System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: System Value Compared
Tags:
- System Builder
- HD
-
Radeon
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
December 7, 2012 3:00:06 AM
This quarter is full of surprises, from a value-oriented $500 build that includes a Radeon HD 7850 to a $1,000 machine based on AMD's FX-8350 and a $2,000 box armed with a pair of Radeon HD 7970s. We mix it up by adding new benchmarks. It's anyone's game!
System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: System Value Compared : Read more
System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: System Value Compared : Read more
More about : system builder marathon 2012 system compared
lengcaifai
December 7, 2012 3:23:38 AM
mayankleoboy1
December 7, 2012 3:29:06 AM
Related resources
- New $1000 gaming system or System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 - Forum
- System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC - 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
stickmansam
December 7, 2012 3:33:55 AM
mayankleoboy1
December 7, 2012 3:56:18 AM
For the $500 build, why would it have 60% of its value calculated by apps, when it was build for gaming purpose ?
Just a thought, but shouldnt the percentwise distribution of value for each built based on the purpose for which it was built ?
Something like : games, apps, storage.
$500 build : 80%, 15%, 5% (cheapest best gaming with lots of cheap storage. )
$1000 build : 50%, 40%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for boot)
$2000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty and fast)
Just a thought, but shouldnt the percentwise distribution of value for each built based on the purpose for which it was built ?
Something like : games, apps, storage.
$500 build : 80%, 15%, 5% (cheapest best gaming with lots of cheap storage. )
$1000 build : 50%, 40%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for boot)
$2000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty and fast)
Score
10
mohit9206
December 7, 2012 4:11:23 AM
the1kingbob
December 7, 2012 4:32:00 AM
lengcaifaiactually the piledriver based build is more all-rounded, it can be a decent workstation and a decent gaming desktop for those who have tight budget
I was pleasantly surprised how well it turned out. I believe I would have gone with one that had less cores and spent the money elsewhere. Overall though, it turned out to be a pretty good machine. Now only if they could get the power usage under control.
Score
11
slicedtoad
December 7, 2012 6:07:05 AM
Marcus52
December 7, 2012 6:12:05 AM
mohit9206wow its unbelievable to see a $500 gaming pc achieve 50+ fps in Battlefield 3 at 1080p on ultra settings.goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
Yeah the AMD 7850 really pulled its gaming performance up. Very nice too that the Intel G850 didn't choke it off. A sweet build!
Score
17
ojas
December 7, 2012 7:17:11 AM
pchisholm
December 7, 2012 7:17:42 AM
So we're left with the AMD platform winning out the value comparison for no other reason than the mid-range Intel solution was not permitted to compete - so without filling all the places at the table this test is meaningless. The AMD solution only gets a default win due to no other permitted competition in that price range. This is garbage.
Firstly, the bulk of sane consumers with even half a clue and with $1000 in their pocket would not have given the AMD platform a 2nd look if given the choice. Are we really suggesting that they would have thrown $1000 at a solution that would not give them a 3770K upgrade option later on if they felt like it?
Also, this comparison deliberately factored out power consumption, which was rather convenient for AMD. I'm afraid you can't factor this out in this day and age, just because it's hard to quantify the cost across the entire globe. What you could do is produce some sythetics that represent average consumption over a given task and mutliply it up to get the total power over a year - then folk can work out what that would cost them in their own location. What I would like to know is how much that AMD solution would cost me to run for a couple of years when compared to a comparible Intel solution, and then work out what I could have bought with the money saved - it might not be much but I think it's valid - it could be the difference between a decent cooler or a piece of trash.
Please make these value comparisons tell the whole story by including both platforms within that price bracket - I know that makes life hard for the reviewing team but boo hoo hoo, you're the ones that set out to prove a point, so do a full job please. Tell us the full story, not half of it.
Firstly, the bulk of sane consumers with even half a clue and with $1000 in their pocket would not have given the AMD platform a 2nd look if given the choice. Are we really suggesting that they would have thrown $1000 at a solution that would not give them a 3770K upgrade option later on if they felt like it?
Also, this comparison deliberately factored out power consumption, which was rather convenient for AMD. I'm afraid you can't factor this out in this day and age, just because it's hard to quantify the cost across the entire globe. What you could do is produce some sythetics that represent average consumption over a given task and mutliply it up to get the total power over a year - then folk can work out what that would cost them in their own location. What I would like to know is how much that AMD solution would cost me to run for a couple of years when compared to a comparible Intel solution, and then work out what I could have bought with the money saved - it might not be much but I think it's valid - it could be the difference between a decent cooler or a piece of trash.
Please make these value comparisons tell the whole story by including both platforms within that price bracket - I know that makes life hard for the reviewing team but boo hoo hoo, you're the ones that set out to prove a point, so do a full job please. Tell us the full story, not half of it.
Score
-17
ojas
December 7, 2012 7:30:25 AM
pchisholm
December 7, 2012 7:34:05 AM
pchisholm
December 7, 2012 7:35:48 AM
MxMatrix
December 7, 2012 7:43:46 AM
ojasHmmm. I wonder what will happen if you put the FX8350 into the $2000 machine?
It would make it game a fair bit worse, and app performance would be on par or worse than the i7. And there is nothing more you could really spend the extra money on. Maybe a nicer monitor........ but for a gaming build if looking to cut price from the i7, you would just get the i5 for the same price as an 8350.
Score
6
Crashman
December 7, 2012 9:14:59 AM
pchisholmI know thats there, but you obviously didn't read all of the last page where it clearly states that power was deliberately factored out for the overall value comparison tables.
No it doesn't. Show me the word "deliberately" or anything else of similar meaning. Then go back to the last SBM. And the one before it. And the one before that. Efficiency has never been used in the SBM performance-per-price comparison. It would be far more accurate to say that the methodology of this SPECIFIC SBM was not deliberately ALTERED to PENALIZE AMD. The site has too much integrity to pull such a stunt.
Score
22
jtd871
December 7, 2012 9:19:29 AM
I understand that the $500/$1000/$2000 ratios make a nice exponential progression (factor of two), but the performance and value increases definitely diminish. Unless you are speccing a boutique gaming laptop, I think that I would prefer to see how creative your top-price builder can get for $1500. I am willing to bet that the value could be increased substantially - both in terms of power and price.
By switching to i53570K, 2x7870, CM Hyper TX3, ~$100 + $260 + 10 = $370 could have been saved. Also, do you really need the Barracuda? Not for SBM (I doubt it makes a difference to the performance one way or the other with a 240GB SSD primary) so another $80 saved. There's $450 saved for a great all-around performer and probably decent overclocker (not that I would ever dream of overclocking - system fans get too loud) too. For the price of the CM case, you could probably get a Silverstone PS07 and a couple of case fan upgrades and have a rig that also looks more appropriate in the office.
By switching to i53570K, 2x7870, CM Hyper TX3, ~$100 + $260 + 10 = $370 could have been saved. Also, do you really need the Barracuda? Not for SBM (I doubt it makes a difference to the performance one way or the other with a 240GB SSD primary) so another $80 saved. There's $450 saved for a great all-around performer and probably decent overclocker (not that I would ever dream of overclocking - system fans get too loud) too. For the price of the CM case, you could probably get a Silverstone PS07 and a couple of case fan upgrades and have a rig that also looks more appropriate in the office.
Score
5
Crashman
December 7, 2012 9:25:12 AM
ojasUm i must ask this, BF3, 2560x1600, ultra: is cross-fire not working? Why should 2 7970s serve up the same performance as a single 670? Or am i missing something? Thomas mentions the drop being "extreme" in his build's article but...something's wrong, i think...
I think it has something to do with the graphics memory getting used up. It's not a system-wide problem, it's a BF3+CrossFire problem. We used to see a similar thing in Crysis, again only at 2560x1600Look at the scaling for BF3 high settings, from 1280 to 1920. Everything looks good up to that point, in single-monitor testing the problem only occurs at 2560x1600 (though it may also affect high Eyefinity resolutions).
Score
6
army_ant7
December 7, 2012 9:33:23 AM
salgado18
December 7, 2012 9:58:00 AM
pchisholm
December 7, 2012 10:13:05 AM
CrashmanNo it doesn't. Show me the word "deliberately" or anything else of similar meaning. Then go back to the last SBM. And the one before it. And the one before that. Efficiency has never been used in the SBM performance-per-price comparison. It would be far more accurate to say that the methodology of this SPECIFIC SBM was not deliberately ALTERED to PENALIZE AMD. The site has too
much integrity to pull such a stunt.
much integrity to pull such a stunt.
"Today, Paul's machine sets our baseline, and is exceeded by Don's. Yes, as we saw on the previous page, the FX-8350 is less efficient. However, when you factor power out and look only at performance per dollar, this quarter's $1,000 configuration rises to the top in its stock form and even more so after overclocking."
So you missed this paragraph and the chart underneath it then?
For these comparisons to be objective and fair they should contain ALL the platform options at the appropriate price point or it is completely subjective. And just because there was a test you didn't do in a previous SBM does not mean you should exclude appropriate data later on in another SBM, especially then the missing data is more pertinent with every month that passes - and if it so happens that this data puts one particular platform at a disadvantage then so be it. Don't bitch about Tom's loosing cred by including data that shows one platform as sucking - thats life. Either man up and do the job properly or don't bother, because half a job does your cred a lot more damage than not doing it at all.
Score
-12
salgado18
December 7, 2012 10:33:27 AM
pchisholmFor these comparisons to be objective and fair they should contain ALL the platform options at the appropriate price point or it is completely subjective.
No they shouldn't. This is not a platform comparison, or a processor comparison. It's a System Builder Marathon: I'll give you $1000 dollars to build a machine, can you beat mine if I use $2000? There cannot be two $1000 machines, otherwise it's not what the article means to be.
The i5 is definitely better at efficiency than the FX-8350, and the later is faster at threaded work, but if you would enter such a competition (not a comparison), knowing that they won't factor power consumption in performance-per-dollar charts, which one would you choose? He chose the FX, more performance-per-dollar, less efficiency, job done.
Score
11
mayankleoboy1For the $500 build, why would it have 60% of its value calculated by apps, when it was build for gaming purpose ?Just a thought, but shouldnt the percentwise distribution of value for each built based on the purpose for which it was built?Something like : games, apps, storage. $500 build : 80%, 15%, 5% (cheapest best gaming with lots of cheap storage. ) $1000 build : 50%, 40%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for boot) $2000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty and fast)
This. You cannot judge a PC's value without considering the purpose(s) for which it was built. You don't score a gamer based on how quickly it can churn out PDF files, and you don't score the professional's PC based on how many FPS it gets in Crysis. For games, applications, and storage, I'd probably weight it more like $500: 85% / 5% / 10%; $1000: 60% / 25% / 15%; $2000: 5% / 80% / 15%.
The value analysis also has some flaws. For games, the perceived value of a progression from 30-60 FPS might be linear. The progression from 15-30FPS clearly is not, nor is 100-200FPS. The former is a boolean (unplayable vs. playable), and the latter hardly matters. Similarly, if the increased speed of the pro's machine allows an additional $1000 worth of work to get done per week, it's paid for itself soon after construction.
Looked at with no context, Paul's $500 PC is a good effort that struggles a bit, Don's PC is a buzzkilling letdown, and Thomas' $2K PC is the stuff of wet dreams. Throw in the context, however, and Paul's rises to the level of brilliance, even Don's becomes a true enthusiast build because of all the lessons learned and the tweaking, but Thomas' is just another high-end PC that a lot of us can't afford to build, at least not routinely, so we'd all do it differently. IMHO, Paul is the clear winner this cycle.
Edit: ...but Don's was pretty cool too.
Score
3
army_ant7
December 7, 2012 10:47:16 AM
pchisholm said:
"Today, Paul's machine sets our baseline, and is exceeded by Don's. Yes, as we saw on the previous page, the FX-8350 is less efficient. So you missed this paragraph and the chart underneath it then?
For these comparisons to be objective and fair they should contain ALL the platform options at the appropriate price point or it is completely subjective. And just because there was a test you didn't do in a previous SBM does not mean you should exclude appropriate data later on in another SBM, especially then the missing data is more pertinent with every month that passes - and if it so happens that this data puts one particular platform at a disadvantage then so be it. Don't bitch about Tom's loosing cred by including data that shows one platform as sucking - thats life. Either man up and do the job properly or don't bother, because half a job does your cred a lot more damage than not doing it at all.
You talk like your some kind of hot shot around here. Remember, Tom's Hardware is free (ads aside). We can give feedback, but don't you think we should be polite about it? If someone is rendering a service for you for free, do you act like an A-hole towards that person? If you do, then you really are an A-hole then.
I apologize for coming off in such an angry way, but come one...
Score
12
Yuka
December 7, 2012 11:08:54 AM
Its funny to see how the difference in CPU power consumption actually doesn't matter (or becomes small) once you factor another Video card for the build, haha.
Oh, and mayan has a very good point, but sine the RAW data is already in there, you can use the % you want to differentiate the builds.
I'm still against the Xigmatek HSF used for the 8350, but at least it still showed that FOR ITS PRICE it's a very good value and is indeed better than Zambezi (8150). Too bad it still is not better than any near-priced i5-k or i7-k.
Cheers!
Oh, and mayan has a very good point, but sine the RAW data is already in there, you can use the % you want to differentiate the builds.
I'm still against the Xigmatek HSF used for the 8350, but at least it still showed that FOR ITS PRICE it's a very good value and is indeed better than Zambezi (8150). Too bad it still is not better than any near-priced i5-k or i7-k.
Cheers!
Score
4
rolli59
December 7, 2012 11:10:21 AM
pchisholm
December 7, 2012 11:10:24 AM
@army_ant7 and salgardo18
Perhaps you should give more consideration to what other people reading these articles are trying to get out of them, rather than just letting the reviewers indulge themselves to the extent that they present a warped version of the real world and somehow lead people into believing that there version is the best possible solution for a given budget. I love the idea of trying different platforms in order to broaden the objectivity, but when you then limit the scope of your report to ONLY include the limited data because the reviewer decided on one platform purely on a whim then that is misleading.
As for a free service - by your logic they are allowed to write any rubbish they like without being held accountable. There are laws about that kind of thing, and it doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.
Perhaps you should give more consideration to what other people reading these articles are trying to get out of them, rather than just letting the reviewers indulge themselves to the extent that they present a warped version of the real world and somehow lead people into believing that there version is the best possible solution for a given budget. I love the idea of trying different platforms in order to broaden the objectivity, but when you then limit the scope of your report to ONLY include the limited data because the reviewer decided on one platform purely on a whim then that is misleading.
As for a free service - by your logic they are allowed to write any rubbish they like without being held accountable. There are laws about that kind of thing, and it doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.
Score
-11
One way to make the comparisons more relevant is to switch the purposes around, but build all three for that same purpose(s) that cycle. For example, they could all be gamers; or they might be the $500 office PC vs. the $1000 manager's PC vs. the $2000 owner's PC; etc. The downside is comparisons to the previous cycle's builds would be meaningless.
Consider that an idle thought though; the current format works pretty well if readers are able to apply their own context, or the analysis brings out some of these points.
Consider that an idle thought though; the current format works pretty well if readers are able to apply their own context, or the analysis brings out some of these points.
Score
1
salgado18
December 7, 2012 11:33:41 AM
pchisholm@army_ant7 and salgardo18Perhaps you should give more consideration to what other people reading these articles are trying to get out of them, rather than just letting the reviewers indulge themselves to the extent that they present a warped version of the real world and somehow lead people into believing that there version is the best possible solution for a given budget. I love the idea of trying different platforms in order to broaden the objectivity, but when you then limit the scope of your report to ONLY include the limited data because the reviewer decided on one platform purely on a whim then that is misleading.
From the $1000 build front page:
"I read through Chris' analysis of AMD's Vishera-based FX-8350 very carefully (AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?) and was happy to see that the company at least had a viable alternative to Intel's Core i5-3570K on its hands.
Naturally, I wanted to know how an FX-based System Builder Marathon machine would compare to the box I built last quarter, which housed...a Core i5-3570K. So, I bought similar components this time around, except for the platform, and set off to figure out how our new benchmark suite would treat the competing architectures."
That's actually a comparison, to last quarter's build. Everything but the processor and motherboard is the same, so they are directly comparable, but doing so in the value analysis is out of the scope of the article. He basically said "I'm entering the competition with something different this time, to see how it fares", and I personally liked it because I wanted to see how the FX'es would go against the traditional Intels. On that point, it reached in full the purpose of the article.
In fact, for a comparison between the AMD and Intel options, just read the $1000 build, it is there, just not compared against the other options.
Score
10
Strategist
December 7, 2012 11:37:33 AM
In the gaming thing, it might be a good idea to add a few more games in the future, for example something like Starcraft II (or some other popular RTS), and something like Skyrim (or some other popular RPG)... that way you get a somewhat more balanced gaming score I believe, but it also takes out issues with some games greatly liking some graphics card brands over others. Battlefield 3 happens to be one of those games, which when comparing SLI to xfire greatly favors the SLI set ups, not scaling even remotely close to as well on xfire, while on most other popular games this is NOT the case. That did really hurt the $2000 system this time around, and it really isn't representative for the gaming world in that regard.
Score
1
halls
December 7, 2012 12:08:02 PM
slicedtoadYou need to use a slightly more complicated performance comparison algorithm. Something that takes into account the fact that over 120fps is useless and doesn't run into problems with things like fps caps at low res.
I disagree with that, because even if 120+fps isn't useful today, those extra frames represent some overhead that will be useful in the future as games get more difficult to render.
Score
2
ojas
December 7, 2012 12:14:38 PM
iam2thecroweIt would make it game a fair bit worse, and app performance would be on par or worse than the i7. And there is nothing more you could really spend the extra money on. Maybe a nicer monitor........ but for a gaming build if looking to cut price from the i7, you would just get the i5 for the same price as an 8350.
Um. I don't know...see you still get 60 fps min, so it CAN game, but then you can get the i7's level of productivity (well, almost). What i was trying to say, was, wouldn't the $2000 build's value increase quite a lot? Especially on 2560x1600, on the rest it would probably suffer in terms of absolute gaming performance (but not with a 60 fps cap, though).
CrashmanI think it has something to do with the graphics memory getting used up. It's not a system-wide problem, it's a BF3+CrossFire problem. We used to see a similar thing in Crysis, again only at 2560x1600Look at the scaling for BF3 high settings, from 1280 to 1920. Everything looks good up to that point, in single-monitor testing the problem only occurs at 2560x1600 (though it may also affect high Eyefinity resolutions).
Yeah i saw...it's fine on skyrim, for example. Graphics memory getting used up? But this is like...3GB of VRAM, opposed to 2GB on the 670...maybe you should try an SLI setup and test the game at that resolution?
For all you know it could even be a driver/game issue (i know that Nvidia keeps updating SLI profiles, maybe AMD's cross-fire profile for BF3 is broken?).
Score
2
Strategist
December 7, 2012 12:28:21 PM
ojas said:
Yeah i saw...it's fine on skyrim, for example. Graphics memory getting used up? But this is like...3GB of VRAM, opposed to 2GB on the 670...maybe you should try an SLI setup and test the game at that resolution?According to tomshardware's own comparison charts as well as other review sites, both SLI 680s and SLI 670s are capable of hitting 90+ FPS on 2560x1440. Thats why I was saying what I said a few posts up, defining games by Battlefield 3 is unfair to AMD based crossfire setups, and hurts the $2000 PC.
Score
3
clonazepam
December 7, 2012 1:11:08 PM
Its fate should I win one of these:
The $500 PC is pretty good as it is. I would probably give it to my cousin, who is still using the X2 3800+ / 7600GT system I gave him years ago as a web surfer. I may filch the HD7850 out of it though, and substitute a HD7770.
The $1000 machine I would part out. The CPU would replace the 970BE on my Sabertooth. I'm curious as to how well it would OC there (and I'd post my results in the forum). I would probably use the GTX670, and pass the HD7870 down to my other PC. The RAM and optical drive would likely become spares. I'd sell the OCZ Sandforce SSD. I'd use the 1TB drive to hold backups, possibly in an external enclosure. I would sell the PSU, with appropriate caveats. I'd use the Loki somewhere, if only to replace a stock cooler. I'm sure I could eventually use the case.
The $2000 PC is overkill for my needs, but it's a very nice machine. I'd be tempted to snatch one of the graphics cards out of it, but I think I might turn around and give it away to another Tom's reader for the cost of the shipping/customs/extortion, with the stipulation that the person would have to be International or live in Rhode Island.
The $500 PC is pretty good as it is. I would probably give it to my cousin, who is still using the X2 3800+ / 7600GT system I gave him years ago as a web surfer. I may filch the HD7850 out of it though, and substitute a HD7770.
The $1000 machine I would part out. The CPU would replace the 970BE on my Sabertooth. I'm curious as to how well it would OC there (and I'd post my results in the forum). I would probably use the GTX670, and pass the HD7870 down to my other PC. The RAM and optical drive would likely become spares. I'd sell the OCZ Sandforce SSD. I'd use the 1TB drive to hold backups, possibly in an external enclosure. I would sell the PSU, with appropriate caveats. I'd use the Loki somewhere, if only to replace a stock cooler. I'm sure I could eventually use the case.
The $2000 PC is overkill for my needs, but it's a very nice machine. I'd be tempted to snatch one of the graphics cards out of it, but I think I might turn around and give it away to another Tom's reader for the cost of the shipping/customs/extortion, with the stipulation that the person would have to be International or live in Rhode Island.
Score
7
mikenygmail
December 7, 2012 1:30:39 PM
mohit9206wow its unbelievable to see a $500 gaming pc achieve 50+ fps in Battlefield 3 at 1080p on ultra settings.goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
Very good point. We need to build a PC gaming system at about $100 more than the average price of an Xbox 360 and PS3 now for a true comparison.
The reason we would add at least $100 to the PC price is to make up for the fact that console games are so much more expensive than PC games.
I think at $350 or so, we could STILL build a more powerful PC than either of those consoles. The question is, will we be able to build a more powerful PC for the same price as the NEW consoles at launch?
Perhaps an even better question is, will PC gaming take off as it should and will most people in the general population come to their senses and realize that PC's beat the living @!$*(&^! out of consoles? Only time will tell...
Score
5
TeraMedia
December 7, 2012 1:34:23 PM
Thanks reviewers for the comparisons. For me, the eye-opener chart was the Handbrake one. The 8350 was not too far behind the 3770K, either stock or O/C. And a better O/C on the 8350 could have improved that comparison a bit further even. Contrasting this with month after month of Phenom IIs and 81xx's getting crushed by Ivy Bridge is a welcome change. I suspect blazorthon could suggest other ways to tune the FX even further, perhaps by improving on-die cache latency. Might be interesting to see as a follow-up or even just a comment if there's time before it's shipped.
Score
2
bourgeoisdude
December 7, 2012 1:47:46 PM
mohit9206wow its unbelievable to see a $500 gaming pc achieve 50+ fps in Battlefield 3 at 1080p on ultra settings.goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
More surprising is that it took nearly 7 years to do so.
Goes to show how powerful the 360 and PS3 really were at the time they were released. The PS3's 7 core CPU is still pretty good--heck, even 6 core processors aren't mainstream yet.
Score
-9
dscudella
December 7, 2012 2:00:39 PM
bourgeoisdude said:
More surprising is that it took nearly 7 years to do so. Goes to show how powerful the 360 and PS3 really were at the time they were released. The PS3's 7 core CPU is still pretty good--heck, even 6 core processors aren't mainstream yet.
Considering that the Xbox 360 runs games at 1280x720 and is capped at 30FPS, you can't even compare them to todays PC's. It's also a custom CPU, it handles a lot of the processes that a PC's Video Card would handle. Also take into account the overheating problem they had.
Please don't compare a console to a PC. There is no comparison.
Score
11
EzioAs
December 7, 2012 2:16:09 PM
bourgeoisdude said:
More surprising is that it took nearly 7 years to do so. Goes to show how powerful the 360 and PS3 really were at the time they were released. The PS3's 7 core CPU is still pretty good--heck, even 6 core processors aren't mainstream yet.
6 core processors aren't mainstream yet??
You sure?? Score
10
frozentundra123456
December 7, 2012 3:06:20 PM
The value comparison is totally bogus to conclude that AMD is a good value. First, they conveniently disregard power comsumption, and they dont test a midrange system with an i5 3570k that could be built for very close to the 1000.00 price range as well.
Unless you heavily use the multithreaded apps that the 8350 is best at, the i5 is still the better overall processor.
Unless you heavily use the multithreaded apps that the 8350 is best at, the i5 is still the better overall processor.
Score
-7
ojas
December 7, 2012 3:10:19 PM
mohit9206wow its unbelievable to see a $500 gaming pc achieve 50+ fps in Battlefield 3 at 1080p on ultra settings.goes to show how even a $500 pc can thrash and destroy xbox 360 and ps3.
well they're also half the price.
But I'm curious now. Tom's authors: You think one of you could make a gaming PC that outputs a minimum of 60 fps at 720p for any current gen game maxed out, without cutting too many corners (i.e. still give the rig decent cooling) within $250? Anti-aliasing need not be turned on, since consoles don't do it either.
You'll need to include at least a 250GB HDD and USB 3.0 on the front panel. I'm not including software (i.e. the OS) in recognition of the fact that these things are subsidized. Point is to demonstrate that PC gaming can deliver far greater performance at the same price.
I could try by myself but then that would just be a theoretical build, wouldn't be able to see any benchmarks.
Score
1
RedJaron
December 7, 2012 3:24:06 PM
EzioAs said:
6 core processors aren't mainstream yet??
You sure??Perhaps "mainstream" wasn't quite the right word, but it's a fair question. I'm willing to bet most CPUs in use among the general public are dual-cores ( if you count cell phones and tablets, it might slide toward quad-core. ) Yes, hexa-cores are out and available to the public, but they're definitely above the average.
I have to congratulate the staff on this SBM. It felt a little experimental and I liked that. Sure, there were some problems with overclocking and some systems didn't quite live up to their expectations, but the results certainly were enlightening. And yes, I continue to be impressed by the performance $500 can buy.
Score
5
ivyanev
December 7, 2012 3:56:37 PM
mousseng
December 7, 2012 4:03:08 PM
frozentundra123456 said:
The value comparison is totally bogus to conclude that AMD is a good value. First, they conveniently disregard power comsumption, and they dont test a midrange system with an i5 3570k that could be built for very close to the 1000.00 price range as well. Unless you heavily use the multithreaded apps that the 8350 is best at, the i5 is still the better overall processor.
Never in the article did they say that the 8350 was better than the i5 in any way, or that "AMD is a good value." They said that, of the three computers they built this quarter, the one that housed the 8350 (which has other parts in it, by the way), was the best value with regards to performance per dollar. Not only that, but last quarter they built a 3570k-based system that was very similar. Both of these computers were compared in the $1k build article, and it was concluded that the previous build was superior.
Please read the whole thing carefully and understand the context of these articles before you come moaning about how they did it wrong.
Score
8
TeraMedia
December 7, 2012 4:04:21 PM
@ivyanev (re: price war): Actually, I'd kinda prefer that both manufs keep at least as much profit as they're getting today. We already know that Intel can sell their stuff cheaper than AMD for the same performance level. So if they bring the prices so low that AMD can't compete, then AMD is done in that business. I don't mind a price war, but not if it is going to lead to a monopoly.
Score
4
dscudella
December 7, 2012 4:51:27 PM
ojas said:
well they're also half the price.But I'm curious now. Tom's authors: You think one of you could make a gaming PC that outputs a minimum of 60 fps at 720p for any current gen game maxed out, without cutting too many corners (i.e. still give the rig decent cooling) within $250? Anti-aliasing need not be turned on, since consoles don't do it either.
You'll need to include at least a 250GB HDD and USB 3.0 on the front panel. I'm not including software (i.e. the OS) in recognition of the fact that these things are subsidized. Point is to demonstrate that PC gaming can deliver far greater performance at the same price.
I could try by myself but then that would just be a theoretical build, wouldn't be able to see any benchmarks.
You might be able to put together an A10-5800K rig for around $300. The A10-5800K has been shown to be capable of running @ 60FPS at 1280x720. You also won't need USB 3.0 as no console has that and both the Xbox 360 & PS3 display games at 30FPS.
Score
2
mousseng
December 7, 2012 5:32:04 PM
dscudella said:
You might be able to put together an A10-5800K rig for around $300. The A10-5800K has been shown to be capable of running @ 60FPS at 1280x720. You also won't need USB 3.0 as no console has that and both the Xbox 360 & PS3 display games at 30FPS.It's a squeeze, but with a bit more corner cutting, I think you might be able to get it under $300...
PCPartPicker part list
CPU: AMD A10-5800K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($119.99 @ Amazon) *Could swap this for an A8-5600k, save $20
Motherboard: ASRock FM2A75M-DGS Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($60.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Smart Tracer 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Silverstone PS08B (Black) MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($34.90 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 350W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($45.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $334.83
Score
3
bjaminnyc
December 7, 2012 5:34:05 PM
frozentundra123456The value comparison is totally bogus to conclude that AMD is a good value. First, they conveniently disregard power comsumption, and they dont test a midrange system with an i5 3570k that could be built for very close to the 1000.00 price range as well. Unless you heavily use the multithreaded apps that the 8350 is best at, the i5 is still the better overall processor.
The SBM series would be extremely boring if the builders didn't try less obvious builds. In addition, how many people do you know who have chose a home desktop based on power consumption? Personally, zero.
If you ran the an i5 and 8350 at 100% for a full year 24/7 the difference would be $61 for the year. Now no one is going to run a home "gaming" rig @ 100% 24/7/365. Lets sat they were at 100%, 6 hrs a day for 365 days in a row, the difference is $15.25 annually. Hmmm I still don't know many who would be even close to that figure. Ok 3 hrs a day @ 100% load for 365 days in a row, the difference in cost annually $7.63.
I can totally see why you would think power consumption is something that should weigh heavy when you're choosing a processor. Wow $8 a year is a lot of money. Makes me think twice about that power hungry AMD chip, this whole article should be rewritten. In server environments power consumption is critical, home use irrelevant.
FYI-my calcs were based on $0.12 kWh
Score
7
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- 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
- System Builder Marathon Forum
- More resources
!