Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: System Value Compared

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Performance
  • Graphics
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 29, 2012 4:00:03 AM

Three different builders took two different approaches this quarter. Paul and Don struck out in search of more graphics performance, while Thomas gave up some GPU horsepower in favor of a stronger CPU. Whose strategy paid off? It's time to compare!

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: System Value Compared : Read more

More about : system builder marathon march 2012 system compared

March 29, 2012 4:40:03 AM

Looks like $650 PC can do almost everything smoothly ! Even most of the game can get over 40fps...
which is not bad... for Just $650 ...So the first piority for gaming PC is still the Video card!
Score
20
March 29, 2012 4:47:44 AM

nobody needs a $600 cpu
Score
-9
Related resources
March 29, 2012 4:49:20 AM

I always love seeing the System builder articles (even though I cant build one myself for now hahahaha).

Great as always. It sad that the Nvidia GTX 680 has yet to be considered due to availability and pricing issues hehehehe.

Score
0
March 29, 2012 4:59:17 AM

Translation: we don't actually stand behind any of these builds as being worthwhile to emulate.
Score
-12
March 29, 2012 5:22:15 AM

iamauserTranslation: we don't actually stand behind any of these builds as being worthwhile to emulate.
The $650 and $2600 PC builders loved their machines, it's just hard to recommend either of those to "everyone" or even "most people" since most of the readers really want $800-1200 machines.
Score
21
March 29, 2012 5:25:20 AM

CrashmanThe $650 and $2600 PC builders loved their machines, it's just hard to recommend either of those to "everyone" or even "most people" since most of the readers really want $800-1200 machines.

It's hard to recomend them because they just are not real good for the large outlay of cash as in the money could have been spent on better parts but instead was spent on "balancing" and pleasing the TH memebers.
Score
-13
March 29, 2012 5:30:43 AM

I'd love to build a PC with a beefy GPU someday.
But coming from a notebook background, I more or less have to start from scratch.

I can use my old mouse, and my TV as a monitor. But on top of the estimated build costs listed, I also need the OS, keyboard, and likely other misc. odds and ends.

$200 ($100 OEM) for Windows 7 is brutal.

I also don't want to waste time on a desktop that only has a GPU advantage over the notebook.
Desktop upgrades over even a mobile i7 is still pricey.

Since I know my 2720QM uses the same die as desktops; it'd be swell if I could just yank it out; plug it in a desktop board and call it a 2600k. In a desktop it wouldn't have to stay in a 45W TDP

But.. *sigh*.. the parts are locked, the sockets don't match; and a real life desktop carbon copy of my notebook is out of my budget atm.
--
If I could find a way to attach a 7870 to my notebook motherboard, I wouldn't have a problem with the frankenstein-ish creation.

The 6670 just doesn't cut it sometimes
Score
9
March 29, 2012 5:35:09 AM

Wave FusionI'd love to build a PC with a beefy GPU someday.But coming from a notebook background, I more or less have to start from scratch.I can use my old mouse, and my TV as a monitor. But on top of the estimated build costs listed, I also need the OS, keyboard, and likely other misc. odds and ends.$200 ($100 OEM) for Windows 7 is brutal. I also don't want to waste time on a desktop that only has a GPU advantage over the notebook.Desktop upgrades over even a mobile i7 is still pricey.Since I know my 2720QM uses the same die as desktops; it'd be swell if I could just yank it out; plug it in a desktop board and call it a 2600k. In a desktop it wouldn't have to stay in a 45W TDPBut.. *sigh*.. the parts are locked, the sockets don't match; and a real life desktop carbon copy of my notebook is out of my budget atm.--If I could find a way to attach a 7870 to my notebook motherboard, I wouldn't have a problem with the frankenstein-ish creation.The 6670 just doesn't cut it sometimes

Any Desktop CPU this side of C2Duo will substancially out perform any Laptop CPU
Score
-13
March 29, 2012 6:10:11 AM

MMO fanIt's hard to recomend them because they just are not real good for the large outlay of cash as in the money could have been spent on better parts but instead was spent on "balancing" and pleasing the TH memebers.
I'll explain this the way I did in your other $2600 PC comments. You're simply wrong. I can't help you understand why someone would want a PC that performs well in multiple areas. I can't help you understand why someone would want their PC to be quiet. I can't help you to understand why someone would want their PC to store more applications on the faster device. I can't help you to understand these things because you have already rejected them. Your prejudice excludes any "balanced" analysis.

But at least you're fairly nice about it.
Score
19
March 29, 2012 6:26:25 AM

CrashmanI'll explain this the way I did in your other $2600 PC comments. You're simply wrong. I can't help you understand why someone would want a PC that performs well in multiple areas. I can't help you understand why someone would want their PC to be quiet. I can't help you to understand why someone would want their PC to store more applications on the faster device. I can't help you to understand these things because you have already rejected them. Your prejudice excludes any "balanced" analysis.But at least you're fairly nice about it.

7970 is more than "well" it is the best of the best and Fractal Design Define R3 is $100 or some $30 less than the P280 and performance better these two points I made are just for starters. If you will I could go on and build a far better machine for $2600 but you seem to think this TH $2600 "performance" build is the best when it is far from it.
Score
-10
March 29, 2012 6:48:23 AM

MMO Fan said:
Any Desktop CPU this side of C2Duo will substancially out perform any Laptop CPU


You sure about that? That's a quad core Sandy Bridge CPU that can turbo up to 3.0GHz on all 4 cores...
It's roughly equivalent to the desktop i5 2300, a chip that stomps nearly everything available for socket 1156 (Excepting only the highest end Lynnfields) and even half of the lineup for 1366, let alone any older stuff.

Also, keep in mind that there is at least one cheap desktop CPU being sold today that a C2Duo will outperform.
The Celeron G440 is a 1.6GHz (ouch), single core (double ouch) Sandy Bridge derived chip.
My aging laptop's T7500 would eat that thing for lunch.


While desktop chips are certainly more powerful than laptop chips on average, saying that they are all better is a bit disingenuous. ;) 
Score
14
March 29, 2012 7:04:08 AM

Since the $1300 and $2600 systems have (essentially) the same video card spending the extra $600 on the cpu does absolutely nothing for gaming that is perceptively noticeable. When gpu bound they performed almost identically, with the $1300 O/C winning out with the better overclock.
When not graphics bound both cpus deliver framerates well above smooth(70+) in every title.

I was quite impressed with how much faster those 6 cores proved to be in the productivity segment. It's too bad we probably won't see 6 cores on the 1155 socket.
Score
3
March 29, 2012 7:16:07 AM

MMO fan7970 is more than "well" it is the best of the best and Fractal Design Define R3 is $100 or some $30 less than the P280 and performance better these two points I made are just for starters. If you will I could go on and build a far better machine for $2600 but you seem to think this TH $2600 "performance" build is the best when it is far from it.
You got me there, the Define R3 has similar performance for $30 less money and I chose the P280 instead. Perhaps USB 3.0 had something to do with it, or that I wanted a case with front panel ports accessible from the front. Or maybe I just thought it was too fat. Hmmm. But yeh, if I wanted to compromise on features and have a fatter case I could have saved $30.

And Fractal does have good quality, I've nothing against the company. We even used them in a couple of our past builds and look forward to working with them on an upcoming story.
Score
9
March 29, 2012 7:19:28 AM

If I were to build a $2600 machine for gaming, I'd go with i7 2700K and Z68 and use the saved cash for a second video card. 2x Radeon 7950 would certainly outperform a single Radeon 7970. And now we also "have" the option of GeForce GTX 680 (sans that little availability nuisance...).
Score
0
March 29, 2012 7:22:10 AM

I know Id be pretty happy with any of those. Thanks for the comparisons and the builds in general.
Score
6
March 29, 2012 8:12:56 AM

Minor typo in the "Benchmark And Overclock Settings" page. In the $1300 Enthusiast PC column it says it uses a Powercolor Radeon HD 6970 for it's graphics. It should be the Radeon HD 7970 right? Yeah yeah I know, minor details that don't bother anybody but me.

Anyways it's always fun to experiment in the SBM. Nice to see that gamble with the GPU in the $1300 payoff in gaming. Good stuff all around here. That chipset driver on the X79 though is somewhat worrying. Does it affect all SSD's? Although it doesn't affect me since the LGA 2011 platform is way out of my league...
Score
2
Anonymous
March 29, 2012 8:15:33 AM

Thanks for doing something different, Don. Continue the good work!
I think that the $2600 build is a really intelligent and elegant solution, and furthermore, I think we should be all looking forward to June build with hopefully Ivy Bridge and more 28nm solutions at better prices!!
Score
2
March 29, 2012 8:17:16 AM

weatherdudeMinor typo in the "Benchmark And Overclock Settings" page. In the $1300 Enthusiast PC column it says it uses a Powercolor Radeon HD 6970 for it's graphics. It should be the Radeon HD 7970 right?
Fixed, thanks!
Score
1
March 29, 2012 9:20:33 AM

good builds, nice articles as usual.
i think i am the only one who's a bit bored because of the absence of an amd cpu in one of the builds. last quarter was very interesting with the $1200 pc's performance. i actually liked how the current $1250 pc's i5 2400 (4 core) kept up with last quarter's fx 6100 (6 cores) in productivity and apps and outperformed it despite it's hardware issues.
this quarter it's just intel vs intel vs intel. cpus are less priority in gaming but higher priority in productivity and performance in apps which $1200 and $2500~ builds seem to focus on. i am just nitpicking because i don't find anything wrong with any of the builds. i am more or less okay with the part choices except the asrock p67 motherboard.
i found the comments various people made on gtx 680 hilarious.
Score
7
March 29, 2012 9:26:29 AM

Even though I don't agree with every choice of components or how they're put to use (maybe a ramdisk for the 2600$ could have been fun to create) I do believe that no reader expects the builders to be all knowing and impartial when they pick their parts. We all have different esthetic tastes and prioritize functionality points on a case by case situation. That being said, looking forward to the next SBM, hope you guys deliver something crazy and don't play it safe :) 
Score
1
March 29, 2012 9:40:05 AM

I have a suggestion, how about adding a mini itx build and/or a htpc build? There's options to make both of those relatively powerful computers if you need it focused on that.
Score
6
March 29, 2012 12:32:18 PM

grumbledook said:
I have a suggestion, how about adding a mini itx build and/or a htpc build? There's options to make both of those relatively powerful computers if you need it focused on that.

Or, perhaps better still, bring back the Intel vs. AMD budget/HTPC articles. :) 
Score
2
March 29, 2012 12:51:47 PM

I think a lot of people start with a base configuration similar to the $650 machine (or to a base $500 machine), and increase spending on various parts in order to make the PC more like the $1250 PC, or even the $2600 PC; where they spend being influenced by their specific goals. By the time they get up to $1200-$1300, they're probably fairly happy with their results.
Any assertion that any PC with a HD7970 is a hardcore gamer is gibberish. A few years back, people were building quad Crossfire HD5870 or HD5830 PCs with Sempron or Celeron processors (why those cards got hard to find). They weren't gamers, at all, but bitcoin miners hoping to cash in when bitcoins were trading around $18 or more. Many of these people paid for their GPUs in weeks or months. There are countless other GPGPU functions that require powerful GPUs, on PCs that may never have a single game loaded on them.
...which brings up a weakness of the value analysis. If the $2600 PC can accomplish one more unit of paying work in a week (or a day, or an hour), it may very well pay for itself many times over. That's what makes such a PC a professional's tool, not just a gamer. When the measure is in dollars earned rather than just FPS, the value analysis needs to change. I'm not faulting the conclusion in today's SBM article, just pointing out that it only applies to gaming value.
Another issue is one of less definable constraints that cannot be measured easily. Space (and/or weight) and power can have tight budgets as well, one's wife or mom may impose aesthetic requirements (e.g. no glaring lights), and Dad may not want the roar of fans.
In particular, I like grumbledook's idea for mini-ITX. No, you're not going to compare it to a full tower ATX for raw power, but you can see how well it handles tasks for which it is intended, and ten to one I'll bet you can indeed get very good gaming performance out of it.
Score
4
March 29, 2012 12:54:42 PM

Great read, really looking forward to the ivy bridge systems!
Score
3
March 29, 2012 2:52:12 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but does the P67 chipset allow for the use of the dedicated codec hardware on Intel's CPUs? I thought you had to use either the lower-end chipset that includes video out, or a Z68. If this is accurate, then Don's MB selection also hampers the performance and feature set of the system as far as video enc/dec and other tasks are concerned. I know that the 7970 can offload the CPU in theory... but it does not necessarily do so any faster, nor with as little power consumption or image quality, as Intel's implementation. I don't know whether image quality is equal or better with 7970-assisted video processing vs. the on-die Intel codec. I also dont' know whether power consumption would be higher or lower (probably higher...), and finally I don't know what will happen if/when AMD enabled their own on-GPU codec chip. But unless the 7970 can equal or better the power/performance/quality of the Intel codec, then that at least is a meaningful loss caused by the MB selection.
Score
1
March 29, 2012 3:31:06 PM

De5_roygood builds, nice articles as usual.i think i am the only one who's a bit bored because of the absence of an amd cpu in one of the builds. last quarter was very interesting with the $1200 pc's performance. i actually liked how the current $1250 pc's i5 2400 (4 core) kept up with last quarter's fx 6100 (6 cores) in productivity and apps and outperformed it despite it's hardware issues.this quarter it's just intel vs intel vs intel. cpus are less priority in gaming but higher priority in productivity and performance in apps which $1200 and $2500~ builds seem to focus on. i am just nitpicking because i don't find anything wrong with any of the builds. i am more or less okay with the part choices except the asrock p67 motherboard.i found the comments various people made on gtx 680 hilarious.


The boring part for me is the AMD CPU, and including a part that obviously won't perform as well, dollar for dollar or top end either one, would be pointless to me.

Doubly so because Tomshardware has done plenty of recent builds to show how much AMD's offerings bottleneck performance, so it''s not like the issue hasn't been addressed. I don't see why they have to do an AMD build every quarter to show what they've already shown (and is backed up by every other hardware review site out there).

;) 
Score
4
March 29, 2012 3:35:57 PM

As I mentioned in my comment on the $650 PC article (that didn't make it to the comments section), the problem with series has been outlined here. It is true that most want ~$1k machines. Therefore, provide them what they want. The article series should have 4 PC's instead of 3. 1 at $500, 1 at $1k, 1 at $1.5k (the other frequently requested cost of a machine), then... lastly... a $2k+ build for those that want and can afford a PC with everything. (Silence, looks, consumer workstation workload capability, and gaming performance.)

The $500 machine would be the entry gamer machine, the $1k the low end enthusiast, the $1.5k the high end enthusiast, and the $2k+ for those with the cash to spend.
Score
0
March 29, 2012 4:20:57 PM

grumbledookI have a suggestion, how about adding a mini itx build and/or a htpc build? There's options to make both of those relatively powerful computers if you need it focused on that.

I've been wanting to do a mini itx gaming build for 6 months now, but it would probably require a complete round of rigs based on portability (like we did a couple years ago). Actually even have wishlists created for two such systems, including an older $650 version, and a more recently updated $525 version. Both were housed within Silverstone's Sugo SG05 (with either 300W, or 450W version depending on the GPU). Case & mobo ate up a good portion of the budget, so such a build would not match the bang of the past two gaming rigs. (i5-2400+ HD 6870) & (i3-2120 + HD 6950)

Anyway, if enough reader's show interest, it may steer one quarter that direction.
Score
4
March 29, 2012 4:21:50 PM

I'd like to see micro ATX cases/builds or smaller
Score
0
March 29, 2012 4:42:26 PM

confish21Great read

Agreed. Sums it up well: two game-focused machines that required sacrifices for their target settings vs. one impressive Jack-of-all-trades that really made no sacrifices (within it's intended purpose). Nice work Thomas!

Also, I'm appreciating the contructive comments from those who read through the series. Many thanks!
Score
1
March 29, 2012 5:49:25 PM

Some of Lian Li's mini-ITX cases impose the least restrictions on space. I wouldn't hesitate to build another rig in a PC-Q08.
Score
0
March 29, 2012 6:00:14 PM

I don't understand the need for such a large SSD, 16GB of RAM, and even a Seasonic brand PSU if you're capped to $2600 and have to sacrifice Crossfire. A larger SSD provides a negligible performance boost over a smaller one, and not in gaming. 16GB of RAM is usually useless in gaming, and Seasonic improves the quality and prolongs the life of the system, but isn't necessary for a performance boost. I realize it's not ALL about gaming, but a lot of it is, and the builder seemed genuinely frustrated by having to go with a single GPU.

I don't get it. Someone please enlighten me.
Score
0
March 29, 2012 6:14:38 PM

jtt, nice choice. I like their use of a standard 5.25" bay and ATX PSU. Apart from the fanless Q07, they are probably a bit pricey for the budget build.

Gaming centered minimum thought for me would be G540+ HD 6790. Would be nice to bump both those up a bit, maybe SB Pentium + Hd 6870/GTX 560 if possible.

Looks wise, something fitting for the living room (near the bigscreen), plus able to be carted about if/when the desire arises.
Score
2
March 29, 2012 6:47:33 PM

terr281As I mentioned in my comment on the $650 PC article (that didn't make it to the comments section), the problem with series has been outlined here. It is true that most want ~$1k machines. Therefore, provide them what they want. The article series should have 4 PC's instead of 3. 1 at $500, 1 at $1k, 1 at $1.5k (the other frequently requested cost of a machine), then... lastly... a $2k+ build for those that want and can afford a PC with everything. (Silence, looks, consumer workstation workload capability, and gaming performance.)The $500 machine would be the entry gamer machine, the $1k the low end enthusiast, the $1.5k the high end enthusiast, and the $2k+ for those with the cash to spend.

I think you just want more chances to win a PC. ;) 
Score
3
March 29, 2012 6:48:08 PM

Quote:
Intel’s enterprise-oriented RST drive slowed performance so much that we reverted to Windows 7’s default AHCI driver for the overclocked test.


Can someone elaborate more on this issue?

Is it the X79 chipset specific, iRST software, or just the chipset drivers: Intel INF 9.2.0.1030.

Could this effect my Z68 mobo, if I have that INF version? I think not, as they mentioned you "rolled back to Z68 drivers."
Score
0
March 29, 2012 7:17:50 PM

Again, nice Article and it is very appreciated! :) 

So to sum it up -- you get what you pay for.

The folks that are suggesting or out right saying the i7-3930K (SB-E) is a waste or the frame rates don't really matter -- I say try your rig on three monitors 5900 x 1080 look at those frame rates -- next turn-on 3D and watch those frame rates drop by half! A few FPS makes the difference between playable and not.

Further, I use my PC for a little more than only gaming, and my time is extremely valuable. If the SB-E can cut 10~20+ minutes off a SQL test, multiply that by a few hundred or more then that's a big honking about of time; time = money. The SB-E pays for itself over and over.

I still disagree and so would ASUS with the SB-E OC methodology, it's your CPU. Also, properly installing the Intel RST Enterprise divers (F6) and using Intel's latest drivers does make a huge difference.
Score
2
March 29, 2012 7:25:54 PM

pauldhjtt, nice choice. I like their use of a standard 5.25" bay and ATX PSU. Apart from the fanless Q07, they are probably a bit pricey for the budget build.Gaming centered minimum thought for me would be G540+ HD 6790. Would be nice to bump both those up a bit, maybe SB Pentium + Hd 6870/GTX 560 if possible. Looks wise, something fitting for the living room (near the bigscreen), plus able to be carted about if/when the desire arises.


On the G540 + 6790 comment.
I have a G530 + 6790 as a secondary cheap build for my GF using left over parts. It performs very well surprisingly in games but kind of lacks in anything demanding. Overall for most games it does well enough. :) 
Score
0
March 29, 2012 7:56:40 PM

I still think you should have a real "Budget" gaming build at $500, FIRM! This would force the builder to make hard choices to make the budget, thus selecting quality products for less. I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a decent gaming system for $500.

Most people looking to get a budget gaming system also have to worry about the OS (~$100), monitor (~100-150), & keyboard and mouse (~30-75). This would make the budget gaming machine close to ~$800 for the full setup (which is close to where most people are willing to spend for their budget). Yes the $150 more than the $500 budget is probably worth it, but most people don't have the luxury of the added budget.
Score
3
March 29, 2012 7:58:44 PM

pauldhI've been wanting to do a mini itx gaming build for 6 months now, but it would probably require a complete round of rigs based on portability (like we did a couple years ago). Actually even have wishlists created for two such systems, including an older $650 version, and a more recently updated $525 version. Both were housed within Silverstone's Sugo SG05 (with either 300W, or 450W version depending on the GPU). Case & mobo ate up a good portion of the budget, so such a build would not match the bang of the past two gaming rigs. (i5-2400+ HD 6870) & (i3-2120 + HD 6950)Anyway, if enough reader's show interest, it may steer one quarter that direction.


Glad to hear you've thought about it. If it does happen it will be interesting to see just how much performance dip you need to take for it compared to the other systems.
Score
1
March 29, 2012 8:21:14 PM

grumbledookI have a suggestion, how about adding a mini itx build and/or a htpc build? There's options to make both of those relatively powerful computers if you need it focused on that.

I'd love to see an HTPC build. Maybe not in the SBM, but as a separate article even. I think a lot more people are building HTPCs now, so it should be interesting for a lot of people.
Score
2
March 29, 2012 8:30:28 PM

nice reading and all but i gotta ask bout which goal was set when he builed the 2600$ pc?

if were for gamming it is and epic fail i gotta say: less ram, less ssd, less glittering case, may be keeping the cpu cooler? more powerful psu, crossfire or sli, may be not the blu ray drive in favour for a dvd ram unit which i think its not needed since ur spening 2600$ after all.

what im trying to say its just that the focus on the hihger tier pc is somewhat cloudy if it is for gamming thats all, in any case it is a nice powerful pc good for all and good enough for gamming

remember that with every gamming pc comes sacrifices xD
Score
-4
March 29, 2012 9:15:59 PM

lunyoneI still think you should have a real "Budget" gaming build at $500, FIRM! This would force the builder to make hard choices to make the budget, thus selecting quality products for less. I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a decent gaming system for $500.Most people looking to get a budget gaming system also have to worry about the OS (~$100), monitor (~100-150), & keyboard and mouse (~30-75). This would make the budget gaming machine close to ~$800 for the full setup (which is close to where most people are willing to spend for their budget). Yes the $150 more than the $500 budget is probably worth it, but most people don't have the luxury of the added budget.

I think the hard drive price rise killed the $500 gaming PC for a while. A year ago I was buying 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3s for $50. They went up to $160 in January. Now they have come down a bit in price but are not even close to the $50 I was seeing in 2011.
Score
2
March 29, 2012 9:24:27 PM

I really like the $650 and $1300 builds, but I have to say.... That sandy bridge-e cpu in the $2600 build was a total waste. I know you have been using socket 1155 for your top-end builds for a while now and you wanted to change things up a bit. I understand that. But you had to know that thing was going to jump off a cliff when it came time to campare it's value!!! Here is an interesting thought..... Use an i5 2500k or 2400 and use a pair of hd 7970's, get the build to around $2000 and then re-compare the value against the $1300 and $650 and 2600$ rigs... It wont do as well in productivity, but it might score the highest 3dmark11 score of any SBM!!!!!
Score
-2
March 29, 2012 9:27:43 PM

Zoroastronice reading and all but i gotta ask bout which goal was set when he builed the 2600$ pc?if were for gamming it is and epic fail i gotta say: less ram, less ssd, less glittering case, may be keeping the cpu cooler? more powerful psu, crossfire or sli, may be not the blu ray drive in favour for a dvd ram unit which i think its not needed since ur spening 2600$ after all.what im trying to say its just that the focus on the hihger tier pc is somewhat cloudy if it is for gamming thats all, in any case it is a nice powerful pc good for all and good enough for gammingremember that with every gamming pc comes sacrifices xD

The $650 and $1250 PC were built specifically for gaming, targeting realistic resolutions rather than over-inflated framerates at rather meaningless (low) CPU-limited settings.

Summarized from that article: the $2600 PC was meant to do all things well, 1) performance in a new more CPU-heavy test suite (where only 30% is gaming), and 2) perceived quality (case aethetics and acccoustics, Blu-ray, large SSD program drive, etc).

Many folks who can afford such a system, are after the complete package, not just gaming performance. A dream system requires a larger budget, which this one could pretty much become just by adding another HD 7970 and maybe another identical HDD (RAID).
Score
3
March 29, 2012 9:35:27 PM

Zoroastronice reading and all but i gotta ask bout which goal was set when he builed the 2600$ pc?
The performance goal? Look at the benchmark set.

It could have been a crappy $2320 system with similar performance and a cheap case, cheap optical drive, cheap CPU cooler, and 128GB SSD. But I contend that anyone who drops $2300 on a PC would also want the quality and features of those parts to represent their high-priced build.
Score
6
March 29, 2012 9:49:54 PM

iamauserTranslation: we don't actually stand behind any of these builds as being worthwhile to emulate.


There is no such thing as "one size fits all".
Score
2
March 30, 2012 12:31:32 AM

ringzero said:
I don't understand the need for such a large SSD, 16GB of RAM, and even a Seasonic brand PSU if you're capped to $2600 and have to sacrifice Crossfire. A larger SSD provides a negligible performance boost over a smaller one, and not in gaming. 16GB of RAM is usually useless in gaming, and Seasonic improves the quality and prolongs the life of the system, but isn't necessary for a performance boost. I realize it's not ALL about gaming, but a lot of it is, and the builder seemed genuinely frustrated by having to go with a single GPU.

I don't get it. Someone please enlighten me.

I'll counter by saying I don't understand the need for Crossfire/SLI when you're already pushing 100 fps. Care to enlighten me?

And if you're paying that much for a CPU, chances are high you'll be doing more demanding things with it than gaming, things which are generally very RAM hungry, so that answers another of your questions.

As for the SSD, actually larger ones tend to have notably faster write speeds compared to smaller ones. And apart from faster writing speeds, the larger SSD allows ( duh ) more storage. But maybe you enjoy shuffling your currently installed games around ( and we all know what a picnic installing and uninstalling can be with current DRM methods. ) But even if you don't fill it up, the SSD provides an extremely fast scratch disk for that other demanding software you'll be running outside of games.

And, yeah, who wants a long-term reliable PSU for this thing? I mean, if you're throwing around this much money, surely you don't need high efficiency, right? And who cares if the PSU burns out and fries your rig, you've got more than enough money to buy another, right? Here's a performance boost tip: an operational computer performs infinitely better than a non-operational one.

Crashman said:
But I contend that anyone who drops $2300 on a PC would also want the quality and features of those parts to represent their high-priced build.
Indubitably, good sir! I would hazard a guess that many people do the same at the $1200 bracket too. Sacrifice a bit on the GPU and perhaps the mboard to get a better case, a few accessories, and the numerous little things that make you proud to have built the machine.
Score
3
March 30, 2012 12:48:59 AM

^+1. The last few PCs I've built for myself have all had something about them that pleased me beyond the mechanics of mere performance; maybe the Signature PSU in one, or the Sabertooth mobo in another. Those little 5-1/4" bay drawers don't do jack for FPS, but they're certainly useful. RAID-1 won't show up in benchmarks (and is no excuse not to do backups), but my data is safer; etc...
Score
0
March 30, 2012 2:18:53 AM

pauldhI've been wanting to do a mini itx gaming build for 6 months now, but it would probably require a complete round of rigs based on portability (like we did a couple years ago). Actually even have wishlists created for two such systems, including an older $650 version, and a more recently updated $525 version. Both were housed within Silverstone's Sugo SG05 (with either 300W, or 450W version depending on the GPU). Case & mobo ate up a good portion of the budget, so such a build would not match the bang of the past two gaming rigs. (i5-2400+ HD 6870) & (i3-2120 + HD 6950)Anyway, if enough reader's show interest, it may steer one quarter that direction.


+1 on itx build marathon
... or at least another mATX run if the case+mobo+psu will cause the budget build to rely on onboard graphics

heck! the Llanos pack some 'decent' integrated graphics nowadays, mini itx might still be feasible at $500-650
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!