Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, Q3 2013: $1300 Enthusiast PC

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
September 23, 2013 9:00:07 PM

With access to new components like the Haswell-based Core i5-4670K and Nvidia's GeForce GTX 770, we're confident that we can build a $1300 enthusiast-class system that beats last quarter's. How does the previous mini-ITX PC stand up to this new hardware?

System Builder Marathon, Q3 2013: $1300 Enthusiast PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon 2013 1300 enthusiast

September 23, 2013 9:49:21 PM

Keep them coming.
Score
5
September 23, 2013 10:04:17 PM

I think this just shows that you don't really need more than a GTX 760 if you play on the most popular resolution of 1080p. Look how small the benefits of an Haswell are, compared to the 650$ build (HALF THE PRICE!) in games that mainly rely on GPU power.
Overclocking haswell is a waste of money considering the amount of money you need to invest in a good MB and a good cooling, only to reach a rather tame 4.3ghz OC...
Just buy the cheapest I5 you can buy and pair it with a GTX 760, if you play on 1080p, I doubt you'll be disappointed.
Score
3
Related resources
September 23, 2013 10:12:26 PM

The more I look at these the sadder I am about the overpriced parts I have to pay for in New Zealand :(  Nevertheless, another good article, keep it up
Score
5
September 23, 2013 11:30:05 PM

"64 GB of cache"

I'd have that hard drive for $70 if it was true. :p 
Score
6
September 24, 2013 1:23:27 AM

silverblue said:
"64 GB of cache"

I'd have that hard drive for $70 if it was true. :p 


I thought it was only....32 on the blue models. :p 
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 1:40:08 AM

Can't wait to see a new amd gpu in these builds got me all giddy inside!
Score
1
September 24, 2013 3:27:09 AM

This is a complete waste of money. You spend way more on the 4670K than you would on a 3570K, and a really expensive motherboard, then you pair it with a crappy CLC where even a 212 Evo or Respire T40 would do better. You then WAY overpay on the graphics card when a 7970 offers exactly the same performance (according to Tom's research) for $60+ less.
Score
7
September 24, 2013 3:27:30 AM

the vengence ram Worst chip in all the model and brands !
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB)DDR3 2400 best P/p memory with same price better choice.
and corsair H50 not is better whan aircooler.
the Phanteks PH-TC12DX or V6GT with same price range the beat performance.

for ssd i,m recomend Kingston HyperX 3K 120G with same price and beter speed.
Score
-7
September 24, 2013 5:04:33 AM

Good choice in PSU. Odd choice in motherboard. Does not provide THAT much for 200$.
But most importantly, HORRIBLE choice in cooling. But ok...
Score
8
September 24, 2013 5:52:28 AM

This is old tech... We nee some new stuff! Can't wait to see amds new cards, and nvidias response. Also Intel supposedly has an eight core haswell-e coming:) 
Score
-5
September 24, 2013 5:55:06 AM

Oh and 2gb of vram is only a starting point if you are serious about gaming even @ 1080p.
Score
-10
September 24, 2013 6:10:52 AM

Dudes. Whatever happened to BestConfigs?
Score
1
September 24, 2013 6:25:49 AM

Oh look! Its the same system as last quarter :p 
Score
0
September 24, 2013 6:37:02 AM

It would have been a much better use of funds to buy a cheaper motherboard and use the funds towards a better cooler...
Score
3
September 24, 2013 6:48:08 AM

Would love to see what a XEON 1230 V2 (or even V3) with a sli of GTX760 (saved money on cheaper motherboard and cooling system should allow it) would do in your test
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 6:57:16 AM

lol mine 3470 its running at 107mhz fsb and i get 4.2ghz two cores 4.0ghz 4 cores and i pay for this chip 170us 120us mobo.... this Enthusiast PC is only about spend money! harder!
Score
-4
September 24, 2013 6:58:07 AM

No way I would have chosen a 770 over a 7970GE that could be had for $30+ less.
Score
1
September 24, 2013 7:06:34 AM

I consider this build a wash compared to last quarters and think your skewed gaming value chart is very misleading. You chose a resolution no one plays at because it just so happens to hide this build memory bandwidth issues and makes it look better than it really is at more common playable resolutions.

Not a terrible build, but no better. Should have saved some cash by skipping haswell for the cpu and getting a 7970ge for the gfx card.
Score
-2
September 24, 2013 7:20:53 AM

The superiority of this build over the last one is more deeply marred by the cheap memory than the author admits, once that memory is OCed. Given the supposed IPC arch improvements of Haswell and the higher clock of the 770, this system should be consistently faster.. but it's not. F1, Adobe, synthetics... all testing areas exhibited at least some cases in which last Q's specialized ITX build was faster while using older products and less power. To me, that paints this Q's generalized ATX build in a bad light. It's not that it wasn't good; it's that it wasn't as much better as it should have been.
Score
2
September 24, 2013 7:27:34 AM

Im assuming TH had various spare parts from vendors and decided wth lets toss um into the system builder. Seems like a rather random choice of parts to pair together. I cant help but think if you downgraded the motherboard and used a cheaper CPU cooler you could have went SLI with two gtx 760's for only $100 more than the gtx 770 they chose. They certainly had enough power supply to do it as most systems with 2x gtx 760's are only pulling 450 watts at load.
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 8:13:26 AM

You had me until I saw the H50. Noooooooo! Why did you ruin this build?

A $200 mobo is meant for great overclocking. A H50 is nowhere near adequate for this. If you put a $50 Dark Knight on this build I'm sure you would have gotten to 4.5GHz. It's a shame seeing a $200 mobo and only overclocking to 4.3GHz.
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 8:23:47 AM

With Haswell, I would not invest in a $200+ MB since the overclocking is completely dependent on whether you win the silicone lottery. Not to mention UD3H and UD4H overclocks the same for less.
Score
2
September 24, 2013 8:24:27 AM

I thought Toms released an article not long ago explaining how "high performance" ram yields negligible performance gain... and now a 1866MHz ram? Given that it's "only" $70, still...
And do people still buy DVD-burner thingy? I haven't put any optical media in my PCs for well over 3 years... and the last one I use, was to reinstall Win7.
Score
-2
September 24, 2013 8:53:37 AM


Yet more proof if any were needed that a used 2700K is still far better value
when it comes to an oc'd setup. 5GHz no problem, no need for water
cooling, leaves the 4670K way behind. Ditto 2500K (I notice there are
loads on eBay US); why anyone would buy a 3570K or HW is beyond me.

I'll consider a newer quad-core when Intel finally releases something that's
worth bothering with. Heh, 4.3 with a newer chip... what a farce.

Ian.

Score
0
September 24, 2013 8:57:46 AM

This build is a very instructive example of how to pick the wrong parts and waste someone's time and money. Pick up a processor that every single showed showed that can't overclock as well as a 3570k, combine it with an overpriced motherboard and VGA and you end up with this.
The old and trsty way is better: 3570k+ CF 7950. You may even save some cash to get a bigger SSD.
Score
-2
September 24, 2013 9:08:29 AM

mapesdhs said:

Yet more proof if any were needed that a used 2700K is still far better value
when it comes to an oc'd setup. 5GHz no problem, no need for water
cooling, leaves the 4670K way behind. Ditto 2500K (I notice there are
loads on eBay US); why anyone would buy a 3570K or HW is beyond me.


I am unsure where this misconception arises from...

4670K average on air is 4627 MHz
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_4670K/

2500K average on air is 5041 MHz
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_2500k/

Clock for clock, the 4670K is roughly 10-15% faster than the 2500K so a 4627 MHz Haswell is equal to a 5089-5370 MHz Sandy...


Score
1
September 24, 2013 9:49:02 AM

The Haswell is drawing more power than the ivy bridge? I thought the whole point was a CPU designed around longer battery life.
Score
0
September 24, 2013 10:07:38 AM

SvRommelvS said:
The Haswell is drawing more power than the ivy bridge? I thought the whole point was a CPU designed around longer battery life.


This is not a laptop...
Score
3
September 24, 2013 10:22:36 AM

persuse said:
the vengence ram Worst chip in all the model and brands !
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB)DDR3 2400 best P/p memory with same price better choice.
and corsair H50 not is better whan aircooler.
the Phanteks PH-TC12DX or V6GT with same price range the beat performance.

for ssd i,m recomend Kingston HyperX 3K 120G with same price and beter speed.


Really, you think a terrible off brand with a high speed is better than Corsair Vengeance? :heink: 

And that Kingston drive you recommend is based on the old, slow, and very problematic Sandforce 2.0 controller. The Samsung 840 and 840 Pro are far better choices.
Score
3
September 24, 2013 10:30:31 AM

g-unit1111 said:


Really, you think a terrible off brand with a high speed is better than Corsair Vengeance? :heink: 


Team is a terrible brand? That's news to me... You have any support for this claim?
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 11:23:41 AM

So my 2700K at 4.6Ghz is still faster than this i5 I'll assume.

Hasfail all over it. I bet the $650 build with this cooling solution would be an even better buy.

Cheers!
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 12:03:51 PM

I read this SBM article before 7:00a this morning, and have contemplated it (and these remarks) at some length before commenting. This place sounds like an echo chamber, and IMHO for good reason. I believe in "targeted overkill" to obtain future-resistance, but this build used an excessive motherboard and a CLC cooler to no clear purpose. Was the author relying on a 4.6+ OC that didn't materialize in order to "sell" this build? That might be some excuse, but illustrates the folly of relying on the silicon lottery. I believe that a $50-$60 cheaper mobo and a $20-$25 cheaper air cooler could have matched these results. The extra money could have bought better RAM which, in this case, seems to have made a difference, or a larger SSD. I'm not going to niggle at all on the graphics card; prices are different today from what they were when this was ordered, so comments on HD7970 prices are moot. This build also reinforced my belief that anyone running an i5-3570K has no performance-based reason to upgrade.
I prefer SBM builds that really squeeze the value out of every dollar spent, and I'm a little disappointed that this one failed to do so, despite otherwise good performance.
Score
-2
September 24, 2013 1:16:19 PM

I think you have too much money for a build like this...

I cookie cuttered a very similar build over in newegg, and managed to shave a couple hundred dollars off.

You need to look to do the build with something like $600, 750, and $900.

With those kind of budgets, you could actually show what spending an additional $150 would get you. That will show what upgrades you can get fairly cheaply, and give people a realistic number to save a bit more money for.

I mean, really, who in the heck starts at a $650 budget, and then goes, "Fack it! I'll double it to $1300!"?
Score
-2
September 24, 2013 5:05:20 PM

would have liked to see less spend on CPU and motherboard, and certainly remove the crappy liquid cooling solution you used. Put more into the GPU(s). Crappy build. I disagree with all the comments about the 7970 instead of the 770, your saying to spend less on the gpu, and then complain they spent too much on the cpu/motherboard cooling......wouldn't you want to spend more on the gpu for the same price point......
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 5:53:09 PM

slomo4sho said:
I am unsure where this misconception arises from...


It would be a misconception if the builder for the article had been able to get the
HW to that kind of level, but he couldn't, and most don't.

Simple fact is, it's much easier to get a SB to 5GHz than it is to get a HW to 4.6+.

Ian.



Score
0
September 24, 2013 5:57:54 PM

mapesdhs said:

It would be a misconception if the builder for the article had been able to get the
HW to that kind of level, but he couldn't, and most don't.


You do realize what an average is right... The greatest number of people will be within a standard deviation of the average.
Score
-1
September 24, 2013 6:27:53 PM

slomo4sho said:
You do realize what an average is right... The greatest number of people will be within a standard deviation of the average.


I've just been trawling through a bunch of launch reviews; most could not get remotely
that high, or needed damn good cooling to do it, eg. H100i. Not necessary with SB.
hwbot is likely a biased sample anyway, those submitting more likely to do so because
they've achieved good results, been lucky with their samples. It's not a fair survey of
all those who've oc'd the chip, by definition it's a selective sample.

Go read the reviews, looks pretty clear cut to me.

Ian.


Score
0
September 24, 2013 6:50:02 PM

I keep hearing people say to "save money by skipping Haswell." It's weird. When I bought mine, a comparable Ivy Bridge/Motherboard would've cost me almost exactly the same amount as Haswell. /shrug. Maybe it's because I went Micro ATX.
Score
0
September 24, 2013 6:50:34 PM

mapesdhs said:

I've just been trawling through a bunch of launch reviews; most could not get remotely
that high, or needed damn good cooling to do it, eg. H100i. Not necessary with SB.
hwbot is likely a biased sample anyway, those submitting more likely to do so because
they've achieved good results, been lucky with their samples. It's not a fair survey of
all those who've oc'd the chip, by definition it's a selective sample.


Quite a few reviews of the 4770K have overclocks of 4.5GHz or higher (yes, most use water cooling):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswe...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/01/intel_haswell...
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_4670K_...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-i...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7_4...
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/core_i7_4770k_revi...

It all comes down to the silicon lottery honestly. As long as your chip is capable of hitting 4.5 or 4.6 GHz with 1.25V or less, you can achieve those clocks with a good air cooler. The issue with Haswell is the how hot the chip gets once voltage is increased.

My current 4770K build is stable at 4.6GHz at 1.195V and I can install a ZALMAN CNPS9900MAX that I have sitting around to test temps on an air cooler this weekend to determine load temps on air instead of my CM Seidon 240M. Unfortunately, the caveat is that the chip is delidded with CLU applied so the temp readings would not reflect true factory temps.
Score
0
September 24, 2013 8:34:48 PM

chaospower i got my 4670k at 4.8GHz, stable, on air cooling (thermaltake frio). But hey, don't let facts blind you.
Score
0
September 24, 2013 9:15:49 PM

Max_x2 said:
chaospower i got my 4670k at 4.8GHz, stable, on air cooling (thermaltake frio). But hey, don't let facts blind you.
Try that with four threads of Prime95 with AVX ENABLED for a couple hours. It WILL thermal throttle. I'm not going to say you're wrong, I'm only going to say that your results are incredible.

A toast to magic samples!

Score
0
September 25, 2013 12:40:04 AM

slomo4sho said:
mapesdhs said:

Yet more proof if any were needed that a used 2700K is still far better value
when it comes to an oc'd setup. 5GHz no problem, no need for water
cooling, leaves the 4670K way behind. Ditto 2500K (I notice there are
loads on eBay US); why anyone would buy a 3570K or HW is beyond me.


I am unsure where this misconception arises from...

4670K average on air is 4627 MHz
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_4670K/

2500K average on air is 5041 MHz
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_2500k/

Clock for clock, the 4670K is roughly 10-15% faster than the 2500K so a 4627 MHz Haswell is equal to a 5089-5370 MHz Sandy...




Max_x2 said:
chaospower i got my 4670k at 4.8GHz, stable, on air cooling (thermaltake frio). But hey, don't let facts blind you.


Fact is, the person who made this article got it to 4.3ghz with water cooling.
Fact is, I was talking about the results he got from OCing it. Was I supposed to talk about your OC which I was not aware of?
Score
-1
September 25, 2013 1:20:48 AM

chaospower said:
Fact is, the person who made this article got it to 4.3ghz with water cooling.
Fact is, I was talking about the results he got from OCing it. Was I supposed to talk about your OC which I was not aware of?


Not sure where you got the idea that I was talking to you or correcting your misconceptions but now that you have brought your illogical and ignorant reply to my attention...

Fact is that any Z87 board will provide roughly the same overclock capacity as the biggest variable in the overclock capacity is the CPU itself so the $200 motherboard provides almost zero benefit when it comes to overclocking headroom for this build.
Fact is that the H50 performs worst than most quality air cooler.
Fact is that Don lost the silicon lottery when when purchased the 4670K for this writeup.
Fact is that a sample size of one does not provide an accurate depiction of overclock capacity of the Haswell lineup.
Fact is that Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge counterparts also had a substantial percentage of the of chips that didn't overclock well (albeit the proportion may be larger in Haswell).
Score
-2
September 25, 2013 1:30:53 AM

slomo4sho said:
Crashman said:
Fact is...
Fact is...
Fact is it's not my quote :p  Fix it please :) 

Score
-1
September 25, 2013 2:02:00 AM

Crashman said:
Fact is it's not my quote :p  Fix it please :) 


Any update on when we can expect these forum bugs to be fixed? :pt1cable: 
Score
-1
September 25, 2013 2:06:03 AM

Hey nice build. Similar to what i'd build for myself given $1300, except the RAM and maybe the case.

Not sure whether the higher temperatures are Haswell's problem or the cooler's, but i'm surprised that a lower voltage at the same clocks is leading to such temperatures, but i guess it's the FIVR doing that.

I'd probably go with an Asus board too, but i dunno, really. Maybe the PSU was excessive?

p.s. Didn't see any efficiency charts! Hope we get them for the final comparison.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 4:08:05 AM

Haswell OCs differently. Going too far with mem OC can hurt CPU OC and overall performance. Reading these threads will show you the right approach to get the most performance overall from the silicon you got. The current stock OCs better.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1411077/haswell-overclocking...
http://www.overclockers.com/3step-guide-to-overclock-in...

Running burnin apps for long periods is pointless (Prime95 et al) no real world use would ever tax a system that way. If it runs for 10-20 minutes you're good just watch the temp and when it levels off run a few more minutes that's it, going further proves nothing.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 6:49:38 AM

Personally I'd have changed some things around (bigger PSU, cheaper cooler) to get 2x HD7950s in there but they weren't priced at $200 a piece when they ordered the components so I can see why they went the way they did.
Score
0
September 25, 2013 8:43:27 AM

The main problem I have with your system builds is that they are directed to the needs of the gamer. I am not a gamer and have no intentions of using my system to play games. It would help if you provided video card recommendations for other uses besides gaming.

I would not spend more than around $150 to $200 for a video card and use the savings in the budget on the other components.
Score
0
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!