Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $500 Gaming PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Gaming
  • Performance
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
August 20, 2012 3:46:18 AM

Paul went all-out last quarter, cramming massive graphics performance into his $500 gaming PC. This time around, he pulls back a little bit on his GPU in order to use a better-balanced processor. Can he maintain playable frame rates in our gaming suite?

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

More about : system builder marathon august 2012 500 gaming

August 20, 2012 5:19:31 AM

so, looks like 500$ (Euro in europe :p ) its enaugh to play any modern game that is trown on the market... ty consoles :p 
Score
24
August 20, 2012 5:22:53 AM

I think it would be interesting if next quarter for your Budget PC you try to bring the performance per watt as high as you can while still maintaining an enjoyable gaming experience. Something like a G620+HD7750/70 with a high efficiency PSU such as Rosewill CAPSTONE 450.

Ever since I read the 7950B/7970GE review on here/anand performance per watt for me has been a priority when selecting components.
Score
1
Related resources
August 20, 2012 5:30:50 AM

Quote:
I think it would be interesting if next quarter for your Budget PC you try to bring the performance per watt as high as you can while still maintaining an enjoyable gaming experience. Something like a G620+HD7750/70 with a high efficiency PSU such as Rosewill CAPSTONE 450.


On the contrary, for a 500$ build, energy consumption and heat should be least concerns. Tweaking, overclocking and extracting the last possible performance from your hardware are the primary concerns of a 500$ gaming build. Even after HEAVY overclocking, you wont get 50W over the stock settings.
Score
20
August 20, 2012 5:55:56 AM

mayankleoboy1On the contrary, for a 500$ build, energy consumption and heat should be least concerns. Tweaking, overclocking and extracting the last possible performance from your hardware are the primary concerns of a 500$ gaming build. Even after HEAVY overclocking, you wont get 50W over the stock settings.


One may presume that someone after a $500 build is on a budget and hence doesn't want higher power consumption from overclocking.
Score
2
August 20, 2012 6:13:40 AM

Well, considering that I already have 3570K with GTX570, I'll be interested only in either $2000 PC or a graphic card from a $1000 PC.
Score
-37
August 20, 2012 6:48:09 AM

At least I can take less heat for recommending b75 mobo...
Score
7
August 20, 2012 6:57:32 AM

mayankleoboy1On the contrary, for a 500$ build, energy consumption and heat should be least concerns. Tweaking, overclocking and extracting the last possible performance from your hardware are the primary concerns of a 500$ gaming build. Even after HEAVY overclocking, you wont get 50W over the stock settings.

According to the performance summary and efficiency page of this article Overclocking the GPU had a 13%(average according to this article) increase in power consumption for an extra 2% (average) performance. That seems like the opposite thing I'm talking about.

Overclocking is good for performance per dollar, not performance per watt.
Score
6
August 20, 2012 7:40:36 AM

@Paul Henningsen,
Why not substitute some existing parts for either an I3-2100 and/or an eVGA 560 Superclocked?
Score
-1
August 20, 2012 8:45:17 AM

Nice, looking forward to the next builds. Some times OC does yield its advantages, those few frames can help and have helped me in games running smoothly or just over 30FPS. I honestly don't see why people are concerned with power, PC's don't cost much to run even overclocked. Unless your poor or working at McDonald's, then i see no reason why power is an issue unless otherwise stated. This whole green thing is a pain in the ass. I'm power hungry sorry.
Score
-5
August 20, 2012 9:22:28 AM

^ there are no existing parts. This is a new build :) 
Score
8
August 20, 2012 9:32:27 AM

Now thats what i call an balanced build, good job .

Also i agree with itzsnypah, Tom hardware should make an article on PC build with maximum performance that you can squeeze out of lowest watt, some people started to care about those things, and being green to the environment is nothing to be ashamed of.
Score
16
August 20, 2012 12:07:02 PM

^

Then i have this Excellent VIA CPU+MB combo for you. Efficient as hell. Best bang for the Watt possible. Ever.
Score
-2
August 20, 2012 12:26:27 PM

We need to enforce the "no celeron please" rule, terrible for that $500 PC.
Score
-10
August 20, 2012 12:28:36 PM

sarinaideWe need to enforce the "no celeron please" rule, terrible for that $500 PC.

"Pentium"
Score
3
August 20, 2012 12:53:40 PM

Thanks for this article. This gives me more ideas on how to build a computer for my brother this coming Christmas. Although, by that time, I would love to see if it might be possible for a Trinity-based gaming system to be built for around $500 and how it performs against this build.
Score
11
August 20, 2012 1:24:06 PM

Stop using those f*cked up CPUs... why you keep using crappy pentiums???
I bet that my good old Phenom 955 will blow away ANY pentium you've put so far in 500$ crappy pc.
PLEASE I beg you stop using this sh*t... :/  Since half a year you see a CPU limitation and you keep putting pentiums. When someone make a mistake the next time fix it but you don't... I bet Intel pays alot no other eplonation here!
Score
-22
August 20, 2012 2:09:24 PM

doggysoftStop using those f*cked up CPUs... why you keep using crappy pentiums???I bet that my good old Phenom 955 will blow away ANY pentium you've put so far in 500$ crappy pc.PLEASE I beg you stop using this sh*t... Since half a year you see a CPU limitation and you keep putting pentiums. When someone make a mistake the next time fix it but you don't... I bet Intel pays alot no other eplonation here!


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...

pretty damn close, the Phenom 955 is definitely more attractive for overclockers, but offer limited upgradablilty because of motherboards etc. Pentiums use the 1155 socket, and therefore are upgradable to a better 2nd gen or 3rd gen processor, which anything above the g860 kicks the shit out of the Phenom
Score
13
August 20, 2012 2:10:07 PM

Temperatures above Ambient chart, you have the current PC vs the current PC.
Score
4
August 20, 2012 2:45:20 PM

Quote:
One may presume that someone after a $500 build is on a budget and hence doesn't want higher power consumption from overclocking.


Well, there is "living in my parents basement and unemployed" budget. And there is "living on my own" budget. Clearly, mayankleoboy1, is the loving parent budget.

Not hating though, the Kardashians all do
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 2:55:04 PM

crisan_tiberiuso, looks like 500$ (Euro in europe ) its enaugh to play any modern game that is trown on the market... ty consoles


Of course a $500 machine should be able to play any PC games today. It can't play nearly as well as a higher end setup can, but are you so elitest that you think that people with less money shouldn't be allowed to play?
Score
-3
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 3:04:49 PM

MaxGardenerhttp://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 20-10.htmlpretty damn close, the Phenom 955 is definitely more attractive for overclockers, but offer limited upgradablilty because of motherboards etc. Pentiums use the 1155 socket, and therefore are upgradable to a better 2nd gen or 3rd gen processor, which anything above the g860 kicks the *** out of the Phenom


The i3 is above the Pentiums, but it doesn't beat a Phenom II x4 CPU by too much at stock (in fact, they can trade blows depending on the game and settings, although the i3 usually has a minor lead). Take overclocking into the equation and any Phenom II x4 can beat the i3s while being cheaper, although it would obviously have a fraction of the i3's power efficiency.

Even Llano is good at doing this because it is so cheap even for its performance and it can overclock pretty well, although it would probably be unable to top the i3s by much, if at all, but it should still be able to beat the Pentiums. Heck, I often see Phenom II x4s around for $100 or a little less and one with a half-decent motherboard could easily beat the Pentium G860 without much increase in price, if any at all.

Any motherboard with an AM3+ socket offers upgrading to Piledriver, Steamroller, and possibly its successor too. That'd be a good upgrade path.
Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 3:28:26 PM

Well done. The in-depth discussion following the last $500 SBM clearly paid off. Any niggling to be done here would be based on irrelevant personal preference. The same may also be true for the kudos, but I was happy to see that again you got nice results from a Rosewill case. I thought the cable-management job was as good as could be expected, but then it isn't my strong suit, and others may be more picky.
What does $50 more buy? As well as this system performs, I might look at durability, such as choosing a WD Black drive for its 5-year warranty. Temps were not bad, and I don't think noise was either so a better (i.e. quieter) cooler probably isn't needed. All in all, a good budget system. I'd be happy to win it.
Score
2
August 20, 2012 3:35:56 PM

wow i have a i5 2500k with a gtx 460. looks like i need a new video card lol
Score
4
August 20, 2012 4:03:41 PM

hey Paul. would you consider doing some other tests on your next $500 build with games like starcraft 2 and witcher 2(preferably witcher 2) to see how the dual core(if you choose one) handles those cpu intensive games?

really good build however. looking forward to the next ones.
Score
3
August 20, 2012 4:05:11 PM

This $500 system was clearly better balanced than the previous $500 system.
I loved how you were able to dial in the CPU performance vs GPU performance sweet spot even better.
It is going to be very hard for the $1000 and $2000 machines to beat the price/performance ratio of this build.
Score
5
August 20, 2012 4:08:10 PM

bustaprhey Paul. would you consider doing some other tests on your next $500 build with games like starcraft 2 and witcher 2(preferably witcher 2) to see how the dual core(if you choose one) handles those cpu intensive games?really good build however. looking forward to the next ones.

He did test SC2...
Score
3
August 20, 2012 4:17:46 PM

pacioliHe did test SC2...

hmm, sorry about that, the scroll down menu only shown skyrim and I skipped over that benchmark(as it doesnt really intrerest me). didnt know it said starcraft 2 next to it. ignore my last comment(except the witcher 2 part XD).

If anyone knows, how exactly would thois rig compare to a phenom 2 955 or an fx-4100 build? considering both builds with these processors can easily be brought to the $500 area.

seeing so many comments during all the SBM500 articles about phenom cpus, I think it would be interesting to see a multiple pc blowout to see which cpu how it goes. again, these are just my thoughts, dont take them too seriously.
Score
-1
August 20, 2012 4:32:46 PM

i would like to see some GPGPU benchmarks too in the SBM's. With Toms giving so much importance to openCL and GPGPU, those benchmarks should be here too.
Score
4
August 20, 2012 4:33:56 PM

When's BestConfigs happening?
Score
1
August 20, 2012 4:42:14 PM

sarinaideWe need to enforce the "no celeron please" rule, terrible for that $500 PC.


Shows how much you know. Those "terrible" celerons outperform amd phenom x4s in gaming
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 4:59:41 PM

bavmanShows how much you know. Those "terrible" celerons outperform amd phenom x4s in gaming


That may be true, but the Phenom II x4s are even better than the Celerons and Pentiums, especially when overclocking is considered.
Score
5
August 20, 2012 5:19:32 PM

emad_ramlawiNow thats what i call an balanced build, good job .Also i agree with itzsnypah, Tom hardware should make an article on PC build with maximum performance that you can squeeze out of lowest watt, some people started to care about those things, and being green to the environment is nothing to be ashamed of.


Personally, I don't care much about being green to the environment as far as the power consumption of my computer is concerned but I do care about less heat and noise in my room. So yeah, even somebody who only has his own interests in mind would find such an article useful :) 

I run my CPU undervolted as far as I was able to get it and I bought a graphics card with a relatively quiet cooling solution (and HD5770 was not a power hog to begin with when I bought it). When I go for the upgrade I'll definitely keep power efficiency in mind.
Score
5
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 5:50:33 PM

raydoghttp://www.microcenter.com/special [...] PROMO.htmlpentiums or AMD bundle??


I'd recommend the Phenom II x4 955 if you don't mind overclocking much. If you don't want to overclock, then an i3 is another great option. Pentiums are kinda specific because they are best not used in titles that are well-threaded and very CPU-limited. For example, the Pentiums did fine in BF3, but go into BF3 MP and the Pentiums probably won't be able to keep up whatsoever.

What graphics card do you intend to use?
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 6:15:12 PM

blazorthon said:
Any motherboard with an AM3+ socket offers upgrading to Piledriver, Steamroller, and possibly its successor too. That'd be a good upgrade path.
But is it an upgrade path you want to go down? For the casual user ( or the enthusiast who only needs a modest system, ) yes, it's a path that offers more power than you need for very little money. But considering what you get with an Ivy Bridge vs a Piledriver, I can't think of many tech savvy people who wouldn't want or need the extra power the current Intel generation gives.

Like many others, I like this more balanced build compared to last quarter. I think it's more indicative of what enthusiasts want from a budget build. Sure, some people may be willing to sacrifice general computing for maximum 3D performance, but I think most people are a little more sensible in what can be expected. Any reasonable person that wants to max out current games and also do some serious computing on the side will sooner or later have to realize a ~$650 budget minimum.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 6:34:03 PM

RedJaron said:
But is it an upgrade path you want to go down? For the casual user ( or the enthusiast who only needs a modest system, ) yes, it's a path that offers more power than you need for very little money. But considering what you get with an Ivy Bridge vs a Piledriver, I can't think of many tech savvy people who wouldn't want or need the extra power the current Intel generation gives.


FX-8120 or FX-6100. Disable one core per module, letting the remaining core utilize the entire module's resources. This is a roughly up to 25% performance increase at the same clock frequency just when you manually tell a program to only use one thread per module in the task manager or a specialize short-cut, something that pretty much anyone could do with a simple, sub-minute tutorial. This also has the added benefit of decreasing power consumption at the same time because you have half of the cores either idling or disabled, depending on whether or not they are set to be inaccessible or completely disabled.

This is a huge performance per core per watt increase and increases thermal headroom substantially. You could easily get such a CPU up to and possibly past 5GHz on affordable air cooling. In this scenario, that's enough to put up a good fight against overclocked LGA 1155 i5s. The CPU/NB frequency can also be overclocked significantly with a considerably high performance boost as a result because it controls, among other things, the frequency of the L3 cache which defaults to a mere 2.2GHz if it isn't changed.

Bulldozer can already can already put up an excellent fight against Sandy/Ivy Bridge if you know how to use it well. Piledriver CPUs would be a large improvement over Bulldozer in that even Trinity is already a considerable increase in performance over Bulldozer despite not even having L3 cache. The performance of Steamroller and its subsequent successors is not something that I'm aware of, but if they are improvements over their immediate predecessors as Piledriver is over Bulldozer, that would be an excellent upgrade path.

By the time that a Phenom II x4 with an overclock is no longer practical for a $500 machine, we'll be a good two or three years down the road and Ivy will be no better then than it is now, but AM3+'s last families will probably be around Ivy in performance per core even without the enhancements other than overclocking that I mentioned earlier in this post. Combine that with the enhancements and overclocking and I don't see any advantage in going LGA 1155. Now if we were talking Haswell versus AMD once it is out, then there might be a great argument in that, but not Ivy/Sandy Bridge versus AMD's future.

I consider myself a tech savvy person and I'd easily choose the future of AM3+ over the future of LGA 1155. Right now, I'd go Intel over AMD for top performance because even with those above-mentioned enhancements to compete in performance, it would get hot and suck a lot of power, although it would most certainly not be nearly as bad as overclocking Bulldozer CPUs without the enhancements.
Score
1
August 20, 2012 6:44:39 PM

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X3%...
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml...
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-Phenom%20II%20X4%...

If I were on a tight budget and looking to overclock I would be looking long and hard at those two options. Granted they do not come with heat sinks, but that's only another 20 to 30 dollars on top for a decent cooler. They do not have the power or thermal efficiency of the SB/IB chips but they will hang with the Pentiums and I3's in single thread and destroy them in multithread performance, and with an AM3+ board there should be an upgrade path in the future with piledriver. I mean 40 dollars for a triple core (which may unlock to a quad core) or 50 for a quad core Phenom II, thats an insane deal, even with the relatively slow (for AMD) stock clock of 2.8. Add in the ability to take the CPU from stock to 3.5 - 4 Ghz by overclocking and thats a tremendous value.
Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 6:58:19 PM

artk2219http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0389133http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/ [...] K3DGI.htmlhttp://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0389134http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/ [...] K4DGI.htmlIf I were on a tight budget and looking to overclock I would be looking long and hard at those two options. Granted they do not come with heat sinks, but that's only another 20 to 30 dollars on top for a decent cooler. They do not have the power or thermal efficiency of the SB/IB chips but they will hang with the Pentiums and I3's in single thread and destroy them in multithread performance, and with an AM3+ board there should be an upgrade path in the future with piledriver. I mean 40 dollars for a triple core (which may unlock to a quad core) or 50 for a quad core Phenom II, thats an insane deal, even with the relatively slow (for AMD) stock clock of 2.8. Add in the ability to take the CPU from stock to 3.5 - 4 Ghz by overclocking and thats a tremendous value.


Problem is that the links say that those are in-store purchases only. You probably can't have them shipped to you from Microcenter. Also, they'll only hang with the Pentiums and i3s in single-threaded performance after they're overclocked. Despite this, for people who live near a Microcenter, you are correct about them being a great deal.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 6:58:48 PM

there is one "fact" this build provides and dispels the myth that an intel gaming build has to be expensive:

Total Price $501

just 25% more than what a lot of people spend on a grfx card.
Score
5
August 20, 2012 7:32:33 PM

blazorthonProblem is that the links say that those are in-store purchases only. You probably can't have them shipped to you from Microcenter. Also, they'll only hang with the Pentiums and i3s in single-threaded performance after they're overclocked. Despite this, for people who live near a Microcenter, you are correct about them being a great deal.



You're right, unfortunately I realized it was an in store only deal after I had submitted the comment, and I did leave out that they needed to be overclocked to around 3.2 - 3.4 to bring them to around an I3/Pentium single thread performance level.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 7:37:00 PM

artk2219You're right, unfortunately I realized it was an in store only deal after I had submitted the comment, and I did leave out that they needed to be overclocked to around 3.2 - 3.4 to bring them to around an I3/Pentium single thread performance level.


Actually, thy need to be overclocked closer to 3.8-4GHz to meet Intel in single-threaded performance. Phenom II is a lit better than FX in performance per Hz, but it's still quite far from Sandy Bridge.
Score
1
August 20, 2012 8:01:15 PM

artk2219http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0389133http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/ [...] K3DGI.htmlhttp://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0389134http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/ [...] K4DGI.htmlIf I were on a tight budget and looking to overclock I would be looking long and hard at those two options. Granted they do not come with heat sinks, but that's only another 20 to 30 dollars on top for a decent cooler. They do not have the power or thermal efficiency of the SB/IB chips but they will hang with the Pentiums and I3's in single thread and destroy them in multithread performance, and with an AM3+ board there should be an upgrade path in the future with piledriver. I mean 40 dollars for a triple core (which may unlock to a quad core) or 50 for a quad core Phenom II, thats an insane deal, even with the relatively slow (for AMD) stock clock of 2.8. Add in the ability to take the CPU from stock to 3.5 - 4 Ghz by overclocking and thats a tremendous value.


Micro center is not considered for the sbm builds because many good deals are in store only and not available for shipping. 4.0 will be very hard without good cooling on those c2 stepping chips. And there is no guarantee the will unlock despite what others have been able to achive.
Score
2
August 20, 2012 8:12:32 PM

blazorthonActually, thy need to be overclocked closer to 3.8-4GHz to meet Intel in single-threaded performance. Phenom II is a lit better than FX in performance per Hz, but it's still quite far from Sandy Bridge.


:)  I never said to SB performance, just around. 3.2 to 3.4 was within a 20 percent difference and close enough that for most tasks most people wouldnt notice. But again, yes your right lol.
Score
1
August 20, 2012 8:18:12 PM

Abegnale@Paul Henningsen,Why not substitute some existing parts for either an I3-2100 and/or an eVGA 560 Superclocked?

You could, or increase productivity by droping in an i5-2400 or higher.

We didn't consider an i3 here simply for price. $30 more the CPU alone, robs $30 from the GPU and/or mobo. Meeting budget, that would have meant i3-2100, HD 6850, and a $60 H61 mobo.


Score
2
August 20, 2012 8:31:01 PM

sarinaideWe need to enforce the "no celeron please" rule, terrible for that $500 PC.

sarinaide"Pentium"

Why? When building a pure gaming rig, why would we rule out the best gaming processor for the money? It's FPS per dollar/Watt/heat/noise are all outstanding.



And just an FYI, this is the very first Sandy Bridge Pentium we have ever used in a SBM.
Score
3
August 20, 2012 8:56:35 PM

emad_ramlawiNow thats what i call an balanced build, good job .Also i agree with itzsnypah, Tom hardware should make an article on PC build with maximum performance that you can squeeze out of lowest watt, some people started to care about those things, and being green to the environment is nothing to be ashamed of.

Thank you.

He presents an interesting idea. I'd consider it most for an HTPC or small form factor build, where power = heat = noise to some extent. Or it could also be the start of a nice $400 build, that happens to sip power either on purpose or just from lack of GPU funding.

Oh, we did do a bang/Watt build 3.5 years ago. Mildly overclocked e8500 did quite well.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-undervolt...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-power-eff...

Score
0
August 20, 2012 9:33:29 PM

bustaprhmm, sorry about that, the scroll down menu only shown skyrim and I skipped over that benchmark(as it doesnt really intrerest me). didnt know it said starcraft 2 next to it. ignore my last comment(except the witcher 2 part XD). If anyone knows, how exactly would thois rig compare to a phenom 2 955 or an fx-4100 build? considering both builds with these processors can easily be brought to the $500 area. seeing so many comments during all the SBM500 articles about phenom cpus, I think it would be interesting to see a multiple pc blowout to see which cpu how it goes. again, these are just my thoughts, dont take them too seriously.


AMD Phenoms have recently mysteriously appeared back on the market after a 6 month absence. (I'm not sure what is going on with AMD's CPU marketing team...) They were likely not available at the time of the build. The FX 4100 doesn't do so good in gaming as it gets beaten by the lower end Sandy Bridge at stock and can only equal them when overclocked (Which creates a power sucking system that makes me cringe at the electrical bill)
Score
0
August 20, 2012 9:46:27 PM

Many are talking about a Phenom II X4, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that choice. It's especially attractive when we consider competing throughout the whole test suite, not just games.

While available again, PH II quads are still a bit more expensive, and that funding comes from where? A Boxed 965 BE is $110, (same as the FX4100). The stock PHII cooler is loud, but would likely take the chip near 3.8 GHz. Alternately, an oem 955BE is $95, add $10-20 for a cooler as desired. Either way, we are dipping into our GPU and Mobo budget. I’d want to break budget a bit to do the platform justice. I’m not crazy about an AMD build (Deneb, or Zambezi, or Llano) forced to use a $50 mobo and CAS 9 DDR3-1333.

Anyway, my take on PH II X4 is this: power consumption would be way up, noise and/or cost up, productivity (overall) once overclocked would be way up, the machine's overall "score" or value standing vs. the other two machine's would also improve (requires more cores).

However the focus here was gaming, and I suspect little difference in 3 of our games (BF3, Skyrim, and DiRT3). StarCraft II though, our testing has shown even a 3.7 GHz X4 980 trails the G860 by about 10%. We'd probably need at least 4.0GHz to match the G860 in SC2.

Bottom line, we have now seen what Intel has to offer gamers at this budget. If we shift focus towards all-round performance, not just games, then we need more processing cores. We can't grab 4 Sandy Bridge cores and maintain our GPU funds, so attention must shift towards AMD.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
August 20, 2012 11:28:23 PM

I suspect a dual-graphics Trinity build (A10 + 7750) with a 120GB SSD will make a competitive $500 build for the december challenge
Score
-3
!