System Builder Marathon, August 2012: System Value Compared
Tags:
- System Builder
- Performance
- Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
August 23, 2012 3:46:07 AM
Paul, Don, and Thomas each took a stab at building the best value-oriented performance machine within their budget limits (some more successfully than others). Which of these machines will stand out for delivering the most bang for your enthusiast buck?
System Builder Marathon, August 2012: System Value Compared : Read more
System Builder Marathon, August 2012: System Value Compared : Read more
More about : system builder marathon august 2012 system compared
abitoms
August 23, 2012 5:23:26 AM
abitoms
August 23, 2012 5:28:40 AM
The statistician (really) in me wonders wat might have happened to the $500 system's value if a quad FX was used in it...
I mean swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.
Productivity up by 20% and games down by 20% I guess. Can only speculate.
Btw, thanks crashman for the tip.
This is just me wondering aloud. So...dunno why the thumbs down
I mean swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.
Productivity up by 20% and games down by 20% I guess. Can only speculate.
Btw, thanks crashman for the tip.
This is just me wondering aloud. So...dunno why the thumbs down
Score
19
Related resources
- System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC - Forum
- New $1000 gaming system or System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 - Forum
- Real Winners of the System Builder Marathon marc. 2012? - Forum
- Looking at System Builder Marathon (or any other PC) for New Build - Forum
- Help! System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Budget Gaming PC - Forum
Crashman
August 23, 2012 5:39:41 AM
abitomsdamn,.... thought there was an Edit button somewhere.(sorry)So adding to my prev comment, swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.
Above your first post there's a link "Read the comments in the forums". In the forums you can quick edit (on the view pane) or full edit (on a new page), and in full edit mode you can even delete your second post. That is, if you add the missing information the the first post. Score
9
mayankleoboy1
August 23, 2012 5:40:22 AM
Since the benchmarks give a fair weight to the 'pro' applications, GPGPU benchmarks should be there as well.
And those gaming benchmarks are ridiculous. Most are getting FPS in the 100+ range. So really, there is no comparison between the systems. all values above 60 are the same. How can 150 FPS be better than 120FPS on a 60HZ monitor?
And those gaming benchmarks are ridiculous. Most are getting FPS in the 100+ range. So really, there is no comparison between the systems. all values above 60 are the same. How can 150 FPS be better than 120FPS on a 60HZ monitor?
Score
9
Crashman
August 23, 2012 7:49:54 AM
Anonymous
August 23, 2012 8:05:42 AM
frihyland
August 23, 2012 8:13:56 AM
perishedinflames
August 23, 2012 9:14:34 AM
frihylandGreat article, seems like it might be time to switch up the price points for your builds though. $600, $1200, and $1800 seem much more reasonable and would give us better comparisons I think.Edit: Ninja'd by chmr
current price-tags feel awkward i have to agree.
to be more specific:
a. Entry level gaming pc ($500): you try to pick the cheapest parts so that you save for the best GPU the rest of your money can buy
b. Enthusiast gaming pc ($1000): how most people try to build, save here and there (either by finding good deals or by dropping quality in RAM and Chassis mostly) so that you can get an awesome CPU & GPU (prolly a SSD too)
c. Hardcore gaming pc ($2000): the tag is too high so you just blindly buy the most expensive parts (like a sheikh on vacation)
what would show more accurate results might be one of the following two:
1. two builds; one of $700-$800 and one of around $1500 (+/- $100)
2. three builds again but with some $150-$200 offset; entry-lvl 650-700, enthusiast 1200-1400, hardcore 1700-1900
Score
2
noob2222
August 23, 2012 9:21:55 AM
abitomsThe statistician (really) in me wonders wat might have happened to the $500 system's value if a quad FX was used in it...I mean swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.Productivity up by 20% and games down by 20% I guess. Can only speculate.Btw, thanks crashman for the tip.This is just me wondering aloud. So...dunno why the thumbs down
Toms did a bunch of game reviews showing how bad AMD is so they don't have to use them for the SBM articles. 11 of the past 12 SBM have all been Intel, and the one AMD was bugged with a cheap cpu.
Even though SBM was I thought to test hardware with different components, apparently as long as its only with Intel.
BF3 as a test needs to be done online, wether its controlled or not, you can at least get a feel of how its going to work. Especially with a dual core cpu.
Score
-9
Crashman
August 23, 2012 9:30:14 AM
noob2222
August 23, 2012 9:53:28 AM
The reason the $500 buld used a dual core pentium was because SC2 ran better, conspiracy ... come on dude read what he said.
StarCraft II is the most CPU limited game in our suite. We'll even drop all the low settings and just take a look at the 1920x1080 Extreme chart linked here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
(edit: A8-3870K - average 30.4 fps)
Athlon II X4 645 - average 30 fps
Phenon II X4 955BE - average 38.9 fps
Pentium G860 - average 45.6 fps
Core i3-2100 - average 47.6 fps.
openly admitted conspiracy basing all cpu decisions on one article and in particular one game.
pauldh said:
StarCraft II is the most CPU limited game in our suite. We'll even drop all the low settings and just take a look at the 1920x1080 Extreme chart linked here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a...
(edit: A8-3870K - average 30.4 fps)
Athlon II X4 645 - average 30 fps
Phenon II X4 955BE - average 38.9 fps
Pentium G860 - average 45.6 fps
Core i3-2100 - average 47.6 fps.
openly admitted conspiracy basing all cpu decisions on one article and in particular one game.
Score
-11
abitoms
August 23, 2012 10:28:22 AM
chmrI know it's probably hard to do, but it would be awesome if Tom's could find out the price where price/performance is optimal instead of searching for the optimal build for a set price.
Similar to your view, i have one more thought. Since most users are already set/fixed/limited to their monitors or preferred resolutions, i reckon resolution is (or should be) the deciding factor while planning for system components.
For instance, When I built my system
-- I was on a budget of INR 35000 (This converts to around $750 - though if ppl in the USA bought these parts at that time, they would have spent just around $600 - due to various reasons beyond me)
-- I started with my *desired* resolution - 1920x1080.
-- For acceptable gaming AT THIS RESOLUTION within my budget, Radeon 5770 was the choice (NV also had options like the GTX 260 but were too power hungry for me).
-- This in turn decided the CPU for me, the Athlon II X3 435, which balanced the 5770 (meaning the 5770 and the X3 435 provided equal bottleneck to my system)
-- the CPU decided the appropriate motherboard for me
-- all this decided the power supply
-- and so on
Coming to how the reviews are laid here and most other sites, it is by game - i.e. each game on a new page. My humble opinion is to split them by resolution. Have 1 (or 2) page dedicated to games on 1440x900 then come to 16** resolutions and cover all games at this, followed by games at 1920x resolutions and then finally 2560x if needed.
i believe with such a layout, we need to see only one page in any review - the page representing the monitor resolution applicable to us
Sorry for the long post.
Score
5
AstroTC
August 23, 2012 11:41:11 AM
For these value assessments, once again, I think a FPS cap is needed. A machine that plays a game at 100FPS is not any more valuable than one that plays it at 75FPS (provided it isn't 3D). Expressed another way, a "Pass/Fail" grading system may apply. This dramatically increases the value of the $500 system for games, as it can run them all at playable FPS. I agree with a sentiment expressed in the $2K build comments however, that a professional may indeed value every second shaved off an application's run time. This makes fitness for purpose an important target when building.
Score
-2
vitornob
August 23, 2012 12:11:18 PM
jtt283For these value assessments, once again, I think a FPS cap is needed. A machine that plays a game at 100FPS is not any more valuable than one that plays it at 75FPS (provided it isn't 3D). Expressed another way, a "Pass/Fail" grading system may apply. This dramatically increases the value of the $500 system for games, as it can run them all at playable FPS. I agree with a sentiment expressed in the $2K build comments however, that a professional may indeed value every second shaved off an application's run time. This makes fitness for purpose an important target when building.
Try to think in another aspect. In heavy parts of a game, performance suffers. Let's say, performance cut by half. The 100FPS falls to 50FPS, and the 75FPS falls to 38FPS. In this case the 100FPS actually is more valuable.
This could be a good metric in the next SBM (wherever this is applicable, with scripted benchmarks) minimum FPS achieved.
Score
8
pauldh
August 23, 2012 12:12:29 PM
noob2222The reason the $500 buld used a dual core pentium was because SC2 ran better, conspiracy ... come on dude read what he said.
openly admitted conspiracy basing all cpu decisions on one article and in particular one game.
openly admitted conspiracy basing all cpu decisions on one article and in particular one game.
Pure nonsense. Way to take a quote out of context.
That comment was a direct response to someone who called the use of a Pentium G860 CRAP for our pure gaming system, while instead suggesting a Llano-based Athlon II as a better option, with zero proof offered to back up his claim.
I was simply showing how the Pentium is a far better processor for the intended purpose and provided one example review proving my claim. The RTS I referenced being an extreme case which also happens to make up 25% of our SBM gaming suite. His solution would have been far worse, and probably failed misreably, at the machine's intended purpose, which was to increase our processing fortitude for gaming alone (vs. the G530), and not winning an overall SBM. Winning will take more CPU cores. Specifically of available options in range, 4 overclocked AMD cores (preferably Phenom II) would indeed be better in today's comparison, if that were the machine's goal. I covered that in the text. Shoot, likely the best way to win this thing is with OC'ed i5-2500K and make graphics an afterthought, yet then we'd have to lose the gaming name and accept failure at the higher game settings.
Like it or not, Tom's consistently has found Intel's Sandy Bridge offerings to offer stellar gaming value, and chips like the Pentium G860 have ruled their price bracket and repeatedly earned the site's monthly recommendation for "Best Gaming CPU for the Money". Not based on one game, based on all our time spent testing various CPU's. It has nothing to do with brand preference, we long for either company to trump current top performers, and do NOT like using an enthusiast-unfriendly "locked" dual-core CPU. We are begging for better options, yet appreciate the amazing per-clock performance and affordable gaming abilities Sandy Bridge offers.
So many are bashing a CPU found to offer the best value at this machine's intended purpose, because it is not their preferred brand. Others may not like the Pentium because they wanted a different goal for the $500 system; That is fair enough. But let me ask, I also chose five AMD processors in a row when they best fit the intended purpose for the money. In fact, make that 7 out of 9 systems, spanning 2+ years, were all AMD processors, all my choice. Did you bash the whole site just as much then because I ignored Intel's budget offerings? Or did you understand we do this 4 times a year, having one shot each quarter, covered Intel's best already, and moved on to addressing the weakness we found with what could best serve the purpose (Athlon II and Phenom II X3 & X4).
Score
9
jaquith
August 23, 2012 1:03:29 PM
Quote:
"We’ve discussed the constraints of our benchmark suite thoroughly, concluding that any set of tests designed specifically to emphasize the capabilities of a more expensive machine wouldn't represent an adequate number of real-world buyers."Well I sure can't ague with that realization.
In my world a sub-$2K rig is a nice terminal. However, I clearly don't represent the 'typical' end user. Most folks (here) are using their PC's to play games, surf the web, check their email and rip media. There is no doubt the occasional person actually uses their PC for something more productive, but the 'productive' uses are so far and wide that you'll be stretched to find a compilation of suitable benchmarks that are going to be useful.
Any decent 2-core+ CPU can game and the differences stem from the games 'physics/computations/etc' (CPU) and last Jan you guys did such an article comparing CPU's; it would be nice to see a 'plus-$200' version - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-a... otherwise in the $1K/$2K you'll have fluctuations in GPU's which forces me to read the 'fine' print of the GPU's clocks & settings not to mention you can run the same test 5 times and have 5 different results. So spitting hairs on FPS ±2%~3% might not mean a thing or worst misleading.
Also, a very important note between Marathon's AMD and/or nVidia may update their drivers so retrospective (old) comparisons become a mute point and are indeed very misleading. You can have a 5%~20% jump in performance just as a matter of a driver patch/update.
Statistical Errors & Standard Deviation - Run 3DMark11 10 times and if you achieve the same results you're either a lair or it's a fluke. Further, the duration's of the test are way too short which adds to more potential errors; 3 sec/60 sec vs 4 sec/10 min (600 sec); 5% vs 0.67%.
There are several bench suites that actually will show the differences between then number of cores and hyper-threading so I suggest you explore those benchmarks in future Marathon's.
Score
4
halls
August 23, 2012 1:14:41 PM
Any thoughts on how cheap SSDs would have to get before you'd ditch mechanical hard drives entirely in the $500 PC? If it's categorized as a "$500 Gaming PC", you could definitely get away with lower capacity if you had to. I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen if you could score a 90 or ~120GB drive for a few more bucks than the 500GB you used this time around.
Score
0
cknobman
August 23, 2012 1:34:20 PM
hallsAny thoughts on how cheap SSDs would have to get before you'd ditch mechanical hard drives entirely in the $500 PC? If it's categorized as a "$500 Gaming PC", you could definitely get away with lower capacity if you had to. I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen if you could score a 90 or ~120GB drive for a few more bucks than the 500GB you used this time around.
I could argue for right now. Today NewEgg has a shell shocker deal for an OCZ Agility 3 240GB SSD for only $139.99!!!!!!!!!!
(I know its OCZ and SandForce but I have a 120GB version of same drive and with latest firmware it seems to be doing just fine)
Score
0
toddybody
August 23, 2012 1:37:34 PM
I understand the CPU choice for the 2k build from productivity applications perspective...but it seems silly to choose in light of a nicer middle ground being the 3770k (HT over 3570 and TDP benefits over 3930K).
Scrimping here and there would allow for higher graphics options, and better differentiating from the 1k build in gaming benchmarks.
Anyways, great articles as always! Thanks Tom's Team
Scrimping here and there would allow for higher graphics options, and better differentiating from the 1k build in gaming benchmarks.
Anyways, great articles as always! Thanks Tom's Team
Score
1
spentshells
August 23, 2012 2:00:08 PM
fw1374
August 23, 2012 2:05:24 PM
spookyman
August 23, 2012 2:10:45 PM
vitornobTry to think in another aspect. In heavy parts of a game, performance suffers. Let's say, performance cut by half. The 100FPS falls to 50FPS, and the 75FPS falls to 38FPS. In this case the 100FPS actually is more valuable.This could be a good metric in the next SBM (wherever this is applicable, with scripted benchmarks) minimum FPS achieved.
My bad for not clarifying; in cases like this you would definitely use minimum rather than average FPS.
I'd like to see FOUR budgets, with the first three a little tighter, like $500-$750-$1000 (or $400-$600-$800) then $2000. (I'm not being greedy here; give away only the low three). The first three may focus on gaming; and the last one should focus on productivity, then you may ALSO ask "but can it play [Crysis]?" Its graphics card must be either a workstation card or otherwise focus on GPGPU processing. Depending on the productivity benchmarks chosen, maybe it only gets a GT440 or HD6670 in order to fit a monster CPU; sucks for high-res 3D games, but that's not its purpose; can it ALSO play, with lowered settings?
Score
0
Sakkura
August 23, 2012 2:37:28 PM
I see no anti-AMD conspiracy here, but if the next SBM doesn't show some AMD graphics cards after their new (post-GTX 660 Ti) round of price cuts...
And honestly, comparing a $1000 machine to a $2000 machine as much based on 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 gaming as on 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 gaming is just never going to give useful results.
And honestly, comparing a $1000 machine to a $2000 machine as much based on 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 gaming as on 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 gaming is just never going to give useful results.
Score
6
jaquith
August 23, 2012 2:54:26 PM
cknobmanI could argue for right now. Today NewEgg has a shell shocker deal for an OCZ Agility 3 240GB SSD for only $139.99!!!!!!!!!!
You mean $164.99 after rebate; see - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... I was going to buy one @ $140
Here's a heck of a deal for $500 if you're okay with a Biostar - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?I...
Score
0
Sakkura said:
...comparing a $1000 machine to a $2000 machine as much based on 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 gaming as on 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 gaming is just never going to give useful results.I disagree, because the $2000 machine wasn't built for gaming, but for productivity (my take on what "Performance" means, as opposed to "Gaming"). The question becomes then, can it ALSO handle games, and how well? That's what motivated my prior post, suggesting three different [close] budgets but all machines built for the same purpose. The question to be answered is, what incremental improvements can each bump in the budget provide? A value analysis (especially with some pass/fail grading applied) can then help determine where the point of diminishing returns has been reached. One SBM series might vary the CPU a lot, and another might vary the graphics card(s), or other focal points can be tested.
Score
2
Sakkura
August 23, 2012 3:03:28 PM
jtt283I disagree, because the $2000 machine wasn't built for gaming, but for productivity (my take on what "Performance" means, as opposed to "Gaming"). The question becomes then, can it ALSO handle games, and how well? That's what motivated my prior post, suggesting three different [close] budgets but all machines built for the same purpose. The question to be answered is, what incremental improvements can each bump in the budget provide? A value analysis (especially with some pass/fail grading applied) can then help determine where the point of diminishing returns has been reached. One SBM series might vary the CPU a lot, and another might vary the graphics card(s), or other focal points can be tested.
But why would you test whether a $2000 machine can game by using a 1280x1024 resolution? Use resolutions that make at least a little sense, like 1920x1080 or 2560x1600.
Score
2
pacioli
August 23, 2012 3:44:47 PM
chmrI know it's probably hard to do, but it would be awesome if Tom's could find out the price where price/performance is optimal instead of searching for the optimal build for a set price.
That is fairly easy to do... Just put an i5 2500K or i5 3570K together with a GTX 660 Ti, GTX 570, HD 7950, or HD 7870.
Score
1
bustapr
August 23, 2012 4:15:42 PM
Quote:
The largest single market we can try to help is the gamers out there looking to play at high resolutions. And so we’ve decided to take another run at the $2000 PC build, shifting focus from CPU to GPU power. In order to overcome the limits of our gaming suite, we're adding the latest high-end 5760x1080 resolution to our tests. You’ll see that alternative, gaming-centric build tomorrow.looking forward to this
Score
2
Sakkura said:
But why would you test whether a $2000 machine can game by using a 1280x1024 resolution? Use resolutions that make at least a little sense, like 1920x1080 or 2560x1600.While I definitely see your point, I've got a pair of monitors on my desk at work, and each is only 1280x1024. I suppose it would depend on what tasks the "Performance (Productivity)" build is meant to handle (I've asked for a description of its user in other comments, in order to judge fitness for purpose). Graphic design implies a nice big 2560x1600 monitor, but database crunching or numerical analysis might not.
We are not in disagreement here, we probably just need more context.
Score
2
TeraMedia
August 23, 2012 5:30:45 PM
SinisterSalad
August 23, 2012 5:57:09 PM
esrever
August 23, 2012 7:10:40 PM
dalethepcman
August 23, 2012 7:26:52 PM
Quote:
shifting focus from CPU to GPU power. In order to overcome the limits of our gaming suite, we're adding the latest high-end 5760x1080 resolution to our testsHurray!
Can you throw in some multi screen 3d gaming tests as well (maybe in next quarters build) to really push the hardware to its knees? I want to see what can be done with 2k.
As a side note, I prefer 2560/1920 for primary and 1080x2/1920 for the peripheral vision
Score
1
noob2222
August 23, 2012 7:31:06 PM
pauldh said:
Pure nonsense. Way to take a quote out of context.
That comment was a direct response to someone who called the use of a Pentium G860 CRAP for our pure gaming system, while instead suggesting a Llano-based Athlon II as a better option, with zero proof offered to back up his claim.
you had the same excuse for not using a phenom X4
pauldh said:
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.
Whats pure crap, the fact that your picking cpus based on one article and mainly because of one game? Kinda funny you said the same thing twice, but its out of context since I quoted the atlon responce instead of the PII.
Like i said before, try playing BF3 online since its an online game and see if it even works (maintaining higher than 30 fps) wether or not you post the results or if they are "controlled", if it can't even play then it fails, and is CRAP like the guy said.
Quote:
repeatedly earned the site's monthly recommendation for "Best Gaming CPU for the Money". And what article are those based off of?
Watch AMD's pehenom II move down in the Hierarchy charts thanks to the "gaming article".
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-overcloc... <-- even with I3 2100
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-o... <-- below I3 2100
Amazing how one article can move the entire Intel line up one slot and yet even in those articles where your trying to defend using the g860 over the PII, the PII 955 is above it.
Ever since AMD released FX, all the articles have been nothing but a bashing fest for all of AMD's cpus. I find it funny that the 4170 is up with the top AMD cpus for gaming, yet when I take my 8120 and cut off 4 cores in the bios, it runs like crap in comparison.
Just one question on SC2, do you use the built in cpu test or test the actual gameplay on a recorded demo?
Score
-4
blazorthon
August 23, 2012 7:31:49 PM
spookymanAlso the 3930k looses out to native USB 3.0 support and PCIe 3.0 support.
The 3930K has PCIe 3.0 (a supposedly beta implementation, but it works fine with AMD's cards and can be hacked into working with Nvidia's cards) and no decent X79 motherboard would lack USB 3.0 connectivity. Being native or not is irrelevant so long as a non-native USB 3.0 controller is at least almost as good as the native one. Besides, with USB 3.0, the only use for it that I see beating USB 2.0 by much is external storage, something that is generally better suited to eSATA anyway.
Score
0
jlwtech
August 23, 2012 8:46:39 PM
I defintely agree that intel is the way to go for best performance-per-dollar right now. I would like to see more AMD products in the SBM series as well, but thier CPU's are getting stomped by intel right now.
The games used to test gaming in this series of SBM's were the games that favored Nvidia's cards.
No Crysis 2, no Metro 2033, etc..
It has been shown that the HD7970 can outpace the GTX680 in games that demand a lot of memory bandwidth. Why not use a HD7970 instead of a GTX670?
What about a pair of HD7870s next time around? That would be very interesting.
The games used to test gaming in this series of SBM's were the games that favored Nvidia's cards.
No Crysis 2, no Metro 2033, etc..
It has been shown that the HD7970 can outpace the GTX680 in games that demand a lot of memory bandwidth. Why not use a HD7970 instead of a GTX670?
What about a pair of HD7870s next time around? That would be very interesting.
Score
1
Anonymous
August 23, 2012 9:18:39 PM
aaab
August 23, 2012 9:30:51 PM
blazorthon
August 23, 2012 9:44:44 PM
jlwtechI defintely agree that intel is the way to go for best performance-per-dollar right now. I would like to see more AMD products in the SBM series as well, but thier CPU's are getting stomped by intel right now.The games used to test gaming in this series of SBM's were the games that favored Nvidia's cards.No Crysis 2, no Metro 2033, etc.. It has been shown that the HD7970 can outpace the GTX680 in games that demand a lot of memory bandwidth. Why not use a HD7970 instead of a GTX670?What about a pair of HD7870s next time around? That would be very interesting.
I agree with the 7970 argument, but saying that AMD's CPUs are being stomped by Intel is not nearly entirely true. In highly threaded performance per dollar, AMD wins, hands down. In single/lightly threaded performance, overclocking the CPU and northbridge and for the FX series with six or eight cores, disabling one core per module can make them similar or superior to Intel in performance per dollar. The FX-6100 and FX-8120 are excellent for this. The FX-8120, with one core per module disabled, CPU frequency overclocking, and CPU/NB frequency overclocking can fight with the i5-2500K and the i5-3570K in performance quite well without having power consumption that is unmanageable. Doing the same to the FX-6100 will leave it as a tri-core that kicks that crap out of the similarly priced i3s to an extreme.
Intel isn't necessarily the way to go in performance per dollar, only performance per watt in most CPU-based situations goes to Intel with LGA 1155. In that, AMD simply doesn't compete with their current line of CPUs, although the disabling one core per module trick does help in lightly threaded performance per watt greatly.
Score
2
jdwii
August 23, 2012 10:02:26 PM
Crashman
August 23, 2012 10:03:29 PM
dalethepcmanHurray!Can you throw in some multi screen 3d gaming tests as well (maybe in next quarters build) to really push the hardware to its knees? I want to see what can be done with 2k.As a side note, I prefer 2560/1920 for primary and 1080x2/1920 for the peripheral vision
Now that EyeFinity and Surround are practical at the high end, I'd like to see a return to 5x4 monitors. 2560x2048 x3 anyone? Score
-1
blazorthon
August 23, 2012 10:23:14 PM
jdwiiTheir is no way i would use a Pentium dual core in a gaming build for 500$ i would use a Amd Phenom II x4 965 and a Radeon 7770. You can even upgrade later and buy a 212+ coolermaster and overclock that 965 to 3.8-4.0Ghz just fine.
Why go down to the 7770 when the 7850 will probably drop into a price low enough for a $500 build? It wouldn't get better for a single GPU setup.
Score
0
jdwii
August 23, 2012 10:45:33 PM
blazorthon said:
Why go down to the 7770 when the 7850 will probably drop into a price low enough for a $500 build? It wouldn't get better for a single GPU setup.I would never use anything else but a Quad-core For gaming at least the video card is easy to upgrade if needed. And a 965 Overclocked to 3.8-4.0Ghz wont even bottleneck a 7870 so buying a 965 is a great foundation to any gaming rig priced at this area. A 7770 is like a 6850 which can play most games at 1080P at medium to high settings. And a 7850 is like my video card the 6950 which can play games at 1080P with around High-extreme settings. But to say you cant buy a gaming rig for 500$ is not true you just have to be wise and use the right parts and you should probably think about Overclocking a bit.
Score
0
geneo2036
August 24, 2012 2:54:39 AM
Many people post price points but you miss the usefulness of those articles at the price points suggested by many of you.
3 price point article
750- real world budget work machine/budget gaming
1000- work/gaming (most people's budget limit)
1500- hard core machine (majority of hard core buyers that are on some type of money constraint- you can always spend more but very very few do- maybe 0.1% of buying public tho guys at toms would have the more accurate figure of what % of total PC sales are 2K+)
those 3 price points will show the differences of 3 real world budgets, like the article pointed out $500 is just too low a price to pay to get a serious machine though i'm aware many sell at that price- those buyers are very basic users and causal gamers that just want cheap and usable.
the most difference is actually within $250 of each other so the price points to get a useful information and show difference, you need points $500,750,1000, 1250, 1500, 2000+
I don't know the budget you have to do this type of article but it would actually inform someone of the advantage/disadvantage of buying a PC at a given price point.
As you said in your own article $500/$2000 are just too far to either side of the bell curve to matter
3 price point article
750- real world budget work machine/budget gaming
1000- work/gaming (most people's budget limit)
1500- hard core machine (majority of hard core buyers that are on some type of money constraint- you can always spend more but very very few do- maybe 0.1% of buying public tho guys at toms would have the more accurate figure of what % of total PC sales are 2K+)
those 3 price points will show the differences of 3 real world budgets, like the article pointed out $500 is just too low a price to pay to get a serious machine though i'm aware many sell at that price- those buyers are very basic users and causal gamers that just want cheap and usable.
the most difference is actually within $250 of each other so the price points to get a useful information and show difference, you need points $500,750,1000, 1250, 1500, 2000+
I don't know the budget you have to do this type of article but it would actually inform someone of the advantage/disadvantage of buying a PC at a given price point.
As you said in your own article $500/$2000 are just too far to either side of the bell curve to matter
Score
-1
Yuka
August 24, 2012 3:18:43 AM
I think I made this point some time ago, but you guys should *really* start introducing monitor pricing in your articles, since like many point out, a USD$500 build should not be meant for anything above high/medium @1680x1050 and the USD$1000 should target ultra @1680x1050 and high/medium @1920x1080 and the USD$2000 should be built to push either high resolution gaming (eyefinity/sorround) or wide productivity (like this build, which I think came out pretty well balanced).
Other than that, great insights as usual.
Oh, add some more games to the mix if you can, please. Or some way to measure them in MP rounds
Cheers!
Other than that, great insights as usual.
Oh, add some more games to the mix if you can, please. Or some way to measure them in MP rounds
Cheers!
Score
1
brucek2
August 24, 2012 3:28:12 AM
mayankleoboy1all values above 60 are the same
Assuming you're not planning on throwing your system out the week after you built it, the point of numbers above 60 is what they say about how long the system will remain current. If it was me, and knowing I like to keep my system a minimum of 18 months, I'd want some headroom on today's games so I'm not dialing down quality on next quarter's releases. The other point is that there are some games, like Skyrim, that can be modded so heavily that you could bring even one of these 120+ monsters to their knees.
Score
1
blazorthon
August 24, 2012 3:28:42 AM
jdwiiI would never use anything else but a Quad-core For gaming at least the video card is easy to upgrade if needed. And a 965 Overclocked to 3.8-4.0Ghz wont even bottleneck a 7870 so buying a 965 is a great foundation to any gaming rig priced at this area. A 7770 is like a 6850 which can play most games at 1080P at medium to high settings. And a 7850 is like my video card the 6950 which can play games at 1080P with around High-extreme settings. But to say you cant buy a gaming rig for 500$ is not true you just have to be wise and use the right parts and you should probably think about Overclocking a bit.
I have no idea where you're going with any of this. I never said that you shouldn't have a Phenom II x4 (In fact, I've voiced my support for it over a Pentium several times), I never said that a $500 machine can't be a good gaming machine, I never said that the 7770 is too weak to be used (I've played around with several and know first-hand that good models can have a lot of overclocking headroom). My point was that a 7850 at under $210 can be fitted into a $500 machine that also has a Phenom II x4 as its CPU, so going down to the 7770 seems foolish. Overclocking will never let the 7770 compare to the 7850 because the 7850 has even more headroom than the 7770 does and double the GDDR5 memory bus width.
Score
0
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- SolvedAround 1000€ August 2013 System: AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i5 - First Time Builder Forum
- Solvedwhy is the system builder marathon 2013 based on mini itx plat form? Forum
- SolvedNo Newegg SuperCombo for the current System Builder's Marathon? Forum
- System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014? Forum
- SolvedAre System Builder Marathon Rigs Suitable for a First Build? Forum
- System Builder marathon $500 Forum
- System Builder Marathon Giveaway Winner announcments? Forum
- "System Builder Marathon" $1200 Rig? Forum
- How to enter the System Builder Marathon competition ? Forum
- Next System builder Marathon Forum
- System Builder Marathon Contest Forum
- With Tom's System Builder Marathon in mind: Build a Infinite Budget PC Forum
- System builder marathon notebook edition Forum
- Card Alternative from the System Builder Marathon Article Forum
- System Builder Marathon, May '09: $1,300 Enthusiast PC Forum
- More resources
!