Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $650 Gaming PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Gaming
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 26, 2012 4:00:07 AM

This quarter, we're starting our System Builder Marathon with a little experiment. Paul wanted to build a gaming PC for $650 that'd target smooth performance at 1920x1080. He had to make a couple of sacrifices in the process, but the result is compelling!

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $650 Gaming PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon march 2012 650 gaming

March 26, 2012 5:24:05 AM

so now that all the 6950's are deactivated or $289+, is this build invalid? because a 7850 is looking really good right now...
Score
22
March 26, 2012 5:43:35 AM

What yukijin said.
Score
15
Related resources
March 26, 2012 5:45:54 AM

I appreciate what they're doing, but at some points, I can't help but feel like a cheap bitch.

Making decisions overly measly amounts of money ($10) is just dumb. Work an extra day and just get the hardware you want. Or, don't go to the movies or out to eat for a few weeks.

To me, there's a certain area, at which being cheap, just rips you off - you'd be better off spending a little more, and getting a much better item.
Score
16
Anonymous
March 26, 2012 5:51:03 AM

How do I win this????
Score
-3
March 26, 2012 5:55:16 AM

Let me get this straight... you raised the budget $150 "as a result of steep price hikes on mechanical storage", then only spent $85 on a HDD. You really just wanted a more expensive graphics card. You could have taken the $70 processor savings and the $65 under-budget HDD savings and nearly have had a $500 build.
Score
5
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 6:37:20 AM

very good read.
nice to see where core i3's limits lie.
i wonder if you guys will consider amd's new fx 6200 or fx 8120 for the $1200 build, with 78xx series in cfx.
Score
-8
March 26, 2012 6:45:43 AM

if I had $600 for a PC, I would go with i3-21xx, 6870, a better mobo and a better case.
it is probably the best thing to do
Score
-7
March 26, 2012 6:54:07 AM

whysobluepandabearI appreciate what they're doing, but at some points, I can't help but feel like a cheap bitch. Making decisions overly measly amounts of money ($10) is just dumb. Work an extra day and just get the hardware you want. Or, don't go to the movies or out to eat for a few weeks. To me, there's a certain area, at which being cheap, just rips you off - you'd be better off spending a little more, and getting a much better item.

It's not an issues of whether they had the money or not, it's a matter of principle, you set your budget and goals at a certain point and then you make choices. Sure, not everyone will be happy with what they chose but that's what forums are for.

Anyways, anything a bit over 60fps (on a 60hz monitor) really isn't that bad, i mean you might lack the bragging rights but at the end of the day, it's about gaming and feeling satisfied that you shot enough monsters. To further empathize that having 70 fps constant is not total shit because another GPU can serve you 130 (as if you're going to notice without watching the fps counter) my one suggestion for this SBM would be to introduce a different style of graphs. Below 30fps all the colors of the bars to be grey and over 60 the same thing. This to focus the attention on most relevant (to my opinion) segment. I've seen a lot of ppl chase those fps numbers, buying expensive GPUs only to have them sit in a bad enclosure, sub par motherboard or weak CPU.
Even in gaming, i believe balance is key.
Score
17
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 7:46:47 AM

I'm glad they used a i3 2120 for the CPU, but I wish they would have used some of the newer cards like the HD 7950 or the GTX 560 Ti 448. these are roughly the same price. Spending and extra $20 on a PSU was a waste. the EA430D and 380W are the core of the budget build. I would like to see some testing of a few of the less expensive PSU ($50 or less) to see which are junk and which aren't bad.
Score
4
March 26, 2012 8:33:58 AM

SpadeMIt's not an issues of whether they had the money or not, it's a matter of principle, you set your budget and goals at a certain point and then you make choices. Sure, not everyone will be happy with what they chose but that's what forums are for.
Exactly. These parts were picked 5 or 6 weeks ago and Paul wanted to get maximum gaming performance this time. I prefer balanced systems, but then again I don't build something called the "$xxx Gaming PC"
Score
10
March 26, 2012 8:39:17 AM

mortsmi7Let me get this straight... you raised the budget $150 "as a result of steep price hikes on mechanical storage", then only spent $85 on a HDD. You really just wanted a more expensive graphics card. You could have taken the $70 processor savings and the $65 under-budget HDD savings and nearly have had a $500 build.

$150? Check the text again. We raised it $50 (from $600). quote- "Although our previous system ducked in under $600 with a small promotional savings factored in, duplicating our efforts when the series went live required more than $650 as a result of steep price hikes on mechanical storage. Consequently, we bumped the official budget up to $650 this quarter, keeping a level playing field with the prior config."

The $500 Gaming PC does in fact have a long history at Tom's Hardware, but during the past few years we've often raised that limit to explore more attractive (higher) levels of hardware such as the recent Core i5-2400 and HD 6950.
Score
9
March 26, 2012 9:32:22 AM

Not a bad build, can't really recommend this to any of my buddies but i do look forward to the next build. Is it just me or like maybe 5 years ago these builds used to cost 2x what they cost today =P Like performance was 5-7k.
Score
-1
March 26, 2012 9:50:28 AM

I don't like this build. I think they should use afterburner or some other software to overclock gpu. That card would go much further imo. Also I think that phenom 2 x4 965 BE would yield better performance as you can overclock to ~4ghz.
Score
-8
March 26, 2012 10:03:54 AM

yukijinso now that all the 6950's are deactivated or $289+, is this build invalid? because a 7850 is looking really good right now...

The HD 7800 series was not available until weeks after our window of opportunity (for ordering) had expired. So you will not see 7800s (or the GTX 680) in any of this month’s builds.

Sure, the 7850 is an option now if within budget. Although a firm $650 component cap would mean dropping to a Sandy Bridge Pentium, or AMD FX-4100 build. Otherwise, there’s the cheaper GTX 560 Ti, which could leave funding for a different case and/or mobo.

Good catch, ALL 6950s had been deactivated, now there is a single 2GB in stock for $290. Not likely, but worth keeping an eye on, since last gen parts often drop in price to offer tremendous value (before drying up altogether).

jerreddreddI'm glad they used a i3 2120 for the CPU, but I wish they would have used some of the newer cards like the HD 7950 or the GTX 560 Ti 448. these are roughly the same price. Spending and extra $20 on a PSU was a waste. the EA430D and 380W are the core of the budget build. I would like to see some testing of a few of the less expensive PSU ($50 or less) to see which are junk and which aren't bad.
Thanks, yeah, the Core i3 is very attractive for gaming, but we see overall how much it gives up in productivity.

On the GPU side - The HD 7950 is far more expensive, so I assume you meant the 7850. As stated above, those were unavailable for any of this month’s builds. The GTX 560 Ti 448 was of course available, but at a much higher cost. It was way out of reach (back then) for a $650 build.

confish21Great Job! These builds keep me at Tomshardware!Only thing 1 thing, you said an I3 was used instead of an I5 on this page... http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 159-8.htmlYou can check the 600 dec build here...http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3097.htmlPretty sure an I5-2400 was used.

Thanks! i3-2400 was a typo. Fixed!
Score
9
March 26, 2012 10:20:01 AM

I personally wouldn't buy or recommend to buy a dual-core processor in this day and age. Some gaming benchmarks look good, but most people would be better off with a similarly priced AMD quad-core or a higher priced Intel quad-core, especially if the system is meant to last a few years. (which it is. Budget gamers don't upgrade every 2 years)


btw: Battlefield 3 singleplayer benchmarks are VERY misleading. Multiplayer is a completely different animal.
Score
4
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 10:58:37 AM

gtx 480 run at $250 much better than 695
Score
-4
March 26, 2012 11:18:24 AM

Where is system builder marathon for $500?
Score
-6
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 12:20:19 PM

This build does a lot to confirm the need for balance. Confirmation vs. revelation is not a bad thing; consider the "revelation" in that $1200 SBM of just how badly an FX-6100 sucks. I'm not going to niggle over the parts in this build; my niece has commented that the E4400 rig I built for her some 5 years ago is now somewhat sluggish, so I'd love to win this one as a solid upgrade for her.
Incidentally, I appreciate the initial remarks about the budget in this one. While I would like to have seen an additional $500 build, I understand why you did it this way, and am glad to see that you'll be returning to that budget next time.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 12:32:07 PM

Thanks for the article.

I refer to these builds often, I have a terrible time choosing components with budget minded builds. It's easy to say i7-2600K, $200+ MOBO, 8GB+ DDR3-1600 RAM, $200+ SSD, etc.

For the most part everything is very playable with the exception of Metro 2033 at higher details/etc, and as one person pointed-out the HD 7850 is the HD 6850 replacement it might give some extra oomph but from what I recall 2~4FPS which is still short of 35+FPS needed.

Obviously, a (i5/i7) 4-core is going to aide in productivity and in some gaming.
Score
0
March 26, 2012 1:23:17 PM

Excepting enthusiasts and hard core gamers, the arguments about quad-core productivity are lost on home PC owners. The primary use of the home PC is for web surfing, facebooking, and some light productivity (word processing, maybe a spreadsheet or Quicken). In considering the gamers, the principal consideration is gaming fps and the ability to play resource hungry games. In all of these areas AMD is well behind the Intel curve.

The fact that the i3 2100 can play virtually any game at decent fps makes it the choice for budget gaming, and home system building. Very few people require the ability to run a video transcoder while gaming, indeed I think none but those who wish to make a case for Faildozer and other AMD fossils.

I really wish that AMD would get its design act together and challenge Intel: the winner would be the consummer. AMD would seem to have a natural advantage to integrating graphic efficiency into a CPU, but it has lost this lap of the design race BADLY.

Come on AMD, get off your design duff, and give us a CPU that can compete with the i5 in gaming.
Score
2
March 26, 2012 1:45:05 PM

Nice build.

Does this finally put the old argument of a dual core is enough for gaming out to pasture???

Its clear to me that you can no longer skimp on CPU and not have it make a noticeable impact on gaming as well as general use.

I think moving forward on the budget build it should be determined what the target resolution is then find a GPU that can serve up enough performance for that resolution and then make sure you have enough funds for a good quad core CPU.
Score
3
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 1:58:41 PM

Stop cheating on the budget. What are we going to see next? 700$ budget pc, then 750$? Those articles are meant to be all about what to build with a FIXED budget and when you couldn't think of anything good you decided to simply up it? We all know spending more gives you more, show us you can do better. I'll give you a hint: Get 6850 instead of this 6950 - yes, the FPS will be worse but you have to stick to the budget. And what's with the crazy PSU? 600W? Go and check again the maximum consumption of the overclocked pc. I'll save you the trouble - 231W. A good 250W PSU would've been enough and those who are dissatisfied with that can get a 300W one and sleep well. Just those 2 things would've brought you back to the planned budget and the system would've been balanced, not a cheap cpu + overkill gpu you've built now.

/end rant.
Score
-5
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 2:00:11 PM

"Enough performance" is the $64,000 question. This weekend I tested a few different GPUs with Unigine, and thought that 30FPS looked smooth enough to be playable in my own games. I don't play FPS though, at least not with any skill that matters, so I understand that if ANY frame jitter spoils that head shot, those who do play FPS will want more.
I like the budget builds the most because they often offer performance right in that range where +/-5 FPS can really matter. I'm not sure I'd pair up a hyperthreaded dual-core with a HD6950 (or stronger GPU), but it is probably very well balanced for a HD6850.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 2:08:06 PM

Benedict, they explained their budget choices on page 1. Basically it was done to get some valid comparisons to the last SBM's budget machine; next quarter they'll go back to $500 (which I also prefer).
The PSU choice was also explained; while a 380W or 430W Earthwatts would have been enough, the GPU did not come with any molex-PCIE power adapters, so they found the cheapest reasonable-quality (HardwareSecrets gave this one a Golden award) PSU with a pair of them.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 2:17:57 PM

I think people should keep in mind when complaining about the budget of the entry level build going up that they are making gaming machines. It's not a "$300 Facebook and Porn PC" or a competition of how inexpensively a PC can be built. It's a matter of seeing how little you can spend to make something that's better than dragging along your old A64x2-4200.
Score
1
March 26, 2012 2:18:41 PM

I am really confused as to why you didn't go with the Antec Earthwatts 430. You would have saved $15 with the adapter, $20 without. $20 can go a long way on a build like this.
Score
1
March 26, 2012 2:19:09 PM

rosewill PSUs are absolute trash. Terrible choice imo
Score
-4
March 26, 2012 2:49:42 PM

What I like about this build is that they offer maximum value to the winner, if you take into account the option of upgrades. The winner gets a high-end GPU, and can swap out the CPU to have a truly decent rig at very low cost. No you don't get much OC capability, but not everyone cares.

I like that they explored what amounts to pushing the boundaries of system balance.
Score
1
March 26, 2012 2:58:47 PM

Nice build for the price. I agree with the posters who feel the budget should stay steady...Even with economic downs and lows. That way the computers built reflect the same budget, and keeps the dollar accountable for which components get to get in the machine!
Score
0
March 26, 2012 3:04:46 PM

tmk221I don't like this build. I think they should use afterburner or some other software to overclock gpu. That card would go much further imo. Also I think that phenom 2 x4 965 BE would yield better performance as you can overclock to ~4ghz.


This is just not true. Tom's did a review, and the results show that the phenom does not game as well. The OC would catch it up, but at significantly higher power usage, thermals, etc. :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu-cor...

However, IF you had and existing AM3 platform, that could be a decent upgrade choice. But brand new, bad idea for gaming. I would actually consider the phenom II, but only B/C video encoding gets a boost from the 4 cores, but that is not the point of this article.
Score
3
March 26, 2012 3:10:55 PM

mortsmi7Let me get this straight... you raised the budget $150 "as a result of steep price hikes on mechanical storage", then only spent $85 on a HDD. You really just wanted a more expensive graphics card. You could have taken the $70 processor savings and the $65 under-budget HDD savings and nearly have had a $500 build.

Last quarters build was at $600. The price this time was raised $50, as to create a level playing field and see what a more expensive graphics does vs the powerhouse I5.
Although our previous system ducked in under $600 with a small promotional savings factored in, duplicating our efforts when the series went live required more than $650 as a result of steep price hikes on mechanical storage. Consequently, we bumped the official budget up to $650 this quarter, keeping a level playing field with the prior config.
Score
0
March 26, 2012 3:40:36 PM

jjb8675309rosewill PSUs are absolute trash. Terrible choice imo

You are totally entitled to use whatever PSU you desire, but labelling ALL Rosewill PSUs as trash is a falsehood (they are not all equal). While there are certainly higher quality units, I'd have no problem recommending many of the Xtreme, Hive, or Green series units, if the price and specs match the intended use.

iknowhowtofixitI am really confused as to why you didn't go with the Antec Earthwatts 430. You would have saved $15 with the adapter, $20 without. $20 can go a long way on a build like this.

As I pointed out in the text, yes we could have saved $15, but not $20. Keep in mind the system would not function without purchasing that extra $5 12V adapter. I tried to make it very clear the EA430D ($40-60 depending when you order) would be a fine choice also. If on sale, Earthwatts 380W and 430W units are in fact typically what ends up powering our budget rig, but of course I do also consider alternatives. While writing up the text, the EA430D was $60, now it is $55. Prices change, so we feel it's good to offer ( and explore) alternatives.
Score
4
March 26, 2012 4:16:30 PM

Just want to thank everyone for the comments. We value your feedback!

I lack the time to respond to each and every one, so thanks to the many of you who have already cleared up some of the questions and misconceptions.

A common concern seems to be pricing and budgets. The official budgets for the March ’12 SBM series are $650/$1300/$2600, and this rig weighed in $1 under its limit. To be clear, there was no budget “cheating”. In fact, sticking to a strict budget or not, is up to the individual author to decide and then defend should he choose to break it. A reasonable amount of funding flexibility was in fact requested by the readers so we didn't skimp when more attractive options were just out of reach. I wanted to stay under $650, and not stray beyond what it would cost to rebuild the prior $600 PC.

Those who have read the text today seem to "get" where we took the past couple Gaming PC's, exploring a higher-end CPU first, and now a GPU. Neither is possible at $500.

Keep in mind, we build one system each quarter dubbed the " The $xxx Gaming PC" to basically cover all options less than $1000. There is no real magic number that pleases everyone's own budget, so over time we tend to cycle from low to high and back down, exploring options while trying to maintain fair comparisons to the prior edition. Currently plans are to do a $500 Gaming PC next quarter, (which would mean $500/$1000/$2000 or $500/$1500/$4500), and by many of your comments that looks to be a good direction to take for June. But for years now our low-priced SBM build has fluctuated from $400-750, to tap into as many valid options as possible below the $1000+ “Enthusiast PC”. It's easy for me to argue there should be both a $500 and a $750-800 machine; then again Thomas must typically cover $2000+ with only one build. So he must constantly choose between functionality and performance.

Again, thanks. Hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
Score
6
March 26, 2012 4:23:34 PM

Having a build marathon 2 weeks before Ivy Bridge comes out and replaces every Intel processor at every price point and probably a month before the entire Kepler line is out and AMD drops the 7000 series to reasonable price points seems like a waste.
Score
-2
March 26, 2012 4:30:15 PM

This would be good, if it had an OS and monitor included...if it had that it'd be like 1k PC -- O'well.
Score
-2
March 26, 2012 5:01:51 PM

Bad luck with the GPU......i just had "6950 sapphire dirt 3" in my lab. I was able to unlock it and clock at 940@1375 stable and the card is not to hot. If you Google it, you will find that it is common for this card.
Score
0
March 26, 2012 5:19:46 PM

"Although our previous system ducked in under $600 with a small promotional savings factored in, duplicating our efforts when the series went live required more than $650 as a result of steep price hikes on mechanical storage. Consequently, we bumped the official budget up to $650 this quarter, keeping a level playing field with the prior config. "The $500 Gaming PC does in fact have a long history at Tom's Hardware, but during the past few years we've often raised that limit to explore more attractive (higher) levels of hardware such as the recent Core i5-2400 and HD 6950.


I see what you're saying, but I would appreciate the budget build staying at $600 max, preferably $500. I'm a recent college graduate now working retail (go figure) and therefore am on a very tight budget. Computer building and gaming is one of my passions and is pretty much the only thing I spend extra money on, so going from $500 to $650 is quite a jump for me. I'd rather see a lower budget that makes the most of what's actually available at current prices, not just bumping it up because things like HDDs are more expensive now. But that's just my two cents. Anyway, thanks again for the article, the system builds are my favorites!
Score
0
March 26, 2012 6:24:46 PM

For god's sake make it international
Score
-2
March 26, 2012 6:28:30 PM

The only way to build a true budget PC nowadays is:

1. Buying CPU/motherboard from microcenter.
2. Reusing a HDD or getting one used.

Follow those two rules and you can build a true budget gaming PC.
Score
-1
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
March 26, 2012 6:30:56 PM

I really like these kind of builds. Something well balanced only gives you a vague sense of what the author thinks is a balanced build and gives you little info on how to plan your own, since the same parts are unlikely to be available and you might not have the same budget. Something on the edge of unbalanced like this one shows you the CPU bottleneck in a very sharp and clear way, down to which game and what resolution you need a beefier CPU for.

I hope there's an mAtx/itx round coming with the new generation of GPUs.
Score
1
March 26, 2012 6:53:12 PM

well maybe next time for a cheap build you might put an FX x6 "3 bulldozer module" CPU just because its overclockeability, and maybe you will spend the same amount of $. it's my opinion. this build was clearly mediocre because of its cpu.
Score
0
March 26, 2012 6:57:34 PM

confish21Great Job! These builds keep me at Tomshardware!Only thing 1 thing, you said an I3 was used instead of an I5 on this page... http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 159-8.htmlYou can check the 600 dec build here...http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,3097.htmlPretty sure an I5-2400 was used.

it's quite easy to say I want to spend 400 dollars, but wait if i add 20 here and 10 there, before you know it you have a list of 600 dollars,, then but if I spend this amount of $$ here and there, before you know it again your looking at double that,,

Building a PC can be a vicious cycle of what if I spend a little bit more,, I find more often that not, you would be glad if you have a target you set for yourself and not cross that line - that is what tom's is trying to do here
Score
1
March 26, 2012 7:17:21 PM

Scotty99 said:
The only way to build a true budget PC nowadays is:

1. Buying CPU/motherboard from microcenter.
2. Reusing a HDD or getting one used.

Follow those two rules and you can build a true budget gaming PC.


Not completely true. While microcenter does have some exceptional deals, not everyone lives near a microcenter and some offers or prices can only be taken advantage of by "in-store only" promotions or pricing. By going through newegg.com they have a pretty universal outlet where anyone can go to get the parts to build a machine for themselves.

While higher than the previous budget machines, it still falls close to the more entry level price ranges where customers are wanting to get the best performance for their money for what they do.

So basically the summary should have read "A 6950 is overkill for an i3-2120"...

_Pez_ said:
well I said that a FX 6100 would do good in this type of rig but now i don't know... :/  check that link if you want...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-fx-812...


The December SBM used a FX-6100 in the $1200 pc and it failed miserably. The i5-2400 ran circles around it.

System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $1200 Enthusiast PC - Build

System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared - Comparison

Now if the FX-6100 can still fail with a bigger budget, how do you suppose it will pass with a smaller one?
Score
1
March 26, 2012 7:24:04 PM

/facedesk

Of course not everyone lives near one, my point is that if you dont, your SoL.
Score
-4
March 26, 2012 7:33:59 PM

Than saying that is the only way to build a true budget PC is a completely false and inaccurate statement. Saying that you could build a better budget PC if a Microcenter is near you would have been a much more accurate statement.

And while yes they do have some amazing deals on processors and some combos, other prices are actually worse once you figure in their outrageous taxes, and some are easier to find online for cheaper.

The best advantage that Microcenter has is their processor pricing and the fact that you can get it instantly after purchase.
Score
0
March 26, 2012 7:45:07 PM

You can get a z68 motherboard and a 2500k from microcenter for 235 bucks after tax, saving you $100 or more, that makes an ENORMOUS difference when we are talking about tight budgets.

My point is, dont attempt a budget rig at this point in time if you dont live near a microcenter, you will probably do better buying a prebuilt. (simply for the fact they include windows 7).

And this build he did is utter garbage, that case is disgusting as well as the motherboard. I could build a better one in 20 mins all from newegg for cheaper, with much higher quality components.

Score
-6
March 26, 2012 8:11:31 PM

Yes you can get these from Microcenter, but you can still build a budget PC that will perform better than a prebuilt without having to go to Microcenter to do it.

Most people on the budgets that are shown as the Entry Level gaming computers in the SBM aren't going to go for the i5-2500k/Z68 MB combo anyway as it will eat up roughly 1/2 the budget by the time you buy a decent Z68mb, CPU, and Heatsink (afterall anyone who owns one will be OC'ing the 2500k). Add in a decent GPU and your budget is nearly shot on 4 items alone, not including the case, PSU, optical, HD...

I agree the build wasn't optimized, but it wasn't completely garbage. Some better choices could have been made sure, but as far as the case goes, thats personal astetics.
Score
1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!