System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared
Tags:
- System Builder
- Performance
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
December 23, 2011 3:00:04 AM
A 20% budget boost for this quarter’s machines gave every builder room to fix former foibles, yet only the cheapest system showed big performance gains. What effect will those big and small changes have on price-per-performance proficiency?
System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared : Read more
System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared : Read more
More about : system builder marathon dec 2011 system compared
Darkerson
December 23, 2011 3:52:22 AM
Score
20
theuniquegamer
December 23, 2011 3:57:43 AM
Related resources
- WEIGH IN: Dec.08 System Builder Marathon ~$1250 system components - 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
Dacatak
December 23, 2011 4:02:03 AM
DarkersonI dont even know what to say about how screwed up the Bulldozer build is. The fact that a build that cost half as much cant spank it in most regards is just sad. I hope AMD is able to save some face when the revised Bulldozers come out, but sadly, it will be too late for me.
I'm guessing you meant "can" spank.
And spank it does.
Score
6
hmp_goose
December 23, 2011 4:07:05 AM
Darkerson
December 23, 2011 4:26:24 AM
zloginet
December 23, 2011 4:32:05 AM
zloginet
December 23, 2011 4:35:07 AM
zloginet
December 23, 2011 4:36:30 AM
slicedtoad
December 23, 2011 5:05:09 AM
zloginet said:
I need to reply once more... 2x 6950s and a extremely overclocking BD 6100 with only a 650watt ps? These fuggen builds suckwhats the matter with 650W?
gaming tdp of 6950s = max 160 * 2 = 320
bd 6100 95W officially.
320 + 160 = 480
overclocking won't need more than an extra 100W max.
nothing else uses much power. These are budget builds, they're not made for upgradeability.
EDIT: LOL, I just looked at your profile. Your system has a 1200W PSU for one 6970.
I'm laughing, yet cringing at the waste of money.
Score
23
silverblue
December 23, 2011 5:21:16 AM
There is something horribly wrong with putting multiple GPUs on Bulldozer. I've seen time and time again that a single GPU is generally the faster option. Probably would've made more sense to have the FX6100 build as the $600 one and elevated the $600 build to a dual-GPU config as the CPU can actually cope.
I think we need a single/multiple GPU article to find out if there's anything that can be rescued from this. Throw in a couple of different motherboards, that sort of thing. Does memory speed make a big difference? Would Windows 8 Beta help in any way?
I think we need a single/multiple GPU article to find out if there's anything that can be rescued from this. Throw in a couple of different motherboards, that sort of thing. Does memory speed make a big difference? Would Windows 8 Beta help in any way?
Score
7
giovanni86
December 23, 2011 5:27:22 AM
Be nice to see another SBM in about 6-8 months, i forgot how often you guys do this. But indeed switching out the bulldozer for a Sandy bridge processor like the 2500k sounds like the best idea equipped with a Z68 board n a single or dual gpu's. I'm surprised with the $600 PC build, i wonder how it would handle BF3, since most my friends who want a PC want it for that game specifically. Great overall builds minus the 1200 bulldozer build, hoping to win one of them so i can be generous and give my friend a great christmas gift =D.
Score
0
de5_Roy
December 23, 2011 6:01:30 AM
imho, all the sbm builds of this month are good. they show how different systems, components at different price, performance points perform. the articles were fun to read. i loved how the locked i5 2400 bested the unlocked, 3 module, 6 core fx 6100. i wonder if other fx cpus bottleneck gfx cards in single mode or multi gpu combo.
Score
0
alidan
December 23, 2011 6:36:34 AM
DarkersonI dont even know what to say about how screwed up the Bulldozer build is. The fact that a build that cost half as much can spank it in most regards is just sad. I hope AMD is able to save some face when the revised Bulldozers come out, but sadly, it will be too late for me. Edit: Fixed typo. Oops
and its properly implemented into windows, i dont expect it to be good in windows 7, but i expect their threading solution to get it crap together in windows 8.
de5_royimho, all the sbm builds of this month are good. they show how different systems, components at different price, performance points perform. the articles were fun to read. i loved how the locked i5 2400 bested the unlocked, 3 module, 6 core fx 6100. i wonder if other fx cpus bottleneck gfx cards in single mode or multi gpu combo.
realistically, its a 3 core system with threading, and the threading isn't properly implemented yet.
what i find funnier is how the high end and the low end are so close together that its hard to justify the extra cost.
Score
3
Jarmo
December 23, 2011 6:49:38 AM
ivyanev
December 23, 2011 8:19:35 AM
noob2222
December 23, 2011 9:17:01 AM
would be nice for someone to investigate the problem with the $1200 build
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_fx_6100_4100_review/in...
The review used a single 6950 so its similar in setup
Mouseover the 6100 shows the I5 2300 121% speed. however somehow this build is 215% to a I5 2400 with a lesser video card (stock to stock @ 1600x1050 no aa)
There is something besides the cpu crippling the system because you can't go from 121% to 215% while having less gpu power.
http://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_fx_6100_4100_review/in...
The review used a single 6950 so its similar in setup
Mouseover the 6100 shows the I5 2300 121% speed. however somehow this build is 215% to a I5 2400 with a lesser video card (stock to stock @ 1600x1050 no aa)
There is something besides the cpu crippling the system because you can't go from 121% to 215% while having less gpu power.
Score
3
zhihao50
December 23, 2011 10:56:21 AM
noob2222would be nice for someone to investigate the problem with the $1200 buildhttp://ht4u.net/reviews/2011/amd_f [...] ndex29.phpThe review used a single 6950 so its similar in setup Mouseover the 6100 shows the I5 2300 121% speed. however somehow this build is 215% to a I5 2400 with a lesser video card (stock to stock @ 1600x1050 no aa)There is something besides the cpu crippling the system because you can't go from 121% to 215% while having less gpu power.
I suppose the explanation is that when it was only one graphic card, there is not enough gpu power and thats whats causing the bottleneck, the CPU has to do less to catch up and an i5 might not be fully utilised. So when you get two GPU, the graphic power are increased and there is more demand on CPU and the 6100 just can't keep up hence the lesser performance with dual card.
Score
0
salgado18
December 23, 2011 12:43:10 PM
DarkersonI dont even know what to say about how screwed up the Bulldozer build is. The fact that a build that cost half as much can spank it in most regards is just sad. I hope AMD is able to save some face when the revised Bulldozers come out, but sadly, it will be too late for me. Edit: Fixed typo. Oops
It's a very, very tough time to be an AMD fanboy.
Score
8
elbert
December 23, 2011 12:53:04 PM
I think the $1,200 build's SSD may be showing corruption slow down. Many will tell you this drive can slow systems to a crawl. I wonder if just using the HD would make a difference. Surly 2 6950's should easily win over a single 6870 in high resolution gaming. Think this system has some major problems.
Score
0
grody
December 23, 2011 1:02:48 PM
TeraMedia
December 23, 2011 2:00:37 PM
I like this marathon for the information it gave us. From reading others' comments, I too am now curious about what would happen to gaming performance if you took out one of the CF cards on the 1200 machine, but I am much more looking forward to the next marathon. With SB-E, IB (when does that show up?), the HD 79x0 Radeons and other technologies out, plus a hoped-for decay in HDDs, there is ample room for a lot of different technology to be showcased.
Score
3
stingstang
December 23, 2011 2:01:18 PM
slicedtoadwhats the matter with 650W?gaming tdp of 6950s = max 160 * 2 = 320bd 6100 95W officially.320 + 160 = 480overclocking won't need more than an extra 100W max.nothing else uses much power. These are budget builds, they're not made for upgradeability.EDIT: LOL, I just looked at your profile. Your system has a 1200W PSU for one 6970.I'm laughing, yet cringing at the waste of money.
Don't you know that a more powerful psu makes your components faster? Derrr
Score
-4
elbert
December 23, 2011 2:14:05 PM
Krnt
December 23, 2011 2:18:25 PM
For some reason the $1200 build is the worst performing bulldozer build I've ever seen.
There is definitively something wrong with the memory configuration.
I made some test with a FX 4100 in my pc that normally uses a Phenom II 965 using the same memories of the $1200 build, and the FX 4100 reached 16.8 GB/s at SIS sandra memory bandwith, while my 965 achieves only 15.8 GB/s.
I think the problem is that Biostar motherboard, cutting off the memory bandwidth, and maybe even a complete channel.
I know this will not change the fact that the BD is a bad performer, but things like these can change the results, giving you at least more competitive results.
There is definitively something wrong with the memory configuration.
I made some test with a FX 4100 in my pc that normally uses a Phenom II 965 using the same memories of the $1200 build, and the FX 4100 reached 16.8 GB/s at SIS sandra memory bandwith, while my 965 achieves only 15.8 GB/s.
I think the problem is that Biostar motherboard, cutting off the memory bandwidth, and maybe even a complete channel.
I know this will not change the fact that the BD is a bad performer, but things like these can change the results, giving you at least more competitive results.
Score
6
Anonymous
December 23, 2011 2:36:46 PM
The major problem with the builds this month is that the $1200 build uses a $160 CPU whereas the $600 build uses a $190 CPU.
The 6100 was an extremely poor choice for a Dual GPU build. It's quite obvious that it would be extremely CPU limited. If you put an equivalent intel CPU(i3) in that system it would've likely still had a CPU bottleneck, albeit less.
In fact even comparing the $1,200 build this month to last month's is a joke. $220 i5 vs $160 BD. Who in their right mind would compare the two?
The 6100 was an extremely poor choice for a Dual GPU build. It's quite obvious that it would be extremely CPU limited. If you put an equivalent intel CPU(i3) in that system it would've likely still had a CPU bottleneck, albeit less.
In fact even comparing the $1,200 build this month to last month's is a joke. $220 i5 vs $160 BD. Who in their right mind would compare the two?
Score
6
Crashman
December 23, 2011 2:38:31 PM
cadder
December 23, 2011 2:56:14 PM
elbert
December 23, 2011 3:19:32 PM
cadderMaybe we can eliminate AMD from consideration in future builds for awhile and concentrate on the good stuff from Intel.
Yes and for an SSD should it be much higher than a green drive? This is a very bad performing SSD in the $1.200 build. Doesn't this drive require a tweak to never going into idle with windows 7 or else it starts corrupting the drive?
Score
2
Crashman
December 23, 2011 3:54:07 PM
elbertYes and for an SSD should it be much higher than a green drive? This is a very bad performing SSD in the $1.200 build. Doesn't this drive require a tweak to never going into idle with windows 7 or else it starts corrupting the drive?
Page 12 shows the combined results of the four drive tests at 262% greater performance for the $1200 PC compared to the $600 PC. I know 262% might be spare change to some users, but I still think that qualifies as "much higher". Score
2
ilikemacandpc
December 23, 2011 4:35:55 PM
elbert
December 23, 2011 5:49:00 PM
CrashmanPage 12 shows the combined results of the four drive tests at 262% greater performance for the $1200 PC compared to the $600 PC. I know 262% might be spare change to some users, but I still think that qualifies as "much higher".
Wait I see the green drive was on the $2,400 system. The $600 build has a much faster 500GB HD. Kind of makes sense against a 7200 rpm drive. Also this $600 build is a monster because at 1920X1080 its only 15.6 fps slower than Sept's i5 2500k with 2 460's in F1 2010. The September build scores a 81.9 and this little $600 build 66.3 fps.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/9/318861/original/F1%20U...
http://media.bestofmicro.com/8/U/319134/original/image0...
Score
1
noob2222
December 23, 2011 6:19:32 PM
KrntFor some reason the $1200 build is the worst performing bulldozer build I've ever seen.There is definitively something wrong with the memory configuration.I made some test with a FX 4100 in my pc that normally uses a Phenom II 965 using the same memories of the $1200 build, and the FX 4100 reached 16.8 GB/s at SIS sandra memory bandwith, while my 965 achieves only 15.8 GB/s.I think the problem is that Biostar motherboard, cutting off the memory bandwidth, and maybe even a complete channel.I know this will not change the fact that the BD is a bad performer, but things like these can change the results, giving you at least more competitive results.
I didn't even notice the memory bandwidth. looks like you may be right, its only using one memory channel. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=...
memory = 18.3, Toms memory = 8.5.. wonder how much memory is reported in windows.
one thing is for certain, the entire build is screwed, not just the cpu
Score
4
There are SO many things to test...
The $1200 build asks the most questions over how badly it sucks, and I'd like to know why. I don't expect any of these tests to "rescue" the FX, but some of the numbers raise questions that I don't think can be explained just by a poor CPU. Below, when I say "retest," I don't necessarily mean the full suite; even a couple of the synthetics should show if "something" in addition to a slow CPU should share the blame.
How about a retest with all the same parts EXCEPT the mobo? Rule out the Biostar as a possible cause of [RAM / channel / firmware] issues.
Then rule out the chipset by retesting with a single GPU, possibly a X2 so the Crossfire/SLI is being handled on the board, not by the chipset.
Retest with a X4 980 or a X6 1100T, or even a FX-8120.
Use the results from the above abbreviated testing to decide if more thorough tests are warranted.
The $1200 build asks the most questions over how badly it sucks, and I'd like to know why. I don't expect any of these tests to "rescue" the FX, but some of the numbers raise questions that I don't think can be explained just by a poor CPU. Below, when I say "retest," I don't necessarily mean the full suite; even a couple of the synthetics should show if "something" in addition to a slow CPU should share the blame.
How about a retest with all the same parts EXCEPT the mobo? Rule out the Biostar as a possible cause of [RAM / channel / firmware] issues.
Then rule out the chipset by retesting with a single GPU, possibly a X2 so the Crossfire/SLI is being handled on the board, not by the chipset.
Retest with a X4 980 or a X6 1100T, or even a FX-8120.
Use the results from the above abbreviated testing to decide if more thorough tests are warranted.
Score
3
demonhorde665
December 23, 2011 8:32:45 PM
Score
0
demonhorde665
December 23, 2011 8:46:55 PM
grodyYes it does have major problems. It has bulldozer.
LOL funny shit , and i'm even an AMD fan usually, but that is usually when thier processors deliver n3ear intel performance hat great value , and bulldozer doesn't deliver , apprently some haters gave you a thumbs down . my next build wil certainly include eitehr intel i5 or an older phenom 2 .. event eh high end bull dozer's suffer baddly compared to similar priced intel chips Amd needs to get on top of the situation fast , becasue i can't recomand an AMD bulldozer chip to any one cept a non gamer, non workstation build with the way things are
Score
1
doron
December 23, 2011 8:54:38 PM
doronI hope they'll revise this build with a 2500k as well as an overclocked phenom II x6 for a solid comparison, especially gaming wise.
there i no need to revise it, im sure they just put a FX chip in there to make people realise what a poor choice it is. Point made, fx chips are indeed crappy and poor value for money, something most people knew, now everyone knows. There are always a few ignorant people who are blind to results though and will still go buy an fx cpu, i feel a little sorry for them.
Score
-3
I'd still like to know if something else in addition to (not "instead of") the CPU is partly responsible for that utterly miserable showing. Companies release suck products from time to time, but this was so bad as to make no sense; nobody likes delays, but I have no idea why AMD would release a CPU this bad.
Score
-3
kinggraves
December 23, 2011 10:17:02 PM
AMD already said that Bulldozer isn't going to be good at gaming and low thread applications. You might as well complain about how your toaster doesn't make good spaghetti. It should be good for the server type applications it's designed for, especially after OS that are better able to handle multi threading comes out. AMD left the gaming enthusiasts to Intel, they didn't screw it up, they released exactly what they wanted to. Stick with Intel for decent gaming performance.
Still, the $1200 build was bad all around, not just the CPU. The SSD was lousy, memory bandwidth is clearly gimped, GPU power far outpaced CPU power. Remove the second GPU and spend the money on an 8150 and a better SSD/motherboard. You still wouldn't have great graphics processing but it'd be better than this mess.
What I'd like to see is a $600 build featuring a Llano proc and a hybrid Xfire compatible GPU. I think this combo could prove better than anything a low end BD would do.
Still, the $1200 build was bad all around, not just the CPU. The SSD was lousy, memory bandwidth is clearly gimped, GPU power far outpaced CPU power. Remove the second GPU and spend the money on an 8150 and a better SSD/motherboard. You still wouldn't have great graphics processing but it'd be better than this mess.
What I'd like to see is a $600 build featuring a Llano proc and a hybrid Xfire compatible GPU. I think this combo could prove better than anything a low end BD would do.
Score
-5
g4114rd0
December 23, 2011 11:28:56 PM
Anonymous
December 24, 2011 1:54:02 AM
Okay, in regards to the 1200 build. The RAM is wrong and Crossfire is over kill with that big of a GPU. Personally, on air, I have the same set up, with 8 gigs of 1866 G-skill RAM and am showing ZERO bottle necks. The MoBo adjusts as needed through the Toverclocker utility. (I know this is ghetto, but it works surprisingly well.) 40 degrees OCed to 4.4, again, on air. The biggest mistake AMD seems to have made is that the released the chips too low for the stock speed. The natural stock speed should have been .7-1 higher, as it actually runs more naturally that way.
Second, my build only cost 700 bucks with it, so yea, the secondary stuff outside of the CPU, MoBo, and RAM are what killed that test. The box just isn't set up right at all. BUT, with all the viral poo-pooing that's gone on, no ones actually sat down and taken the time to do what I've experimented with.
Third, with the SLI bios update on that MoBo, SLI 550-TIs are stupid efficient. The key is to not only OC the CPU, but the NB and RAM as well. It all works in concert. OCing the CPU alone will cause bottlenecks left and right, and that's my assumption with several of these reviews I've seen.
BTW, it's stable darn near 5.5 with just an H60. The thing is stupid easy and efficient to OC.
Second, my build only cost 700 bucks with it, so yea, the secondary stuff outside of the CPU, MoBo, and RAM are what killed that test. The box just isn't set up right at all. BUT, with all the viral poo-pooing that's gone on, no ones actually sat down and taken the time to do what I've experimented with.
Third, with the SLI bios update on that MoBo, SLI 550-TIs are stupid efficient. The key is to not only OC the CPU, but the NB and RAM as well. It all works in concert. OCing the CPU alone will cause bottlenecks left and right, and that's my assumption with several of these reviews I've seen.
BTW, it's stable darn near 5.5 with just an H60. The thing is stupid easy and efficient to OC.
Score
4
Anonymous
December 24, 2011 6:56:40 AM
pacioli
December 24, 2011 8:21:22 AM
silverblue
December 24, 2011 10:28:40 PM
blazorthon
December 25, 2011 2:31:27 PM
Some of the commentors here noticed that bulldozer is not the only problem with that $1200 machine.
But on bulldozer... AMD should have taken the improvements over the Phenom II cores made in Llano (only like 6% performance improvement, but hey it helps) and done a die shrink with some more improvements. Would have been much less work than making such a different architecture like bulldozer and you could still fit 8 cores on a CPU... 8 cores that are improvements over the older Phenom IIs, not a step backwards in performance. Could have been much faster than bulldozer and AMD would have only needed to slightly modify what they already have, much easier.
But on bulldozer... AMD should have taken the improvements over the Phenom II cores made in Llano (only like 6% performance improvement, but hey it helps) and done a die shrink with some more improvements. Would have been much less work than making such a different architecture like bulldozer and you could still fit 8 cores on a CPU... 8 cores that are improvements over the older Phenom IIs, not a step backwards in performance. Could have been much faster than bulldozer and AMD would have only needed to slightly modify what they already have, much easier.
Score
0
g4114rd0
December 25, 2011 4:25:34 PM
brucek2
December 25, 2011 10:09:11 PM
In real life, a bulldozer is a slow moving vehicle with the capability to demolish even a perfectly good structure into a pile of rubble.
It seems that this latest generation AMD CPU was unfortunately if accurately well named.
Oh well. Hopefully this will provide the motivation for a massive comeback in the next generation.
It seems that this latest generation AMD CPU was unfortunately if accurately well named.
Oh well. Hopefully this will provide the motivation for a massive comeback in the next generation.
Score
0
blazorthon
December 26, 2011 12:17:43 AM
brucek2In real life, a bulldozer is a slow moving vehicle with the capability to demolish even a perfectly good structure into a pile of rubble.It seems that this latest generation AMD CPU was unfortunately if accurately well named.Oh well. Hopefully this will provide the motivation for a massive comeback in the next generation.
That's a good point lol.
Score
0
youssef 2010
December 26, 2011 7:32:23 AM
This review is missing something: MINIMUM FPS. Personally, as a man who is sensitive to micro-stuttering, prefer a smooth gameplay experience to raw FPS. To that end, I suggest that a minimum FPS chart accompanies every game benchmark run on this venerable website. I suggest making the reviewer who is most sensitive to this phenomenon comment on the smoothness of each game benchmark. It's taken for granted now that AMD's latest CPUs are frustrating, but ,when it comes to gaming performance, we need to assess the smoothness as well as the FPS scores.
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
- 2011 Gaming System Selling Value (AU) 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
- More resources
!