Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon Bonus: Newegg Customer Choice PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Components
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 30, 2012 4:00:03 AM

We've shown you our three System Builder Marathon picks. Now it's time for something new. Using Newegg's user ratings as a guide, we picked the site's most celebrated components, built a PC, and overclocked it. Can this "Customer Choice" setup compete?

System Builder Marathon Bonus: Newegg Customer Choice PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon bonus newegg customer choice

March 30, 2012 4:38:27 AM

Nice, but would have been better with 2 x 6970 2 GB or 2 x 6950 2 GB unlocked to 6970.
Score
-10
March 30, 2012 4:47:50 AM

Is it sad I liked this build the best out of them all?
Score
19
Related resources
March 30, 2012 4:49:01 AM

Interesting, still not surprising given recent results in group dynamic studies. Groups will often make better choices than individuals, that's not to say a group can replace or perform on par with an expert individual, just better than the average.
Score
12
March 30, 2012 4:57:06 AM

Just saying, Asrock Extreme3 Gen3 Z68 would save some and not bad rated. Could go for something like the OCZ ZT 750w which also is solidly rated, both saving money and offering similar if not better performance. For the GPUs, probably would've been better just to go with 2x7850 just to see how it does after all I haven't seen a whole bunch of those benchmarks.

Understood that this is best on best rated components, just saying it would've been nice to see the ones I mentioned for a value build.
Score
-1
March 30, 2012 4:58:24 AM

mikenygmailNice, but would have been better with 2 x 6970 2 GB or 2 x 6950 2 GB unlocked to 6970.


Yeah that was what I was thinking, if you have a 2560x1600 monitor then the 2 6950s wont see that performance hit at that res like the 560ti's do. And would outperform the 7970 as a result while still costing enough less to move up to that 2500k.

When I can drop $1300 for a Dell U3011 or HP ZR30w I doubt I would be pairing it with a $1300 PC, so I wonder if its even necessary for a mid range build as how often are you really going to find that pairing. Though hopefully soon Apple is going to push the LCD makers kicking and screaming into the 4k and 8k display era!


Score
3
March 30, 2012 5:13:04 AM

Wow: And here I was thinkin' "maybe the SBM should work like the monthly Best X articals, where it's not anchored to a price point".

Drunk Min's t'ink alac, and all that.
Score
-2
March 30, 2012 5:19:46 AM

"...with none of the compromises that plagued Don't maligned build"

Last page. Should be "Don's" but "Don't" works good enough :p 

Definitely would have loved to see a pair of 2GB cards duke it out though. The base system called for it (nearly). Take the price from the hide of the mobo.
Score
1
March 30, 2012 5:23:04 AM

Not a bad system at all. Im just waiting for people to start whining about 680s like in the other builds.
Score
6
March 30, 2012 5:23:52 AM

mikenygmailNice, but would have been better with 2 x 6970 2 GB or 2 x 6950 2 GB unlocked to 6970.
Better choices outside of "consumer choice" are irrelevant to a "consumer choice" selection.
a4mulaInteresting, still not surprising given recent results in group dynamic studies. Groups will often make better choices than individuals, that's not to say a group can replace or perform on par with an expert individual, just better than the average.
Yes, the motherboard could have been better AND cheaper if not for the fact that it was picked by the group rather than an expert individual, but the complete unit was still acceptable.
aznshinobiJust saying, Asrock Extreme3 Gen3 Z68 would save some and not bad rated. Could go for something like the OCZ ZT 750w which also is solidly rated, both saving money and offering similar if not better performance. For the GPUs, probably would've been better just to go with 2x7850 just to see how it does after all I haven't seen a whole bunch of those benchmarks.Understood that this is best on best rated components, just saying it would've been nice to see the ones I mentioned for a value build.
Right, part choices were limited to the top two rated parts, based on which of the top two customer rated parts most closely matched the rest of the system.
DarkersonNot a bad system at all. Im just waiting for people to start whining about 680s like in the other builds.
LOL, I'm waiting for a stream of "Why didn't YOU pick THIS" when Newegg Customers were the pickers and the "THIS" they're screaming about doesn't even have a customer rating :) 
Score
20
March 30, 2012 5:27:38 AM

Im sure it will be inevitable. ;) 


Stupid TomsHardware, Y U NO PICK MY PARTS! :p 

Edit: Obvious sarcasm is obvious. Ah well, Ill take this as all the non article reading 680 noobs being offended. I dont care.
Score
4
March 30, 2012 6:35:03 AM

So in the table under software for the $1300 PC you put "Nvidia GeForce 285.62" for the graphics driver. I'm hoping that's a mistake because you have a 7970 installed! :p 
Score
4
March 30, 2012 6:46:38 AM

Nice article. I personally prefer Don's build over this one since he focused more on gaming(without relying to multi-gpu setups) and his build had better efficiency although this one has a better power supply, better case, cpu cooler and a higher capacity ssd.

To me, multi-gpu setups are just a cheaper alternative to get better performance but introduce many issues that Tom's Hardware always states(micro-stuttering, heat, power and scaling), it's definitely better to get a more powerful single card. Not to mention the 560ti in this build only has a 1GB of framebuffer, which is only enough for max details at 1920x1080/1920x1200 but once your target is 2560x1600 or triple monitor gaming, it fails just as shown in the article.

For most gamers out there, a 64GB ssd is probably enough for windows and programs, and let's face it, loading time doesn't dramatically decrease when you install your games on an ssd. Yes, they do loads faster but definitely not enough to justify paying more just for games. If you want it to load faster, caching using intel SRT on the Z68 platform is the better choice.

Overall, I agree with the last statement on the article, "the customers are mostly right".
Score
4
March 30, 2012 6:55:13 AM

I'd be really curious to know if and how much better a pair of GTX 560 Ti 2GBs would have done in this comparison.

That's one thing I haven't really stumbled across yet is a good test for how a pair of GTX 560 Ti 1GB cards compare to the 2GB cards. Has anyone done a test like that?
Score
8
March 30, 2012 6:55:41 AM

@EzioAs " Yes, they do loads faster but definitely not enough to justify paying more just for games" . Are you f*cking serious ?
Load times half with using my SSD , how about 1 minute waiting in Dragon Age halved to 30 seconds ? , how about instant loading of application , how about INSTANT alt tabbing though the games .. come on man , don't speak if you don't have a SSD ( or have money for it ) . 64G SSD are CHEAP , and anyone who has a salary can afford them.
Score
-4
March 30, 2012 7:10:30 AM

executor2 said:
@EzioAs " Yes, they do loads faster but definitely not enough to justify paying more just for games" . Are you f*cking serious ?
Load times half with using my SSD , how about 1 minute waiting in Dragon Age halved to 30 seconds ? , how about instant loading of application , how about INSTANT alt tabbing though the games .. come on man , don't speak if you don't have a SSD ( or have money for it ) . 64G SSD are CHEAP , and anyone who has a salary can afford them.


No need to be rude, but seriously, it depends on the game. Some loads faster quite significantly, but other don't and for a gaming oriented system, SSDs are very optional. Maybe you don't fully understand what I posted before, but I did say 64GB is enough for gamers, not games. What I meant is the required capacity for the OS and other programs but with only 64GB, it's probably only enough to install 1-2 modern games depending on the size. Games can still be installed on the hard drive and on the Z68 platform, you can use Intel SRT to use the ssd as a cache for the hard drive. That way, your most commonly used programs or games still has the quick responsiveness as when you used an ssd.

I stand by on what I said before and I apologize if I offend you in any way
Score
6
March 30, 2012 7:14:46 AM

lightbulbsocketI'd be really curious to know if and how much better a pair of GTX 560 Ti 2GBs would have done in this comparison.That's one thing I haven't really stumbled across yet is a good test for how a pair of GTX 560 Ti 1GB cards compare to the 2GB cards. Has anyone done a test like that?
It might have also been interesting to compared only #1 picks rather than #1 and #2 combined. A pair of GTX 550's, 64 GB SSD and only 4GB of RAM? Probably only the games would suffer.
Score
5
March 30, 2012 7:59:56 AM

Great idea. nice looking build too, seems the community go for the flashiest rather than always the best performer.
Score
2
March 30, 2012 9:51:00 AM

this is a great PC! I'd rather have a 7950 but thats just me.
Score
3
March 30, 2012 11:45:44 AM

It's worth pointing out that customers will factor in things that don't show up in benchmarks - for instance, the reliability of Intel motherboards or EVGA's customer service. Not to say the other PC's parts are sold by crappy vendors, but pure performance isn't necessarily the whole story of this PC.
Score
9
March 30, 2012 12:02:50 PM

Ok, but when Don RMA's his mobo and gets one back that works, he gets a "do-over." After all, the value comparison piece did mention that would be done before the parts were sent to the winners, so obviously it will need to be tested. While this "do-over" may not merit a whole benchmark article, I would definitely appreciate a short one calling out the performance differences.
It looks to me like overall, Don's PC wins. At lower resolutions and/or settings, the CC PC has higher FPS, but both have FPS sufficiently high as to not matter. Now look at where the CC PC fails, such as BF3 on Ultra. FPS in the teens is not playable, but Don's PC is merrily fragging along, over 40FPS even at stock. And, Don's PC uses a lot less power doing it.
Where Don's PC fails though is that miserable Apevia case; I don't want "that" under my desk. My 12-yr old nephew would probably love it, but it just isn't for me.
Score
6
March 30, 2012 12:10:47 PM

jtt283Ok, but when Don RMA's his mobo and gets one back that works, he gets a "do-over." After all, the value comparison piece did mention that would be done before the parts were sent to the winners, so obviously it will need to be tested. While this "do-over" may not merit a whole benchmark article, I would definitely appreciate a short one calling out the performance differences.It looks to me like overall, Don's PC wins. At lower resolutions and/or settings, the CC PC has higher FPS, but both have FPS sufficiently high as to not matter. Now look at where the CC PC fails, such as BF3 on Ultra. FPS in the teens is not playable, but Don's PC is merrily fragging along, over 40FPS even at stock. And, Don's PC uses a lot less power doing it.Where Don's PC fails though is that miserable Apevia case; I don't want "that" under my desk. My 12-yr old nephew would probably love it, but it just isn't for me.
The only things wrong with Don's PC are its junk case, junk motherboard, locked CPU, too-small SSD, and read-only optical drive. That's over half the system, you'd be better off putting his graphics card into this one.

Note: Written from the perspective of a motherboard, case and optical drive reviewer.
Score
4
March 30, 2012 12:39:37 PM

Great build! I learn so much by these builds and comments its just ridiculous. Thanks for pointing out that the high resolution drops were caused by a lack of ram.
Really looking forward to Ivy Bridge builds this summer too.
Score
5
March 30, 2012 12:39:53 PM

Finally some Nvidia cards get to show their power in the marathon...... :) 
Score
-1
March 30, 2012 1:05:49 PM

Great write up. I know the GTX680 just barley came out, but it would've been nice to see it in the build for 2 reasons. I know its just a tad bit more expensive but it has more available on board video memory to support the ultra settings in BF3, and with the use of just one card you bring down your power usage and heat production.
Score
-10
March 30, 2012 1:06:10 PM

It is hardly surprising that ultra high resolutions are bottlenecked by available GPU RAM. The question that it leads to is at what point is there a diminishing return on extra video RAM? How about a comparison between 1.25 GB VRAM and 1.5 GB VRAM, and 2.0 GB VRAM? Would dual GTX470s in SLI compete with a GTX 680, or, alternatively, dual GTX 570s? Do todays games give the 7970 an edge over the GTX 680 in surround set ups?
Score
2
March 30, 2012 1:11:43 PM

I liked this article. Its interesting to see how systems with top rated parts are built. You guys should do 2 articles - one for AMD and one for Intel and compare the price/performance chart on those based on consumer ratings. I would think that would be interesting to see.
Score
1
March 30, 2012 1:15:02 PM

I'd be interested in seeing how efficient the 7850 and 7870 would be in Cross Fire, compared to the previous gen cards. Though to be honest, i'd rather wait for that review once the GTX 660 and 660 Ti come out.
Score
2
March 30, 2012 1:35:10 PM

The only thing that the SBM pc suffered from was a weaker CPU. That would have definitely nailed it!
Score
0
March 30, 2012 1:36:47 PM

modena1230 said:
Great write up. I know the GTX680 just barley came out, but it would've been nice to see it in the build for 2 reasons. I know its just a tad bit more expensive but it has more available on board video memory to support the ultra settings in BF3, and with the use of just one card you bring down your power usage and heat production.

You do realize that this was picked by the most popular choices from newegg.com and that the GTX680 was not out nor voted on by newegg customers when the parts were ordered for this build.

Seriously I wish people would actually pay attention and stop suggesting things that were not even out at the time of the build. You will almost guarenteed see a GTX680 in the June SBM because they will be available by then, but they were not available almost 2 months ago when the purchases for these builds were made

STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Score
6
March 30, 2012 1:37:18 PM

CrashmanThe only things wrong with Don's PC are its junk case, junk motherboard, locked CPU, too-small SSD, and read-only optical drive. That's over half the system, you'd be better off putting his graphics card into this one.Note: Written from the perspective of a motherboard, case and optical drive reviewer.

I agree the case is junk. I'm willing to accept it as an experiment though; the results are in, and it's a FAIL, although it won't put other parts at risk like one of their PSUs would. If selecting this case was to learn a lesson, I'd say it was successful, so you can ease up on him (assuming he NEVER does it again!)
On the mobo, it looks like he just got a bad one. It's a puzzling choice, with SRT-offering Z68 for a similar price, but USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s are both there, so I'm not sure what it's missing that really matters. I wouldn't buy this board, but "junk" is way too harsh.
The locked CPU is purely personal preference. Not everyone overclocks. This PCs performance was not a failure by any stretch. Even though I prefer [mild] OCs myself, if this CPU freed up money for the HD7970, I think it was the right choice.
I'm inclined to agree about the SSD being a little small. I would have preferred to see it used for SRT.
I definitely agree about the optical drive; it was a baffling choice, a capability loss in no way worth the few dollars saved. Perhaps Don's focus was a little too tight, on pure gaming, and he let it work him into a corner. Giving up the $20 cooler would have brought the budget back into line and allowed for write capability on the ODD. Maybe you all should let him (make him?) do the $500 gamer next time.
Score
4
March 30, 2012 1:46:42 PM

Whoa, unexpected treat. Thanks guys! These are the kinds of articles that I keep coming back for. I love your comparisons and testing methods, and I consider your results when I build computers for my friends. I am a reader for life.
Score
3
March 30, 2012 2:22:30 PM

You need to check your math... you only accounted for the price of 1 EVGA card...your actual price is $1937.00
Score
-9
March 30, 2012 2:31:42 PM

ditt44You need to check your math... you only accounted for the price of 1 EVGA card...your actual price is $1937.00



^^ Epic Fail... Since when does a 560Ti cost $460?? ::Face Palm:: Some of you people on here really make me wonder about where the human race is going... Idiocracy FTW!
Score
6
March 30, 2012 2:31:57 PM

Great article. I loved seeing how the crowd-sourced PC takes a value win over the hand-picked expert build even if this build did cost more.

This was by far the most interesting SBM addition I have seen.

Maybe next quarter you can do your crowd sourcing in the forums (with appropriate front-page splash for attention). I am sure the debate would be passionate and vicious. Give the forum members a similar budget and see if they can top the Newegg build.
Score
0
March 30, 2012 2:36:04 PM

This was unexpected, and pretty cool (save for the MB). Thanks Tom's Hardware!
Score
0
March 30, 2012 2:52:04 PM

Going with a single 560ti would have dropped the price of this system down to Don's range, and should have given Don a much needed ego boost. Probably want a small bump to a 2gig 560ti in that case.
Score
2
March 30, 2012 2:56:40 PM

A lot of people read the articles, but it seems many fail to comprehend what the articles are about... ugh.

Fun write-up to read.
Score
3
March 30, 2012 3:00:30 PM

jtt283The locked CPU is purely personal preference. Not everyone overclocks. This PCs performance was not a failure by any stretch. Even though I prefer [mild] OCs myself, if this CPU freed up money for the HD7970, I think it was the right choice.

Agreed. Don even anticipated four (Sandy Bridge) cores @ 3.8 GHz, which IMO is plenty for any gaming rig. I understand how this choice isn't building "to win" the SBM, but otherwise I agree with the choice for it's intended purpose.

We all know the same ole unlocked 2500K is the better (enthusiast's) CPU, but that doesn't necessarily make it the better buy for all people. For gaming, a stock i5-2400 offer's yesterday's (last gens) "high-end" gaming performance.

*edit*- coming from the guy who's been most screwed by the locking of these second-gen processors. ;) 


Score
2
March 30, 2012 3:03:34 PM

Again, nice build and thanks for the time to put together all of these Builds and run all of those 'fun' to do Benchmarks! :) 

While I 'get' Top Rated the fundamental Problem is skewing the rating by price, shelf age, etc of the components. Meaning more (stars) isn't necessary or even a real factor of what's good. More often than not, the ratings means the component(s) are cheap but work per class.

Example, GTX 560 Ti comes in two primary flavors, 448 CUDA Cores which is capable of >2-WAY SLI vs 384 CUDA Cores. Another example in GPU's offering an improved performance is vRAM 1.0GB vs 2GB (for the most part), or OC'ing, or cooling, etc. Since folks shop price over actually knowing their components all that data gets progressively meaningless.

BTW - the EVGA is a nice quasi reference GTX 560 Ti with a lifetime warranty. Selection of rating further depends upon other 'filtering' factors at NewEgg.

In contrast, the highest performers often require a little more finesse on the part of the builder to obtain the potential of the component or the component is more expensive per 'class' and isn't purchased as frequently, but clearly out performs per 'class' component.

Proper selection is a complex process, and ratings and feedback can be an asset or a liability, so you must further research the products.

-My two cents.
Score
2
March 30, 2012 3:27:44 PM

Crashman said:
It might have also been interesting to compared only #1 picks rather than #1 and #2 combined. A pair of GTX 550's, 64 GB SSD and only 4GB of RAM? Probably only the games would suffer.

Interesting yes, but given one chance, I think you made all the right second-choice tweaks to today's rig. The average buyer way-underspends on the GPU compared to what our expectations require.

I have two of those 64GB SSD (at home), one yet unused. I'll put it to good use (once time allows), but it is not enough to stick in my next "main" gaming build. I at least want one big enough to house my Steam program apps folder. I like your 128GB upgrade. And at current prices, IMO why settle for 4GB if the budget allows an 8GB RAM kit. (Anyway, just my $0.02)
Score
1
March 30, 2012 3:48:07 PM

Awsome Build!
Score
-1
March 30, 2012 4:37:46 PM

This is basically what i do when I build my own systems. I only buy stuff with 5 star ratings. Keeps me from having to return stuff through shipping.
Score
-1
March 30, 2012 4:56:11 PM

I don't understand how the Intel DZ68BC fits into this system. Its a rippoff and it doesn't have the best ratings.
Score
-4
March 30, 2012 5:06:31 PM

Tab54o said:
I don't understand how the Intel DZ68BC fits into this system. Its a rippoff and it doesn't have the best ratings.

Remember the items in the builds were purchased almost 2 months ago now. At that time, it did have the best rating for the LGA 1155 Motherboards.
Score
2
March 30, 2012 5:28:10 PM

a4mulaInteresting, still not surprising given recent results in group dynamic studies. Groups will often make better choices than individuals, that's not to say a group can replace or perform on par with an expert individual, just better than the average.


While groups may overall make better choices, I frankly don't think it's true enough to rely on. There are too many "common knowledge" beliefs that have no basis in fact.

I do think the kind of person that participates in PC building tends to be a bit better informed (about PC fundamentals), so using their overall judgments as a guide is probably a good thing, as long as you realize the limitations. It's no surprise to me that this build performed well. It's also no surprise that it out-performed the SBM build overall, since that build wasn't necessarily built for the absolute best performance it could deliver, but also had in mind exploring different options.

;) 
Score
5
March 30, 2012 7:34:04 PM

Tab54oI don't understand how the Intel DZ68BC fits into this system. Its a rippoff and it doesn't have the best ratings.



I was thinking the same myself. Don't see why anyone needs to spend upwards of $200 for a good MOBO. Never spent more than $150 and have always got more features than I bargained for, you just have to shop around, know what you want, and be patient. Would not buy that board personally, but overall not a bad build when you consider you're getting the latest generation of most products.
Score
-1
March 30, 2012 7:58:20 PM

Pezcore27Remember the items in the builds were purchased almost 2 months ago now. At that time, it did have the best rating for the LGA 1155 Motherboards.

This is not the first time I've seen this, but I'll mention it here just to stop the rumor. Somewhere this number grew to 2 months, which is not true. We hadn't even started discussions on the individual builds that early, never mind placed orders.

As of right now (day 5 of the live series) it would be 5-6 weeks at the most since any of these were ordered, and likely less for this final rig. Because of scheduling amongst many involved, it's difficult for Tom's to get under a 4 week turnaround from order purchase to a live series, but we sure don't want to push things out "two months". It takes time, but we try to stay as current as possible.
Score
3
March 30, 2012 9:54:19 PM

Onus said:
I agree the case is junk. I'm willing to accept it as an experiment though; the results are in, and it's a FAIL, although it won't put other parts at risk like one of their PSUs would. If selecting this case was to learn a lesson, I'd say it was successful, so you can ease up on him (assuming he NEVER does it again!)
On the mobo, it looks like he just got a bad one. It's a puzzling choice, with SRT-offering Z68 for a similar price, but USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s are both there, so I'm not sure what it's missing that really matters. I wouldn't buy this board, but "junk" is way too harsh.
The locked CPU is purely personal preference. Not everyone overclocks. This PCs performance was not a failure by any stretch. Even though I prefer [mild] OCs myself, if this CPU freed up money for the HD7970, I think it was the right choice.
I'm inclined to agree about the SSD being a little small. I would have preferred to see it used for SRT.
I definitely agree about the optical drive; it was a baffling choice, a capability loss in no way worth the few dollars saved. Perhaps Don's focus was a little too tight, on pure gaming, and he let it work him into a corner. Giving up the $20 cooler would have brought the budget back into line and allowed for write capability on the ODD. Maybe you all should let him (make him?) do the $500 gamer next time.
Let me summarize my "Junk" label for the motherboard: You could get a well rated board with far better features for $5 more in the "non-SE" version of the same model number. The difference between those two is startling, and the $5 difference isn't worth arguing over. And heck, for another $5 on top of that you could get the Z68 version of the better board.

I wouldn't have called that board "Junk" if it were $15 cheaper, because then it would be competing for the ultra-low-cost market.
Tab54o said:
I don't understand how the Intel DZ68BC fits into this system. Its a rippoff and it doesn't have the best ratings.
Simple, a month ago I clicked "sort by best rated" and that was the number 1 rated board a month ago. These things can change quickly as a part that sticks around longer has a greater chance of having the most votes. I'm almost certain that's how the Antec Nine Hundred ended up on top.
pauldh said:
This is not the first time I've seen this, but I'll mention it here just to stop the rumor. Somewhere this number grew to 2 months, which is not true. We hadn't even started discussions on the individual builds that early, never mind placed orders.

As of right now (day 5 of the live series) it would be 5-6 weeks at the most since any of these were ordered, and likely less for this final rig. Because of scheduling amongst many involved, it's difficult for Tom's to get under a 4 week turnaround from order purchase to a live series, but we sure don't want to push things out "two months". It takes time, but we try to stay as current as possible.
Right, the other stuff was ordered 5-6 weeks ago and this one 4 weeks ago.
Score
4
March 30, 2012 10:33:23 PM

Quote:
Of course, this concept requires a few concessions. For instance, if the best-rated motherboard is a Socket AM3+ platform and the most popular processor comes from Intel, well, that's a problem.


No it isn't! You can simply use a welding torch and a hammer, like one of my totally bright classmates did with his/her $990 i7 Extreme 3960X and a Socket 423 motherboard!
Score
1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!