System Builder Marathon, June 2011: Value Compared
Tags:
- System Builder
- Hardware
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
June 24, 2011 4:00:03 AM
With so little happening in the hardware world since the beginning of this year, our second-quarter System Builder Marathon sees only minor hardware changes. But each builder unquestionably comes closer to dialing in ideal setups at each price point.
System Builder Marathon, June 2011: Value Compared : Read more
System Builder Marathon, June 2011: Value Compared : Read more
More about : system builder marathon june 2011 compared
jricha51
June 24, 2011 4:28:26 AM
haplo602
June 24, 2011 5:52:42 AM
Related resources
- 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
- System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014? - Forum
compton
June 24, 2011 5:55:37 AM
Well, here's to another SBM. For the last several quarters I've been lamenting AMDs inability to keep pace with Intel's relentless cadence. I sincerely hope that the next round of SBM will feature a AMD processor -- even better if it can claw out a spot one of the big-boy builds. I know I decided not to wait to get my Sandy on, but it AMD can come anywhere close I'll sell my SB rig on ebay. AMD, you know what you have to do, and if you can do it with Bulldozer, I'll be waiting in line to get one.
Score
4
jestersage
June 24, 2011 6:09:46 AM
Hmmm... that ridiculously cut-down asrock mobo in the $500 build makes me want to see another 'portable' lan-gaming-rig SBM. Emphasis on the portable because the SBM that tackled that theme came up with some really 'big' cases that still needed 2 hands to carry.
With itx form factor increasingly available on the market for cases, PSUs, mobos, and even HSFs, I think another round might come up with a more exciting SFF-SBM.
With itx form factor increasingly available on the market for cases, PSUs, mobos, and even HSFs, I think another round might come up with a more exciting SFF-SBM.
Score
2
SpadeM
June 24, 2011 7:20:31 AM
jricha51Would it be possible for me to run the same benchmarks? I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor 2.8GHz Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor (don't laugh). It is time to upgrade. I am considering the 2500K. Will I get 10X-20X faster video encodes? Even more?
See for yourself http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/30?vs=288
Score
0
DavC
June 24, 2011 7:37:21 AM
jricha51Would it be possible for me to run the same benchmarks? I have a AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor 2.8GHz Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor (don't laugh). It is time to upgrade. I am considering the 2500K. Will I get 10X-20X faster video encodes? Even more?
i doubt it will be that much of an improvement. Got a friend who upgraded from a 5000+ to i3-2100 and the improvment on video conversion was around 2-3 times quicker. I'd imagine the jump from the i3 to an i5 would be about the same for that task, so i'd guess it would be 5x faster or so.
Score
0
whysobluepandabear
June 24, 2011 7:54:55 AM
Anyone should have seen this coming, mid-range is ALWAYS the best value.
You pay to have the latest and greatest, but like said, it carries diminishing returns.
With that being the case, It's pretty amazing what you can get these days for under $500. Obviously the $1000 build is in a MUCH better position to be upgraded, as the PSU and Mobo give you greater options. The case and cpu-cooler also are breaking points for me - leaving the $1000 build as the most sensible; In terms of performance and future upgrade paths.
You pay to have the latest and greatest, but like said, it carries diminishing returns.
With that being the case, It's pretty amazing what you can get these days for under $500. Obviously the $1000 build is in a MUCH better position to be upgraded, as the PSU and Mobo give you greater options. The case and cpu-cooler also are breaking points for me - leaving the $1000 build as the most sensible; In terms of performance and future upgrade paths.
Score
1
whysobluepandabear
June 24, 2011 7:56:06 AM
DavCi doubt it will be that much of an improvement. Got a friend who upgraded from a 5000+ to i3-2100 and the improvment on video conversion was around 2-3 times quicker. I'd imagine the jump from the i3 to an i5 would be about the same for that task, so i'd guess it would be 5x faster or so.
Not quite. If whatever he's doing can utilize Quick Sync, then expect some BLAZING ass encoding times.
The 2500k on a Z68 with Quick Sync can dramatically cut down times....
Score
1
jricha51
June 24, 2011 12:56:37 PM
Quote:
See for yourself http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/30?vs=288Thanks for the link. Did AMD release 2 different 5600+? "AMD Athlon X2 5600+ - 2.9GHz - 1MB L2" and "AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor 2.8GHz Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor"
On all video benchmarks you linked to, the i5 was ~3-5 times faster. My ancient dual core is hanging in there a bit better than I expected. But I think my CPU is a generation older than that link (2.8 vs 2.9GHz)??? And since it is not all about GHz, mine may suck more than it looks?
The charts I find with my exact CPU (like http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q... )have older benchmarks and don't include the newer chips.
Quote:
Not quite. If whatever he's doing can utilize Quick Sync, then expect some BLAZING ass encoding times.The 2500k on a Z68 with Quick Sync can dramatically cut down times....
Does handbrake use Quick Sync? I do some video editing and light gaming, but mostly converting formats & compressing video in handbrake.
Score
0
cknobman
June 24, 2011 12:59:52 PM
Quote:
More likely is that a gamer would buy a value-oriented system for resolutions of up to 1680x1050.I disagree with you here. I have been gaming with a $500/dollar value build for a while now and I refuse to go lower than 1920x1080. Due to that being the standard resolution for high definition and most monitors today start there and go up I think this is a more realistic starting point for resolutions for anyone building a NEW computer (considering they are buying a NEW display to go with it).
Score
0
torque79
June 24, 2011 1:56:37 PM
Nice to see that the $1000 segment is becoming a better value. This segment has always been the sweet spot for me of great current performance without big diminishing returns. I think you'll probably have to increase your budgets soon by 1-2 hundred though, it looks like you're having to cut some huge corners to build something for $500. Though, if you did stick with AMD the motherboard would not have been such a minimalist one.
SATA 6gb and USB3 may seem overkill for a budget build, but most people on a budget will continually buy little component upgrades to keep up ok, such as a new SSD later (when prices are lower), higher speed external drives for backup, processor, video card, etc. That being said, buying a mobo to run the AMD chip would have meant you can't later upgrade the cpu without buying a new mobo, while getting an i3 gives you more flexibility. Without a doubt, buying AMD is a bad idea right now, but I think that means you need another $50+ to get a decent intel mobo (especially since they're historically ALWAYS more expensive) for more upgrade flexibility and mobo lifespan with USB3 and SATA 6gb.
SATA 6gb and USB3 may seem overkill for a budget build, but most people on a budget will continually buy little component upgrades to keep up ok, such as a new SSD later (when prices are lower), higher speed external drives for backup, processor, video card, etc. That being said, buying a mobo to run the AMD chip would have meant you can't later upgrade the cpu without buying a new mobo, while getting an i3 gives you more flexibility. Without a doubt, buying AMD is a bad idea right now, but I think that means you need another $50+ to get a decent intel mobo (especially since they're historically ALWAYS more expensive) for more upgrade flexibility and mobo lifespan with USB3 and SATA 6gb.
Score
0
If you buy a socket AM3+ AMD mobo, you can upgrade the CPU later.
Anyway, keeping in mind that these systems are awarded as parts, if I won the first one, I'd build it with a lesser (or no) GPU and donate it, most likely to the local volunteer fire company.
#2 is a tough call. Performance-wise, it blows past the rig I just built for myself, although it lacks the ports to take advantage of my preferred case's drive mounting and other options. I would need to think about it.
#3 is a beautiful machine. I don't need the graphics horsepower, so I'd build it as-is but with a single GPU.
I don't think the $500 machine is the value proposition it appears. Load it with typical software (that includes multiple background tasks), and I believe its performance could easily drop down into the "unacceptable" range, making it a horrible "value."
Anyway, keeping in mind that these systems are awarded as parts, if I won the first one, I'd build it with a lesser (or no) GPU and donate it, most likely to the local volunteer fire company.
#2 is a tough call. Performance-wise, it blows past the rig I just built for myself, although it lacks the ports to take advantage of my preferred case's drive mounting and other options. I would need to think about it.
#3 is a beautiful machine. I don't need the graphics horsepower, so I'd build it as-is but with a single GPU.
I don't think the $500 machine is the value proposition it appears. Load it with typical software (that includes multiple background tasks), and I believe its performance could easily drop down into the "unacceptable" range, making it a horrible "value."
Score
0
jerreddredd
June 24, 2011 3:32:28 PM
striker410
June 24, 2011 4:23:25 PM
gm0n3y
June 24, 2011 5:26:28 PM
striker410^ agree. They should really just go ahead and make a $600, with a better mobo, i5-2400 and 6870. It would be a helluva machine for only $100 more. But, it would ruin the clean 500x2=1000x2=2000.
Yeah, I would never recommend to someone to build a $500 machine when you can get significantly better parts for 20% added cost.
On another note, I guess it depends on the person, but I'd rather weight the percentages as 40% gaming, 25% encoding, 25% productivity, 10% storage.
Score
0
cookoy
June 24, 2011 5:34:41 PM
Crashman
June 24, 2011 5:42:58 PM
Yuka
June 24, 2011 6:08:56 PM
CrashmanFor the same reason a storage drive was added: These need to be realistic builds for their price range, not "benchmark only" machines.
I would like to argue that a little: a BD player costs as much as a new 500GB HDD. Why am I pointing out this? I gave away my DVDRW because I'm only getting "digital" copies of everything these days, so I'm all about getting more HDDs space instead of spending on a BD player (or RW for that matter). Hot swapping HDDs is getting more cost efficient ($/GB) than a disc format, so I also share cookoy's inquiry about the BD player in the build.
Cheers!
Score
2
torque79
June 24, 2011 6:21:48 PM
Thanks for correcting me jtt283, a socket AM3+ mobo would be a possible option I guess. I still think it's a bad time to by though, when your (AMD) processor will be easily outdone by a similarly priced one in a few months when Bulldozer (finally) comes out. The upgrade path is there but it's too soon to be released, to be worth buying right now for the value. I honestly don't think anyone should buy a pc in the $500 range right now because of this, and I would even wait for the $1000 price point. Even if AMD does not prove to take a lot of segments over, there is bound to be some pricing pressure, or at least SOME alternative options. I'm very annoyed that I'm still waiting, but there is FAR too much potential for disappointment in buying so soon before big industry changes.
Score
0
I'd agree torque, except for the global economic meltdown taking place. The defaults are spreading, and will include the U.S., where our elected parasites can't control their spending of even yet-to-be extorted OPM. QE2 ends in just another week, so that's when the next market jolt may occur. We'll see what happens...
Score
-1
clonazepam
June 24, 2011 7:21:12 PM
This article proves I need to upgrade. I'm all over the place. I perform on par with the $500 build, in some places, and the $1000 one in others. These are all great systems that anyone should be quite happy to receive. I almost jumped on a big SB upgrade but the voice in my head said wait for BD, then wait again for IB lol... if I wasn't so indecisive I'd build that $1k rig today. Thanks Tom's.
Score
0
stygian
June 25, 2011 12:19:35 AM
striker410
June 25, 2011 2:01:35 AM
stygian said:
Awful mobo, awful case, C+ processor. Whoever wins the $500 machine, I hope they want a Raedon 6850. That's about the only part worth anything on that machine.SBM really needs to bump the price to $600.
I would not say it's an aweful case. And the CPU is the best in the price range right now (955 debate aside) so I think it would be an A= budget processor, don't ya think?
I do agree that a lot more could be done with a $600 build. an i5-2400, a USB3 and SataIII board, and a 6870 upgrade. That's what I would do, anyway.
Score
0
stygian
June 25, 2011 2:44:21 AM
striker410 said:
I would not say it's an aweful case. And the CPU is the best in the price range right now (955 debate aside) so I think it would be an A= budget processor, don't ya think?
I do agree that a lot more could be done with a $600 build. an i5-2400, a USB3 and SataIII board, and a 6870 upgrade. That's what I would do, anyway.
I concede the point about the i3. My C+ probably has something to do with the fact that I am typing this on an i3 laptop.
The case however I stand by it... awful, just awful. Minimal front ports... okay it's a $30 case I get it but I refuse to believe that a vented top adds more than a few pennies to the manufacturing cost. And the front is horrid. I don't like cases with neon lights and chrome spinners on it but it doesn't need to look like a case that some Soviet bureaucrat typed a five year plan on in 1981.
The goal of the $600 machine should be (IMHO) scalability. The motherboard should be able to accept a i5 or i7 chips even if you use an i3 for the initial build. The mobo should be Crossfire and SLI ready even if only 1 graphic card is used for the initial build. I'm willing to bet that there is more than one us out here that would like a machine that we could expand as our cash flow improves. Come to think of it, if that means keeping that horrid case, then so be it.
At least I can replace it later. But there is little I can do if I'm stuck with an older chipset on a microATX motherboard! (The TH editor who made that call really does deserve some sort of punishment--pantsing, atomic wedgie, double jock lock, swirly... something--LOL). SBM has done things like this in the past and those machines performed well compared to the $1000/$2000 machines. $500 just isn't cut'n it anymore. Score
0
Zeh
June 25, 2011 3:09:48 AM
AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls
June 25, 2011 7:49:57 AM
Anonymous
June 25, 2011 9:38:34 AM
I have a quad-core Q6600 from 2006,which I bought with 200$
The only worthwhile thing that happened in the last 5 years was an increase of 50% in the core count
But those are 1000$ processors,so there is no reason for me to upgrade until the octocores appear 3 months from now,from AMD and Intel
Interlagos will have 16 cores so why would anyone buy a quad-core machine now?
The only worthwhile thing that happened in the last 5 years was an increase of 50% in the core count
But those are 1000$ processors,so there is no reason for me to upgrade until the octocores appear 3 months from now,from AMD and Intel
Interlagos will have 16 cores so why would anyone buy a quad-core machine now?
Score
1
striker410
June 25, 2011 5:37:39 PM
stygianI concede the point about the i3. My C+ probably has something to do with the fact that I am typing this on an i3 laptop. The case however I stand by it... awful, just awful. Minimal front ports... okay it's a $30 case I get it but I refuse to believe that a vented top adds more than a few pennies to the manufacturing cost. And the front is horrid. I don't like cases with neon lights and chrome spinners on it but it doesn't need to look like a case that some Soviet bureaucrat typed a five year plan on in 1981.The goal of the $600 machine should be (IMHO) scalability. The motherboard should be able to accept a i5 or i7 chips even if you use an i3 for the initial build. The mobo should be Crossfire and SLI ready even if only 1 graphic card is used for the initial build. I'm willing to bet that there is more than one us out here that would like a machine that we could expand as our cash flow improves. Come to think of it, if that means keeping that horrid case, then so be it. At least I can replace it later. But there is little I can do if I'm stuck with an older chipset on a microATX motherboard! (The TH editor who made that call really does deserve some sort of punishment--pantsing, atomic wedgie, double jock lock, swirly... something--LOL). SBM has done things like this in the past and those machines performed well compared to the $1000/$2000 machines. $500 just isn't cut'n it anymore.
I wouldn't say he needs punishment, I mean he only has $500 to work with.
What do you say we do a little akimbo project eh? A $600 machine? Maybe we can get a mod's attention and get it added in, just for kicks?
Score
0
clonazepam
June 25, 2011 8:46:48 PM
OzymankosI have a quad-core Q6600 from 2006,which I bought with 200$ The only worthwhile thing that happened in the last 5 years was an increase of 50% in the core countBut those are 1000$ processors,so there is no reason for me to upgrade until the octocores appear 3 months from now,from AMD and IntelInterlagos will have 16 cores so why would anyone buy a quad-core machine now?
I run a q6600 at a 50% overclock but it is undeniable that the new optimizations in the latest Intel processors can make a huge difference depending on your needs. I already see that $500 build is beating me up in many areas despite running a gtx 570.
Score
0
I still say you should keep the $500 build. It forces you to make educated and informed decisions. When you start to get sloppy you inflate the build to $600 or more. It's extremely easy to make a much better build with more $, but if you stick to the strict $500 build budget, than your knowledge will come to the fore front. I don't like the mobo that was selected for the $500 build. If I were to build a $500 build right now, I wouldn't even have an Intel CPU in it. Only because the mobo's in the $50-70 price range, just don't support much options. The lack of USB ports and the type, is just one of the things. If you look at just about ANY AMD based mobo (AM3 and up), you will notice that the options that are present on the mobo's are just that much better than just about any Intel based mobo in the same price range. Most of the AMD based mobo's (AM3 and up) usually support even the top tier of AMD CPU's. Intel's $50-70 price ranged mobo's don't always support the fastest Intel CPU's. I would much rather have a fully featured board at a given price range, than have a weak featured mobo.
So to sum up what I'd consider a good $500 build:
* $50-70 fully featured mobo (if at all possible, or at least as fully featured as could be)
* 3 to 4 AMD cores, if possible (The i3 2100 would be fine too, but is a bit spendy at $125 for this kind of build)
* ~$100-150 for the GPU
* 4 gb's of DDR3 RAM
* Decent Case, with room to upgrade (add adition fans if needed later)
* Solid Quality PSU 380w or better (Antec, Corsair, Seasonic, PCP&C, to name a few good brands)
I know AMD has been pretty much in most of the SBM's in the $500 range, and this is because they are a good value in the price segment ($400-500). Once you start to get over $550 or so you start bumping into the Intel zone. This is where the build can come down to personal preference.
I think that right now is a good time to build, if your going with a SB based system. I'd probably build the SB system around a z68 based mobo, so you have more flexibility later. The H and P based SB mobo's just seem a bit restrictive, IMHO. I know they have their uses/places, but for me they are just average.
If you building a system around an AMD platform, than the Phenom II x4 955 BE should be where your starting the build at. You can save $10-20 by going with a Athlon II x3, but I think the 955 BE is the sweet spot CPU for AMD right now, IMHO. They were $115 - $15 promo card earlier last week at Newegg, which puts it at $100!! If you want to chance a bit of future proofing (if it pans out that way) you can get an AM3+ based mobo. The only thing is that your going to have to pay around $100 for one, which sorta pushes the $500 budget too much.
Sorry for the rambling, but I think what I said needed to be said.
*** Keep the $500 SBM build and please work at it a bit better next time. No >$500 build, like the current $526 build. Stick with the budget and leave it at that. Also make sure you include shipping, because I can buy parts all day long, but if there is an exorbitant amount of shipping costs, it's all for not. You can increase your costs by 10% in a $500 build, if you don't count the shipping.
*** I'd like to see $500, $750, $1000, & $1500 build points. This way you can see how far your $ can get pushed. Especially since money is quite tight in the economy.
So to sum up what I'd consider a good $500 build:
* $50-70 fully featured mobo (if at all possible, or at least as fully featured as could be)
* 3 to 4 AMD cores, if possible (The i3 2100 would be fine too, but is a bit spendy at $125 for this kind of build)
* ~$100-150 for the GPU
* 4 gb's of DDR3 RAM
* Decent Case, with room to upgrade (add adition fans if needed later)
* Solid Quality PSU 380w or better (Antec, Corsair, Seasonic, PCP&C, to name a few good brands)
I know AMD has been pretty much in most of the SBM's in the $500 range, and this is because they are a good value in the price segment ($400-500). Once you start to get over $550 or so you start bumping into the Intel zone. This is where the build can come down to personal preference.
I think that right now is a good time to build, if your going with a SB based system. I'd probably build the SB system around a z68 based mobo, so you have more flexibility later. The H and P based SB mobo's just seem a bit restrictive, IMHO. I know they have their uses/places, but for me they are just average.
If you building a system around an AMD platform, than the Phenom II x4 955 BE should be where your starting the build at. You can save $10-20 by going with a Athlon II x3, but I think the 955 BE is the sweet spot CPU for AMD right now, IMHO. They were $115 - $15 promo card earlier last week at Newegg, which puts it at $100!! If you want to chance a bit of future proofing (if it pans out that way) you can get an AM3+ based mobo. The only thing is that your going to have to pay around $100 for one, which sorta pushes the $500 budget too much.
Sorry for the rambling, but I think what I said needed to be said.
*** Keep the $500 SBM build and please work at it a bit better next time. No >$500 build, like the current $526 build. Stick with the budget and leave it at that. Also make sure you include shipping, because I can buy parts all day long, but if there is an exorbitant amount of shipping costs, it's all for not. You can increase your costs by 10% in a $500 build, if you don't count the shipping.
*** I'd like to see $500, $750, $1000, & $1500 build points. This way you can see how far your $ can get pushed. Especially since money is quite tight in the economy.
Score
1
As I wrote in the $500 machine article, I'd have to seriously disagree with the choice of Intel Core i3 in this month's build.
The point of building a custom PC is for expandability and the ability to customize the hardware to your needs. If one has to be bound by the rules Intel sets (which are unreasonable) and as a result limit the choices we have to improve the machine, then the point of a custom PC is lost.
Yes, I'm referring to the inability to do absolutely anything about the clock on the i3. I've never seen a processor stupider than this.
If one went with an AM3 build, it would have been possible to upgrade later, possibly yielding higher performance than the i3 will in a few month's time. Meanwhile, the i3 is stuck where it is for the life of the build.
/rant
The point of building a custom PC is for expandability and the ability to customize the hardware to your needs. If one has to be bound by the rules Intel sets (which are unreasonable) and as a result limit the choices we have to improve the machine, then the point of a custom PC is lost.
Yes, I'm referring to the inability to do absolutely anything about the clock on the i3. I've never seen a processor stupider than this.
If one went with an AM3 build, it would have been possible to upgrade later, possibly yielding higher performance than the i3 will in a few month's time. Meanwhile, the i3 is stuck where it is for the life of the build.
/rant
Score
1
rafer
June 29, 2011 11:43:30 PM
hangfirew8
June 30, 2011 6:05:43 PM
I think it's great to see an i3 in the $500 build, if only to see what it takes to get there and how it compares to AMD quad cores. I also agree you should stick with the $500 limit, it requires discipline and hard choices. As with any system it can be upgraded later, at the cost of tossing some of the original parts. Yeah, it hurts to see how little M/B you got, but that's the point, at $500 hard decisions must be made. Since a month's pricing changes have already fixed this issue, why complain?
About resolutions, 1280x1024 is nearly an identical number of pixels to the true new low-end, 1440x900, so while I'd like to see the 1440 in the low end slot I suspect the performance numbers would be identical.
Since with the advent of $99 1920x1080 monitors, lower end in resolutions beneath that is talking strictly about the installed base. No sane person today would buy a new monitor under 1920x1080, but plenty of sane people would continue gaming with a two year old 1440x900 or a three year old 1680x1050.
The upshot of all that is while I'd rather see 1440x900 in the lower end slot (and my favorite, 1920x1200 in the middle), it really doesn't matter, what you have now is OK, I can figure out where other systems fall in.
About resolutions, 1280x1024 is nearly an identical number of pixels to the true new low-end, 1440x900, so while I'd like to see the 1440 in the low end slot I suspect the performance numbers would be identical.
Since with the advent of $99 1920x1080 monitors, lower end in resolutions beneath that is talking strictly about the installed base. No sane person today would buy a new monitor under 1920x1080, but plenty of sane people would continue gaming with a two year old 1440x900 or a three year old 1680x1050.
The upshot of all that is while I'd rather see 1440x900 in the lower end slot (and my favorite, 1920x1200 in the middle), it really doesn't matter, what you have now is OK, I can figure out where other systems fall in.
Score
1
Crashman
July 1, 2011 12:04:17 AM
hangfirew8About resolutions, 1280x1024 is nearly an identical number of pixels to the true new low-end, 1440x900, so while I'd like to see the 1440 in the low end slot I suspect the performance numbers would be identical.
I brought that up a couple times last summer, but the consensus was that low-budget builders might just as often use extremely old monitors.Score
0
Anonymous
July 26, 2011 3:36:03 AM
Related resources
- SolvedAre System Builder Marathon Rigs Suitable for a First Build? Forum
- 2011 Gaming System Selling Value (AU) Forum
- June 2011 $500 System Build Question 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
- Questions on june 2012 system builder pc Forum
- With Tom's System Builder Marathon in mind: Build a Infinite Budget PC Forum
- System builder marathon notebook edition Forum
- More resources
!