Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $600 Gaming PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Gaming
  • Build
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
December 21, 2011 3:00:05 AM

You've already seen our first two System Builder Marathon configurations, both of which are more expensive than last quarter's. Our entry-level build costs a bit more too, but we think it's a much more capable collection of parts.

System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $600 Gaming PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon dec 2011 600 gaming

Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 21, 2011 3:45:39 AM

Probably the best bang for buck build compared to the $2400 and $1200 PC. I remember seeing Anandtech using the A8 series with integrated gpu for their $500/600 build. This looks much better for gaming.
Score
20
December 21, 2011 4:00:58 AM

The 2500K is really worth the extra cash over the 2400, but only if you purchase a Z68 or P67. For gaming, you might be better off with an i3 and putting the remainder towards a faster GPU as suggested in the conclusion.

For the price, the 2500K + a P67 or Z68 is unbeatable and certainly worth breaking the budget over. But for SBM, I can see why going the 2400 plus H61 route makes sense.

Personally, I would have preferred to see a cheaper motherboard and CPU config with an SSD (instead of the mechanical storage). It wouldn't have scored as well, but I can't get by without an SSD as easily as I could a slower processor.

I wanted the $500 build to get bumped up to $600, but that was to add a SSD so that each SBM machine could have some solid state action.
Score
-7
Related resources
December 21, 2011 4:02:21 AM

i might be missing something but on the just cause 2 chart:
Quote:
Enabling 8xAA at the highest detail levels pushes our graphics hardware, and this quarter's machine is unable to beat the former rig running at 3.8 GHz, even at our lowest resolution.

The chart seems to indicate that the current machine did beat the former... though perhaps not by alot.
Score
4
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 21, 2011 4:04:24 AM

nice all around build
Score
5
December 21, 2011 4:06:12 AM

I was waiting for this to come out. :) 
Score
0
December 21, 2011 4:10:36 AM

Quote:
Stepping down to a more affordable Sandy Bridge-based Pentium or Core i3-2100 would facilitate a GeForce GTX 560 Ti or Radeon HD 6950 at the same budget level.

So would a 6950 + i3 give better performance in games @ 1080x1920 than this build?
Score
2
December 21, 2011 4:20:09 AM

Would a duel-core Celeron hurt gaming that much?
Score
-5
December 21, 2011 4:27:33 AM

I must be lucky that I can get 2500K for $180 around here. Cheaper than the 2400 they have in this.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 5:11:28 AM

I wonder how this compares to the $1200 fail rig?
Score
11
December 21, 2011 5:27:16 AM

Quote:
in order to win, the December PC needs to make up for mark-ups on the hard drive and video card, as well as the additional cost of a more feature-rich motherboard.


Definitely a kick-ass machine, but imo this line is simply wrong and misleading.
If you factor out today's and September's cpu and motherboard, the difference between the rest of the parts is a mere 8$. Furthermore, with only 2 dimms and no overclocking capability whatsoever I really can't see how you can call this MSI board a more "feature-rich" than September's ASRock.

The way I see it, today's and September's machines are in two different price segments, and at this low budget, pouring an extra ~90$ can actually give you a lot. For example, given today's system, if we take out the cpu, motherboard and gpu, we will be able to fit inside a Phenom II x4 960T (125$), some 60$-70$ motheboard, an hd6950 1gb gpu, and probably still have room for a 20$ HSF. Talk about value.

I'm not trying to defend amd here or anything, It's just that a lot of times people come to me asking for advice on what computer to get, and I can fairly confidently say that when someone wants a 4 core sandy bridge at this budget, I'll say to him that I won't help and tell him to go find a deal somewhere because in my eyes, getting a cpu that's 1/3 of your budget only to be able to get an extra minute or two in every benchmark or getting high fps in low resolutions, is too much of a compromise in every other component.
Score
11
December 21, 2011 6:12:06 AM

I don't understand why use i5 2400 with a h61 ? They can build by a simple i3 + h61 or phenom ii x4 + amd am3+ budget MB and save the money for a better gpu like 6950 or 560 ti
Score
9
Anonymous
December 21, 2011 6:59:23 AM

If only Intel had unlocked i3!
Score
7
December 21, 2011 7:13:22 AM

ashven23If only Intel had unlocked i3!


... Then less people would buy i5, so why should they?
If AMD had offered a similarly compelling alternative to i5 then Intel might have done so.
Score
-5
December 21, 2011 8:35:41 AM

What I don't get is why you went with an mATX board at all last time. You could have easily gone with a slightly slower processor or some cheaper RAM or something and had a full board. Last I checked, AMD boards were still cheaper than the Intel counterparts.
Score
-6
December 21, 2011 8:37:39 AM

why not the AMD Phenom II X4 960T Zosma , a true quad core , and amd haven't cancel it yet like other phenoms and its 125 $ , when a core is near 200 $ even if its good its not value and budget any more
Score
-16
December 21, 2011 8:46:16 AM

and sorry whats the point of 6870 if its gonna be bottle necked abit by the cpu i think the 6850 would be more balanced and cheaper and no extra power pin so more efficient , and balanced = stable , tom hardware forget that this is a budget build
Score
-18
December 21, 2011 8:47:23 AM

yh 1 more thing i gave every one i dont like a thumb down
Score
-24
December 21, 2011 9:03:03 AM

Emad, your first comment actually made sense, I'm not sure if that was intended.
Score
5
December 21, 2011 9:22:40 AM

JonnyDoughWhat I don't get is why you went with an mATX board at all last time. You could have easily gone with a slightly slower processor or some cheaper RAM or something and had a full board. Last I checked, AMD boards were still cheaper than the Intel counterparts.
I wouldn't cross-off Micro ATX. Take a look at the $2400 PC, then the Micro ATX build that came before it. For slightly less money, Micro ATX was better.
Score
3
December 21, 2011 9:24:27 AM

slicedtoadi might be missing something but on the just cause 2 chart:The chart seems to indicate that the current machine did beat the former... though perhaps not by alot.

That should have read, (unlike Crysis or JC2 @ low settings), the current STOCK pc, was unable to beat the OVERCLOCKED September PC because of the GPU demands at 8xAA + Max. But you are right, both stock or both overclocked the current PC was a bit ahead.
Score
4
December 21, 2011 9:47:52 AM

doronDefinitely a kick-ass machine, but imo this line is simply wrong and misleading.If you factor out today's and September's cpu and motherboard, the difference between the rest of the parts is a mere 8$. Furthermore, with only 2 dimms and no overclocking capability whatsoever I really can't see how you can call this MSI board a more "feature-rich" than September's ASRock.

The two rigs share HDD (up $10) and video card (up $5 since we did not subtract the $10 promo code), which would have added $15 to the price of the Septemeber rig as built. Yes, the September PC had $6 more into the case that could be subtracted.

We had H61 mobo options in the $55-60 range that would have performed on par, but chose a $70 board for the added features. Nothing against the Asrock M3A770DE (I've used it in numerous builds for it's price, stability, and overclocking) but it is shy on features (this H61 has) such as USB 3.0, SATA 6 Gb/s, UEFI, number of fan headers, solid caps throughout. Check out the cost of adding those features to an AM3 or AM3+ board and you see why I retained the Asrockk 770DE last time.
Score
3
December 21, 2011 10:43:22 AM

slicedtoad said:
Quote:
Stepping down to a more affordable Sandy Bridge-based Pentium or Core i3-2100 would facilitate a GeForce GTX 560 Ti or Radeon HD 6950 at the same budget level.

So would a 6950 + i3 give better performance in games @ 1080x1920 than this build?

If you game at 1920x1080 and tweak your graphical settings to the max playable for your hardware, then yes I’d say very often this would be a more potent combo (depending on the game). Although, it would lose in our average gaming performance, which factors two settings and all resolutions.

theuniquegamer said:
I don't understand why use i5 2400 with a h61 ? They can build by a simple i3 + h61 or phenom ii x4 + amd am3+ budget MB and save the money for a better gpu like 6950 or 560 ti
A great idea for a pure gaming system, which is why I ended the article with this very same suggestion.

doron said:
The way I see it, today's and September's machines are in two different price segments, and at this low budget, pouring an extra ~90$ can actually give you a lot. For example, given today's system, if we take out the cpu, motherboard and gpu, we will be able to fit inside a Phenom II x4 960T (125$), some 60$-70$ motheboard, an hd6950 1gb gpu, and probably still have room for a 20$ HSF. Talk about value.

Again, mentioned in the conclusion, see above. The point of this article was to stop making sacrifices on the CPU, which paid off huge in overall performance. What I’d most want to see next, if possible within budget, is a $100-125 CPU paired with beefed up graphics hardware. But considering HDD prices we’d need $650. How high can we go in this economy and still remain a budget-oriented build?

The problem is, the lower-CPU powered machine you and I both suggest, will give up large numbers through most of our SBM performance weighting (encoding, productivity, and low res gaming), so it’s going to lose overall. But at the core I see the budget gaming system as just that, a Gaming Rig, and I value its 1920x1080 abilities the most.

mortsmi7 said:
I wonder how this compares to the $1200 fail rig?
Stay tuned… the three machines are pitted against each other tomorrow.
Score
5
December 21, 2011 11:29:33 AM

Great build, and the most useful article for me ever. It just confirmed I'm on the right track. This is almost the rig I'm thinking of: i5-2400 + H61 + HD 6870. I'll save a few components that I will reuse form the old one (Hard disk, optical drive & case). Money that I plan to spend on extra memory (8GB) and a SSD (probably 120GB crucial m4)
Score
0
December 21, 2011 11:40:47 AM

It pains me to see the performance difference between the two CPU's here. Especially at the 1280 X 720 resolution. I just recently (like yesterday) ordered a similar build. The difference being that I went with an AMD phenom II X4 960T (with hopes for unlocking it to the hexa core) and an ASRock 870 Extreme3 R2.0 AM3+ MoBo. This build is for my cousin to play skyrim and will be his first gaming PC build. The main difference with my build is that he can drop in another 6870 with ease because of the MoBo Choice. He had a budget of 750 and my build is almost exactly the same except for the CPU, MoBo, and Case. We choose the Cooler Master HAF 912 (which is on sale right now for 50 bucks) and the XFX 6870. Well the hard drive is a different version also we got the Seagate Barracuda ST500DM002 500GB. I'm not sure what the difference is between the two but I'm thinking it's the SATA III interface. Anyway, I'm really hoping that this build will not be bottlenecked this badly by our CPU choice. I tried to check the CPU charts for the 960t(zosma) and could not find any data on it. I'm wondering where it will stand performance wise? Is it a faster CPU than the 955 BE or about the same? Do you have a review or anything (not that it really matters now but, just curious) comparing the 960T to any other CPUs? I really wanted him to wait for this article before making his purchase but he was so excited he just didn't want to wait. I can say that newegg is awesome because we just ordered (well early yesterday morning) and the PC is already shipped and on it's way so it should be here for christmas which will probably make my little cousin completely forget about performance per dollar and all that anyway.... lol. I'm sure he'll be happy with the build and I just couldn't get the i5 in the budget and keep the CF possibility in too so out went the thought of the i5. This article is really making me kick myself right now though I'm starting to think I should have guided in this direction instead. Oh well shoulda, coulda, woulda I guess.
Score
1
December 21, 2011 11:42:16 AM

Holy cow! I didn't realize I got soooo long winded on that and then forgot to say that this article ROCKS!!!!! LOL :p 
Score
1
December 21, 2011 12:08:19 PM

hmp_gooseWould a duel-core Celeron hurt gaming that much?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

It definitely can, take a look for yourself at Anandtech's benchmarking section.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 12:21:17 PM

I think a 960T with 2 X 6850's or 2 X 460's could be the best over all. If the 960T were to unlock it would be a clean sweep. To ensure this possible a 1035T could get a reasonable OC. This said I don't like the lower resolutions as they push the results in favor of the better CPU. The only resolutions that give the GPU's a test here are 1920X1080 and higher. Given all the other CPU only tests every win is based far to much on CPU power.
Score
-2
December 21, 2011 12:28:12 PM

mortsmi7I wonder how this compares to the $1200 fail rig?

It really was a fail rig. lol. I haven't seen a rig fail like that one in a very long time.
Score
5
December 21, 2011 1:00:58 PM

Maybe some SBM's could be designed for gaming, and others could be designed for office productivity. Most people build for one or the other, but these SBM's cater to the rare person that builds for both. I think that's where you see a lot of confusion in the comments from people expecting a cheaper cpu and beefier gpu.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 21, 2011 1:09:06 PM

it was good to finally see the i5 2400 in action. i like this build better than the pervious month's build.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
December 21, 2011 1:40:56 PM

The $500 (or $600) build has been a "gaming" build for at least the last few years iirc.
Actually, the "fail" rig was one of those fails so epic it was a win; a win because it absolutely clarified for anyone not blinded by fanboyism that Bulldozer sucks like a Hoover. The more I think about it, the more irritated I become, although I remind myself that my 970BE+GTX560Ti didn't suddenly slow to a crawl, and is handling everything I put on it just fine. I could pass the CPU down to my wife, who has a 720BE, but I cannot possibly rationalize dumping a 990FX Sabertooth.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 1:47:20 PM

Wow. Did $1200 BD rig get spanked on the gaming benchmark compared to the $600 core i5 rig?
Score
-1
December 21, 2011 3:20:19 PM

Yeah i wouldnt mind seeing a 2400 dollar gaming rig myself just to see what they came up with, lol.
Score
-1
December 21, 2011 3:29:11 PM

pauldhIf you game at 1920x1080 and tweak your graphical settings to the max playable for your hardware, then yes I’d say very often this would be a more potent combo (depending on the game). Although, it would lose in our average gaming performance, which factors two settings and all resolutions.

This begs the question: if the overall system score is weighted (40% towards gaming marks), why not weight the resolutions in the gaming segment, alloting more points for higher frames in the higher resolutions, since lower resolutions are basically scalping stats (CPU power) from the productivity segment, giving high-CPU systems eseentially double-points and rewarding the system for sacrificing high gaming performance in the gaming marks segment.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
December 21, 2011 3:39:53 PM

I love my i5-2400. Its the best bang-for-buck chip out there right now
Score
0
December 21, 2011 4:23:30 PM

personally, in this range, I would have gone for a i52500k/p67/6850 setup for the money, you can always upgrade the gpu down the road, not to mention that most 6850s have nice oc potential.... in the end I think it would be better to get the better cpu/mobo
Score
1
December 21, 2011 4:45:27 PM

Want to hear something really sad? The $600 Intel SBM PC beats or matches the $1,200 AMD PC, even at gaming.
Score
-1
December 21, 2011 6:25:54 PM

I like this particular build, even if it does extend the budget a little. It shows how different cpus can bottleneck your gpu. So I guess the lesson to walk away with is how to properly match your cpu and gpu so you don't overpower one with the other causing bottlenecks and therefore wasted budget money. For gaming I could agree to bias the budget toward the graphics, but when you look at other multithreaded apps, perhaps some weight should be focused on cpu. I guess it's all in what you intend to do with the machine. But since these articles seem to focus on gaming machines (going by the title here...) I would have to side with a stronger gpu if budget truly is not flexible.

So this makes me wonder now (feel free to drop me an opinion) - I have a Phenom(nom) II x3 720 that is unlocked with 4 cores and an overclocked P0 state @ 3.4GHz. In other words, it's not stock ;-)
I was thinking of upgrading my gtx 260 (216 core) with either a gtx 560 ti 448 core (or a gtx 570) or a radeon 6970/50. Would it be worth this upgrade given the current cpu? Oh, I also have 4GB of DDR2 1066 ram. The system is older (built almost 3 years ago) but I'd be interested to play some new games with DX11 features. Based on this latest build, I may be bottlenecking a new graphics card and throwing my money away on something overly fast. Last piece of info, my monitor runs @ 1680x1050
Score
0
December 21, 2011 6:35:28 PM

zakaronI may be bottlenecking a new graphics card and throwing my money away on something overly fast. Last piece of info, my monitor runs @ 1680x1050

At 1680x1050, the SBM (September one, which is most similar being PhenomII x4) was more hobbled by the GPU than the CPU. In your case, you could drop on the 6970, be somewhat capped by your CPU in some games, but in 6 months, upgrade to a i5-3400 (yes, Ivy Bridge) or i5-3500K to unleash your card (by the 10fps you my be missing out on). Another 6 months down the road, drop another 6970 in there for xfire and you'll be doing fine (if you weren't satisfied with the single GPU)
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 21, 2011 6:45:51 PM

the i5 2400 is priced too close to the 2500k to make it worth purchasing. intel realy need to create some space between their cpu line cost-wise. In Australia its only $28 more for the i5 2500k, and i'd be happy to spend the extra $28 for that. Hopefully the release of ivy bridge cpu's will push some prices down, they have remained stagnant since the initial release of these SB cpu's. I guess that is what you get when the only competition for intel, is intel...
Score
3
December 21, 2011 7:50:13 PM

why not this??? why not that??? why not hit it with a wiffle ball bat???

all jokes aside....you're not really putting out a budget pc that beats up on the 1200$ pc....are you....
Score
0
December 21, 2011 8:20:14 PM

pauldhThe two rigs share HDD (up $10) and video card (up $5 since we did not subtract the $10 promo code), which would have added $15 to the price of the Septemeber rig as built. Yes, the September PC had $6 more into the case that could be subtracted. We had H61 mobo options in the $55-60 range that would have performed on par, but chose a $70 board for the added features. Nothing against the Asrock M3A770DE (I've used it in numerous builds for it's price, stability, and overclocking) but it is shy on features (this H61 has) such as USB 3.0, SATA 6 Gb/s, UEFI, number of fan headers, solid caps throughout. Check out the cost of adding those features to an AM3 or AM3+ board and you see why I retained the Asrockk 770DE last time.


Fair enough. You can get the Biostar TA870U3+ for 85$, the 960T for 125$ and a hd6950 1GB for the exact same 607$. While the board has all the features you mentioned (minus UEFI), plus 4 dimms, overclocking and core-unlocking features. Though the budget won't allow for an aftermarket HSF so you'll probably have to decide between the potential core unlocking / better oc and the 6950. Still my opinion is that it's a better value than this machine.
However, you've made your point and I can see now how this is a matter of personal taste rather than a clear cut as I originally thought, just like you've mentioned in the conclusions.
Score
0
December 21, 2011 8:46:34 PM

halls said:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2

It definitely can, take a look for yourself at Anandtech's benchmarking section.

Thanks for the link, but the smallest Sandy Bridge listed was the Pentium G620T.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 22, 2011 2:00:26 PM

TmanishereWow. Did $1200 BD rig get spanked on the gaming benchmark compared to the $600 core i5 rig?

Spanked? Nah, it was paddled like a schoolboy.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 22, 2011 2:51:16 PM

I would much rather have a Athlon II x3/x4/Ph II x4 or even i3 CPU and a better GPU for this kind of budget range, IMHO. You would get decent office performance and excel better at GPU based situations.

So if you went close to what I'd suggest you would:

* Save $70-100 on the CPU (Athlon II x3 or Ph II x4 960T or i3 2100)
* Spend that $70-100 on an upgraded mobo and also on the GPU.

This would allow you more upgrade path in the future (more GPU's or more slots for other add-in cards, if you need that). And also give a bump up in the GPU department too, not that the 6870 is a bad choice.

This is how I'd see a $500 (pre flood prices):
* ~$120 AMD Ph II x4 960T (or Intel i3 2100 or equivalents), if you went with the still viable Athlon II x3 455 (at $80) you could use that ~$40 in savings to afford the currently inflated HD prices and still make the $600 budget!
* ~$60-80 ATX mobo
* ~$40 for 8 gb DDR3 (no need for upgrade for awhile)
* ~$40 for a case
* ~$40-60 for 2 x 6 pin PCI-e power supply from a quality manufacturer (Antec/Corsair/PCP&C/etc.)
* ~$50-60 HD (currently at about $100, but I'm using this SBM's price)
* ~$20 for DVD Burner
* ~$230 for 6950 GPU
Total ~$600!

Yes this setup would not match up (on the CPU laden benchmarks) to the $190 i5 CPU, but would give you more GPU power, which would allow for a more enjoyable gaming system, IMHO. It all depends on where your system will be used the most.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 22, 2011 2:52:58 PM

I forgot to mention it should be $600 (pre flood prices), instead of the $500 pre-flood prices :) 
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
December 22, 2011 4:10:52 PM

Lunyone, this will be one of those rare times I will disagree with you. Your build would certainly be viable, but it's been done before, several times. This SBM, by using the i5 CPU, is providing another set of data points. The abject failure of the $1200 build suggests that a weak CPU cannot get the best results from a strong GPU, especially at the lower resolutions and/or single-monitor configurations likely to be common among budget builders.
Score
1
December 22, 2011 4:22:56 PM

I agree, thats why ive alway gone with something a little more top end when i build my gaming comps. I mean its just 600 bucks right ?lol
Score
0
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
December 22, 2011 4:32:39 PM

Honestly find any and all comparisons to the September $500 PC invalid. You "cooked the books" so to speak by bumping your budget up $100, and then tried to cover your tracks with your "value" comparisons. I know it's hard to draw a line in the sand on dollars for a machine, but WHEN you do so comparing to the previous lower cost has little relevance. Go back and add another $100 worth of graphics card to that September PC and I guarantee your performance numbers would have gone up significantly, and tossed your "value" comparisons out the window.

Very disappointed in Tom's Hardware for such a flawed comparison.

Score
-5
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!