Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: $800 Enthusiast PC

Tags:
  • System Builder
  • Benchmark
  • Build
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
February 27, 2013 3:00:06 AM

Last quarter, Don had $1,000 to spend on a mid-range enthusiast-oriented PC. This time around, we challenged him to build something better with $800. Is that even possible? Our System Builder Marathon continues, as we benchmark three hand-picked setups.

System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: $800 Enthusiast PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon 2013 800 enthusiast

February 27, 2013 3:16:38 AM

The table outlining the components of the build. It should read 800$ and not 1000$, I think?
Score
0
February 27, 2013 3:29:52 AM

guessed they reused the previous template, sure it'll be fixed soon and people will wonder what we're talking about
Score
-1
Related resources
February 27, 2013 3:41:57 AM

Quote:
Although we're going to miss the snappy boot-up times and almost-instant application launches the solid-state drive enabled, we probably won't be penalized too much in the benchmark results.


And therein lies the problem with benchmarks.
An enthusiast PC, without a SSD boot drive?
Score
-8
February 27, 2013 3:49:24 AM

That's a great value PC there. Would be hard pressed to think of a more compelling combination for the money. Well done.

Score
17
February 27, 2013 3:59:04 AM

The heat sink breaks easily but it is a good cheap solution, as long it doesn't break.
Score
0
February 27, 2013 4:30:29 AM

If this machine were at $1000 budget, might as well add a 128GB SSD, and replace the HD 7870 to a HD 7950.
Score
-1
February 27, 2013 4:38:51 AM

"Overclocking

Overclocking the Core i5-3550K is"
Score
0
February 27, 2013 5:01:15 AM

i think you couldve found a cheaper z77 solution and squieezed in a 64mb cache hdd
Score
-10
February 27, 2013 5:02:34 AM

ipwn3r456If this machine were at $1000 budget, might as well add a 128GB SSD, and replace the HD 7870 to a HD 7950.



there would be marginal performance boost from switching from a 7870 LE(nerfed 7950, heck can call it a 7930 and it would be partially correct in a way) to an actual 7950. Though its likely the outcome for the 1k budget coming up next.
Score
2
February 27, 2013 5:04:18 AM

I really wasn't expecting the AMD chip to be so close to the i5. I'm a bit surprised. The power consumption figures look bad for the FX though.
Score
2
February 27, 2013 5:20:53 AM

I would like to see builds for non-overclocking as well if they are comparing non-overlocked benchmarks. The $800 isn't a good estimate of what you can achieve in a non-overclocked build when you are paying all that extra for unlocked parts. A locked i5, locked mobo, no heat sink, and smaller PSU will scrape enough for a small SSD. This would be a more well-rounded build that a lot of people would choose especially if they are not planning on overclocking.
Score
-2
February 27, 2013 5:21:59 AM

abhijitkalyaneI really wasn't expecting the AMD chip to be so close to the i5. I'm a bit surprised. The power consumption figures look bad for the FX though.


That's cuz the 8350 is using a 670 which in GPU heavy titles will boost its numbers higher. Same GPU would show a more different story and the price difference between a 8350 and a i5 3570k is only able to bump a 7870xt to a 7950 at most, not to a 670

mayankleoboy1 said:
Quote:
Although we're going to miss the snappy boot-up times and almost-instant application launches the solid-state drive enabled, we probably won't be penalized too much in the benchmark results.


And therein lies the problem with benchmarks.
An enthusiast PC, without a SSD boot drive?


For a $800 budget, I would rather get all the real in game performance I can first while and add a ssd later than lose out on fps and get faster load times

higher fps(stronger cpu, gpu) > faster load times

Chairman Ray said:
I would like to see builds for non-overclocking as well if they are comparing non-overlocked benchmarks. The $800 isn't a good estimate of what you can achieve in a non-overclocked build when you are paying all that extra for unlocked parts. A locked i5, locked mobo, no heat sink, and smaller PSU will scrape enough for a small SSD. This would be a more well-rounded build that a lot of people would choose especially if they are not planning on overclocking.


$35 saved from cutting cooler and k is not enough for an SSD
Score
4
February 27, 2013 5:25:49 AM

abhijitkalyaneI really wasn't expecting the AMD chip to be so close to the i5. I'm a bit surprised. The power consumption figures look bad for the FX though.


After looking at this it would seem illogical to buy a 8350 over a I5. But yes it does do decent interns of price/performance.
Score
1
February 27, 2013 5:36:47 AM

StickmansamFor a $800 budget, I would rather get all the real in game performance I can first while and add a ssd later than lose out on fps and get faster load timeshigher fps(stronger cpu, gpu) > faster load times


This would have been correct for a "$800 Gaming PC" .
But for a "$800 Enthusiast PC " , a SSD is a must. Even a 64GB, lower end SSD would have been OK.
Score
-4
February 27, 2013 5:54:40 AM

i am a bit surprised.
this build looks like a budget-upper-midrange build (if that makes any sense). the mobo... looks weak. the cooler and gfx card looked... cheap. i didn't expect the oc core i5 3570k build to keep up with oc fx8350 build in threaded benches (for $200 less, even). only 7zip seems to take advantage of 8 integer clusters/cores properly and the rest of them don't seem to scale well beyond 4~ cores. i noticed that trend in games but this is the first time i've seen it in non-games softwares. i use handbrake, lame mp3 and archivers (7z, zip/rars), so those benches were very informative for me. thank you.
when i first started reading, i wanted to see an fx8320, cm hyper 212 evo(or a corsair clc) with a sturdy 970 mobo + radeon 7870xt. as i read on, this current build and its performance started to look more and more interesting.
Score
-2
February 27, 2013 5:57:54 AM

dudewitbowthere would be marginal performance boost from switching from a 7870 LE(nerfed 7950, heck can call it a 7930 and it would be partially correct in a way) to an actual 7950. Though its likely the outcome for the 1k budget coming up next.




The difference between the 7870 XT and the 7950 can be huge when overclocking is considered. That lost memory bandwidth is no small matter for Tahiti LE when it runs at around 1.2GHz. I also suspect that the lost compute units from 28 to 24, although not a significant loss, are considerable.


EDIT:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5120/powercolor_pcs_ra...

Also, not only are the 2560x1600 bencmarks not the only ones showing such a comparison, but also the 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 benchmarks. This is also fairly consistent across most games. Both of these claims are demonstrated to be true by the rest of this article.
Score
1
February 27, 2013 6:07:58 AM

stickmansam said:
That's cuz the 8350 is using a 670 which in GPU heavy titles will boost its numbers higher. Same GPU would show a more different story and the price difference between a 8350 and a i5 3570k is only able to bump a 7870xt to a 7950 at most, not to a 670



For a $800 budget, I would rather get all the real in game performance I can first while and add a ssd later than lose out on fps and get faster load times

higher fps(stronger cpu, gpu) > faster load times



$35 saved from cutting cooler and k is not enough for an SSD


We could easily scrape out enough money from the budget for a decent 60GB/64GB SSD such as Plextor's M5S 64GB without really hurting core performance, at least if we didn't stick to Nweegg (granted Tom's doesn't have much option left in that if they want free systems to hand out). Loading times alone could be worth it.
Score
-1
February 27, 2013 7:11:38 AM

The i5-3570K's overclock appears to be "4.4 GHz @ +0.085 V" as opposed to showing "4.4GHz @ 1.15 V".
Score
1
February 27, 2013 7:26:06 AM

de5_Royi didn't expect the oc core i5 3570k build to keep up with oc fx8350 build in threaded benches (for $200 less, even). only 7zip seems to take advantage of 8 integer clusters/cores properly and the rest of them don't seem to scale well beyond 4~ cores. i noticed that trend in games but this is the first time i've seen it in non-games softwares. i use handbrake, lame mp3 and archivers (7z, zip/rars), so those benches were very informative for me. thank you.


I'm wondering if Blaz's disable-one-core-per-module trick would help Piledriver here, as you'd have a single core with access to 2MB L2 and 2MB L3 without the scheduler needing to worry about the second integer core. As it is, even if the software could make full use of all the CPU cores, they'd likely have a memory contention or bandwidth issue.

Steamroller will definitely improve matters but AMD will continue to be behind until anybody but the creators of 7Zip thread their software to hell (outside of rendering and productivity apps, of course).
Score
0
February 27, 2013 7:29:36 AM

These results are pretty eye opening! I already knew it, but dang. As an AMDer, I can't wait for Steamroller (good thing I get to see Haswell first). They need to improve performance, but power consumption as well. No excuse this time around.
Score
2
February 27, 2013 7:30:37 AM

mayankleoboy1This would have been correct for a "$800 Gaming PC" . But for a "$800 Enthusiast PC " , a SSD is a must. Even a 64GB, lower end SSD would have been OK.

How about a $500 enthusiast PC?
Score
-1
February 27, 2013 7:36:44 AM

blubbeyHow about a $500 enthusiast PC?


I find it difficult to call it an enthusiast PC when it's that cheap, but sure, it's probably too cheap to fit in any decent SSD when it's only using a $500 hardware budget.
Score
3
February 27, 2013 7:49:52 AM

silverblue said:
I'm wondering if Blaz's disable-one-core-per-module trick would help Piledriver here, as you'd have a single core with access to 2MB L2 and 2MB L3 without the scheduler needing to worry about the second integer core. As it is, even if the software could make full use of all the CPU cores, they'd likely have a memory contention or bandwidth issue.

Steamroller will definitely improve matters but AMD will continue to be behind until anybody but the creators of 7Zip thread their software to hell (outside of rendering and productivity apps, of course).

4module/4core mode might be possible with appropriate bios firmware. then fx has other components that won't benefit from 4m/4c mode e.g. ram bandwidth that archivers benefit from, ipc in mainstream softwares, may be cache as well. i include cache because i don't think 4m/4c mode along with oc won't significantly improve cache performance, it'll only alleviate some (lessen the load on branch predictor, may be..?). in the end it might become a tradeoff between decent per-core performance and potentially better multicore performance provided that more and more softwares become multicore(i.e. 6+ cores) friendly.
i like how 7zip uses fx, i wish more softwares were like this.
Score
0
February 27, 2013 9:02:14 AM

I Think you guys need to rethink your testing methodology. Currently PSUs, Cases and DVD Burners only detract from the overall performance score. Which is evident by you guys choosing the cheapest possible (within reason) every time.

A serious overhaul in overall performance computation is needed.
Score
-3
February 27, 2013 9:28:25 AM

itzsnypahI Think you guys need to rethink your testing methodology. Currently PSUs, Cases and DVD Burners only detract from the overall performance score. Which is evident by you guys choosing the cheapest possible (within reason) every time.A serious overhaul in overall performance computation is needed.


The aim is to get a fully working, start-to-finish computer system. This is not a review of the i5-3570K or the HD7870LE.
Score
7
February 27, 2013 12:17:01 PM

Promise me Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinite and Sleeping Dogs in the next SBM. The present gaming suite is kind of becoming a bit old.

Why not also use those 150 mods on Skyrim and see which rig runs it with a minimum of 45 fps at 1080p?

Will Thomas compare his build to last quarter's $1000 AND $2000 build? Seems sensible that he should...
Score
2
February 27, 2013 1:07:03 PM

Picking the Asrock Z77 Pro3 over the cheaper Asrock Z75 Pro3 is a mistake. But at least it's only a few dollars wasted with current pricing.
Score
0
February 27, 2013 1:52:16 PM

Are these comments delayed?
Score
2
February 27, 2013 1:58:07 PM

So I'd really love to see these builds with a Windows 7/8 License. I never build computers without them and unless we are advocating less legal means this should be a staple on every machine.
And to cut off the haters at the pass, very few people use Linux on anything that is considered to be a "Enthusiast\Gaming Machine" if you do you are one of the few.
But i leaving out such a core part (and an expensive one at that) is really misconstruing the builds.
Score
-3
February 27, 2013 2:35:23 PM

Th3AnyK3ySo I'd really love to see these builds with a Windows 7/8 License. I never build computers without them and unless we are advocating less legal means this should be a staple on every machine. And to cut off the haters at the pass, very few people use Linux on anything that is considered to be a "Enthusiast\Gaming Machine" if you do you are one of the few.But i leaving out such a core part (and an expensive one at that) is really misconstruing the builds.


These are hardware budgets. It's to common to include software costs in the hardware budget. The OS is not a "part" and thus it is not treated like one. Besides, even assuming that we don't have a Windows key handy (most of us have one or several), we can get one or we can legally not use one. There's no need to turn to illegal activity to use a Windows system for free. MS provides copies for free all the time. You usually can't get a key for them for free unless you're a college student or know a student, but you don't need the key to use the system anyway.
Score
5
February 27, 2013 2:49:41 PM

I like it when you all do builds, but again you are going sky high on the CPU and GPU with no focus on having a balanced machine. It is like you took the 600 build and added a faster GPU and CPU.
Score
-4
February 27, 2013 2:56:07 PM

caamsaI like it when you all do builds, but again you are going sky high on the CPU and GPU with no focus on having a balanced machine. It is like you took the 600 build and added a faster GPU and CPU.


Except for the low capacity hard drive, it seems fairly balanced to me. What do you think is wrong with it?
Score
4
February 27, 2013 3:00:25 PM

I think paul has got you Don with this quarters 600 sbm. Comparing the two the 800 sbm performance is not worth the difference in price over the 600sbm and i would suspect if paul had the money for the same 7870 Le you used, his numbers would be very close to yours.
Score
-3
February 27, 2013 3:05:51 PM

blazorthonExcept for the low capacity hard drive, it seems fairly balanced to me. What do you think is wrong with it?


One big problem I see is the hard drive. Only one hard drive? Does anyone run a single drive anymore? 500 gigs? I can fill that up with games in a week. Needs a larger drive and a back up drive and maybe a small SSD to run the OS. Save on the CPU, not sure why they did not use the i3 in the 600 build. I guess the video card is ok but 230 is a big chunk of change. I would like to see a more realistic build. When I buy a case I go for some thing that I will like I don't usually go for the cheapest. Also if they are going just for cheap with gaming power they could have gone cheaper but again that is like putting a Chevy big block in a Yogo. Fast as hell but still looks like crap and has very few options.
Score
-6
February 27, 2013 3:15:22 PM

caamsa said:
One big problem I see is the hard drive. Only one hard drive? Does anyone run a single drive anymore? 500 gigs? I can fill that up with games in a week. Needs a larger drive and a back up drive and maybe a small SSD to run the OS. Save on the CPU, not sure why they did not use the i3 in the 600 build. I guess the video card is ok but 230 is a big chunk of change. I would like to see a more realistic build. When I buy a case I go for some thing that I will like I don't usually go for the cheapest. Also if they are going just for cheap with gaming power they could have gone cheaper but again that is like putting a Chevy big block in a Yogo. Fast as hell but still looks like crap and has very few options.


I have not used more than 1 hd for years, that is what my 5tb nas server is for.
Score
3
February 27, 2013 3:15:47 PM

Please do not take this as fault-finding, or saying something is "wrong" with the build, but for my personal use, I'd much rather start with parts similar to those in the $600 build and then add a 128GB-256GB SSD. It isn't that my build would be "better;" it would be "different" (although I'd consider it better for me).
As good as games look these days, if the game is fun, it's going to remain fun on lowered settings; for my uses I'd much rather have the SSD. I realize, however, that such a machine would be clobbered in most benchmarks, and therefor is not likely to appear in the SBM.
Score
1
February 27, 2013 3:25:54 PM

blazorthonThese are hardware budgets. It's to common to include software costs in the hardware budget. The OS is not a "part" and thus it is not treated like one. Besides, even assuming that we don't have a Windows key handy (most of us have one or several), we can get one or we can legally not use one. There's no need to turn to illegal activity to use a Windows system for free. MS provides copies for free all the time. You usually can't get a key for them for free unless you're a college student or know a student, but you don't need the key to use the system anyway.


These are "System Builder" budgets and if I want to build a system I'm pretty sure I'll need an OS. I can also pull my 7850 out of my current machine to build a new one, doesn't mean I won't include the actual cost on a hypothetical build to be submitted for anyone to build. And the OS is most certainly a "part" of every machine. Everything required to make the machine work should be included. I understand we could just adjust the budget to $950 or say exclude OS, but I can't seem to see that written anywhere. Maybe I'm being a dick about grammar on all this but when I read System Builder as some can go out and build a system for $800.

I just know if someone said can you build me this $800 machine I saw on Tom's hardware I'd have to say, "Well it's actually 950 with an OS", and then get a real disappointed look. The system builder needs to be a little more realistic for what it is trying to accomplish.
Score
-7
February 27, 2013 3:56:50 PM

Frankly I find this quarter's SBMs to be amazing so far. The $600 machine achieved almost TWICE the performance of the $500 in some circumstances, and certainly improved by more than the necessary 20% where it matters. This $800 machine approaches and sometimes bests the performance of last quarter's $1000 machine for 20% less. I would happily welcome either build onto my home network if I win, with few if any changes beyond a couple of small item upgrades.
Score
1
February 27, 2013 4:05:28 PM

bluebooger said:
you'll also need a keyboard, a mouse and a monitor

and you can't really play games unless you buy the games too

so why don't we include all those in the cost too ? /sracasm


I also need years of education, let's include university and go right off the rails. But my computer doesn't do very much without an operating system. If you build enough computers and you start pricing things out, the last thing i usually forget about is the OS. And i know how mad I am when i include it and realize how much is effects the price of everything. To exclude it in a quote or recommendation is irresponsible. I, like i think most people, think the operating system is an integral part of every system. Whether the SBM should have it included is up to the Tom's but my 2 cents think it should.
Score
-6
February 27, 2013 4:46:52 PM

@th3anyk3y:

I hear your perspective, but the fact is that this exact discussion has taken place about 3 times every 3 months for the past couple of years at least. The decision could conceivably go either way. THG has chosen to go the route of excluding the O/S, has documented this, has provided their reasons, and most of the rest of us have accepted that decision and moved on. Unless you have something radical and new to add - such as Win 8 Pro giving 50% better performance than Win 8 on systems with >4 cores - you're just rehashing a very old and tired discussion. I'm too old and too tired to rehash old and tired discussions.
Score
5
February 27, 2013 5:30:53 PM

i read nothing but bad reviews of these selected asrock motherboards on newegg... they interest me because of price/features, but cant get myself to purchase....
Score
-1
February 27, 2013 6:43:31 PM

touristI have not used more than 1 hd for years, that is what my 5tb nas server is for.


And how much did that cost you?
Score
0
February 27, 2013 6:52:57 PM

I've bought at least half a dozen ASRock boards. Only one died. I had obtained it second hand, and without warranty, but even so ASRock replaced it (a $150 board) for a mere $50.
I'm a little perturbed by how thin they are. I'm concerned that their VRMs could be better, and some of their marketing claims about them are clearly exaggerated: http://www.overclock.net/t/1333812/asrock-z77-extreme4-...
Still, my own experiences with them have been positive, so I will likely continue to buy them.
Score
1
February 27, 2013 6:55:23 PM

blueboogerso according to you, it would be a better computer if it had another hard drive, but a worse cpu and a worse gpu ? lol


So you would rather have one HD and then have it crash and loose all your stuff......? Also I never said get rid of the GPU but I think the CPU is over kill and the GPU over priced. So I guess you would build this really cool system with an all powerful CPU/GPU combo and put it in a card board box? ;-P
Score
-5
February 27, 2013 8:21:30 PM

caamsa said:
And how much did that cost you?


about 5-600 dollars but that cost can spread out among all pc's. 500gb is adequate for a general pc with games. If you need more than that get a external storage. More storage does not effect the benchmark numbers.
Score
1
February 27, 2013 8:30:07 PM

I think it is always necessary to look at the stated purposes for which a system is built. Someone with a NAS, or another machine as backup, might go all out on a GPU for Ultra settings, and get just one [smallish] HDD. Someone else might be willing to play on only medium-high settings in order to afford a SSD and/or a RAID1 pair. Someone busy converting his father's old video library might want an i7; now take a look at the $500 build from either 6 or 9 months ago, that sacrificed the CPU down to a Celeron in order to get a HD7950. It played [most] games on excellent settings, which was its intent, but gave up a LOT of performance elsewhere.
Score
2
February 27, 2013 8:50:55 PM

Wow.... This guy could have done way better for the money.

The Mobo can't even SLI/CFX so there is pretty much no point into getting an OC-able CPU.

Could have gone for cheaper DIMMs

Get a better CPU heatsink for $15(since i am saying to go a non-OC CPU i would go with Zalman performa)

like $10 more for double the GB on the HDD

Score
-7
February 27, 2013 8:52:34 PM

silverblue?Will Thomas compare his build to last quarter's $1000 AND $2000 build? Seems sensible that he should...
It would have been nice, except for a couple minor benchmark changes that made this 3-way comparison impossible. The old $2000 PC was shipped to the contest winner before it could be re-benchmarked...the old $1000 PC was re-benchmarked but didn't have one of the $2000 PC's original benchmarks...that comparison is just fubar in a couple places.

However! If you look at the old $2000 vs $1000 results (previous day-4 roundup), and compare the performance differences between the new $1000 and old $2000 PC (tomorrow's system) you can come up with a solid answer. Sorry about the extra work.
Score
2
February 27, 2013 9:02:05 PM

mayankleoboy1This would have been correct for a "$800 Gaming PC" . But for a "$800 Enthusiast PC " , a SSD is a must. Even a 64GB, lower end SSD would have been OK.

Tom's has tested this before:

SSD's don't count for much when FPS matters. While loading time is greatly increased, my Agility4 256gb didn't improve frame rates one bit. In a quest for FPS, the savings of staying HDD over SSD would be better put to use toward a better GPU.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!