Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, June 2012: System Value Compared

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Gaming
  • Build
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
June 8, 2012 3:46:03 AM

Frugality returned in this quarter's System Builder Marathon, tipping the balance towards less-elaborate gaming rigs. Does cutting deep into the budgets end up hurting our lower-cost build too much for it to compete, or is its value enhanced instead?

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

More about : system builder marathon june 2012 system compared

June 8, 2012 4:57:02 AM

toms, y u no include Quicksync benchies?
Score
-8
Related resources
June 8, 2012 5:30:43 AM

mayankleoboy1toms, y u no include Quicksync benchies?
Because it would be mean to the lower-cost PC builders? The truth is that the two applications that use it didn't appear all that popular with our readers.
Score
12
June 8, 2012 6:08:04 AM

the only reason i see to buy a IB over a SB is better quicksync. Rest, they are same.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 6:35:57 AM

mayankleoboy1the only reason i see to buy a IB over a SB is better quicksync. Rest, they are same.


Replace the paste under the IHS on Ivy Bridge and those 3570Ks and 3770Ks overclock better than their Sandy counterparts. The IGP is also good for more than Quick-Sync.
Score
2
June 8, 2012 6:41:08 AM

I would enjoy gaming with a $1100 Enthusiast PC.
Score
9
June 8, 2012 6:45:24 AM

blazorthonReplace the paste under the IHS on Ivy Bridge and those 3570Ks and 3770Ks overclock better than their Sandy counterparts. The IGP is also good for more than Quick-Sync.
And even with the stock IHS implementation, the power savings of Ivy at 1.25V looks good compared to Sandy at 1.35V (assuming both voltage levels get you to 4.6 GHz, which is approximately true).
Score
9
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 6:50:17 AM

CrashmanAnd even with the stock IHS implementation, the power savings of Ivy at 1.25V looks good compared to Sandy at 1.35V (assuming both voltage levels get you to 4.6 GHz, which is approximately true).


Yes, thanks. I forgot to mention the improved power efficiency from the new process node.
Score
5
June 8, 2012 6:57:51 AM

As I indicated in the Gaming PC comments, I'm good with Paul's $500 experiment. But an Enthusiast PC at $1100? I figure you'll want to alter all those parts that got Don those un-edifying comments, then yeah! Bring it on!

Aside from the 2500k, stick a GTX 670 in that thing I'll bet we'll have a real winner (depends on Tom's rules, I guess, since that part wasn't available at the time the SBM purchases were originally made).

Or step down to a 7870 and stick an SSD in it - for all those clamoring that a $1000 PC should have an SSD.
Score
7
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 7:25:22 AM

jestersageAs I indicated in the Gaming PC comments, I'm good with Paul's $500 experiment. But an Enthusiast PC at $1100? I figure you'll want to alter all those parts that got Don those un-edifying comments, then yeah! Bring it on! Aside from the 2500k, stick a GTX 670 in that thing I'll bet we'll have a real winner (depends on Tom's rules, I guess, since that part wasn't available at the time the SBM purchases were originally made). Or step down to a 7870 and stick an SSD in it - for all those clamoring that a $1000 PC should have an SSD.


670 or 7970... Not much of a difference there. The two are effectively on-par with each other, trading blows depending on the game, resolution, and settings. Why not step down to a 7950, get a cheap SandForce SSD, and then up the CPU to the 2500K, all without even sacrificing graphics performance when overclocked? 7950s and 7970s that share a PCB and cooler have pretty much identical overclocking performance with the 7970s having an in-perceptively small advantage at the same frequency and the 7950 able to hit slightly higher frequencies.
Score
4
June 8, 2012 8:42:24 AM

jestersageAs I indicated in the Gaming PC comments, I'm good with Paul's $500 experiment. But an Enthusiast PC at $1100? I figure you'll want to alter all those parts that got Don those un-edifying comments, then yeah! Bring it on! Aside from the 2500k, stick a GTX 670 in that thing I'll bet we'll have a real winner (depends on Tom's rules, I guess, since that part wasn't available at the time the SBM purchases were originally made). Or step down to a 7870 and stick an SSD in it - for all those clamoring that a $1000 PC should have an SSD.
Agreed, using the 670 to get similar performance without going over-budget was part of an alternative version of the conclusion. But as you said, the 670 wasn't available at the time of the order, and the thought of giving the most irate readers more ammo...
Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 9:29:20 AM

If you're going to have a $2000 System then have a $2000 system otherwise have a $1700 system. Instead you lose consistency and none of this or prior comparisons make any sense.

Maybe one of these days you'll actually have a system that I could recommend to 'anyone' and something that's Balanced i.e. makes any sense to build. You guys get so caught-up with a few folks that bitch about FPS that some of these systems become mutated into something CrAzY.

I know damn well none of you would build any of this for yourselves 90% of the time, and to say otherwise would be a lie.

Bottom-line = Consistency, if you're going to have 'Tom's Hardware Recommended' MOBO's, GPUs, CPUs, RAM, SSDs, HDDs, etc in prior Articles then please use them in the all of Builds! To do otherwise IMO looks really odd.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 9:55:06 AM

blazorthon670 or 7970... Not much of a difference there. The two are effectively on-par with each other, trading blows depending on the game, resolution, and settings. Why not step down to a 7950, get a cheap SandForce SSD, and then up the CPU to the 2500K, all without even sacrificing graphics performance when overclocked?

All true, but the 670 also costs much less, and iirc after an OC it can catch the 680. Could have cut $60-80 in the $1000 build if it were available then. That could have gone into a better case, and a 2500K. Might not have left room for an SSD though, seeing that they were already over by $34...but yeah $1100 could get you that as well...
Score
-1
June 8, 2012 10:19:59 AM

jaquithBottom-line = Consistency, if you're going to have 'Tom's Hardware Recommended' MOBO's, GPUs, CPUs, RAM, SSDs, HDDs, etc in prior Articles then please use them in the all of Builds! To do otherwise IMO looks really odd.
Check out the latest Z77 roundup and see for yourself that a recommended board was used.
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 10:26:17 AM

CrashmanCheck out the latest Z77 roundup and see for yourself that a recommended board was used.

1 out of how many? You know exactly what I mean here, and it's something that been needed for some period to be corrected. In the forum's what do you point/link to the Build or the Recommended?! Then say never mind what TH recommends (there) they meant this over (here).

Also, if a system is ±$100 with Quality then no one cares if you go over/under if it's the smart thing to do to keep the integrity of the system in line with the more important issue of a balanced system. Prices change daily!

Think about what I'm saying then next think about what TH Recommended means...what it 'should' mean?

Most importantly, this is not a complaint to you 'Personally' it's a much needed 'Policy' to help Tom's Hardware. I like you personally, I like TH, and I'd LOVE for Tom's Hardware to be the best!
Score
3
June 8, 2012 11:21:11 AM

jaquithit's a much needed 'Policy' to help Tom's Hardware.
The problem is that we don't cover every board made, and it's usually the cheapest ones that companies aren't interested in promoting. I generally use recommended motherboards and often use recommended cases. I can't really complain about parts being used that fall outside the coverage, because Don and Paul are really trying to cut costs below much of the component coverage.

What you really need is for me to get out of other types of articles and focus exclusively on covering all motherboards, then for TH to hire a dedicated case reviewer, etc. But we're already pushing five articles a week, so I don't think the added coverage would even fit the publishing schedule.
Score
3
June 8, 2012 12:20:25 PM

ArticleWith a couple of little alterations (and a slightly higher cost) we end up asking: would anyone like a $1100 Enthusiast PC?

I don't want to see a $1100 enthusiast pc. Not one gearing for value while missing a ssd anyway. Still a balanced $1000 pc with windows, monitor, mouse and keyboard included in price would be nice. Don't have to buy those, just select the models and save the money from the total.
Score
-4
June 8, 2012 12:24:51 PM

ojasAll true, but the 670 also costs much less, and iirc after an OC it can catch the 680. Could have cut $60-80 in the $1000 build if it were available then. That could have gone into a better case, and a 2500K. Might not have left room for an SSD though, seeing that they were already over by $34...but yeah $1100 could get you that as well...


The only issue is that the 670 is very rare. AMD would drop the price of their 7900's GPUs, if Nividia boost their supply, which isn't happening anytime soon.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 12:29:55 PM

The $1700 PC was a nice machine. Perhaps a little more heavily focused on gaming than I'd like to see, still none of its parts raised eyebrows. It was a "safe" build, even if a little boring in some ways. If I won it, I'd probably build it as-is, although I'd likely end up selling the GTX680 because my games just don't need that power.
The $1000 machine used a nightmarish case and made a few uncomfortable compromises. If I win it, I will sell the graphics card to buy a SSD, 8GB of RAM, and a considerably weaker graphics card, and build it for my non-gamer wife in her Antec Sonata III.
The $500 PC was a remarkable experiment. At its specific target, it seems to do quite well, but for anyone who isn't playing games 100% of the time, it would be an exercise in frustration. Should I win it, I will probably sell the graphics card and CPU for an I5-2400, get 8GB of RAM, and build it for my non-gamer father using his HD6670 as a substantial upgrade over his E6750.

Similar to what another poster suggested, I'd like to see one of two notable "requirements" in these builds. They must either be something that a real user would actually build, in its entirely (last quarter's $2.6K build was a perfect example, this quarter's $2K build might have made it if the remaining $259 in the budget had been used), OR, it must be an experimental build purely intended to test something legitimate. It might be nothing someone would build, but maybe only because they'd never thought about it. This quarter's $500 build clearly qualifies, and I hope it is remembered as fondly as that quad Crossfire HD4850 build that a few of us have mentioned. With that latter in mind, some ideas might include physically constrained builds (must fit in carry-on luggage, or be suitable for a dorm room) or machines that must achieve certain minimums in a real-world benchmark (not necessarily a game).
And although I do prefer firm budgets, jaquith has a very good point. $25 here, $50 there, adds up (and where do you stop?), but a single carefully justified $25-$50 "bump," representing perhaps another week of waiting and/or saving, seems reasonable. After all, just think what the $500 PC could have been like with a $100 CPU. It might even be appropriate to allow a "do-over" for a part, such as to avoid a fiasco like the Logisys case, or last quarter's defective motherboard. Afterall, an experimental build could become a total waste due to a single botched part.
Score
1
June 8, 2012 1:27:28 PM

Quote:
Anyone who thinks that Battlefield 3's single-player campaign might be slightly CPU-bound needs only look at our Medium quality results to find differently. At the most CPU-dependent settings, the frequency-deficient $1000 build nearly catches the sub-$2000 PC.


I think that most everyone here knows that it's true the single player in BF3 is not very CPU heavy. Multiplayer is a different animal, though. A stronger quad-core can make a huge difference in that realm. I went from a Phenom II 945 to a 2500k, and my FPS jumped 15% with the same GPU setup.
Score
1
June 8, 2012 1:42:16 PM

I think it would be neat to do exactly $600, $1200, and $1800 next time around. Try to get as close to the budget as possible with out going over.

It seems that the $2000 is always over kill maybe narrow the range. Like $600, $900, and $1200.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 1:50:00 PM

CrashmanThe problem is that we don't cover every board made, and it's usually the cheapest ones that companies aren't interested in promoting. I generally use recommended motherboards and often use recommended cases...

..What you really need is for me to get out of other types of articles and focus exclusively on covering all motherboards,... But we're already pushing five articles a week...

Organized:
My attitude is if the MFG won't send-out testing samples then IMO 'screw 'em!' Those MFG's that do send their MOBO's, CPU's, RAM, GPU's, SSD's, HDD's, Case's, etc tested by TH then from those 'TH Recommended' then choose the components per 'class/budget'as part of the System Builder Marathon series.

I am pretty certain if there's a 'TH Recommended' item AND the Admin @ TH tells those companies that they'll appear in future System Builder Marathon articles that TH can keep those items and use those parts.

I know Chris told me some of that stuff is packed to the rafters at the main office?! So I am a tad, understandably, confused. I get some MFG's want their stuff back and folks are located all over the place (shipping).

Reality Check:
Something to think about ... have you tried to get a subscription to a 'PC' Magazine lately? Folks rely on these reviews and the MFG's better damn figure that out. I sure the hell see companies promote 'TH Recommended' on their stuff!

Maybe I'm naive here and I don't get how things work in this business, or maybe it takes someone more persuasive to get the components. I realize some MFG's refuse to have their stuff shamed in a public venue -- but then who's going to buy it?!

BTW - I appreciate the crap out of all your VERY HARD WORK!!! You do an OUTSTANDING JOB - Thank You!!!
Score
1
June 8, 2012 1:51:31 PM

oh what a huge surprise, we didn't expect this outcome at all.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 2:19:29 PM

internetladoh what a huge surprise, we didn't expect this outcome at all.

Underneath the sarcasm should be a cautionary note. In the Real World, "Fitness for purpose" will play a dominant role in judging value. Furthermore, a test of "fitness for environment" may contain dealbreakers (such as noise) regardless of how well a machine performs. Just as a [radical, but relevant] example of the first, I'd rather have a Celeron and a pair of HD6790s for mining bitcoins than an i5-2500K and a pair of GTX680s. As to the latter, I don't care how well it cools, I'm not going to put a case with a top-mounted fan in an environment with young children, who WILL spill their chocolate milk into it.
Score
1
June 8, 2012 3:37:10 PM

I would like to see a 700 or 800 dollar PC. I come across a lot of people asking me to build their rigs with a target of 650 and a max of 800. They usually want to play some games at 19x10, web browse, use photoshop, office stuff and browse the web.

I would also love to see dB ratings of these systems. They typically like to build a quiet rig that can stay on overnight, etc.

System Builder Marathons are my favorite, just wish I could win one.
Score
1
June 8, 2012 3:44:21 PM

I think I still like the $1750 build a lot more. It's balanced and performs admirably for its price.
Score
0
June 8, 2012 4:22:55 PM

In the end it all comes to the word purpose and that's where the marathon is questionable.

We could compare all 3 rigs to the 70s muscle cars as their value was then measured according to the cubic inches and the final price solely. But it takes a week after the purchase to figure handling, brakes and even the driving position are of extreme relevance.

The comparison above is the exact focus of all 3 rigs. They're really great performers per dollar in the FPS scores but we can say some harsh words would we turn the perspective even a little bit.

My suggestion is that the following marathons focus all components. From the case cooler to the keyboard. And every single aspect should have its own methodolody and scoring in order to get us car that can do more than just accelerate quickly in a straight line.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 5:43:18 PM

ojasAll true, but the 670 also costs much less, and iirc after an OC it can catch the 680. Could have cut $60-80 in the $1000 build if it were available then. That could have gone into a better case, and a 2500K. Might not have left room for an SSD though, seeing that they were already over by $34...but yeah $1100 could get you that as well...


I was going by the parts that were available at the time. Since the 7970 was what was available and people were whinging about the 670, I simply acknowledged how close the the two are. Also, the 7970 can also catch the 680, just not in every game and at every resolution and setting. The 680 can't catch the 7970 in every situation either, so we shouldn't expect the 7970 to catch the 680 or 670 in every situation. The 670 can catch the 680 in pretty much every situation because the two scale performance in games similarly due to being almost identical cards whereas the 7970 has a whole set of advantages and disadvantages. With a wide selection of games (such as Anand's), we can really see how these cards perform over the greatest number of games and the 7900 cards do paint a better picture when more than just a few games are bench-marked. Granted, the GK104 cards win in what are mainly the more popular games and Tom's might not always have the time to benchmark every game, so it's understandable to not have huge selections in their suite, but let's not pretend that a smaller selection is always representative of the whole nor that it should be considered as thus.

At the time of when they ordered parts, a drop to the 7950 would have made much more sense, especially with how the 7950 can have equal performance to the 7970 when overclocked if they have the same PCB and cooler and that would have left room for a cheap SSD and i5-2500K, although probably not for an after-market cooler. I notice how a lot of people saying that the i5-2500K could have been fit in like this failed to mention also having an after-market cooler and there is no way that a very good one could have fit in this budget unless they dropped the graphics even more. I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather not dropt the graphics below how well it performed here, so going below a 7950 back then would have at least been unfavorable. However, it could have been done it need be. A 7870 could be overclocked fairly far, although it can't reach nearly as far past it's stock as the 7950 due to it having an already 25% hgiher frequency at 1GHz (or more if it's a factory overclocked version).

Sure, the 7950 almost definitely wouldn't be better than a GTX 670 (It would still be close, but the 670 would have almost definitely won somewhat), but that wasn't available at the time and thus isn't relevant.

Of course for the CPU, the i5-2500K would have then been an option and would've been better, but Tom's could have put a little more of an overclock on the $1K machine's i5-2400 through the BLCK. Even regular i5s, through a combination of Turbo and BLCK overclocking, should hit between a 20% and a 30% overclock if you actually want to. With the BLCK upped to just 105MHz, then the machine would have been overclocked almost to the 25% mark or so and that's not bad. It wouldn't be a great overclock, but it would have left the machine at least reaching for around 3.8GHz to 4GHz, depending on the workload.
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
June 8, 2012 9:44:35 PM

I'd love to see a SBM at the $1500 price point. $1000 means you usually have to trim something or other out and $2000 usually just means overkill. $1500 means you can usually add in everything you want without completely breaking the bank. It may not win the value award in the strictest sense, but it's balanced, versatile, and will have a long, long lifespan.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 12:06:36 AM

ArticleThe sub-$2000 machine excels at 2560x1600, while the $500 PC merely survives at its 1920x1080 target. Surprisingly, the $1000 PC gains ground against the higher-cost build as details are increased, almost catching it at our highest test setting.


This shouldn't be a surprise because the 7970 is known to loose less performance than the GTX 680 as the resolution is increased and there's no big difference in CPU architecture.

Also, from a personal experience. NEVER pair a strong GPU with a weak processor. I had to endure a year with a 4870 and a Pentium D 925+. Needles to say, I was getting 19 FPS in some areas in Mass Effect. WHen I upgraded to the Phenom II, I got no less than a constant 62 FPS in those same areas.
Score
1
June 9, 2012 12:26:37 AM

ArticleAnd so, the almost-excellent $1000 build almost gets our recommendation. With a couple of little alterations (and a slightly higher cost) we end up asking: would anyone like a $1100 Enthusiast PC?


Definitely. But, After owning an SSD, I'm so addicted to the boost in system responsiveness that I can't imagine owning a future system that doesn't include one
Score
2
June 9, 2012 12:52:09 AM

I want to see how good a computer you could make without a gpu. You would use an I5-2500k, 8 gigs of ram, and an ssd. It might make a great productivity build while squeaking by in games.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2012 1:30:53 AM

youssef 2010This shouldn't be a surprise because the 7970 is known to loose less performance than the GTX 680 as the resolution is increased and there's no big difference in CPU architecture.Also, from a personal experience. NEVER pair a strong GPU with a weak processor. I had to endure a year with a 4870 and a Pentium D 925+. Needles to say, I was getting 19 FPS in some areas in Mass Effect. WHen I upgraded to the Phenom II, I got no less than a constant 62 FPS in those same areas.


+1

At least most people here should know by now that the Tahiti cards do better relative to GK104 cards as the workload increases. We've seen this in every single review that both benches in multiple resolutions and/or settings and includes both a GK104 card and Tahiti card.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2012 1:36:29 AM

adgjlsfhkI want to see how good a computer you could make without a gpu. You would use an I5-2500k, 8 gigs of ram, and an ssd. It might make a great productivity build while squeaking by in games.


Squeaking by? HD 3000 doesn't even work in some games and when it does, even the absolute minimum setting at the minimum supported resolutions can be crippling. Also, that's without a discrete graphics card, not without a GPU. Nit-picking, I know, but the i5-2500K's HD 3000 IGP is still a GPU.

Even more important, a lot of productivity work relies on discrete graphics cards, so building a productivity build without a discrete card nowadays could be crippling.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 4:53:51 AM

I also would like to see a $600-$900-$1200 gaming build off.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 12:44:15 PM

I don't know, suggestions about a 600-900-1200 builds that I've seen here, really would miss out on the best that is still within a reasonable price-effectiveness ratio. I'd trade the 900 for a 1800 build, giving a 600-1200-1800 SBM. But that is just the case that could be made for this time around, prices must not be strict, and the points of price to effectiveness do fluctuate a bit, so I'd like the TH team to imply reason and set more flexible limits around these 600-1200-1800 price points, at times a 550$ build can cut it for the budget, and in the same manner there are times that a 1950$ build would go the extra mile for the high-end.
Sure, I suggest returning to subjective limits around the 3 price points, but this is a review site for god's sake, who is allowed to have subjectivity if not a review site? :) 
Score
1
June 9, 2012 1:31:11 PM

blazorthon, I meant the I5-3750k. It still is not great, but it is a big difference between hd 3000 and hd 4000.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 3:04:08 PM

I'm sorry for not starting a new thread but i wanted this to get read by a larger amount of people for a more rounded view... (and since this article is about value and i'm a broke ass grad student it sorta makes sense)

I've been reading Tom's for about 6 months now planning on building my own gaming PC (i only own a PS3... i'm sorry for consoles holding back comp graphics guys)... basically because i wanted to experience amazing graphics and when rumors surfaced that the new PS would have a amd6670 i was pissed.

the latest rumor http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka [...] u-2gb-ram/

is much cooler... i'm happy to hear that it may be a 7900AMD... only clocked at 800mghz (for overheating protection i guess?)... when it comes out in holiday 2013... it will be what... 1 generation behind maybe 2?

for a person like me, who jus wants the most beautiful graphics at 1080p... if this were true do you guys think it will compete with PC graphics for a couple years at least? I could really use the extra money for some traveling.. but i don't know if 800mghz clock would seriously stunt it (not to mention the x86 processor fusion thingy) ... i think i could get by for a year and a half with last of us, tomb raider (i hope u guys get much more amazing graphics and not a shit port)... thanks in advance for ur opinions
Score
-6
June 9, 2012 8:55:40 PM

what the hell... you can build a way better computer than #1 or #2 for the price listed up there.

I had no idea Celeron's still exist. They are CRAP. Who would buy a celeron?
Score
-5
a b 4 Gaming
June 9, 2012 9:06:48 PM

zyzzwhat the hell... you can build a way better computer than #1 or #2 for the price listed up there.I had no idea Celeron's still exist. They are CRAP. Who would buy a celeron?


I'd say that better than the first one is doable, but the second one has fairly unbeatable performance for the money when it was made. Beyond that, Celerons are not crap. The $500 build, at 1080p, did excellently. With a GTX 560 TI, that isn't a very CPU limited resolution in most games.
Score
0
June 9, 2012 11:26:34 PM

That said, it still did not do as well in games.
Score
-1
a b 4 Gaming
June 10, 2012 12:04:23 AM

adgjlsfhkThat said, it still did not do as well in games.


I thought that it did fairly well in games since it stayed at between about 50FPS to 80FPS at 1080p with reasonable settings for the GTX 560 TI. For the most part, it looked like 1080p let the 560 TI be a greater bottle-neck than the Celeron G530 was. Granted, some games will not tolerate a dual core CPU too well here (BF3 MP would probably struggle), but most games seem fine with it.
Score
0
June 10, 2012 3:22:54 AM

Celeron were never good. Celeron are cheapest of the cheap!

I am sure even on budget someone could wait for sale and get an AMD chip which would be better.
Score
-7
a b 4 Gaming
June 10, 2012 5:19:15 AM

zyzzCeleron were never good. Celeron are cheapest of the cheap!I am sure even on budget someone could wait for sale and get an AMD chip which would be better.


What AMD CPU would you recommend that costs about the same at about $50?
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
June 11, 2012 5:27:49 AM

I would all of these builds if I won them, but..... I think some of the builds were a bit odd (as previously mentioned above).
I still like the idea of a strict budget (like most of us have): $500, $750, & $1k-$1.5k builds. This would require more thought about the build and it's intentions. All builds would be "gaming" themed, but make sensible "daily" computer systems. I like the idea that was put into the $500 SBM this time, just because it was something different and shows some of it's limits. Which is the whole point of building under strict budgets. One can see where the weakness is in a build and make adjustments where needed.
On the $500 build:
* I would have spent about $20-30 more on the CPU.
* Spent more on the mobo, so I could have some options there when I get upgraded parts later (i.e. USB 3.0 peripherals that you get later and want to use with your system). I would have bought the z75 based chipset, which might not have been available at order time.
* Spent a little less on the GPU, so I could afford a better CPU and Mobo.

This are all preferences that I would have made if I was buying it or if I was building it for a friend/family member. I'm all about giving the best all around experience for the prospective client and still giving a better gaming experience for the $.
Score
0
June 11, 2012 3:10:08 PM

zyzzCeleron were never good. Celeron are cheapest of the cheap!

NEVER? You don't date back far enough to know at one point in time (440BX chipset days) Celerons were highly desirable enthusiast chips. For example, overclocked to 464 MHz, a $130 Celeron 300A could hang in there with the top $800-1000 Pentium II's.

Granted, over time the Celeron name has lost appeal. But I think you'd be surprised how far up AMD's (stock-clocked) line-up this $50 G530 would rank in overall gaming abilities. If you are calling it junk for games, does the same trash-talk apply to other chips it beats?

Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
June 11, 2012 3:31:19 PM

pauldhNEVER? You don't date back far enough to know at one point in time (440BX chipset days) Celerons were highly desirable enthusiast chips. For example, overclocked to 464 MHz, a $130 Celeron 300A could hang in there with the top $800-1000 Pentium II's. Granted, over time the Celeron name has lost appeal. But I think you'd be surprised how far up AMD's (stock-clocked) line-up this $50 G530 would rank in overall gaming abilities. If you are calling it junk for games, does the same trash-talk apply to other chips it beats?


Granted, this would kill power efficiency, but a Phenom II x2 @ over 3.6GHz would probably beat the Celeron G530 in performance by a little. Sempron 130 ($40) unlocked and OCed to about 4GHz would also stack up well to the $50 Celeron G530 and an FM1 Athlon II or A4 with the IGP disabled would do better than the AM3 Athlon II x2s and unlocked Semprons. Still, the G530's stock performance for the money and power efficiency for its performance is unbeatable.

Cost over time through the power bill would kill any chance that AMD's dual cores had of beating the G530, but with some overclocking, they could at least be similar in performance, if not a little faster. Whether or not the stock cooler for them is the same as their bigger quad/six core brothers would be the deciding factor in whether or not they'd beat the G530 without going over its budget to have an after-market cooler.

However, we both know that the G530, unlike what zyzz said, is most certainly not junk. Any CPU that can keep the GTX 560 TI performing above the Radeon 6870 in a computer that has a Sandy Bridge i5 in most games at 1080p is not junk IMO.
Score
0
June 11, 2012 4:44:14 PM

If I win the $500 PC I'll be installing a Core i5
Score
0
June 12, 2012 2:12:59 AM

You could have used an NZXT Source 210 for the $1000 PC. It is also $40 like the trash can that was in the parts list.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!