System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2011: System Value Compared

[Crashman]

Big changes to a few components radically alter the performance profile of every machine in this quarter's competition. We’ve already seen how these changes affect the value of each machine, but how will they compare to each other?

System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2011: System Value Compared : Read more

 

[hmp_goose]

Value, shamlue: Will it run Crysis?

Oh: Wait …

 

[revjacob]

Actually what we need now are more affordable 2560x1600 monitors for these enthusiast PCs.

 

[compton]

I think the next quarter SBM should utilize an SSD at all segments. Its just about time when no one should seriously think of not including a SSD a build. There are great values out there and even the budget system deserves some love. If a small increase in price segments is necessary, so be it. Going from a HDD to a SSD is like going from IGP to discrete class graphics.

Also, as a result, more emphasis should be placed on the storage sub system. I know these are gaming configurations, but I'd give up my GPU in a nanosecond if it meant I could keep my SSDs. Fortunately, I don't have to choose, but I would if I had too, and I'm not alone out there. Budget systems don't feel so budget-y with even a modest SSD.

 

[chumly]

Maybe the value of the $1000 PC would go up if you weren't wasting money on unnecessary or poorly chosen parts. You could add another 4 GB of ram, and swap out the twin stuttering 460's for 6870's (and still have enough money to add a better, modular PSU).

Here:
http://i.imgur.com/g22Bq.jpg

 

[jprahman]

[citation][nom]compton[/nom]I think the next quarter SBM should utilize an SSD at all segments. Its just about time when no one should seriously think of not including a SSD a build.[/citation]

Yeah, good luck fitting an SSD into a $500 gaming build.

 

[Kamab]

[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]Yeah, good luck fitting an SSD into a $500 gaming build.[/citation]

there have been 64GB Vertex Crucial drives on sale for < 79$. Which isn't bad.

 

[Kamab]

And I meant OCZ Vertex / Crucial M4

 

[compton]

[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]Yeah, good luck fitting an SSD into a $500 gaming build.[/citation]

That's why I think the $500 system should be closer to $600, maybe like $550. 30GB Agility drives were going for $40 yesterday at the Egg, so its not like you have to spend $300 to get a tangible benefit. That one addition would have contributed a significant performance benefit and the budget category used to be $650 anyway.

 

[nd22]

I would have stick to 1 gpu in the 1000 S build. Instead of 2 gf 460/radeon 6850 I would have used 1 radeon 6970/ geforce gtx570 - from persoanl experience 1 gpu = less problems!

 

[mayankleoboy1]

i think quicksync should be included in the final score as video conversion is something that everyone of us do. and if we buy a SB cpu, then we would surely use quicksync.
maybe also include windows boot time.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

Recent changes to Z68 firmware appear to have given its motherboards a distinct advantage over their P67 predecessors, even in applications that can’t use Intel’s Quick Sync transcode acceleration

can you explain more please?

 

[gondor]

[citation][nom]nd22[/nom]I would have stick to 1 gpu in the 1000 S build. Instead of 2 gf 460/radeon 6850 I would have used 1 radeon 6970/ geforce gtx570 - from persoanl experience 1 gpu = less problems![/citation]

Every single system builder article explicitly states that discounts, rebates and specials don't apply for the purpose of determining price.

 

[chumly]

[citation][nom]nd22[/nom]I would have stick to 1 gpu in the 1000 S build. Instead of 2 gf 460/radeon 6850 I would have used 1 radeon 6970/ geforce gtx570 - from persoanl experience 1 gpu = less problems![/citation]

A 34% increase in FPS is hard to ignore. Not to mention that if you use dual 6870's you open up the possibility of smooth eyefinity gaming @ 5760x2160 (I think it's pulling ~50 FPS in Farcry 2 with those cards @ high settings). And the 2 cards are only ~$20 more right now.

Yes, a single card option is great, but I'm not paying $700+ for a 6990.

You can also get a pair of 560's (minus the ti) for $310 after rebate. Seeing as Dual screen gaming is not supported by any Nvidia cards, I find that it's overkill.

 

[cats_Paw]

Always limited to US. Sad for dedicated fans like me .

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

The $500 build is the only one I'd consider "great". Regardless, you guys did a great job making these informative articles.

I wonder what other combination could be made up for the Q4 $500 SBM. I'm thinking perhaps a Core i3 2100 with a GeForce GTX 560? The 560 would have to come a bit down in price for that to happen, though.

 

[silverblue]

I'm still not sure of the point of running iSSE4.1 tests on a Phenom II considering they don't support SSE4.1, however it's not something that a) would've made a difference to anything, or b) we'll see much of in future.

 

[Rizlla]

I think the $500 build was the best thought out PC. The other were too much money spend for the performance gains. Most of the $1000 and $2000 builds could have had part replaced by cheaper and just as good parts.

 

[hyteck9]

I would like to offer up an annual analysis on these results. Assumptions: your computer usage over an entire year averages out to 2 hours a day. If that $2,000 PC can perform work just 2 seconds faster each minute than the $500 pc, it saves you A DAY of your life each year. 24 hours and change in fact. Which is really more like 3 WORK days if you consider an 8 hour work day. There is no recourse on the lower value PC's for this, unless you buy 2 (or 4) and find some way to cluster them together or farm out your workloads. Of course, you still have to pay for the power twice (or four times) and the cost of time/administration for the cluster, farming, etc... which defeats the time savings.
Based on this I say the $2000 is totally worth the price. I'd happily pay a one time premium to get a day (or 3 depending in your definition) of my life back each and every year. ...and that was just 2 seconds faster.. imagine if its 10.. or 20 seconds faster? How often do you get the chance to write a check for more free time?

 

[-Fran-]

[citation][nom]hyteck9[/nom]I would like to offer up an annual analysis on these results. Assumptions: your computer usage over an entire year averages out to 2 hours a day. If that $2,000 PC can perform work just 2 seconds faster each minute than the $500 pc, it saves you A DAY of your life each year. 24 hours and change in fact. Which is really more like 3 WORK days if you consider an 8 hour work day. There is no recourse on the lower value PC's for this, unless you buy 2 (or 4) and find some way to cluster them together or farm out your workloads. Of course, you still have to pay for the power twice (or four times) and the cost of time/administration for the cluster, farming, etc... which defeats the time savings. Based on this I say the $2000 is totally worth the price. I'd happily pay a one time premium to get a day (or 3 depending in your definition) of my life back each and every year. ...and that was just 2 seconds faster.. imagine if its 10.. or 20 seconds faster? How often do you get the chance to write a check for more free time?[/citation]

You can always go walk around or do something else while the computer "works" on something you don't want to wait sitting, you know...

Anyway, kudos to the 1k build. But I liked the 500 better, cause you could add a few bucks and get similar/same perf to the 1k (and 2k) build in some areas.

Cheers!

 

[hyteck9]

Yuka, This is quite true. At least for long running processes... I was thinking more of the 3 seconds here... 8 seconds there.. savings which can't be readily translated into "afk savings".

 

[darasen]

[citation]A minimum amount of performance is required to accomplish some tasks or satisfy certain customers, and the easiest place to see that is in 2560x1600 gaming. The $500 machine wasn’t even tested here...[/citation]

Should we be surprised that a $500 dollar PC doesn't play well on a $1,000 monitor?

I don't the see purpose of adding an SSD to the $500 build or increasing the budget for the cheapest build to accomodate one. All that would be accomplished is using the same parts plus an SSD leaving the current test results much the same and lowering the overall value comparison.

 

[cookoy]

i'd prefer to see future SBM in the range of 600-1000-1400 or 600-900-1200 to see how an incremental 300 or 400 more can boost performance.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]i'd prefer to see future SBM in the range of 600-1000-1400 or 600-900-1200 to see how an incremental 300 or 400 more can boost performance.[/citation]I'd rather do 600-1200-2400 to cover minor issues such as the high-end PC getting a lower-range motherboard and optical drive to cover the added cost of its graphics cards.

 

[silverblue]

That $600 build would've facilitated the addition of an SSD, or even a faster CPU. Then again, the extra 20% budget on each of those builds would've been very tasty.