Is Toms off on their Mid-priced PC? Recalculate the Marathon?

It seems to me that the recent Marathon PC articles have one major flaw. The Mid-Ranged PC is way off. I have my beefs with the components chosen for the low-end as well, but we'll leave that for another day. The low end PC was around $800 and the mid ranged PC was over $1900. Isn't that a little off for a mid ranged PC? With a few small tweeks you can get almost the same performance and overclocking ability for over $600 less. I know the intent of the article was to get a Mid-Ranged for under $2000, but since the end winner was essentially the PC that gives you the best bang for you buck, perhaps the ranges should be changed thus.

Low-end max. $800
Midranged max. $1500
High-end max. who cares(so long as it's spent on hardware and not bling)

My configuration for the Mid-Range would give a minor step down to the processor to a Q6600, get rid of the costly Raptor and another minor step down for the video card to an 8800gx 512 OC. This would save approx. $200 a piece (prices estimated from newegg) on each. The overall system speed would not be changed much but recalculating with a total system price tag of $1300 would be a drastic change to the rating of the Mid-Ranged system.

It's my experiance that in a real life scenario the perfect bang for you buck PC will constantly change do to price drops, sales, and the new parts, however, choosing an individual component that is twice the price of the component one step down is normally spending way to much on an individual component (if you wan't the best bang for the buck).

I won't take the time to recalculate the Mid-Range PC with the lower price (also because the benchies would be slightly different), but I bet it would be the clear winner.