System Builder Marathon Q1 2014: System Value Compared
Tags:
- Build Your Own
- System Builder
Last response: in Reviews comments
Crashman
March 27, 2014 12:00:03 AM
This quarter's Marathon included a GeForce GTX 780 Ti-enhanced enthusiast PC, a budget gaming machine at a lower price, and a high-end build altered to reader specifications. What effects will all of those changes have on overall performance—and value?
System Builder Marathon Q1 2014: System Value Compared : Read more
System Builder Marathon Q1 2014: System Value Compared : Read more
More about : system builder marathon 2014 system compared
blackmagnum
March 27, 2014 2:28:59 AM
neiroatopelcc
March 27, 2014 4:21:32 AM
Related resources
- System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014? - Forum
- Help! System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Budget Gaming PC - Forum
- Looking at System Builder Marathon (or any other PC) for New Build - Forum
- why is the system builder marathon 2013 based on mini itx plat form? - Forum
- No Newegg SuperCombo for the current System Builder's Marathon? - Forum
redgarl
March 27, 2014 4:47:21 AM
vertexx
March 27, 2014 5:41:02 AM
Nice work with the targeted High End Gaming value analysis! I'd 2nd switching it up so that Paul doesn't always win....
A couple of thoughts:
1. Is it true that gaming only gets 20-30% of the overall performance weighting? If so, I'd suggest moving that up to at least 50%. Even though I'm one for a balanced system, I still think the amount of $$ you're spending on the graphics capability should be reflected more in the overall performance rating.
2. There is quite a bit of back-and-forth on the impact of power consumption on these forums, and I think this competition would be a great place to factor in and raise awareness on the real costs of power consumption. I understand that electricity costs and system use varies greatly. But I would add in another value analysis incorporating the present value of 3 years' electricity costs using a discount rate (simple excel function 'pv'). Of course you would have to make some broad assumptions around average power, hours of use per day, whether or not you idle the system 24x7, and electricity cost, but I think the present value of 3 year electricity cost would make a decent impact on your value calculations across these systems.
A couple of thoughts:
1. Is it true that gaming only gets 20-30% of the overall performance weighting? If so, I'd suggest moving that up to at least 50%. Even though I'm one for a balanced system, I still think the amount of $$ you're spending on the graphics capability should be reflected more in the overall performance rating.
2. There is quite a bit of back-and-forth on the impact of power consumption on these forums, and I think this competition would be a great place to factor in and raise awareness on the real costs of power consumption. I understand that electricity costs and system use varies greatly. But I would add in another value analysis incorporating the present value of 3 years' electricity costs using a discount rate (simple excel function 'pv'). Of course you would have to make some broad assumptions around average power, hours of use per day, whether or not you idle the system 24x7, and electricity cost, but I think the present value of 3 year electricity cost would make a decent impact on your value calculations across these systems.
Score
1
neiroatopelcc
March 27, 2014 6:14:55 AM
vertexx said:
Of course you would have to make some broad assumptions around average power, hours of use per day, whether or not you idle the system 24x7, and electricity cost, but I think the present value of 3 year electricity cost would make a decent impact on your value calculations across these systems.I would suggest making a forum poll regarding this. From my steam library I can tell that I've been playing games on average 2.25 hours a day over the last 5 years, and since the bulk of my games are on steam (1400+) it's not much below my real usage. However despite being a gamer I find myself having the computer either idle or playing youtube etc for an amount equal to the time I'm playing games. Assuming I'm around average, with regards to gaming:idling ratio, that'd mean perhaps 3 hours gaming and 3 hours idle/video playback a day on average.
Score
0
Gin Fushicho
March 27, 2014 6:36:47 AM
geoffrey4283
March 27, 2014 6:55:07 AM
winwiz
March 27, 2014 6:55:19 AM
geofelt
March 27, 2014 7:48:49 AM
de5_Roy
March 27, 2014 7:49:04 AM
the links at the top of the page aren't enabled. the 4th link for value comparison is disabled on all 3 of the sbm pages.
i didn't agree with any of the motherboard choices in this quarter's build. despite that, all three builds were very interesting in terms of performance, choice of parts and builds.
my takeaway from this is that ddr3 1333 is not the baseline for cheap system memory anymore. 2x 4GB ddr3 1600 and higher, especially 2x 8GB ddr3 1866 or higher memory is optimum for performance. don not enabling xmp for the $1600 pc's stock performance analysis helped me understand this.
haswell i7 ramped power and heat really high after 4.4ghz and bit more voltage. both were higher than don's previous o.c. of i5 4670k with asus z87-a board. i still don't like asrock. can you guys compare o.c. clockrates, temperature and voltage of haswell cpus used in sbm in q4 to see which combo was better? imo it'd help with how haswell behaves in real pcs instead of open test benches or test pcs.
i didn't agree with any of the motherboard choices in this quarter's build. despite that, all three builds were very interesting in terms of performance, choice of parts and builds.
my takeaway from this is that ddr3 1333 is not the baseline for cheap system memory anymore. 2x 4GB ddr3 1600 and higher, especially 2x 8GB ddr3 1866 or higher memory is optimum for performance. don not enabling xmp for the $1600 pc's stock performance analysis helped me understand this.
haswell i7 ramped power and heat really high after 4.4ghz and bit more voltage. both were higher than don's previous o.c. of i5 4670k with asus z87-a board. i still don't like asrock. can you guys compare o.c. clockrates, temperature and voltage of haswell cpus used in sbm in q4 to see which combo was better? imo it'd help with how haswell behaves in real pcs instead of open test benches or test pcs.
Score
-2
McgheeL
March 27, 2014 7:51:12 AM
Good article, The visual studio test is a little out of date since 2010 is two versions behind the current version VS2013. And the newer versions are starting to use the GPU more, which might shake things up a bit. It might be interesting to add a productivity metric using sql server express, since there are a number of apps out there that use it. It would be nice to see a build off for productively/development machines.
Score
2
PepitoTV
March 27, 2014 8:14:52 AM
Sparky4688
March 27, 2014 8:25:28 AM
stubby326
March 27, 2014 8:33:53 AM
stubby326
March 27, 2014 8:46:11 AM
I don't mind seeing Paul win all the time, not at all. I think it illustrates quite nicely that it is simply not necessary to bust a budget to build a competent gamer. Define your minimum requirements, then build for perhaps a notch above that (plus some upgrade room), and you'll be set.
I'll repeat again my request for non-linear value assessments for FPS>60 in games. I'm not saying it's invisible, but once play is smooth, the subjective experience is not going to get much better. This will make Paul's machine even better in the value analysis.
I'm really not sure what I would do with any of these. They're all built with some nice parts, but my existing PCs are meeting my needs quite nicely.
1. $2400 PC: Massive overkill for my needs, but there are things about it I like. I might build this with just one of the graphics cards, then pull the RAID Array out of my "Omega" system and add that, then donate the remainder of Omega for use as a server to a group that needs one. The second graphics card I'd probably give away to a Tom's reader who is not in the US.
2. $1600 PC: Not sure; I'd probably do some mixing and matching with parts from "Phoenix," likely ending up donating most of this one too (except for the graphics card).
3. $750 PC: I'd pull the graphics card for a HD6850, add a SSD, and build it for my Mom. She's not a gamer, but would no doubt appreciate the speedup from her older AM3 machine for editing her photos and other media.
I'll repeat again my request for non-linear value assessments for FPS>60 in games. I'm not saying it's invisible, but once play is smooth, the subjective experience is not going to get much better. This will make Paul's machine even better in the value analysis.
I'm really not sure what I would do with any of these. They're all built with some nice parts, but my existing PCs are meeting my needs quite nicely.
1. $2400 PC: Massive overkill for my needs, but there are things about it I like. I might build this with just one of the graphics cards, then pull the RAID Array out of my "Omega" system and add that, then donate the remainder of Omega for use as a server to a group that needs one. The second graphics card I'd probably give away to a Tom's reader who is not in the US.
2. $1600 PC: Not sure; I'd probably do some mixing and matching with parts from "Phoenix," likely ending up donating most of this one too (except for the graphics card).
3. $750 PC: I'd pull the graphics card for a HD6850, add a SSD, and build it for my Mom. She's not a gamer, but would no doubt appreciate the speedup from her older AM3 machine for editing her photos and other media.
Score
1
shovenose2
March 27, 2014 9:05:14 AM
filippi
March 27, 2014 9:54:54 AM
MrBlonde
March 27, 2014 10:39:14 AM
ruban71
March 27, 2014 10:42:24 AM
RedJaron
March 27, 2014 12:47:47 PM
filippi said:
802W from the socket using a Corsair HX750? This is why I recommend a 850W PSU for GTX780 SLI.You're forgetting to factor the PSU's efficiency. 802W * 87% efficiency = 700W power delivered to the internals. That's a 93% load on the PSU. It's perfectly safe, you just wouldn't want to add to it. And that's only at a torture test load. Typical use would put you around 80% load or less. If you were mining with this machine, then an 800W or larger PSU would probably be a good idea.
Score
-1
texastim65
March 27, 2014 1:18:09 PM
What I'd like to see in these roundups is older builds from prior quarters. I know you compare against the prior quarter in the individual writeups but I would like to see comparisons against machines 1, 2 and 3 years ago.The reason is when I build a higher end machine (1800-2400 price range) I expect it to last me for 3-5 years (potentially upgrading the video card/RAM if they get really out of date) and not just 1 quarter. That's where the real value of the 2400 PC is going to come into play vs the 750 one which will be out of date far faster.
Score
0
The $750 PC has a great upgrade path. In addition to video card upgrades, you could put an i5 or i7 on it. I think it will be some time before they become obsolete.
Fwiw and imho, inability to play with "ultramaxOhWOW!" settings does not mean a machine is obsolete; if you can reach "enjoyable," you're good to go.
Fwiw and imho, inability to play with "ultramaxOhWOW!" settings does not mean a machine is obsolete; if you can reach "enjoyable," you're good to go.
Score
0
geoffrey4283
March 27, 2014 2:44:17 PM
somidiot
March 27, 2014 4:55:39 PM
Crashman
March 27, 2014 6:31:49 PM
somidiot said:
I love how Tom's article was all "Because you gamer nerds are a bunch of whiny little girls I'm doing this because ...."
Regarding hardware selection, I get two types of responses: 1.) Can you try making the $2400 PC more work friendly and 2.)PLEASE get rid of that stupidly big CPU because gaming is the only thing that matters to anyone. The second group is wrong, but they're also more persistent
Score
1
airborn824
March 27, 2014 7:43:37 PM
the top build should have a i7 hexa core and the 750 should for sure be AMD since the 8350 is far superirior to all intell under the i7 and should include a Radeon card. these build are build on pure social bias and not reality. who would build a system for under 1k and not use AMD? the whole point of AMD is to be powerful and a god price. intel is only worth it at i7 and above unless you are only playing single player games all the time.
Score
-1
Phillip Wager
March 27, 2014 8:42:18 PM
Intel really needs a low cost core i5 and to trim the prices of the core i3 line. $150 for a core i3 is getting ridiculous. considering i got my core i5 4670k for $200 last month there is no value in a core i3 whatsoever! I hope AMD comes back this year because without competition intel is starting to rip people off
Score
0
TheRohBoat
March 27, 2014 10:00:01 PM
Crashman
March 27, 2014 10:17:11 PM
RedJaron
March 28, 2014 1:39:27 PM
airborn824 said:
the top build should have a i7 hexa core and the 750 should for sure be AMD since the 8350 is far superirior to all intell under the i7 and should include a Radeon card. these build are build on pure social bias and not reality. who would build a system for under 1k and not use AMD? the whole point of AMD is to be powerful and a god price. intel is only worth it at i7 and above unless you are only playing single player games all the time.Um, you're sure it's not you who is being biased?
There's a dang good reason AMD GPUs aren't being used in the SBM right now: street price. Each build has a hard price limit and cryptominers have driven the price of Radeons much higher than their MSRPs. Since hard GPU compute benchmarks are not part of the SBM, there's no reason to spend extra on a Radeon right now when you can get similar performance from nVidia's products. Look back over last year's SBM and you'll see quite a few Radeons used when they had a more sensible price.
And your statement that Intel has no worthwhile chips below the i7 except for single-player games is just laughable. The 8350 runs $200 right now. I can get an i5-4570 for that same price. Anything that uses four threads or less ( which is nearly anything outside professional content creation software, ) will run faster on the i5 at stock speeds. If you want to OC the 8350, that runs you extra money for a cooler and OC friendly mboard. In some ways it's kind of sad that you have to heavily OC an FX to even approach Intel's stock performance ( and have to deal with the extra money, heat, and power consumption that comes with it. )
Phillip Wager said:
Intel really needs a low cost core i5 and to trim the prices of the core i3 line. $150 for a core i3 is getting ridiculous. considering i got my core i5 4670k for $200 last month there is no value in a core i3 whatsoever!No value for an i3? Did you even bother noticing how well the $750 machine did in comparison to the others?
Score
1
RedJaron
March 28, 2014 1:48:41 PM
Onus said:
If you're wanting to build a Litecoin miner, you'll get a 4xPCIe-slot mobo (like a 990FX Sabertooth) and the cheapest CPU you can find; it's an entirely different build, and would be very hard to address in a SBM.Someone brought up the point of using an APU in this kind of build and put further mining threads on the IGP. I wonder how much return you'd get from that as opposed to a 750K.
Score
1
RedJaron
March 28, 2014 1:54:41 PM
jaquith
April 2, 2014 8:00:00 AM
Isaiah4110
April 2, 2014 4:33:44 PM
jaquith said:
Someday I'll figure out 'why' you guys use some of these oddball resolutions.Please try: 1920x1080, 2560x1440, 2560x1600, 3840×2160, 5760x1080 and maybe a lower or common sub-HD e.g. 1366×768 or 1600×900Thanks!
Not sure what you are seeing as an "oddball" resolution. They do have your requested 1600x900 in there, and also already use 1920x1080 and 5760x1080. So the only resolution they use in these benchmarks that isn't in your list is 4800x900... which just so happens to be what you get when you run a configuration of three 1600x900 monitors.
So are you just saying you want to see them expand their benchmark graphs to include more resolutions?
Score
0
iammykyl
April 2, 2014 8:06:13 PM
Crashman
April 2, 2014 8:15:35 PM
iammykyl said:
"the rest of our charts are just numbers, at the end of the day. That’s because each of us uses different games, applications, and monitor configurations in our own systems."Then why not have a more evenly matched comparison? That way you would not have to qualify your results.Score
0
Aegean BM
April 3, 2014 12:26:49 PM
Aegean BM
April 3, 2014 12:47:10 PM
I loved the summary statements in the form of "[X] cents of performance for every dollar spent beyond the [lower system]".Don't worry too much about pricing out the 3 tiers at 1x, 2x, and 3x. I'm glad that you've been loosening that requirement. I'd like to see it even more loose still. I'd prefer that each tier try to hit the sweet spot in their range/in their description, something like $500-900, $1100-1900, $2100-$3300. Or maybe the rule is each tier can go over or under by 20%.People's spending is far more elastic than they'll admit. If an extra $120 brings in a good bang for the buck, they'll do it. As the contest currently is, I fear that sometimes they might spend money they normally wouldn't. That doesn't teach me where the sweet spots are. That's why I applaud dropping $50 from $800 in this round. Who knows? Maybe next round it'll be $50 over.
Score
0
Lee Yong Quan
April 15, 2014 4:51:12 PM
Crashman
April 17, 2014 11:44:29 PM
Related resources
- SolvedAre System Builder Marathon Rigs Suitable for a First Build? Forum
- System Builder marathon $500 Forum
- System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC Forum
- New $1000 gaming system or System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 Forum
- Real Winners of the System Builder Marathon marc. 2012? Forum
- System Builder Marathon Giveaway Winner announcments? Forum
- "System Builder Marathon" $1200 Rig? Forum
- How to enter the System Builder Marathon competition ? Forum
- Next System builder Marathon Forum
- System Builder Marathon Contest Forum
- With Tom's System Builder Marathon in mind: Build a Infinite Budget PC Forum
- System builder marathon notebook edition Forum
- Card Alternative from the System Builder Marathon Article Forum
- System Builder Marathon, May '09: $1,300 Enthusiast PC Forum
- System Builder Marathon Forum
- More resources
!