System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: $2500 Performance PC
Tags:
-
Overclocking
- Crucial
- Build Your Own
-
Asus
- Western Digital
Last response: in Reviews comments
Can a bigger budget help this quarter's tiny PC beat my previous performance monster? Is it any more attractive than some of the mini-ITX-based platforms from the boutique builders? I'll answer that first question for you, and you answer the second.
System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: $2500 Performance PC : Read more
System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: $2500 Performance PC : Read more
More about : system builder marathon 2013 2500 performance
sherlockwing
June 23, 2013 10:03:00 PM
burnley14
June 23, 2013 10:07:37 PM
Related resources
- Help! System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Budget Gaming PC - Forum
- why is the system builder marathon 2013 based on mini itx plat form? - Forum
- Looking at System Builder Marathon (or any other PC) for New Build - Forum
- System Builder Marathon: Price/Performance - Forum
- System Builder Marathon: Price/Performance - Forum
nvidiamd
June 23, 2013 10:31:05 PM
Seems I was pretty close in my initial guess:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($319.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H110 94.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-I DELUXE/WD Mini ITX LGA1155 Motherboard ($207.55 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($353.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($159.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 690 4GB Video Card ($999.99 @ Newegg)
Case: BitFenix Prodigy (Black) Mini ITX Tower Case ($95.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($148.54 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG WH14NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $2597.99
slomo4sho said:
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($319.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Corsair H110 94.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler ($119.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-I DELUXE/WD Mini ITX LGA1155 Motherboard ($207.55 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Samsung 840 Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($353.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Black 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($159.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: Asus GeForce GTX 690 4GB Video Card ($999.99 @ Newegg)
Case: BitFenix Prodigy (Black) Mini ITX Tower Case ($95.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 660W 80 PLUS Platinum Certified ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply ($148.54 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG WH14NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer ($59.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $2597.99
Score
-2
agnickolov
June 23, 2013 11:47:08 PM
Still struggling to get my mind on a high performance ITX system, to me its more a case of how much high end you can chuck into a psuedo M-ITX chassis which for all intents and purposes are not small form factor by any stretch of the imagination. Having owned a Prodigy they can hardly be said to be SFF when their total surface area is as much as a ATX chassis, it is like calling a HAF XB M-ITX.
The main point of the article is that diminishing returns are high at that price point, only a overclocked system (again not a fan of in the confineds of a ITX system) give it value.
The main point of the article is that diminishing returns are high at that price point, only a overclocked system (again not a fan of in the confineds of a ITX system) give it value.
Score
-1
csf60
June 24, 2013 12:47:38 AM
It is safe to say that the purpose of the machine is gaming, for that is there any particular reason to go with the i7 other than to say you maxed the platforms highest capable chip but in terms of true benefits there is little over an i5 yet over a $100 been dropped on it. The next question is why not a GTX Titan, most of a 690 's performance but on less power and heat which is quite punishing in a Prodigy's confinds.
Score
-3
sarinaide said:
Still struggling to get my mind on a high performance ITX system, to me its more a case of how much high end you can chuck into a psuedo M-ITX chassis which for all intents and purposes are not small form factor by any stretch of the imagination. Having owned a Prodigy they can hardly be said to be SFF when their total surface area is as much as a ATX chassis, it is like calling a HAF XB M-ITX.The main point of the article is that diminishing returns are high at that price point, only a overclocked system (again not a fan of in the confineds of a ITX system) give it value.
sarinaide said:
It is safe to say that the purpose of the machine is gamingsarinaide said:
is there any particular reason to go with the i7sarinaide said:
other than to say you maxed the platforms highest capable chip but in terms of true benefits there is little over an i5sarinaide said:
The next question is why not a GTX Titan, most of a 690 's performance but on less power and heat which is quite punishing in a Prodigy's confinds.Score
3
tomate2
June 24, 2013 1:44:12 AM
sarinaide said:
It is safe to say that the purpose of the machine is gaming, for that is there any particular reason to go with the i7 other than to say you maxed the platforms highest capable chip but in terms of true benefits there is little over an i5 yet over a $100 been dropped on it. The next question is why not a GTX Titan, most of a 690 's performance but on less power and heat which is quite punishing in a Prodigy's confinds.For future reference: you should read an article before posting so that you don't make a fool of yourself.
Score
3
really enjoyed reading the article, reading the assembly part was fun. the build looks great imho.
i think this build wins in terms of performance per heat or temperature per volume(size of the pc). i know the metric sounds weird but that is a Lot of performance crammed into that small case. a titan would possibly improve temperature and still be a lot faster than 7870xt(comparing past q's enthusiast pc) even though it was unavailable during ordering the parts). for example, you can't squeeze an fx8350 (no mini itx mobo) in that case, and trinity only goes up to 2module/4threads.
edit: just realized how unfortunate gtx780's launch timing is... it coulda been a good candidate for the high end performance pc. may be next quarter....
i think this build wins in terms of performance per heat or temperature per volume(size of the pc). i know the metric sounds weird but that is a Lot of performance crammed into that small case. a titan would possibly improve temperature and still be a lot faster than 7870xt(comparing past q's enthusiast pc) even though it was unavailable during ordering the parts). for example, you can't squeeze an fx8350 (no mini itx mobo) in that case, and trinity only goes up to 2module/4threads.
edit: just realized how unfortunate gtx780's launch timing is... it coulda been a good candidate for the high end performance pc. may be next quarter....
Score
0
ehanger
June 24, 2013 4:45:13 AM
It was interesting to see specific mods / add-ons called out in this build; I'm not sure I've seen that done before, but the results were certainly worthwhile.
I'd love to win this one. My own games (especially at 1920x1080) don't need a GTX690 so I might swap in a lesser card in order to use the drive cage, but this would be one sweet system to sit on my desk.
How loud were the fans?
I'd love to win this one. My own games (especially at 1920x1080) don't need a GTX690 so I might swap in a lesser card in order to use the drive cage, but this would be one sweet system to sit on my desk.
How loud were the fans?
Score
0
antemon
June 24, 2013 6:41:31 AM
ojas
June 24, 2013 7:11:22 AM
Very interesting build! At least predicted a Platinum PSU correctly
I was expecting a Titan or a 780, though. CPU choice was pretty much a given.
And no one's hating your PSU choice, so far too
Um... no? There is no justification for this. 2560x1600 almost twice as demanding as 1920x1080, and you are just seeing the expected performance drop from the resolution increase. There is no evidence of VRAM limitation.
Yeah i was thinking the same thing...had it been due to VRAM i'd expect the FPS to be closer together for both builds.
I was expecting a Titan or a 780, though. CPU choice was pretty much a given.
And no one's hating your PSU choice, so far too
BigMack70 said:
Quote:
It was harder to notice with the previous build’s lower frame rate, but both configurations hit a snag at 2560x1600 and the Ultra quality preset. That snag is memory, where 2 GB of graphics RAM simply isn’t enough. The new build's so-called 4 GB card only gives 2 GB to each GPU, and that proves to be a problem.Um... no? There is no justification for this. 2560x1600 almost twice as demanding as 1920x1080, and you are just seeing the expected performance drop from the resolution increase. There is no evidence of VRAM limitation.
Yeah i was thinking the same thing...had it been due to VRAM i'd expect the FPS to be closer together for both builds.
Score
-2
Amdlova
June 24, 2013 7:22:32 AM
Fokissed
June 24, 2013 7:37:53 AM
BigMack70 said:
Quote:
It was harder to notice with the previous build’s lower frame rate, but both configurations hit a snag at 2560x1600 and the Ultra quality preset. That snag is memory, where 2 GB of graphics RAM simply isn’t enough. The new build's so-called 4 GB card only gives 2 GB to each GPU, and that proves to be a problem.Um... no? There is no justification for this. 2560x1600 almost twice as demanding as 1920x1080, and you are just seeing the expected performance drop from the resolution increase. There is no evidence of VRAM limitation.
Crysis 2 uses 1800MB+(normally) of VRAM at 1920x1080 on my GTX 680 4GB. It peaks at 3GB usage at times. I have no doubt that modern games at high resolution are limited by 2GB of VRAM.
Score
-1
frillybob101
June 24, 2013 8:09:51 AM
jabliese
June 24, 2013 8:10:09 AM
badtaylorx
June 24, 2013 8:33:31 AM
jestersage
June 24, 2013 8:43:50 AM
vertexx
June 24, 2013 9:50:35 AM
Any thoughts on how this build would have worked in a Silverstone SG08? Reviews on this case rate the cooling extremely favorably. The 180mm fan blowing right down onto the Motherboard could potentially keep the GPU heat away from the CPU. Also, this case has good ducting for the GPU to keep intake air isolated from waste heat air. It would have required an air-cooled CPU though, which probably would have impacted overclocking of the CPU.
Score
0
wffurr
June 24, 2013 10:07:22 AM
BigMack70 said:
Quote:
It was harder to notice with the previous build’s lower frame rate, but both configurations hit a snag at 2560x1600 and the Ultra quality preset. That snag is memory, where 2 GB of graphics RAM simply isn’t enough. The new build's so-called 4 GB card only gives 2 GB to each GPU, and that proves to be a problem.Um... no? There is no justification for this. 2560x1600 almost twice as demanding as 1920x1080, and you are just seeing the expected performance drop from the resolution increase. There is no evidence of VRAM limitation.
Onus said:
It was interesting to see specific mods / add-ons called out in this build; I'm not sure I've seen that done before, but the results were certainly worthwhile.I'd love to win this one. My own games (especially at 1920x1080) don't need a GTX690 so I might swap in a lesser card in order to use the drive cage, but this would be one sweet system to sit on my desk.
How loud were the fans?
jabliese said:
Top mounted fan on page 8. Assembly Part 3 looks to be an exhaust fan in the picture, but in the text is mentioned as blowing down. Figure the text is correct, might want to note the discrepancy.vertexx said:
Any thoughts on how this build would have worked in a Silverstone SG08? Reviews on this case rate the cooling extremely favorably. The 180mm fan blowing right down onto the Motherboard could potentially keep the GPU heat away from the CPU. Also, this case has good ducting for the GPU to keep intake air isolated from waste heat air. It would have required an air-cooled CPU though, which probably would have impacted overclocking of the CPU.wffurr said:
Is the 3D Mark graph labeled correctly? The article text says the stock Q1 $1000 PC is supposed to be faster than the stock Q2 $2500 PC, but the graph shows the opposite. I think both sets of top bars are supposed to be overclocks, but one is labeled as the stock $2500 PC.Score
0
gm0n3y
June 24, 2013 11:41:07 AM
vertexx
June 24, 2013 11:46:02 AM
Crashman said:
It was briefly considered but didn't appear to have the same proficiency at letting the graphics heat out of the front panel. Also, it's CPU cooler support is VERY VERY VERY VERY BAD as-delivered, thought it might support a few easy modificationsI had the same thoughts regarding CPU cooler support. It would be interesting to try something like the Noctua NH-C14 with just the bottom fan mounted.
With just the bottom fan, you have the top of the heat sink just 5mm away from the SG08 180mm fan. Also, this article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/coolers/display/noctua...) seems to show that the bottom fan only option is highly effective, as long as you don't use the ULNA adapter.
Anandtech recently did an article on the SG08 with some stats against the Prodigy for comparison (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6944/silverstone-sugo-sg0...). While more effective at cooling the CPU than the Prodigy, the testing does support your thoughts that the SG08 would be less effective at cooling the GPU.
Here is another comparison, but with a OC'd I5 and a Zalman low profile cooler: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cases/2012/09/17/silve...
Not to knock your build choice - I actually think the Prodigy cases are one of the better ITX cases on the market. But it would be interesting to see if the SG08/Noctua NH-C14 combo would do the job without requiring any case mods in a much smaller package.
Overall, the article and testing are nicely done - you really proved the value in OC'ing and also why someone would spend the extra $$ for the I7.
Score
0
fat_panda
June 24, 2013 11:59:45 AM
I've also ran across the problem of installing the Asetek back plate on my Mini-ITX motherboard (EVGA Stinger), before that I had a problem with Havik 140 back plate. I hope companies that make CPU coolers recognize the issue of ATX form factor back plates on ITX motherboards and offer ITX version of CPU back plates even at a cost. The ITX systems are growing in popularity, so it would be nice to see some type of solution with CPU back plates
Score
0
lowguppy
June 24, 2013 12:38:55 PM
allanitomwesh
June 24, 2013 1:21:02 PM
BigMack70 said:
Crashman said:
BigMack70 said:
I don't know what you are thinking of, but you recall incorrectly.
So commenting on an article with relevant data is now making a "worthless post" and is a moddable offense if it disagrees with or challenges an unsubstantiated assertion made by a staff member? Good to know.
I came across this issue while performing some SLI tests in the past, but I can't search the site. Really, it takes like minutes for me to load a page. I should appoint you to do that.
Score
-2
allanitomwesh
June 24, 2013 2:00:59 PM
Crash, I think I'm going to side with BigMack on this one, at least to the point of saying that some very specific testing needs to be done to suggest that the results he posted are not relevant. That is not saying he is right, but he does have data that appears to back up his assertions. If it is a matter of the settings used (entirely possible), it would be useful to clarify the settings that cause VRAM to make a difference.
Score
0
RedJaron
June 24, 2013 3:42:54 PM
Joshua Hill
June 24, 2013 3:46:39 PM
Great to see the liquid cooling fitting in this case unlike the previous builders efforts. A fan outside the case is an automatic fail imo.
BUT @BigMack70 is right. Of the numerous tech sites I visit going from 1080p to 1440p or 1600p (depending on aspect ratio) results in approximately 60% the performance in non VRAM limited cases (which is pretty much all the time). HardOCP has done some interestingly analysis on VRAM limited situations and like BigMack70 said/quoted the few cases you can force a VRAM limitation are obscure cases that deliver unplayable frame rates even when the GPU has adequate RAM.
This is the first analysis error I've come across at Tom's Hardware in 5 years of regular viewing. Tom's analysis is superior to most tech sites but you made a mistake this time. It happens but @Crashman's response is disgraceful. I hope other Tom's hardware editors/contributors are monitoring this because @Crashman's giving your website a bad image imo.
BUT @BigMack70 is right. Of the numerous tech sites I visit going from 1080p to 1440p or 1600p (depending on aspect ratio) results in approximately 60% the performance in non VRAM limited cases (which is pretty much all the time). HardOCP has done some interestingly analysis on VRAM limited situations and like BigMack70 said/quoted the few cases you can force a VRAM limitation are obscure cases that deliver unplayable frame rates even when the GPU has adequate RAM.
This is the first analysis error I've come across at Tom's Hardware in 5 years of regular viewing. Tom's analysis is superior to most tech sites but you made a mistake this time. It happens but @Crashman's response is disgraceful. I hope other Tom's hardware editors/contributors are monitoring this because @Crashman's giving your website a bad image imo.
Score
2
Onus said:
Crash, I think I'm going to side with BigMack on this one, at least to the point of saying that some very specific testing needs to be done to suggest that the results he posted are not relevant. That is not saying he is right, but he does have data that appears to back up his assertions. If it is a matter of the settings used (entirely possible), it would be useful to clarify the settings that cause VRAM to make a difference.Battlefield 3 is a weird app, I think it's the one where 4800x1080 sometimes has higher FPS than 2560x1600.
Score
-1
Joshua Hill said:
you made a mistake this time. It happens but @Crashman's response is disgraceful.Edit: Found one where 4800x900 outperforms 1920x1080. These are actual results.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-scali...
I still can't find the 2GB vs 3GB or 4GB CrossFire or SLI examples but I do know they exist because I produced them on my own machines. This little search alone took ten minutes, so I don't have any other choice but to "crowd source" the search.
Score
1
BigMack70 said:
Could you help me understand how you are seeing that article as indicating something about vram capacity affecting performance in BF3? I am seeing 2GB cards (680s) performing about the same as 3GB cards (7970s). Since they're different cards, I'm not seeing that VRAM capacity could be offered as a definitive explanation for the performance difference.
Most of what I see there is crossfire doing unexpectedly poorly at 1080p.
But there's always a small chance that I'm remembering the wrong GAME. If that turns out to be the case, I'd still like to know which game I'm thinking of. And then I'd still need to apologize to everyone except the guy who used someone else's charts, because that's unforgivable.
Perhaps the annoyance that site "improvements" have slowed my page load times to a crawl is coloring my responses. But then again, linking to some other sites charts probably turns me a different color.
Score
0
vertexx
June 24, 2013 7:29:31 PM
Crashman said:
I don't know what you're prattling on about, because as soon as I saw a chart that wasn't mine I zoned out. Could someone delete these two worthless posts (mine and his above)?Crashman said:
No, I'm saying that adding invalid data to the conversation is even worse than adding none at all.Really, it takes like minutes for me to load a page. I should appoint you to do that.
Crashman said:
And I intensely distrust the results from certain other sites.Crashman said:
If you're going to prove that the comment about VRAM is wrong, you're going to need to do it using this site's data because other sites test things differently. Crashman said:
And then I'd still need to apologize to everyone except the guy who used someone else's charts, because that's unforgivable.But then again, linking to some other sites charts...
Interesting positions taken here.... Is linking to other sites' data some violation of secret forum etiquette? Are all other sites' analysis really invalid or worthless?
I'm relatively new to Tom's, but this sort of feels like something that would come out of EA.
Score
1
vertexx said:
Interesting positions taken here.... Is linking to other sites' data some violation of secret forum etiquette? Are all other sites' analysis really invalid or worthless?
I'll give you a point on one item from your list though, I phrased the "intensely distrust" part wrong. I intensely distrust a few sites, I trust a few other sites for things not reviewed here, and there are several sites that I only half-trust. Since I'm always calling out others for exaggeration, feel free to bury that particular comment in "thumbs downs". Thanks.
Score
-2
Dugimodo
June 24, 2013 8:24:49 PM
I built a recent system in this case using a i7 3770 non-K with stock cooler and a 240mm front fan, 120mm rear exhaust, and sapphire 7970 with 3 fans. Nothing gets excessivley hot even during prime 95 and furmark tests at the same time. I'd have liked to see you reverse your intake and outlet fans and compare the results - I suspect it would make less difference than you think. Also the huge 220 and 240mm Fans that you can fit to the front of this case are what really sets it apart in the itx world, take the hdd cages out, use onyl 2.5" drives, and suddenly it seems very roomy and cool.
Score
0
ananke
June 24, 2013 10:18:15 PM
jbheller
June 24, 2013 10:37:35 PM
I have no idea why Tom's Hardware chooses some of the brands they do. Corsiar were the first closed loop water cooling supplier I am aware of and as far as I am concerned still make the best and easiest to install. I have no idea why every company in existence suddenly has to produce closed loop coolers, or why you even bother with making systems with them. If I had to start modifying my cooler with a file or hacksaw I would put the unit back in the box and throw it away. I have never had these issues with the mounting assemblies of Corsair products, they work correctly first time, every time.
Score
-1
clonazepam
June 24, 2013 10:44:06 PM
jbheller said:
I have no idea why Tom's Hardware chooses some of the brands they do. Corsiar were the first closed loop water cooling supplier I am aware of and as far as I am concerned still make the best and easiest to install. I have no idea why every company in existence suddenly has to produce closed loop coolers, or why you even bother with making systems with them. If I had to start modifying my cooler with a file or hacksaw I would put the unit back in the box and throw it away. I have never had these issues with the mounting assemblies of Corsair products, they work correctly first time, every time.corsair doesn't make the device. aseted and coolit make the devices. afaik, swiftech has a semi-customiable clc. other than those 3... i dunno.
Score
0
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
!