Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014: Our New Enthusiast PC

Tags:
  • Overclocking
  • Build Your Own
  • Desktops
  • Buyer's Guides
  • Gaming
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 25, 2014 12:00:03 AM

I wanted to see how a GeForce GTX 780 Ti and Core i7-4770K compare to last quarter's GeForce GTX 770 cards in SLI and Core i5-4670K. In addition, we updated our price/performance evaluation. So, this System Builder Marathon should be full of surprises!

System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014: Our New Enthusiast PC : Read more

More about : system builder marathon 2014 enthusiast

a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 1:11:51 AM

Why a Galaxy GPU considering the company pulled out of US market? btw, nice work on the build.
Score
2
March 25, 2014 1:45:11 AM

I wish more builds would account for the cost of the OS. It can be a significant expense, especially when you're working with builds of $600 or less.
Score
7
Related resources
March 25, 2014 2:39:43 AM

770 sli also nets better performance when gaming on 120/144hz monitors
Score
5
March 25, 2014 3:25:42 AM

wow, I didn't think there would be such a little difference in gaming.In fact, the difference is so small that with all the inherent problems of the SLI, the new rig is always the better choice.
Score
1
March 25, 2014 4:30:15 AM

Multi-gpu problems are always overly exagerated. I am using multi-gpu platforms for almost 5 years and the gain in fps over the UNOTICEABLE and overly exagerated stutering sweep away any disavantages.Folks, don't lure yourself, higher resolution demand multi-gpus. Single card is fine for anything around 1080p, more or less, but at 4K or 3 1080p monitors... your system is going to choke even with a 780 ti.
Score
2
March 25, 2014 5:03:23 AM

Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 5:05:14 AM

It's a shame to completely remove the non-core components from the competition, but I understand why it's done here. A couple of ideas to throw out there:

(1) You could include temperatures and acoustics performance in the overall assessment, given I think that is a big part of the case buying decision, and
(2) A way to factor in the intangibles (i.e. blu ray vs dvd, choice of SSD/HDD, etc), you could include a separate vote between this quarter's and last quarter's to see what the readers would choose for the best build given all the performance factors, aesthetics, and other components that do not contribute directly to performance. The reader's vote of this quarter vs. last quarter and/or an overall value winner for this quarter could be included in the final write-up.

I would also 2nd the vote for starting 4K testing. And also, why not 1440p? It seems those two resolutions are more relevant now in 2014 at the level of this competition than 1600x900 and 4800x900 resolutions.
Score
8
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 5:09:21 AM

I'm sorry, Tom's, but...You really need to stop misinforming the general public who comes here for your articles and doesn't read the forums in depth.You go with an i7 for the "performance benefits," which are nonexistent for gaming... except that this rig is aimed at gaming. I would have much, much rather seen an i5, with a note explaining that an i7 is a good upgrade if you're doing these sorts of things, but isn't helpful if you're building a gaming computer.There are wayyyy too many new builders out there who think that the i7 is better than the i5 and who are just wasting their money, and you aren't helping them or correcting that misinformation - rather, you're just reinforcing it further.
Score
0
March 25, 2014 5:11:21 AM

I would really like to see mATX and mini-itx versions of this article, pretty please :) 
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 5:12:59 AM

DarkSable said:
I'm sorry, Tom's, but...You really need to stop misinforming the general public who comes here for your articles and doesn't read the forums in depth.You go with an i7 for the "performance benefits," which are nonexistent for gaming... except that this rig is aimed at gaming. I would have much, much rather seen an i5, with a note explaining that an i7 is a good upgrade if you're doing these sorts of things, but isn't helpful if you're building a gaming computer.There are wayyyy too many new builders out there who think that the i7 is better than the i5 and who are just wasting their money, and you aren't helping them or correcting that misinformation - rather, you're just reinforcing it further.

Hmm.... What percentage of the performance measures in this article are for gaming?
Score
4
March 25, 2014 5:15:19 AM

Fresh and new but feels like a deja-vu
Score
1
March 25, 2014 5:15:55 AM

"such a little difference in gaming"... You call 20fps in an fps game little? Thats like almost 30% in far cry.
Score
0
March 25, 2014 5:21:49 AM

How loud is it at idle? At max stress? Normal operaton?
Score
0
March 25, 2014 5:45:15 AM

Could we have one of these where you compare 3 or 4 different machines at a fixed budget of, say, $1,000 (or maybe up to $1,250) with a variety of CPUs.

I'm thinking a selection of CPUs as a fixed starting point, and GPU decisions based on remaining budget. Maybe an i7, i5, FX-8, and an APU.

Would be really interesting to see the performance differences across workloads by allocating budget between CPU and other components.
Score
8
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 5:54:36 AM

I would prefer using a 3570k, hybrid drive and ddr-1600 (and maybe dropping the case to somewhere around a rosewill challenger) to fit 2x780's in the build instead. Other than that, looks tasty!
Score
-3
March 25, 2014 6:04:15 AM

I kind of feel like only focusing on the price comparison vs performance of the core performance parts is a little like cheating. I feel like we're getting away from what is awesome about these quarterly builds, and that is we're showing regular folks that you don't have to have giant budget to build a good pc. And I think switching the rules around so you can build it better without making adjustments to fit your budget is getting away from the point. Thats just me though for others it may not make any difference. I do like that you separated the costs though in your price breakdown.
Score
3
March 25, 2014 6:28:54 AM

This is about the price range I'm anticipating I will have to spend when I build an all new rig later this year, but that won't be for at least 4 or 5 months. By then the Haswell refresh will almost definitely be out, and we may have a clearer picture of Broadwell. I'm still confused about when Broadwell is actually happening. Even if Broadwell launches this year, I have to think that it will only be the low power variants, because why launch a new desktop chip so soon after Haswell refresh? Anyway, back on track, this build is a fairly good comparison to what I plan to build when that time comes, substituting in Haswell refresh (please let them be soldered on) and potentially a Maxwell card for the 780Ti depending on how that all shakes out. I definitely want to go with one beefier GPU rather than 2 lesser GPUs for future proofing purposes. One 780Ti (or equivalent) should have me covered for pretty much anything at 1440p, but come a year or two down the line, if the Witcher 3s of the world are not letting me max out with that card at 1440p, I can always slap another 780Ti in there and then I should be good to go to tackle absolutely any game at 1440p for years to come.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 7:34:41 AM

nekromobo said:
I would really like to see mATX and mini-itx versions of this article, pretty please :) 

Already done for ITX. See here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-your-own-hasw...

I'd second the uATX. In fact, I'd really like to see Crash attempt a uATX dual-gpu setup.
Score
2
March 25, 2014 7:35:59 AM

envy14tpe said:
Why a Galaxy GPU considering the company pulled out of US market? btw, nice work on the build.


Frankly, it was the cheapest available card when the systems were ordered.

Score
1
March 25, 2014 7:38:50 AM

npyrhone said:
Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.


Nope.

The purpose is to have a resolution that the low-budget PC can operate at for the comparison article at the end of the week. :) 
Score
2
March 25, 2014 7:41:07 AM

clide005 said:
I kind of feel like only focusing on the price comparison vs performance of the core performance parts is a little like cheating.


I don't agree. We make it pretty clear that a builder could nab a cheap case and DVD drive for significantly less.

Those items are very subjective... one builder might not consider a budget case an option, while another might consider it a complete frivolity.

Score
0
March 25, 2014 7:44:04 AM

npyrhone said:
"such a little difference in gaming"... You call 20fps in an fps game little? Thats like almost 30% in far cry.


That totally depends on the context.


Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 7:54:35 AM

cleeve said:
npyrhone said:
Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.


Nope.

The purpose is to have a resolution that the low-budget PC can operate at for the comparison article at the end of the week. :) 

At this point, if the low budget PC can't game at 1080p, it has no business in this series of articles. Look at the number of 1440x900 monitor models available on Newegg - there are over 300 1080p models available vs only 32 for 1440x900. That would be because people are no longer buying them. It's time to move on from that resolution in favor of the higher resolutions.
Score
0
March 25, 2014 8:25:29 AM

vertexx said:
It's time to move on from that resolution in favor of the higher resolutions.


Higher than 5760x1080, which we already test?

Last time I checked, that represented less than half a percent on the steam survey. 4k doesn't even register yet... despite the hype, it has no adoption.

Score
1
March 25, 2014 8:36:29 AM

Quote:
Could we have one of these where you compare 3 or 4 different machines at a fixed budget of, say, $1,000 (or maybe up to $1,250) with a variety of CPUs.I'm thinking a selection of CPUs as a fixed starting point, and GPU decisions based on remaining budget. Maybe an i7, i5, FX-8, and an APU.Would be really interesting to see the performance differences across workloads by allocating budget between CPU and other components.
I can tell you what would happen if you had a fixed budget with the CPU's switched in and out: the one with the best CPU-to-GPU balance would come out top on the gaming benchmarks, and the others would all be bottlenecked. And if you need a whole system builder marathon comparison to figure out the same thing, maybe you should do more research.
Score
0
March 25, 2014 8:50:33 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Could we have one of these where you compare 3 or 4 different machines at a fixed budget of, say, $1,000 (or maybe up to $1,250) with a variety of CPUs.I'm thinking a selection of CPUs as a fixed starting point, and GPU decisions based on remaining budget. Maybe an i7, i5, FX-8, and an APU.Would be really interesting to see the performance differences across workloads by allocating budget between CPU and other components.
I can tell you what would happen if you had a fixed budget with the CPU's switched in and out: the one with the best CPU-to-GPU balance would come out top on the gaming benchmarks, and the others would all be bottlenecked. And if you need a whole system builder marathon comparison to figure out the same thing, maybe you should do more research.
Yes, that's basically the point

Perhaps you could point me to where I can find a lab test showing a variety of CPU and GPU combinations which help to show where the most balanced CPU and GPU ratio is for an extremely common build-budget (such as the $1,000 to $1,250 I suggested)? Because I don't think there are many of those around.

We get a single system in these quarterly build marathons, if we're lucky, but no similar comparison to help us get the balance right. If you see the number of "spec-me" threads at those sorts of budgets around all the tech forums, you'll see that this would be a very useful exercise.
Score
-1
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 8:57:57 AM

cleeve said:
clide005 said:
I kind of feel like only focusing on the price comparison vs performance of the core performance parts is a little like cheating.


I don't agree. We make it pretty clear that a builder could nab a cheap case and DVD drive for significantly less.

Those items are very subjective... one builder might not consider a budget case an option, while another might consider it a complete frivolity.


I also think it's cheating, but possibly in a different way; it inflates the budget. Exclude all the common items, sure, but then tighten up the remaining budget considerably. I like the idea that all parts are fair game for trade-offs in overall value.
I do recognize that you're in a no-win situation, as there will be complainers either moaning about a cheap case, or wondering if you lost your mind for not moving $30 from the case to the graphics card. Still, if you're going to avoid those things, you need to keep the budget scaled appropriately. This makes me think that tomorrow's "$750" build may actually be a $950 build, which doesn't help anyone trying to figure out what to do with $750.

Score
2
March 25, 2014 10:34:29 AM

keyrock said:
This is about the price range I'm anticipating I will have to spend when I build an all new rig later this year, but that won't be for at least 4 or 5 months. By then the Haswell refresh will almost definitely be out, and we may have a clearer picture of Broadwell. I'm still confused about when Broadwell is actually happening. Even if Broadwell launches this year, I have to think that it will only be the low power variants, because why launch a new desktop chip so soon after Haswell refresh? Anyway, back on track, this build is a fairly good comparison to what I plan to build when that time comes, substituting in Haswell refresh (please let them be soldered on) and potentially a Maxwell card for the 780Ti depending on how that all shakes out. I definitely want to go with one beefier GPU rather than 2 lesser GPUs for future proofing purposes. One 780Ti (or equivalent) should have me covered for pretty much anything at 1440p, but come a year or two down the line, if the Witcher 3s of the world are not letting me max out with that card at 1440p, I can always slap another 780Ti in there and then I should be good to go to tackle absolutely any game at 1440p for years to come.


Makes sense
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
March 25, 2014 10:34:38 AM

A $90 entry-level z87 motherboard in a $1500+ CPU-overclocked system. I understand - it fits your budget and is capable of OCing the CPU stably to get through the benchmark suite. But sustained overclocking on that board is a recipe for trouble down-the-road. If this was a sub-$1000 build I wouldn't make this comment. But a $1500 enthusiast-class system should be built for stability and longevity - especially when being built by such an experienced system builder. You saved about $30 over a decent OCing motherboard, but you likely created a future headache for the system's owner.I'd really like to see you guys stop using cheap boards on the more expensive systems (Crashman has even used the same cheap board twice with bad results). We always talk about balance between CPU and GPU. So let's talk about balancing an overclockable CPU with a good overclocking motherboard. I don't care that the Pro3 can stably overclock the 4770k - in a year or two the board is probably going to fail - its just not a good board for sustained overclocking. It's like selling someone a Kia Rio and telling them, "yeah its underpowered but you can just floor it all the time and it'll be fine." The Extreme3 would have been the most minimum board I would have used for this system. You can't throw out reliability and overall system longevity even though they can't be benchmarked. Someone soon will own and use this system - don't set them up for a headache. But anyway, thanks for another interesting SBM, I always look forward to these.
Score
1
March 25, 2014 10:49:53 AM

Onus said:
cleeve said:
clide005 said:
I kind of feel like only focusing on the price comparison vs performance of the core performance parts is a little like cheating.


I don't agree. We make it pretty clear that a builder could nab a cheap case and DVD drive for significantly less.

Those items are very subjective... one builder might not consider a budget case an option, while another might consider it a complete frivolity.


I also think it's cheating, but possibly in a different way; it inflates the budget. Exclude all the common items, sure, but then tighten up the remaining budget considerably. I like the idea that all parts are fair game for trade-offs in overall value.
I do recognize that you're in a no-win situation, as there will be complainers either moaning about a cheap case, or wondering if you lost your mind for not moving $30 from the case to the graphics card. Still, if you're going to avoid those things, you need to keep the budget scaled appropriately. This makes me think that tomorrow's "$750" build may actually be a $950 build, which doesn't help anyone trying to figure out what to do with $750.



And I can agree with both of you. My buddy and I went out a bought parts and built PC's of similar quality. I spent 1180, and he spent 2000. He went premium on everything except storage (which I thought was weird but whatever). The point being thats what makes this kind of a cool thing to have the builds out there to see how much bang you can get for you buck. And it is true you will get whiners either way. I also hope this isn't being perceived as whining, but if so that is cool. At anyrate keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing these builds as a way to spark my interest and creativity.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 10:57:22 AM

I do like this series; definitely one of my favorite features. I haven't seen any surprises in this one yet, but I'm still contemplating, and it is the low build that I usually find most interesting.
Score
2
March 25, 2014 11:41:16 AM

I think some people here forget that there are other countries where people may not have the same resolutions that are common with gamers and enthusiasts in the US. :)  Keeping 1600x900 is perfectly fine, i think. Helps compare with the lowest-budget build.
Score
2
March 25, 2014 11:51:18 AM

cheesyboy said:
Yes, that's basically the point

Perhaps you could point me to where I can find a lab test showing a variety of CPU and GPU combinations which help to show where the most balanced CPU and GPU ratio is for an extremely common build-budget (such as the $1,000 to $1,250 I suggested)? Because I don't think there are many of those around.

We get a single system in these quarterly build marathons, if we're lucky, but no similar comparison to help us get the balance right. If you see the number of "spec-me" threads at those sorts of budgets around all the tech forums, you'll see that this would be a very useful exercise.


I have a better idea.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/59

There you go. An absolute tonne of CPUs and how they do in different games. Knock yourself out.

Score
0
March 25, 2014 2:54:37 PM

Like everything except Windows 8.1. Still rely on win7
Score
0
March 25, 2014 3:04:07 PM

bemused_fred said:
cheesyboy said:
Yes, that's basically the point

Perhaps you could point me to where I can find a lab test showing a variety of CPU and GPU combinations which help to show where the most balanced CPU and GPU ratio is for an extremely common build-budget (such as the $1,000 to $1,250 I suggested)? Because I don't think there are many of those around.

We get a single system in these quarterly build marathons, if we're lucky, but no similar comparison to help us get the balance right. If you see the number of "spec-me" threads at those sorts of budgets around all the tech forums, you'll see that this would be a very useful exercise.


I have a better idea.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/59

There you go. An absolute tonne of CPUs and how they do in different games. Knock yourself out.



How is giving me a bunch of benchmarks of CPUs paired with a high end GPU going to show "where the most balanced CPU and GPU ratio is for an extremely common build-budget (such as the $1,000 to $1,250 I suggested)" ?

If we're just going to look at a load of separate CPU and GPU benchmarks, what would the point be of the system builder marathon even in its current form? Why not just look up benches for the GPU and CPU and cut out the build?

What is actually your issue with my suggestion?
Score
0
March 25, 2014 3:14:19 PM

Quote:
Like everything except Windows 8.1. Still rely on win7
Remember this is for performance in gaming. You can't use an obsolete OS like Windows 7 for that, because you're throwing performance out the window (forgive the pun).Of course for office use, and productivity, Windows 8 and 8.1 are a big problem if you have to train people to use the horrible interface, but for gaming, you need that extra performance from Windows 8.1.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 5:45:11 PM

I don't get some of the decisions here. It just seems like you went munchkin and min/maxed for benchmarks but not so much for real-world use. You added the i7 for the multi-threaded tests. But it seems to me that most people who would want/need that much compute power would also need more than 500GB storage, particularly for long term use. The storage just doesn't feel balanced on this machine.

I also think discounting certain components from the cost and value calculations feels a bit . . . dishonest. I think I understand what you're trying to do, but if you're going to do this in the future, then I would suggest you shrink the "performance" budget as well.

And I say a case IS a performance enhancing component as proper ventilation and cooling can have notable impacts on OCing results.
Score
1
a b K Overclocking
a b 4 Gaming
March 25, 2014 8:30:58 PM

Quote:
Hmm.... What percentage of the performance measures in this article are for gaming?
All that means is that the tests perhaps ought to be weighted differently.I know too many people who use this guide as an 'end all be all' without thinking.
Score
0
March 26, 2014 6:53:16 PM

I'm really in favor of splitting the components into performance based and peripheral. For the same reasons you didn't include keyboards, mice, etc. in past builds it makes no sense to include DVD, BRay, OS, card readers, etc in the core build costs. Think of these as optional extras that you can decide to add to the core build if you want. I am however, surprised you split out the case. I guess it's almost in a section of it's own in that I could have put this exact build into a mITX case. So it does make some sense.Net time I think you should leverage the new format and start including keyboards, mice and other peripherals you would personally pair with the build. Since they don't count toward cost, they give you a good chance to talk about your favorite keyboard, etc without impacting the core of what you build.
Score
0
March 27, 2014 9:44:18 AM

Nice build. If I were offered the choice, I'd take the 780Ti build because a performance difference of 10% is not encouraging enough to switch to SLI. I'd also be avoiding all the problems associated with multi-card configurations
Score
1
March 27, 2014 10:39:59 AM

Quote:
To enter the giveaway, please fill out this SurveyGizmo form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!
The link is not working.
Score
0
April 1, 2014 12:48:50 PM

Why no Cinebench, and could you add the Cinebench test results?
Score
0
April 7, 2014 8:30:32 AM

When are the winners announced?
Score
0
!