keep up with intel. Obviously Intel is several generations ahead of AMD, and performance and prices show. That being said, AMD released the Phenom II x4 chips back in JANUARY OF 2009(THATS ALMOST 2008 PEOPLE!!!) and they are STILL chugging along, at a VERY affordable price. You guys can't possibly expect chips from early 09 to compete with chips in 2011 can you? People need to appreciate the fact that because of AMD you can build a pretty god damn solid gaming computer with $500 worth of parts. Anyways, bulldozer is coming out this summer, and IM FUCKING PUMPED, because its going to AWESOME. Can't wait for the $200 bulldozer quad-cores that can keep up with(and beat?) $300 i7's.

And when Phenom II x4 was released it was still slower than Intels already year old Core 2 Quads....they are just behind....that is why the newest AMD stuff is still slower than the original i7 stuff that is now over 2 years old

cknobmanFirst of all great series Toms. This is one of the most well rounded marathons I have ever seen. In fact the OC 2000 build almost approaches a %100 value and this is the first time I have ever seen the high end build not get obliterated in value. Second: I LOL'd at this. No disrespect but why in the h3ll would you replace the original PC dx10 Crysis with the dumbed down console port dx9 Crysis 2?Anyways I would be proud to own any of these systems.I hate to say it(as an AMD stock holder) but the performance gap is so large on AMD procs vs. Intel procs it wont be long before it will be hard to justify using AMD in even the budget builds.

Crysis 2 in a benchmark suite would be fine.....as long as you still have the original in there as well. I still use Crysis Benches when making GPU decisions as it is one of the few games I play that is still in benchmark suites

Ragnar-KonBeing the poor college student I am, the blue bar is my favorite. And that O/C'd $1000 build is looking pretty good in my book. I've built AMD systems since the Athlon XP days because the price/performance ratio of Intel chips just wasn't worth it to me. But, I shall have to take a close look at the Intel i5 for my next build.1) Surround sound system = not worth it.2) Blu-ray player = Definitely not worth it.3) $300 monitor = not worth it.Of course, this could be the my inner poor college student talking. I'm sure for some people it is worth it.

I had surround sound ($200), blu-ray ($180) in my PC, and 2 24" monitors ($450 each) in college.....they are all easily worth it if you can afford them after paying the bills (bills still come first of course)
Score
-1
March 29, 2011 2:07:48 PM

cknobman@amk09Im not hating, but I am living in reality. Im pumped about bulldozer as well, just wish it didnt take so fracking long to get here.I need an infusion in my stock prices damnit!!!!!!

Luckily AMD is still going strong in the gpu department, and soon netbooks will be shipped with fusion chips.
Score
3
March 29, 2011 2:20:49 PM

Interesting to see how the gaming performance scaled across the three machines; double your cost for root two times as much performance.

It's a great time to be a skinflint gamer; my current box was $400 for a new CPU, GPU, motherboard, and RAM and I'm delighted with it. I tend to wait for games to drop in price before buying so this rig plays everything I've tried at 1920x1200 on full settings. It cost about as much as a new 360 with a full set of controllers.

I'd love to see a retrospective analysis over the last few years of system builds, compare the value in buying a cheap system and upgrading twice as often versus spending twice as much and waiting longer.
Score
1
March 29, 2011 2:53:02 PM

Tom & Co.,
I posted this in the $1000 build article, and was suggested to post it here so it could get disseminated to the rest the team. I was wondering if next time (I've been told it's too late for this time around) if in addition to the heat & Temps section, if we could get a noise comparison? Especially with the dual 6850s requiring a manual fan adjustment to cool them, how much of a hit did you have to take on the ears? My gaming rig and productivity machines are in the same room as my wife's silent netbook, and I know how fans can skyrocket in the noise dept from 60% to 100%. Anyways, great article and thanks for the continued excellence
Score
3
March 29, 2011 3:37:56 PM

I agree with Dyers Eve that the $550 "gaming" PC shouldn't have non-gaming scores considered when looking at its overall value; if intended to be a general purpose PC, different component choices would probably have been made. For those willing to turn down some eye candy, and simply enjoy the gameplay, it looks from the benchmarks as though even a lesser GPU could have produced playable frame rates.
Still, this isn't a be-all, end-all analysis, just like any other build article. It adds more data to the "index;" I think we can all see how we might change any of these to make them better for a specific purpose.
In any case, I've entered, and wouldn't mind winning any of these:
$550 PC: Would go to my father, although possibly with a lesser GPU, as he doesn't play demanding games.
$1000 PC: Built in an Enermax Hoplite, this would become my new primary PC. I'd add a SSD to it and possibly use a Seasonic X-560 for efficiency.
$2000 PC: I'd pull one GPU and add a 500+GB HDD, build this in the Hoplite, and it would become my primary; likely also with the X-560.

Score
0
March 29, 2011 4:59:31 PM

lamorpaIn the conclusion:the $2000 machine[missing single quote for possessive]s twin SSDs
I think that's called an apostrophe:) 
Score
0
March 29, 2011 6:21:04 PM

I'd love to see CPU scaling around the chosen VGAs...

I kinda need to see if a Phenom II @3.2Ghz is enough to go all the way to 6970's in XFire and stay above 120FPS all the time.

Cheers!
Score
1
March 29, 2011 6:43:34 PM

If the $2000 rig had it's Radeon HD 6950 graphics cards flashed to HD 6970 specifications then OC'd like the $1000 setup did, how would that have affected the final value scores?
Anyway, while you are probably correct in giving the storage section 10% of the final score, I personally would find more 'perceived' value by going with the smokin' SSD's. If my machine tools right along but then chokes 10% of the time, I would be much more likely to focus on the laggy times than the rest of the operating time. In any case, my next build will definitely have SSD's as the primary! (Hopefully with 6Gb/s SATA by then!)
Score
3
March 29, 2011 7:23:13 PM

hmp_gooseDid you just say "$300 monitor on a $500 box"? Really?


Yeah, I did. Serious gaming requires serious ZERO LAG visuals, which means a CRT is the way to go. The FW900 is a widescreen flagship, and is the perfect do-it-all display. You can't touch it's resolution, color accuracy, or performance at that or any price, not to mention it's 3D capable.
Score
0
March 29, 2011 7:42:54 PM

I'd be interested to see an even lower bracket. Like a $300.00 dollar bracket. I'd really like to know what the sweet spot is. Do you get better bang for buck spending $200.00 more?
Score
1
March 29, 2011 7:49:20 PM

About all you can do for $300 is an AMD dual-core with integrated HD4250 video; fine for general purpose and 2D/Flash games, but not much else.
Score
2
March 29, 2011 8:03:34 PM

Are you guys hiring? I would LOVE to test hardware all day, my current job sucks.
Score
3
March 29, 2011 9:16:17 PM

Tom & Co:

Could you consider an article on Performance PC vs. Xeon Workstation with similar chart comparisons? I'm a guy at home who works constantly in high-end prosumer and professional apps like Adobe and Autodesk applications, yet game it up on the same rig to relax and enjoy a night of StarCraft 2 or FPS games often. I'm always curious if it's worth the cost to put in a Xeon processor and Quadro card in my system vs the example $2000 PC you have tested out in this article. It seems that systems like the ones above would do just fine, but it would be wonderful to see an article exploring the worth of either.
Score
0
March 29, 2011 9:41:20 PM

I still think the ps and the hd were a bit too weak in the 500 build. But what the hey........................its your money.

Score
0
March 29, 2011 9:51:19 PM

This quote caught my attention.
"Topping our value charts, the question remains of whether or not the $500 PC is suitable to performance users. The answer is, unfortunately, no. Gamers are forced to sacrifice either quality or resolution to get playable frames above 1280x1024 consistently, and its target resolution was only 1680x1050 from the outset."
I'd like to see clearer definitions of various system levels. Performance, Gamer, General use, E-mail only, etc.... and perhaps builds that would target each level and the budgets they would cost to build. If a 3.4 GHz quadcore CPU and a $170 GPU don't make a performance or gaming rig, what do they make ?
Score
3
March 29, 2011 10:19:41 PM

dirtmountain said:

.
.
.
If a 3.4 GHz quadcore CPU and a $170 GPU don't make a performance or gaming rig, what do they make ?

Yeah really.
Score
1
March 29, 2011 10:52:53 PM

This is a great series, thank you toms for your efforts.

IMHO, The $500 system is outdated and can't be compared in the performance department to the other builds. If I didn't have the money to buy the $1000 system, I'd buy the borad, processor, and continue along with the rest of my components until I have money to complete the build.

Having said that, I respect AMD for their excellent strategy. In 2009 they told us "Are you unhappy with your phenom processor?" "well Upgrade your board's BIOS and drop in a Phenom II w/o changing anything else in your system". That was an incredible argument vs. Intel who changed their socket three times in three years.!!!!!
Score
1
March 29, 2011 10:55:18 PM

longshotthe1stAre you guys hiring? I would LOVE to test hardware all day, my current job sucks.


Count me in.
Score
1
March 29, 2011 11:00:32 PM

dirtmountainThis quote caught my attention."Topping our value charts, the question remains of whether or not the $500 PC is suitable to performance users. The answer is, unfortunately, no. Gamers are forced to sacrifice either quality or resolution to get playable frames above 1280x1024 consistently, and its target resolution was only 1680x1050 from the outset." I'd like to see clearer definitions of various system levels. Performance, Gamer, General use, E-mail only, etc.... and perhaps builds that would target each level and the budgets they would cost to build. If a 3.4 GHz quadcore CPU and a $170 GPU don't make a performance or gaming rig, what do they make ?


They can make us breakfast possibly.I suppose you know it's not the raw clock speed that matters as there are several other factors that come into play. AMD itself used to talk about that when they were giving intel a run for their money and now they switched to the platform and integration arguments.

IMHO, Bulldozer can't arrive fast enough.
Score
1
March 30, 2011 2:42:37 AM

i'm tired and i'm forgetting if sandybridge utilizes triple channel memory, if sandy does utilize triple channel memory, that's a mighty big 20% performance hit the $1,000 & $2,000 pcs take.
Score
0
March 30, 2011 2:50:36 AM

f-14i'm tired and i'm forgetting if sandybridge utilizes triple channel memory, if sandy does utilize triple channel memory, that's a mighty big 20% performance hit the $1,000 & $2,000 pcs take.
Sandy Bridge uses dual-channel, and both machines had Sandy Bridge processors.
Score
0
March 30, 2011 7:47:19 AM

Quote:
the $2000 machine[missing single quote for possessive]s twin SSDs


Do you mean apostrophe?
Score
0
March 30, 2011 2:18:43 PM

fwiw, caught the Xigmatek case on shell shocker for $30 shipped, and Biostar 870 is on sale for $70 shipped with $10 rebate.
Got the rest ($40 psu, $20 dvd-r, $40 memory). 212+ $30
So that's call it $220, with #300 left for CPU and Video card.
And yes $600 seems the sweet spot for builds if you put the money into Video card and Cpu.
The $500 build is a showcase of possibility, easy to go up from. Spending more would make it easier for those with more money to spend.
At this point the $140 Phenom II 955 just aboout maxes the usefulness per dollar, which leaves the video card of choice.
I expect the next $500 build will be Sandy Bridge I3, the comparasion will be very interesting, Expect Bulldozer the build after at one price point.
So it seems.
Score
0
March 30, 2011 2:28:58 PM

fwiw, caught the Xigmatek case on shell shocker for $30 shipped, and Biostar 870 is on sale for $70 shipped with $10 rebate.
Got the rest ($40 psu, $20 dvd-r, $40 memory). 212+ $30
So that's call it $220, with #300 left for CPU and Video card.
And yes $600 seems the sweet spot for builds if you put the money into Video card and Cpu.
The $500 build is a showcase of possibility, easy to go up from. Spending more would make it easier for those with more money to spend.
At this point the $140 Phenom II 955 just aboout maxes the usefulness per dollar, which leaves the video card of choice.
I expect the next $500 build will be Sandy Bridge I3, the comparasion will be very interesting, Expect Bulldozer the build after at one price point.
So it seems
Drat forgot HDD. $40-60 so $180 left. double drat !!
Score
0
March 30, 2011 10:11:51 PM

Phenom II X6 1090T performs better than Core i5-2500K and is hella cheaper. AMD mobos are cheaper too so get yourself 1000 bucks performance for let's say... 700$ and you get 2 extra cores and Radeon HD 6950.
Score
-1
March 30, 2011 10:22:28 PM

GucioPhenom II X6 1090T performs better than Core i5-2500K and is hella cheaper...
Really? Do tell!
Score
0
March 30, 2011 11:00:30 PM

lol, you got me there, but I look ONLY at multithreaded applications. I'm using 3ds max and vray2.0, and 10 seconds in rendering every single frame is a HUGE improvement for creating cg animation/movies. Anyway yes you get overall better performance with i5, in single threaded apps and in system overall. But what i meant is that you can save money on mobo and cpu there. Instead of buying basic 500$ old build with Phenom x4 CPU, put another 100$ and you get a lot better performance that is close to this 1000$ build. I'm just saying!

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2...
Score
0
April 1, 2011 10:55:53 AM

The $550 build will definitely not be able to match the $1000 and $2000 just because of architectural deficiencies. But it's great to a poor university student like me that won't require to be gaming at the highest possible resolution at the highest possible detail. Heck, I tone everything down to lowest when I play CoD4 multiplayer just so I get consistent ~90FPS.

Also, I take issues with the fact that iTunes is used as a benchmark. A benchmark that's been optimized for Intel architecture doesn't have a place in a fair benchmark.

Score
1
April 3, 2011 2:28:04 AM

Crashman said:
Day 4 of our System Builder Marathon compares performance achieved to money spent. With outright speed the top priority, can either of our high-end systems beat the low-cost build when it comes to value? Or will the middle machine strike the best balance?

System Builder Marathon, March 2011: Value Compared : Read more

For the $500 system. Was wondering what a case with a PSU included be a little less expensive. I have had good luck with the IN WIN C589T.CQ350TBL Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 350W Power Supply and the predecessor to this case: IN WIN IW-Z589T.D400TBL Black Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Z589 System Cabinet - Mini-tower 400W Power Supply. They use a Powerman (oem sparkle) PSU.
I like a nice plain case with NO DOORS TO BREAK.
I believe I built a system with a PSU that came with a NZXT case and for a general build was quiet adequate. Though none of their case quiet fit my builds now. Also Antec cases back in the day, with Antec power supplies: Performance TX640B and Solution Series 3800B (broke door) and SLK1650B (beginning of no doors)
Wouldn't mind an article on a nice plain case with power supply for system builds. Preferably nice black case without doors.
Score
0
April 5, 2011 4:11:46 AM

The NZXT above goes for $40 shipped. The plain version of the Antec 300 IS $60. No Doors. The Inwin specs, or lack of them (no 3.3v= A or 5v=A) on site or with case. 12v1=11A and 12v2 =14A I do not find encouraging.
The power supply on sale separately is not the one in cases and lists $30/
Would I spend more for a Delta build Antec, you betcha.
The lowest cost case with the 400psu is $80 with no listing of power specs, nor is it listed separately.
I know I would nver use a HEC/Compucase 485w or 585w psus. I own them, and I looked inside.
Actually the Inwin $80 doesn't look too different from a black SLK-1650.
Score
0
April 5, 2011 6:36:38 PM

Point trying to get deal on combo. What I am interested in is getting a Decent PSU with case, not looking for all the bells and whistles like modular cables, SLI or Crossfire and such. A good solid case should be in the $45-$65 range. So your Antec 300 fits (Newegg) was: $69.95 now: $59.95 +$2.99 shipping. Looks like all the NZXT from Newegg come without PSU and there it was: $49.99 now: $39.99 + $9.99 shipping. Also not quite a plain case. Though the NZXT Beta Evo is a nice case. I think I used that one's predecessor before (PSU on top) for an ATX board (usually build micro ATX). Plus when on sale falls into my price range. Now the question is how much for a competent PSU?
Also what is criteria for a competent PSU. I am looking for Active PFC and 80 PLUS Certified minimum. For most systems 350 to 400 watts more than enough. Remember this isn't my gaming rig in the Antec TX640B, there are no monster video cards to feed. This is Performance And Value This build is for gram so she can keep up with her kids and grandkids, play some solitaire. For dad to E-mail his old service buddies play some cribbage. So I think were at about $50 including shipping for a PSU I would buy.
That totals to $95-$105 range for both.. Antec's cheapest combos are Antec New Solution VSK2450 Black ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 450W Power Supply on sale for $90 +$20 shipping. Looks like model VP450 with no Active PFC or 80 PLUS Certified. The Antec New Solution NSK3480 Black/ Silver MicroATX Mid Tower Computer Case 380W Power Supply is on sale for $95 + $15 to ship does have both Active PFC and 80 PLUS Certified. Though no real savings there.
That is why the In-Win Black Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Z589 System Cabinet - Mini-tower 400W Power Supply interest me so. From what I can tell Powerman OEM is Sparkle who made for PC Power & Cooling. Sparkle is made by Fortron (FSP). A PowerMan power supply is just a rebranded FSP power supply. Looks like it is 80 PLUS Certified. Would like more specs, but at $80 + $12 shipping when not on sale still just under my low end.
Score
0
April 6, 2011 12:29:40 AM

Just found a Toms review of a Powerman. It looks like a good unit.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/usp-100-griffin-vi1...

Not sure if exact same PSU, and that griffin case is weird, for a simple system build the "IN WIN IW-C589T.D400TBL Black Steel MicroATX Mid Tower C589 System Cabinet - Mid-tower 400W Power Supply" is looking pretty good. Now all that is needed is a sale and free shipping.
Score
0
April 10, 2011 10:46:02 AM

the $550 pc would have performed much better had you gone with a 1G 6950 and an athlon x4 processor..
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!