Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, June 2012: $500 Gaming PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Gaming
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
June 7, 2012 3:46:03 AM

After stripping $150 from his already frugal budget, Paul is forced to make a tough gamble in order to hit his build goals. Will the decision to spend big on graphics bite him in the rear when he has to cut back on everything else, or is the choice sound?

System Builder Marathon, June 2012: $500 Gaming PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon june 2012 500 gaming

June 7, 2012 4:30:37 AM

It is just incredible how well the G530 performs in gaming.
Score
10
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 4:52:10 AM

Would have liked to see Diablo 3 and SC 2 benchmarks for this build.
Score
10
Related resources
June 7, 2012 5:02:06 AM

why are you not increasing the voltages on the GPU to get more clocks ?
any enthusiast with limited budget would want to maximize his core clocks with higher voltages.. the card can keep cool by increasing the fan speed.
More noise for a gaming session is acceptable.
Score
-6
June 7, 2012 5:04:18 AM

Quote:
Dumping the bulk of our funding into graphics is sure to spell disaster throughout the media encoding and productivity benchmarks. But it's time to face the music.


pun intended ? ;) 
Score
4
June 7, 2012 5:20:35 AM

Celeron G530 is what I'm rocking in my gaming rig. It is definitely a capable processor, surprising given the legacy behind anything labeled Celeron.
Score
6
June 7, 2012 5:27:22 AM

Slomo4shOWould have liked to see Diablo 3 and SC 2 benchmarks for this build.

I can't give you exact fps rates, but my machine is very similar to this one (only difference is the GPU: 6950+Z68) and I get similar frame rates in all the tested games. So I'll infer to you what this rig would probably get close to.

Diablo 3 maxes out at 60fps with occasional dips down to ~30fps when getting mobbed on hell. As for SC2, frame rates for me tended to be around 35fps on average with everything maxed out at 1920x1080 for both games.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:33:25 AM

s3anisterCeleron G530 is what I'm rocking in my gaming rig. It is definitely a capable processor, surprising given the legacy behind anything labeled Celeron.

Ah, but think way back.... slot 1, 440BX, and the Celeron 300A? I had a 266@412MHz, a 300A@464MHz, a 300A@450MHz, and a 333(that topped out down at an 83 MHz FSB).

While not the first chips I had overclocked, those slot 1 Celeron's gave me the incurable OC bug! *dreams of G530K*
Score
1
June 7, 2012 6:34:14 AM

Amazing! I never thought an SBM machine would ever come this close to my own rig. And confirm for me that my drooling over $200+ graphics cards is not an impractical fantasy for my current rig. I've been dreaming of retiring my old GT240 for a newer card and had the HD7850 (or comparable Nvidia counterpart when it comes out) in mind, or even an HD7770. I now feel justified and my wife will go nuts over the pc part purchase, again.

I did notice one thing when I compared this build with my system - mine idles at 48-52 watts, too, and I use a 500W S12II. I think right-sizing the PSU will add to the efficiency. A 350w PSU is my bet for bringing the idle power draw closer to the 20% mark of the PSU rating where efficiency starts to pick up (as per 80plus requirements). I say 350w because whoever gets this will likely want to upgrade the CPU to something beefier sooner or later. Nah, sooner!

Thanks, Paul! for tackling love and system-building with reckless abandon.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:40:13 AM

i got a question. if I were to use a phenom 2x4 965 BE(3.4ghz) for a gaming rig on a similar budget to this, would it bottleneck me in gaming and other applications?
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:45:21 AM

mayankleoboy1why are you not increasing the voltages on the GPU to get more clocks ?any enthusiast with limited budget would want to maximize his core clocks with higher voltages.. the card can keep cool by increasing the fan speed.More noise for a gaming session is acceptable.

As mentioned, it was maiinly a matter of consistency with the past few builds. Dealing with fixed CPU clocks and memory frequency, I just haven't been too aggresive with previous efforts with Radeons, and thus didn't want to boost voltage here with the GTX. Trying to play it fair, that's all. Maybe once we revisit overclockable platforms, and are already dealing with increaded noise, I'll get itchy to max-out the GPU.

Thanks for the feedback though. I'm actually surprised given the balance of the system, that people would desire to see aggressive GPU overclocking.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:45:21 AM

If the rumored specs of xbox 720 and PS4 are correct, a $500 gaming PC like this will beat both consoles in graphics.

PC gaming FTW!!
Score
0
June 7, 2012 7:01:34 AM

bustapri got a question. if I were to use a phenom 2x4 965 BE(3.4ghz) for a gaming rig on a similar budget to this, would it bottleneck me in gaming and other applications?


If you read the gaming CPUs hieracy chart, PhIIX4 965 roughly equals Core i3 2100t (power saving) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o... and is better than a Celeron. Simply put, Core i3 2100 (not power saving) is better. PhII 965 can only match it with a ~almost 4GHz OC.

It's nice to know that my Ph II X3 isn't going to need to b replaced anytime soon :) . Just a new graphics card.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 7:01:38 AM

Impressive budget rig!
Score
5
June 7, 2012 7:25:44 AM

Not bad at all, considering the compromises.
Score
6
June 7, 2012 7:29:05 AM

Wow.

To think, for $500, one can experience most of what PC gaming has to offer.

In this day and age, an Xbox 360/PS3 is absolutely inexcusable.
Score
19
June 7, 2012 7:51:07 AM

Ok, my apologies for saying this, but this build had no point. The 500$ and 1000$ price limits in June's builds were unreasonable, as for so little more you could have delivered much more. The limits need reason. The highest end build, may have been reasonable at the 1750$-ish where you not to choose the GTX680. Once you have chosen it, the limit should have gone up by a couple of hundreds.
So we're left with 3 systems. One just short of high-end, one just short of enthusiast, and one just short of budget gamer.

Once you've seen the market, you should have put more reason into the price limits.
Score
-6
June 7, 2012 8:23:42 AM

Somehow, i think a Pentium G850 ($88) + a EVGA/MSI GTX 560 ($190) would be a better choice. You'd cross the budget by about $8, but you could have seen much better performance overall, especially after an OC, seeing that those cards can hit 900 MHz+ easy enough.
Score
1
June 7, 2012 9:19:31 AM

:o 
pentium g530 can't handle a 560Ti, its too weak.
it is almost equal to or less than phenom 2 x3
Score
-4
June 7, 2012 9:32:23 AM

assafbtOk, my apologies for saying this, but this build had no point. The 500$ and 1000$ price limits in June's builds were unreasonable, as for so little more you could have delivered much more. The limits need reason. The highest end build, may have been reasonable at the 1750$-ish where you not to choose the GTX680. Once you have chosen it, the limit should have gone up by a couple of hundreds.So we're left with 3 systems. One just short of high-end, one just short of enthusiast, and one just short of budget gamer.Once you've seen the market, you should have put more reason into the price limits.
The sub-$2000 build was high-end and will remain high-end until you can prove otherwise. And don't even bother picking on its case, because we could go back and forth on that one forever.
Score
3
June 7, 2012 9:33:34 AM

as a budget rig, this build is admirable.
Score
8
June 7, 2012 9:56:50 AM

Unless the HDD price didn't spike up, this build is great.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 9:57:30 AM

CrashmanThe sub-$2000 build was high-end and will remain high-end until you can prove otherwise. And don't even bother picking on its case, because we could go back and forth on that one forever.

THAT is all you read in my comment? See my comment in the high end gaming article if you want, and focus on the major point of my comment if you take the trouble to quote it in full. And lastly - don't take things so personally, it's a technical debate.
Score
-4
June 7, 2012 9:58:27 AM

... celeron? REALLY?
Score
-5
June 7, 2012 10:13:46 AM

assafbtTHAT is all you read in my comment? See my comment in the high end gaming article if you want, and focus on the major point of my comment if you take the trouble to quote it in full. And lastly - don't take things so personally, it's a technical debate.
That's why I asked for a technical definition. It's 8GB, it's 3770K, it's GTX 680, it's SSD, it's 80 PLUS Gold...
Score
7
June 7, 2012 10:17:34 AM

55FPS in BF3 at 1920:1080p as if, I have seen bigger systems struggle to maintain 60FPS.
Score
-1
June 7, 2012 10:36:27 AM

I think I see what the aim of this build was, and I appreciate Paul sticking to the budget, but I gotta say, I would have forgiven them had they spent an extra $20 bucks to move up to the G630. That would be a justifiable step up in my book, not just a $20 dollar core clock upgrade. Just an outside opinion. Thanks Tom's!
Score
4
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 11:25:18 AM

I've contemplated this system all morning since reading about it, and I have no fault to find; it was an experiment, and it provided some interesting data points. No, it isn't something I'd build (although I've used that case, and will use it again, and maybe I've been luckier with quieter fans), but then I don't think I've ever built such a strictly gaming-focused PC.
Just as an exercise, it would be interesting to rerun the benchmarks with some stronger CPU(s); an i3-2100 at the least, perhaps bracket that with an i5-2400 and a G860.
Score
6
June 7, 2012 12:17:16 PM

The big GFX card in the build looks awkward indeed coupled with the Celeron. Seeing how the GFX card is held back in almost all resolutions, I am curious how much of the FPSs you could still keep if you went with a more balanced pick like HD 6850. This will be a true entry-level gaming machine for Xbox money providing you infinitely better experience. If you combine it with an ITX MB+case, this may be evem more interesting.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 12:18:52 PM

The goal of any low budget gaming rig is to get the most fps per dollar. This build without a doubt achieved that. It can run bf3 at 1920x1080. That is an incredible feat for such a cheap build. Great job.
Score
6
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 1:09:14 PM

It would be great if Toms' could rune the same gaming benchmarks again with different cpus.
Just so you can see what you would get if you spend a little more.
Score
4
June 7, 2012 1:21:27 PM

I still have a PII X3 OC and Unlock to a X4 at 3.6GHz with 2 radeon HIS 6850 OC to 850 GHz and 1250MHz for the memory in crossfire...

My rig still rock whatever I throw to it. I wanted to upgrade... but why? In reality, I have no need for an upgrade and my rig is working perfectly.

So that little rig make a lot of sense. Still, I would try to CF or SLI two cards and squeeze the prize. A CPU is nowaday a little bit of a bad investment for gaming. GPU is the way to go.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 1:27:08 PM

oh wow Celeron still exists? i thought i3 was the lowest it will go. Good build for the budget constraint. The power supply is a bit scary being that cheap it could possibly blow up the whole computer.
Score
-6
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 1:28:50 PM

I'd also like to see what a pair of HD7750's in Crossfire can do. The few benchmarks I've seen show them mostly beating the GTX560Ti, and the power savings should be impressive when an unneeded member of the pair shuts down. Or use a pair of stronger but similarly priced HD6770's.

This was a great build, because it raises a lot of interesting (and testable, hint hint) questions.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 1:32:16 PM

bin1127 said:
...The power supply is a bit scary being that cheap it could possibly blow up the whole computer.

HardwareSecrets gave the VP450 a Golden Award. Its efficiency is enough for 80+, but is disqualified for not having Active PFC. It seems to be the exception that proves the rule. FSP is the OEM.

Score
4
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 1:39:19 PM

zootedThe goal of any low budget gaming rig is to get the most fps per dollar. This build without a doubt achieved that. It can run bf3 at 1920x1080. That is an incredible feat for such a cheap build. Great job.


BF3 single player campaign only though at those settings. The 64 player conquest matches would make this setup take a dump, unless the settings were set to medium-high with very little AA(if any at all) instead of ultra. These results are very decieving. I think most people buying BF3 are buying it to play online.

The 560ti is about the same as my HD5870 in performance and I can run Ultra settings with 4x AA in the single player to stay at 30fps+, but when I play online I have to drop my settings to high and 2x AA to stay at or above 30 fps at 1920x1080. I also have the PH II x6 @ 4.0ghz which is probally the only reason I can keep the settings online as high as I do.

I really wish there was some sort of benchmark to measure the online aspect of BF3 because all of these recent articles do not paint the whole picture. Not even close... Maybe Tom's need to play at least one whole 64 player conquest map and record with fraps to get a more realistic picture of what to expect. I know the gameplay is inconsistant from match to match, but it would still be better than going off of the singleplayer alone. All the writers would have to do is state what they did to test and what map was used for testing. Perferably the most demanding map. Maybe Caspian Border... Then state why they did test it and that it will not be a consistant benchmark, but was worth doing to help give a better overall picture of what to expect.
Score
4
June 7, 2012 1:59:26 PM

whats interesting for me about this build is that it displays just how much you really can get for around a couple of hundred dollars. if you are on an extremely tight budget and trying to decide on what you actually really "Need" to spend to get to the level of functionality you want. I think the take away from this is to not disregard a CPU or motherboard just based on price or the pretty bells and whistles (although I regard the ability not to OC as a bit of a longevity issue, but for the price you can't complain to much). Everyone would love to drive a Ferrari but for most of us a Ford Focus does just fine getting you to the show.
Score
2
June 7, 2012 2:01:13 PM

Ah the Celeron. Reminds me of my overclocked Celeron 600 coppermine core that hit 1087mhz in 2001 with a 440bx mobo from Abit. That was a budget beast.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 2:14:59 PM

lol at this build 2 years ago I bought 500gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 for 30$
Score
-1
June 7, 2012 3:13:16 PM

To summarize: It is generally a bad idea to spend 4:1 on your GPU and CPU. I think the sweet spot lies somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1 personally. Pushing the ratio past that and you will notice the bottlenecks you created.
Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 3:41:46 PM

This is an interesting experiment, to say he least. However, in any remotely CPU intensive game, the Celeron will struggle. In something like BF3 multiplayer with a lot of players, it could be a crippling factor (as others have stated). It would be much more interesting if the Celeron had an unlocked multiplier and we could find a good enough Z68/P67/Z77 board at such a low price and added in a dirt cheap yet still good cooler like the Cooler Master Hyper 212, but that would have required a higher budget even if the Celeron had an unlocked multiplier.

cypeqlol at this build 2 years ago I bought 500gb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 for 30$


Prices on hard drives skyrocketed last year and haven't come close to where they were back then. Where have you been?
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 3:48:29 PM

sarinaide55FPS in BF3 at 1920:1080p as if, I have seen bigger systems struggle to maintain 60FPS.


Bigger systems with what graphics? So long as the CPU isn't a limiting factor, the GTX 560 TI is still an upper mid-range card and that counts for a lot. The CPU is good enough for most situations at 1080p outside of CPU intensive games, so it will beat machines that don't have superior graphics in many situations that aren't too CPU limited. Besides, it depends on the settings that it is playing at. Also, this machine had 45FPS in BF3 at 1080p and with Ultra settings with 4X MSAA, 16X AF, and HBAO. Unless you were referring to a different benchmark done in BF3 and in Ultra and such, you got the numbers wrong. I wouldn't be surprised to see a computer with a faster video graphics configuration get ~60FPS and thus be beating this $500 SBM build by over 30%.
Score
0
June 7, 2012 3:59:59 PM

I for one do not like this massively lopsided build. Its an excellent way to experiment, to showcase. But nothing more. This PC would make a pretty bad daily driver - but if gaming is the only thing done on the PC, then it may be acceptable.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 4:06:17 PM

eddieroolzI for one do not like this massively lopsided build. Its an excellent way to experiment, to showcase. But nothing more. This PC would make a pretty bad daily driver - but if gaming is the only thing done on the PC, then it may be acceptable.


Gaming isn't all that it would do well. Regular usage such as web browsing and such wouldn't have any problems. Only if you want to do something that is actually CPU intensive would you have a problem.
Score
2
June 7, 2012 5:21:08 PM

Its amazing the impact that marketing has on our opinions of products. Lots of people are balking at the Celeron used in this build based on previous experiences with processors bearing this name. I know that I build a few rigs for ppl using Celeron's back in the day and ended up mad disappointed.

The new "Celeron" chips do not disappoint in terms of general computing performance and gaming. I build a rig for a friend recently using one and I gotta say, for the money, these things are really a bargain. The system is super responsive and handles all basic tasks with ease. Sure, you could go with the entry level pentuims and shave a min or two off of your Handbrake times, but this is a budget build.

Bottom line, unless you have used a new Celeron, you shouldn't be so quick to scoff at it. In my opinion, for 95% of users, they are a viable entry level option.
Score
4
June 7, 2012 6:07:39 PM

IMHO too much GPU not enough CPU, and memory... I'll be flat out honest when I say I have seen BF3 use 3.5 gigs of system memory while running MP, leaving win 7, an os that likes to run a gig of memory at least for itself, origon, an app that wants a tick over 100mb, and the prerequisite browser window to run battlelog that chews about 100megs itself a half Gig or ram to share. See a problem here? 8 gigs of ram is a definitate worthwhile upgrade.

CPU can't be OC'd and this absolutely cripples the system's ability to stretch it's legs. Next tiem spend a little more on the CPU so you can find one that isn't lashed down like this celeron.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 6:10:30 PM

BulkZerkerIMHO too much GPU not enough CPU, and memory... I'll be flat out honest when I say I have seen BF3 use 3.5 gigs of system memory while running MP, leaving win 7, an os that likes to run a gig of memory at least for itself, origon, an app that wants a tick over 100mb, and the prerequisite browser window to run battlelog that chews about 100megs itself a half Gig or ram to share. See a problem here? 8 gigs of ram is a definitate worthwhile upgrade. CPU can't be OC'd and this absolutely cripples the system's ability to stretch it's legs. Next tiem spend a little more on the CPU so you can find one that isn't lashed down like this celeron.


Technically, the BLCK could have been upped a little if the board supported it. It wouldn't be much, but it would be an OC.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 6:36:50 PM

s3anister said:
Celeron G530 is what I'm rocking in my gaming rig. It is definitely a capable processor, surprising given the legacy behind anything labeled Celeron.

Celerons may have been, and still may be, mocked by some of the general public, but I think most dedicated tech people have always known what they're capable of in certain situations ( especially considering Celerons 10+ years ago were some of the best overclockers for gamers on a budget. )
Score
0
June 7, 2012 6:37:49 PM

Ummmm...
that's a odd build.
Seems like people's comments are that the Celeron is pretty good.
I think it sucks, it's obvious that you can use it if you went broke buying everything else but I would have just spent a little bit more. Too many games were held back by it's poor proformance and even worse in some other games mentioned but not benchmarked.

I'm thinking I would have spent a little bit more and gone with an AMD Phenom 2 X4 or X6 and perhaps a slightly slower GPU.

I think this would have made for a better system:
For $120 you could get an X4 965 BE. (Boxed w/ fan) (Or you could choose the G850 as mentioned in the article)
For the same price you can get an AMD motherboard (ASRock 770iCafe)
For $159 you could get a 6870

Savings:
CPU is $70 More
GPU is $50 Less
That means the changes I suggested would cost only $20 more but you CAN get AMD motherboards for $45 which would save you $15 and you would only be paying $5 more.

What do you guys think?
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
June 7, 2012 7:02:11 PM

dark_lord69 said:
What do you guys think?
First, realize this particular build was designed for one thing: impressive gaming at 1900x1080 and little else. If your build isn't geared that same way then it's pointless to compare them. So I'll have to assume your suggestions are also intended to compete along those lines.

As someone with a 6870, I think you'd find the graphical muscle a little lacking onyour build compared to this one. While I can max out just about everything at 1680x1050, I'd be a little hesitant to try it at full 1080p ( and I've got a 2600K and 8GB RAM behind mine. ) Yes, your build will get perfectly acceptable results at medium or high detail levels, but you'd be hard pressed to average 40+fps on highest/ultra detail.

I don't think anyone would gainsay your build on overall system horsepower and usage balance, but for pure gaming it may fall a little behind.

And finally, a lot of people simply respond to these things with, "I would have just spent a little more." But if you justify one slight budget increase, then you justify another and where does it stop? I realize that many people go just a little beyond their build budgets ( I did myself last year when my $1200 system suddenly ballooned to $1450. ) However you have to abide by some kind of rules in these SBMs or there's no real point to comparing the systems together. ( Perhaps they could change in the feature to allow a +/- $50 and then penalize scores for going over budget and boosting those that stay under, but that's another point entirely. )
Score
5
!