Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Budget Gaming PC
By ,
1. Presenting Our New Budget Gaming PC

System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: The Articles

Here are links to each of the four articles in this quarter’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published). And remember, these systems are all being given away at the end of the marathon.

To enter the giveaway, please fill out this SurveyGizmo form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!

Day 1: The Budget Gaming PC
Day 2: Our Mainstream Enthusiast System
Day 3: The Balanced High-End Build
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected

An Introduction To The System Builder Marathon

What does it mean to build your own PC? Generally, this refers to the process of selecting and assembling the various hardware and software components able to satisfy your computing needs. For example, do you want to play the latest and most detailed games? If so, your family's three-year-old desktop probably won't cut it. A great many off-the-shelf machines lack the add-in graphics card you'd need for ample performance. Worse, they're often missing the slots and ports needed for an upgrade.

Unless your time is more valuable than your money, we typically encourage PC gamers to consider building their own machines. The process isn't for the technically-challenged. And there plenty of great boutiques that cater to folks who want beefy parts, but aren't comfortable tinkering inside of their cases. Yet, at some point, even seasoned pros had to get their feet wet with a first build or major upgrade.

Now, our System Builder Marathon is not a “How To” on putting your own machine together. If you're brand new to this and looking for a step-by-step reference, check out How To Build A PC: From Component Selection To Installation, which we just updated for 2014. Rather, the Marathon is an ongoing look at the hardware market, what's available, and how it performs. Tom’s Hardware has a team of editors who tackle one build each, publishing their experiences successively once per quarter. We use our knowledge (or curiosity) to highlight some of the best platform options. Typically, we differentiate our configurations based on price brackets or build goals. 

The System Builder Marathon turns into a friendly competition amongst Thomas, Don, and I, during which we chase the highest performance and best value. Once we get our machines put together, we run them through a suite of synthetic benchmarks, application workloads, and demanding 3D games. At times, our themes or individual builds zero-in more specifically on a specific purpose. We also test each PC in two ways. First, it's evaluated in stock form, with all of the hardware running the way it was intended. Then, we tune all of the parts as enthusiasts looking for even more speed through tweaking and overclocking.

None of the gear we use is cherry-picked. Review samples sent by hardware vendors are sometimes screened to deliver the best possible experience. There's none of that here. Rather, we partner with Newegg to choose from the company's retail inventory. This partnership serves a dual-benefit in that we're able to give every machine we build away to the Tom's Hardware audience once we're done running our benchmarks. 

Changes To Our Format

Many of you are probably already familiar with the Marathon. This quarter, you'll see our format change a bit, largely based on your feedback. First, we are focusing specifically on the prices of components that affect performance, leaving the parts that don’t impact benchmark results out of the value equation. In other words, the case, optical drive, and operating system have no bearing on our price/performance calculations. Everything else falls under the “Price of Performance Hardware”. In this way, we free ourselves to experiment with higher-end enclosures and add-ons like Blu-ray drives without a negative impact on comparative value. Some of our readers don’t want to see a $20 DVD burner interfere with their processor and graphics budget, while others believe that a Blu-ray burner and $150 case are necessary. We get that.

Of course, we continue to provide the total cost of all components, now including an operating system, in a final “Price As Tested”. Taken together, this information should paint a clearer picture of value, while acknowledging the personal nature of cases, optical drives, and even the OS.

We continue to see a lot of interest in budget-friendly gaming platforms. A "$500 Gaming PC" was once a staple of the Marathon. So, to give this quarter a theme, we lowered our budgets and targeted PC gaming. Distilled down, our rigs can typically get by with $50 dedicated to a case and optical drive, though the resulting configuration wouldn't necessarily be something we'd want to build. That's why we took our $500, $1000, and $1500 budgets, subtracted $50 from them, and used the result as our performance-oriented targets. Because we are now purchasing (and giving away) Windows 8.1 with our systems, my lowest-cost machine tips the scales around $600 as-tested.

Meet Our Budget Gaming PC

I like to tell folks new to PC building that they should do their homework, understanding the mechanics of how components work together, what they cost, and how they affect performance. I've built a great many PCs and I stay current on what's available, so I already have a good sense for the hardware in my budget. So to start, I added supporting components (memory, storage, and power) to my shopping cart as filler, if only to see what I'd have leftover for the platform's foundation. Prices and availability fluctuate daily, so I didn't get crazy about fitting under a ceiling. Every initial pick is reviewed and tweaked as necessary before checking out.

Memory prices, especially, move violently from one quarter to the next, sometimes affecting the other hardware I can afford. This budget gaming box will run Windows 8 and rely on a single hard drive. So, I added the cheapest 8 GB dual-channel DDR3 kit to my cart, and told myself that I'd consider 4 GB later as a last resort.

From there, approximately $300 remained to secure the graphics card, processor, and motherboard. Obviously, the $330 GeForce GTX 770 utilized in last quarter's $750 Gaming PC had to go. And this time, the best values were all AMD cards: the Radeon R7 260X, R7 265, and potentially a R9 270. We don't give credit for mail-in rebates, which come and go, so those models would set me back $120, $150, and $190, respectively.

Many modern games knock entry-level host processors to their knees, so I wanted to go with an Intel Core i3 or AMD FX-6300. That'd limit my budget to AMD's Radeon R7 260X, with $50 or $60 leftover for a motherboard and heat sink. In attempt to retain as much relevance as possible in games at 1920x1080 (Full HD), I dropped down to the most basic game-worthy processor options.

Budget System ComponentsPurchase Price
CPUAMD Athlon X4 750K (Trinity)$80
CPU CoolerAMD Boxed Heat Sink and Fan-
MotherboardASRock FM2A75M Pro4+, Socket FM2+$59
RAMTeam Group Dark Series 8 GB (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1600 TDBD38G1600HC9DC01$65
GraphicsMSI R7 265 2GD5 OC 2 GB$150
Hard DriveWestern Digital Blue WD10EZEX 1 TB$60
PowerEVGA 100-W1-0430-KR 430 W $40
Price of Performance Hardware$454
CaseRosewill Redbone U3 ATX Mid-Tower $45
OpticalAsus 24x DVD Burner DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS, OEM
$20
Total Hardware Cost$519
Operating SystemMicrosoft Windows 8.1 64-bit, OEM$100
Price As Tested$619

My focus wasn't on upgrade potential. Otherwise, I would have preferred an Intel Haswell-based Pentium, which could later be replaced with a Core i5 or i7. Rather, my only concern was competing as aggressively as possible right here and right now. Our parts were ordered back in May, so my best shot was with AMD’s Athlon X4 750K, the least expensive host processor I could buy sporting a fully unlocked CPU multiplier. My tweaking would be limiting primarily by AMD's bundled cooler and ASRock's affordable A75-based motherboard.

This platform combination left me with $150 for a Radeon R7 265 graphics card. There were no worthy platform options within range that could have helped me free up the $40 I'd need for a Radeon R9 270, unless I was also willing to drop to 4 GB of RAM. In the end, I decided to break the budget just a bit in order to double available storage capacity.

2. CPU And Cooler

Processor: AMD Athlon X4 750K

The Athlon X4 750K is a 32 nm Trinity-based APU with no graphics component. While not a conventional quad-core design, its pair of Piledriver modules still outperforms Intel's dual-core Pentium processors in many threaded workloads. This also can translate into a fairly potent gaming processor if and when the title in question effectively utilizes four threads.

The Athlon X4 750K sports a fairly modest 3.4 GHz base frequency, but ratchets up as high as 4 GHz with Turbo Core enabled. Of course, we also plan to bolster those clock rates, since AMD equips this K-series APU with an unlocked multiplier.

As a budget-oriented processor, the 750K employs 4 MB of shared L2 cache, lacking the L3 found on FX-series CPUs.

Read Customer Reviews of AMD's Athlon X4 750K


CPU Cooler: AMD Retail Boxed Heatsink & Fan

Our budget-oriented gaming build maximizes value by relying on AMD’s bundled heat sink to dissipate heat. It consists of a small, all-aluminum block topped with a 70 mm fan. The whole thing is fastened down by a single mounting clip.

We're expecting the thermal solution to offer some headroom for dabbling in overclocking without generating much noise. Best of all, it doesn't pull funds away from other performance-oriented parts.

3. Motherboard And Memory

Motherboard: ASRock FM2A75M Pro4+

If I was looking to squeeze the highest clock rates out of AMD's Trinity architecture, I'd go with an aftermarket heat sink and a motherboard based on the enthusiast-class A85X Fusion Controller Hub. However, it's difficult to cram those luxuries into a modest gaming budget. Even then, I'd have to decide whether extra cash could be better-spent on a more capable AMD FX-6300 or Intel Core i3 processor.

A more appropriate use of funds for our lightly-overclocked gaming PC was ASRock's FM2A75 Pro4+. Based instead on AMD's A75 FCH (referred to as Hudson D3), this Socket FM2+ motherboard packs in a wealth of features and all of the tweaking options I needed, while saving me a few dollars compared to the cheapest A85X motherboards.

Read Customer Reviews of ASRock's FM2A75M Pro4+


This full-width microATX board has a 4+2-phase power design, supporting 100 W Socket FM2 and 95 W Socket FM2+ APUs. Four dual-channel DDR3 memory slots facilitate overclocking up to 2600 MT/s. There is a 16-lane PCI Express 3.0 slot (x16 mode) and a 16-lane PCI Express 2.0 slot (x4 mode), enabling Dual Graphics mode (though we'd suggest reading AMD Dual Graphics Analysis: Better Benchmarks; Same Experience? first). Also provided is a single-lane PCI Express 2.0 slot, legacy PCI, and six SATA 6Gb/s ports. It exposes USB 3.0 and 2.0 connectivity through rear-panel ports, as well as front-panel headers.

Memory: 8 GB Team Group Dark Series DDR3-1600 Kit

Although our Athlon processor is based on the Trinity architecture, its on-die Radeon graphics engine is deliberately disabled. So, the memory bandwidth we'd normally try to emphasize isn't needed as much. For this build, I consequently chose from the most affordable 8 GB kits, which were down about $5 from last quarter (but still quite a bit higher than t he prices we've seen in the past).

Read Customer Reviews of Team Group's Dark Series 8 GB DDR3-1600 Memory Kit


Team Group’s Dark Series, with blue heat spreaders, offers XMP settings of DDR3-1600 with CL9-9-9-24 timings at 1.5 V, and potentially some headroom to wring out a little more bandwidth through a small voltage bump.

4. Graphics Card And Hard Drive

Graphics Card: MSI Radeon R7 265 2GD5 OC 2 GB

Priced $20 less than any other Radeon R7 265 and $40 below the Radeon R9 270, selecting MSI's Radeon R7 265 2 GB was probably the easiest decision I made. Singularly, this card represented the highest level of graphics I could fit into my budget. Potentially just as important, it was receiving favorable feedback on Newegg for the quietness and effectiveness of its cooling solution.

Read Customer Reviews of MSI's R7 265 2GD5 OC 2 GB


This model earns the OC component of its name because Power Tune with Boost accelerates the Pitcairn GPU up to 955 MHz, which is 30 MHz higher than a reference Radeon R7 265. Its memory, however, remains at 1400 MHz (4800 MT/s).

We bought our parts in May. Between then and now, there has been some downward pressure on pricing from competing cards. Anyone interested in buying today enjoys additional options as a result.

Hard Drive: WD Blue WD10EZEX 1 TB

Priced competitively quarter after quarter, Western Digital’s Blue-series 1 TB hard drive gives us ample capacity and performance at a price we can usually squeeze into our budget.

First, I looked at the 500 GB version. But doubling storage space for just $5 seemed like a no-brainer in terms of gigabyte per dollar, especially considering the growing size of many modern games, downloadable add-ons, and user-created mods.

Read Customer Reviews of Western Digitals WD Blue 1TB Hard Drive


This SATA 6Gb/s-capable mechanical drive has 64 MB cache, a 7200 RPM spindle, and it comes with a limited two-year warranty.

5. Case, Power Supply, And Optical Drive

Case: Rosewill Redbone U3 ATX Mid Tower

This quarter, I'm free to pick whatever case I want without sacrificing performance-oriented parts. But I'm still inclined to believe that most gamers building on a budget don't dedicate more than 10% or so of their funding to the chassis. So, I aimed at options priced at $50 and less.

Rosewill's Redbone U3 may seem larger than it needs to be for our microATX motherboard and modest collection of components. However, the extra space will be put to good use in keeping our overclocked CPU and graphics card cooler.

Read Customer Reviews of Rosewill's REDBONE U3 Case


The Redbone can accommodate up to five 120 mm fans, and it comes with three already installed. Plus, given the extra space inside, heat build-up from cable clutter can be minimized without spending extra on a modular power supply (like we did last quarter). In short, the Redbone should help us safely extract a little more performance without additional cooling.

Power Supply: EVGA 100-W1-0430-KR 430 W

Though we haven’t reviewed EVGA’s most budget-friendly 100-W1-0430-KR power supply, we know it has an active PFC and is 80 PLUS-certified, falling just shy of Bronze efficiency levels. It’s rated at 430 W, employs one 34 A, +12 V rail, and includes a 6+2-pin lead for powering our graphics card. Fully-sleeved cables are a nice addition, while the three-year warranty is respectable for a low-cost unit.

 

Read Customer Reviews of EVGA's 100-W1-0430-KR Power Supply


I'm guessing that our system's power supply output demands will remain under 250 W, so this PSU should have no issue meeting our needs. There's even plenty of reserves for our overclocking endeavors.

Optical Drive: Asus 24x DVD Burner DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS

Although many folks don't consider an optical drive necessary, we're inclined to believe that they still come in handy occasionally. It’s a subjective call, so we changed our rules and made it so the inclusion of an optical drive wouldn't chew into our budget for performance-oriented parts.

This 24x Asus model is both popular and well-rated on Newegg.

Read Customer Reviews of Asus' DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD Burner

6. Assembling Our Gaming Box

The boxes shipped from Newegg arrived in great shape, giving us little reason for concern. Closer inspection later revealed that the container with the case inside had a couple of wrinkled and rounded edges. At some point, whether during shipping or before, the box was likely dropped on its back edge, evidenced by the top and bottom right-hand thumb screws pushed in and bent to the side. When we removed them, a few loose paint chips crumbled off from the surrounding area. 

Structurally, the case is still fine, and once I straightened out some of the sheet metal from the inside, this little bit of damage didn't affect motherboard or power supply mounting.

There weren't any visible scratches in the glossy red highlights along of the front edges of the enclosure, which weren't covered by protective film. However, there were some faint (but visible) scratches under the USB 3.0 and eSATA ports. Those were covered in film. So the scratches likely occurred at the factory when the ports were being installed into the bezel.

The black metal mesh was ding-free, apart from a faint hint of worn paint in a rounded area along the left edge. We probably could have masked this blemish almost completely with a black marker.

I proceeded to prep the case for use. The front bezel was held secure and never popped off on its own, but just the slightest tug from the bottom lip was enough to remove it. Next, I separated the mesh cover from the bezel, and twisted off the sheet metal from the case, exposing the top 5.25” bay for our DVD burner.

Given plenty of internal space, I didn't need to install drives or the power supply before securing our motherboard in place. This was easy enough with the CPU, heat sink, and memory already installed.

Rosewill packages the Redbone with one sheet of instructions and a bag of screws. The company includes a small speaker to attach to a motherboard header, and one bracket to cover a rear slot once the original punch-out is removed. I do have a few criticisms of the Redbone that I'd like to share, though.

The first could potentially be disheartening for novice builders to overcome, but would be easy to solve. The case supports full ATX and microATX motherboards requiring three rows of screws, just like the ASRock model we're using. However, rather than including all of the standoffs you'd require, Rosewill only bundles seven. Other customers on Newegg complain of the same oversight, so this isn't a one-time deal. Standoffs come in different heights, and these employ a low-profile design. Securing our motherboard properly required nine. So, unless we had spares on-hand, all progress would have ground to a halt. Fortunately, the extras included with Antec’s Three Hundred are the same, and I had plenty of those from prior builds.

Another easy-to-solve complaint concerns the useless drive clips. They're designed to attach on the near side, and use dimpled pressure on the rear. But this mechanism doesn't come close to holding either of our drives in place (particularly the disk drive). Thankfully, screws are also provided to secure them properly.

Next up, cable management (or, more accurately, a lack thereof). This is a roomy case, so airflow shouldn't be a problem. But there's no easy way to finish the build with a tidy appearance once the side panel is removed.

We ran into two other problems after firing up our build. First, the case fan attached to the side panel is quite noisy, and might benefit from some oil. Second, the Asus DVD burner we've used so many times before was dead on arrival (its tray wouldn't come out), and had to be returned. Newegg quickly shipped out a replacement, getting us up and running again.

In general, I've been pleased with many of Rosewill's enclosures, which is why I gave this one a shot. And despite picking on a handful of weaknesses, the Redbone remains likeable. Value is perhaps its greatest strength. The front-panel USB cable, which can adapt to fit either third- or second-gen motherboard headers, is a welcome addition. The three bundled fans are too. It was just a shame one was so noisy. But a few oversights make the case impossible to recommend enthusiastically. I feel for new builders who wind up frustrated by penny-pinching on the part of Rosewill.

7. Overclocking Our Budget AMD Platform

I prioritized quiet operation for the stock configuration, unplugging the side-panel fan and enabling control in ASRock's UEFI to bring the remaining coolers down in speed. The CPU's stock voltage is 1.225 V, but reported voltages within Windows fluctuated between 1.208 and 1.256 V under load using HWMonitor. There was a even more variance per core within AMD's OverDrive utility. Power-saving features and Turbo Core were enabled.

When it came time to overclock, I chose to disable Turbo Core and run the fans at 100%. By far, the loudest sound from the system was its side-panel intake, which had that aforementioned whine (rather than the expected whoosh of moving air). But a 120 mm blower pushing fresh air down onto the socket interface was comforting, so it remained.

I wasn’t expecting high frequencies from the Athlon X4 750K, since it was handicapped by a puny boxed heat sink. We lucked out, though, finding 4 GHz stable on all cores at the stock voltage setting. Thermals looked good, so I started bumping the voltage up a little at a time. Stability at 4.2 GHz only required 1.272V under load, which was achieved with a +0.048 V offset and enabling APU LLC to stabilize power delivery.

Next, I sought to maximize gains by overclocking the RAM. DDR3-1866 with CAS 9 timings required 1.625 V for stability. I bumped the CPU-NB frequency to 2000 MHz, which is a modest boost that didn't require altering the Northbridge Voltage option. Everything was tested for stability as I kept an eye on thermal margin from within AMD's OverDrive utility, as well as spot-checking the motherboard's VRM with an IR thermometer.

OverDrive reported another 25 degrees of thermal margin available under Prime95. But I wasn’t comfortable pushing higher voltages, especially with higher summer temperatures on the way. Still, I have to be happy with these results considering two of our lab's 750Ks top out just 100 MHz higher at 1.425 V and topped with aftermarket coolers.

Next, I wanted to tweak MSI's Radeon R7 265 using the latest version of Afterburner. The GPU's official limit is 1050 MHz, which I hit without the need for additional voltage. The card's memory wasn't as cooperative though, causing instability at 1480 MHz. I dialed it back down to 1450 MHz (5800 MT/s).

The final overclock was filtered through MemTest 86+, Prime95, and an hour of gaming before receiving a stamp of approval and proceeding to the benchmarks.

8. How We Tested Our Budget Gaming PC

The following tables include the stock and overclocked settings for this quarter's budget-oriented gaming build, followed by the configuration we put together earlier this year, which serves as our comparison point.

At the very bottom, you’ll find the programs and games used for benchmarking.

Current Budget Gaming PC System Test Configuration
Component Base Settings Overclock Setting
CPUAMD Athlon X4 750K (Trinity), 3.4 GHz (4 GHz max. Turbo Core), Socket FM2, No L3 Cache, Turbo Core enabled, Power-savings enabled4.2 GHz (42*100), 1.272 V (Load), Turbo Core disabled, Power-savings enabled, 2000 MHz CPU-NB Frequency
CPU CoolerAMD Boxed Heat Sink and FanUnchanged
MotherboardASRock FM2A75M Pro4+, AMD A75, BIOS: P1.30 (10-15-13)Unchanged
RAM8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Team Dark Series DDR3-1600, CL 9-9-9-24 XMP at 1.5 VDDR3-1866, CL 9-9-9-24 at 1.625 V
GraphicsMSI R7 265 2GD5 OC 2 GB, 955 MHz GPU, 1400 MHz (5600 MT/s) Memory1050 MHz GPU, 1450 MHz (5800 MT/s) Memory, Custom Fan Profile
Hard DriveWD Blue WD10EZEX 1 TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB CacheUnchanged
SoundIntegrated Eight-Channel HD AudioUnchanged
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit EthernetUnchanged
PowerEVGA 100-W1-0430-KR 430 W Unchanged
OpticalAsus 24x DVD Burner DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS
Unchanged
 Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 8 Professional x64Unchanged
Graphics DriverAMD Catalyst 14.4Unchanged
Q1 2014 $750 PC System Test Configuration
Component Base Settings Overclock Setting
CPUIntel Core i3-4130 (Haswell): 3.4 GHz, 3 MB Shared L3 Cache, Power-savings enabledUnchanged
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink and FanUnchanged
MotherboardAsus H81M-K, LGA 1150, Intel H81 Express, BIOS: v.0304 (08-23-13)Unchanged
RAM8 GB (2 x 4 GB) Adata DDR3-1600, CL 9-9-9-24 XMP at 1.5 VUnchanged
GraphicsZotac ZT-70301-10P GeForce GTX 770 2 GB, 1059 MHz (1111 Boost, 1150 Max Boost) GPU, 1.2 V, 1753 MHz (7010 MT/s) Memory1283 MHz (Max Boost) GPU, 1903 MHz (7610 MT/s) Memory, (+12 mV, 106% Power, Custom Fan Profile)
Hard DriveWD Blue WD10EZEX 1 TB, 7200 RPM, 64 MB CacheUnchanged
SoundIntegrated Eight-Channel HD AudioUnchanged
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit EthernetUnchanged
PowerRosewill Capstone-450-M 450 W ATXUnchanged
OpticalAsus 24x DVD Burner DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS
Unchanged
 Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 8 Professional x64Unchanged
Graphics DriverNvidia 332.21 WHQLUnchanged
Platform DriverIntel INF 9.4.0.1017Unchanged
Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
Arma 3
V. 1.20 Current PC, V.1.08 Q1 PC
30-sec. Fraps "Infantry Showcase"
Test Set 1: Standard Preset, No AA, Standard AF
Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, 8x FSAA, Ultra AF
Battlefield 4Version 1.0.0.1, DirectX 11, 100-sec. Fraps "Tashgar"
Test Set 1: Medium Quality Preset, No AA, 4x AF, SSAO
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 4x MSAA, 16x AF, HBAO
Far Cry 3V. 1.05, DirectX 11, 50-sec. Fraps "Amanaki Outpost"
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA, Standard ATC, SSAO
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 4x MSAA, Enhanced ATC, HDAO AMD/ HBAO NVidia 
Grid 2Version 1.0.85.8679, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 8x MSAA
Audio/Video Encoding
HandBrake CLIVersion: 0.99, Video: Video from Canon EOS 7D (1920x1080, 25 frames) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds, Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, Two-channel, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile)
iTunesVersion 11.0.4.4 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format 
LAME MP3Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s)
TotalCode Studio 2.5Version: 2.5.0.10677, MPEG2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, Two-channel, 16-bit, 224 Kb/s) Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Adobe Creative Suite
Adobe After Effects CCVersion 12.0.0.404: Create Video, 3 Streams, 210 Frames, Render Multiple Frames Simultaneously
Adobe Photoshop CCVersion 14 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates
Adobe Premiere Pro CS6Version 6.0.0.0, 6.61 GB MXF Project to H.264 to H.264 Blu-ray, Output 1920x1080, Maximum Quality
Adobe Acrobat XIVersion 11.0.0: Print PDF from 115 Page PowerPoint, 128-bit RC4 Encyption
Productivity
ABBYY FineReaderVersion 10.0.102.95: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages
Autodesk 3ds Max 2013Version 15.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080
BlenderVersion 2.68a, Cycles Engine, Syntax blender -b thg.blend -f 1, 1920x1080, 8x Anti-Aliasing, Render THG.blend frame 1
Visual StudioVersion 10.0, Compile Google Chrome, Scripted
Compression
7-ZipVersion 9.30 alpha, LZMA2, Syntax "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
Benchmark: THG-Workload-2012 (1.3 GB)
WinRARVersion 5.0, RAR, Syntax "winrar a -r -m3"
Benchmark: THG-Workload-2012 (1.3 GB)
WinZipVersion 18.0 Pro, Syntax "-a -ez -p -r"
Benchmark: THG-Workload-2012 (1.3 GB)
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark ProfessionalVersion: 1.2.250.0, Fire Strike Standard and Extreme
PCMark 8Version: 1.0.0 x64 Full Test
SiSoftware Sandra 2014Version: 2014.02.20.10, Processor Arithmetic, Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth Benchmarks
9. Results: Synthetics

3DMark Professional Edition

We start out on shaky ground as 3DMark's Fire Strike test smacks us with the reality of just how much graphics muscle we gave up trying to hit a lower price target. Dropping from a GeForce GTX 770 to a Radeon R7 265 that costs half as much will no doubt limit what today's machine can do in our high-resolution game tests.

It’s at least somewhat promising to see how well two Piledriver modules stripped of L3 cache compete in the Physics test, especially once they're overclocked. I was able to coax a respectable 4.2 GHz from the Athlon X4 with a small voltage increase. Meanwhile, last quarter’s Gaming PC sported a Haswell-based Core i3 limited to 3.4 GHz. It enjoyed the benefit of Hyper-Threading, but was still a dual-core chip.

PCMark 8

Our more budget-friendly AMD platform only trails by about 10% in PCMark 8’s Work suite, suggesting that the Trinity architecture offers respectable value specifically in threaded workloads.

Not surprisingly, the same WD Blue hard drive earns a similar Storage score from one build to the next.

SiSoftware Sandra

Averaging arithmetic metrics in SiSoftware Sandra 2014 places the current Athlon X4 750K about 31% slower than last quarter's configuration, but just 18% behind once we overclock.

Intel's Core i3 does enjoy greater gains from AES-NI support. The outcome of that test is directly tied to memory bandwidth, and Haswell's integrated memory controller realizes more throughput from a dual-channel DDR3-1600 memory kit.

10. Results: Audio And Video

On paper, both of our gaming PCs sport budget-oriented processors operating at 3.4 GHz, and they're able to address four threads at a time. But the similarities end there; these machines employ distinctly different CPU architectures.

While last quarter’s Haswell-based Core i3 remains fixed at 3.4 GHz, Turbo Core increases the Athlon's cores up to 3.7 or 4.0 GHz in stock form. This quarter's cheaper setup gains further from a manual overclock to 4.2 GHz, a greater DDR3 data rate, and a higher CPU-NB frequency.

Even operating 800 MHz higher, AMD's Piledriver architecture can not compete with Haswell in measures of single-threaded alacrity (like our iTunes and LAME encoding workloads).

While Trinity's two modules (with four integer units) can't match dual-core Haswell's higher IPC throughput, AMD's design fares better in parallelized tasks. Even without any shared L3 cache, this pair of Piledriver modules registers a win in both HandBrake and TotalCode Studio, though only after overclocking to 4.2 GHz.

11. Results: Adobe Creative Suite

Premiere Pro is well-threaded, so the gap between Intel's stock Core i3 and the Athlon X4 750K running at its default settings isn't huge. Overclocking is a big help to AMD though, allowing this quarter's cheaper PC to achieve a tie.

Our well-threaded Photoshop workload shows the overclocked Athlon in an even better light, though the OpenCL-accelerated test shifts favor back to Intel's Core i3 and the higher-end GeForce GTX 770.

Intel's advantage is also large in the After Effects and Acrobat tests. The first one tends to be memory-intensive, while the latter is decidedly a single-threaded benchmark.

12. Results: Productivity

Built specifically to play games, neither of these machines was intended to be a workhorse. Enthusiasts looking to balance gaming and more taxing desktop tasks will want to increase their budgets a bit and seek out a Core i5 or FX, at least.

Nevertheless, when we run our complete benchmark suite, we continue to see AMD's overclocked Athlon putting up a fight in threaded tests like FineReader and 3ds Max. Other factors come into play with the Blender and Visual Studio tests, where higher clock rates and optimized memory performance help, but still land the Athlon behind a stock Core i3.

13. Results: Compression

This quarter's overclocked configuration does well in 7-Zip, which is known to utilize multi-core CPUs effectively. The win is a small one though, and if the Athlon operates at its stock clock rate, Intel's Core i3 scores a victory instead.

Although we've updated our WinRAR version, that software is less friendly to the Trinity architecture. The overclocked Athlon trails Intel's stock Core i3.

In WinZip 18.0, the newest machine delivers solid value for the money, particularly in the OpenCL-enabled sub-test.

14. Results: Arma 3 And Battlefield 4

Arma 3

Based on reader feedback, I dug deeper into Arma 3 on both gaming-oriented machines and found the "Infantry" showcase isn't hard enough on these inexpensive CPUs. Other parts of the game, especially larger Altis maps, can absolutely hammer the CPU.

My newest PC survives through 1920x1080 at standard defaults, but struggles at times to deliver smooth performance across three panels. And it’s not the resolution hammering frame rates, but rather the increased processing load that comes from this wider aspect ratio.

At 4800x900, the configuration with the stock Athlon X4 750K has its frame rate drop into the teens at times. Overclocking the graphics card yields no improvements. The only way to help smooth out performance was increasing the Trinity-based APU's frequency.

Arma 3's Ultra preset proved too much for the Athlon and Radeon combination, no matter what Showcase level I loaded. At times, the frame rate was pinned in the teens, even limited to a low resolution like 1280x720.

The Core i3 I used in last quarter's System Builder Marathon is as mainstream as you'd want to get for this detail level. At 1920x1080, it enabled 50-100%-higher frame rates, typically staying above 30 FPS with occasional dips lower.

Battlefield 4

I’ve played through Battlefield 4’s entire single-player campaign on modest gaming systems, and am confident that a ~40 FPS average in this demanding sequence represents playability throughout.

Both machines breeze through the game’s Medium quality preset, serving up playable performance all the way through 4800x900.

It’s no surprise that our Athlon-powered PC caves in earlier under the graphical demands of Ultra-quality details. Thankfully, the machine remains playable through 1600x900.

Performance at my 1920x1080 target is slower than I'd like, even after overclocking. Simply dropping to 2x MSAA helps nudge average frame rates back up into the mid 40s. At that point, minimums stay above 30 FPS.

A smooth experience in Battlefield 4 with maxed-out graphics is not easy to achieve across three displays. Even last quarter's faster (and more expensive) rig required more mainstream settings at 4800x900, despite its beefy GeForce GTX 770.

15. Results: Far Cry 3 And Grid 2

Far Cry 3

Far Cry 3, the oldest game we're testing, turns out to be the most graphically-demanding title these machines need to face. As a bonus, it’s also well-threaded, forcing entry-level processors to their knees. In this title, I almost certainly would have been punished for using a dual-core Pentium over the Athlon X4.

A CPU bottleneck is already apparent using the High detail preset without anti-aliasing. While the older PC delivers higher frame rates, today's challenger remains smooth though 1920x1080.

My cheaper Q2 configuration does require lower settings to survive 4800x900 though, and it struggles even after overclocking in the taxing areas right outside Amanaki Outpost. The game proved playable during 30 minutes of stability testing, with frame rates generally hovering between 30 and 40 FPS, dropping into the 20s during a cut-scene.

The Ultra-quality preset with 4x MSAA proves too much for my AMD-based PC beyond the lowest tested resolution. Even then, the game felt less smooth than these frame rates indicate.

With that said, disabling MSAA altogether made Far Cry 3 playable on the overclocked Athlon at 1920x1080, averaging 40 FPS through our test sequence. This naturally affects image quality quite a bit, particularly since the setting also removes ATC (alpha to coverage) effects as well.

These settings are just better-suited to the $750 PC, which breezed through 1920x1080 trouble-free. Overclocked, it only required a drop to 2x MSAA for playable frame rates at 4800x900.

Grid 2

We start out system-bound in Grid 2, and our cheap PC only falters once we reach Ultra quality at 4800x900. In reality, at this budget, 1920x1080 is a far more realistic target resolution anyway.

16. Power Consumption And Temperatures

Each processor's power-saving features are enabled at stock and overclocked settings. 

Sporting a more efficient Haswell-based Core i3 (and powered by an 80 PLUS Gold supply), last quarter's effort sips power both at idle and under a heavy CPU load. Meanwhile, the Radeon R7 265 in today's cheaper setup consumes far less power in 3D workloads.

Ultimately, both desktops can be considered miserly as far as gaming PCs go, pulling less than 300 W from the wall under full load. Assuming 84-85% efficiency, our Q2 PC, overclocked, requires a little more than 50% of the power supply's rated output when the CPU and GPU are both working as hard as possible.

This might seem counter-intuitive, but many of our thermal readings drop when we take our overclocked measurements. Of course, that's a result of greater chassis air flow, since the fans are spinning at 100%. The natural downside is increased noise.

The only number that increases is CPU temperature under load. Although we're reporting the motherboard’s CPU socket temperature, we used the Athlon's Thermal Margin in OverDrive as our overclocking guide. Under load, AMD's software indicated that we still had a reasonable cushion of 25 degrees Celsius.

17. Performance Summary

Let's compare how well this pair of gaming-oriented PCs measure up to each other. As you've seen us do so many times before, we use the older machine as our baseline. The difference in performance is what we give up in the quest to shave $250 off of our system cost.

Perhaps surprisingly, tallying the average frame rates in each of our tested resolutions demonstrates big demands on the respective CPUs. It's fairly clear that the Trinity-based Athlon I used this quarter is a step below Intel's Core i3.

But I didn't pick the Athlon because I thought it could be faster. Rather, it was selected to maintain adequate gaming performance as we shaved expense from our budget, while leaving funds available for capable graphics.

Cranking up the eye candy and isolating 1920x1080 naturally shifts the bottleneck over to graphics processing. AMD's Radeon R7 265 doesn't stand a chance against a GeForce card priced twice as high. The Curaçao GPU isn't a bad choice for gaming at Full HD resolution. In fact, for what we had available to spend, we couldn't have done better. But be prepared to drop your quality settings a bit.

Gaming at 4800x900 requires three panels, which aren’t exactly cheap. Ultimately, you'll also want a larger graphics budget for truly playable performance. This wasn't the target resolution for today's build. Nevertheless, AMD's Radeon fared admirably at reduced detail settings.

Although these two machines were built for gaming, most entertainment-oriented PCs are used for other tasks, too. Our System Builder Marathons place a high priority on balanced overall system performance, and this quarter's PC does well in well-threaded workloads (even winning a few comparisons, after overclocking). This is an area of weakness for Intel’s dual-core, Hyper-Threaded processors. I’m not expecting to keep up as well when Don and Thomas compare their costlier machines.

18. Can Less Funding Compete For Top Value?

Today’s benchmark charts detailed the capabilities of my most recent self-built budget-oriented gaming PCs, priced roughly $250 apart. Obviously, we couldn’t trim off one-third of our funding and expect to compete in an all-out footrace using the same tests. That sort of evolution just doesn't happen over the course of three months. We'd need a revolutionary product/architecture launch able to propel performance and drive down prices.

Both systems are, first and foremost, gaming boxes. So, I consider their performances accordingly. A relatively strong showing in the application workloads will help bolster the overall value of today's more affordable build. But was our newer budget too far below the tipping point of diminishing returns?

On the flip side, a huge reduction in graphics muscle takes a big toll on gaming competency this quarter, particularly at higher resolutions. In fact, most of the demanding AAA titles we tested weren't playable in Full HD without some sort of quality compromise. Then again, to be fair, there are plenty of games that this machine could handle easily, too.

Unfortunately, none of the other configurations can match last quarter’s baseline efficiency. Overclocking the $750 machine’s big-ticket item, the GeForce GTX 770, only helped boost performance in games, while processing fortitude remained unchanged. This time around, the AMD-based platform starts out less efficient, and then requires a voltage bump to go faster. In the process, it picks up a tiny gain in overall efficiency.

Is There A Value Winner?

My second-quarter build might be less efficient than its predecessor, but perhaps it can serve up improved value (even if the sweet spot where you get the most bang for your buck is typically higher than this system's cost). First, we'll focus on the total purchase price of the hardware. Then, we'll consider the performance-oriented price tag, excluding the case and optical drive. Finally, we'll factor in the expense of Windows.

Our new efforts match the overall cost of last quarter's configuration right out of the box. But the platform I used this time also has headroom for processor, memory, and graphics tweaking. Factoring out the cost of the case and DVD burner, my AMD-based box starts pulling away even harder. These machines were both built for gaming though, and this quarter's System Builder Marathon machine shines the brightest in other disciplines. At the most relevant resolution of 1920x1080, a $455 budget for performance parts just couldn't match last quarter's $700+ spend.

As we’d expect, a lower-priced machine takes a bigger value hit from adding the expense of an operating system. That could wind up being a game-changing $100 when we try to pinpoint the cost of peak performance-based value.

Ultimately, choosing the best value is more subjective than number-crunching might suggest. We have to factor in the games you're playing, the quality settings you expect to use, and the resulting performance output. My Q2 build is going to cost you quite a bit less, but it also might give up too much speed for your favorite titles. After all, it failed to serve up playability at 1920x1080 in three out of the four games we tested. Meanwhile, the $750 PC survived all seven of the titles it faced last quarter.

In the end, I'm still confident that it's hard to beat an Athlon X4 750K with Radeon R7 265 graphics for gaming at this budget level. I probably could have shifted a few dollars from the motherboard to a Richland-based Athlon X4 760K. And certainly, some folks would be better-served by an AMD FX-6300 or Intel Core i3 with cheaper graphics. If we end up keeping these budget levels next quarter, I might even consider the new enthusiast-friendly unlocked Pentium G3258, which posted respectable performance and benefits from a more favorable upgrade path. But I'd need an affordable motherboard able to survive the rigors of overclocking.

This quarter’s Budget Gaming PC isn’t for everyone. But if your funds are limited and you can live with reduced quality settings, it may satisfy your needs. If it were my machine, I’d replace the side-panel intake fan, or simply disconnect it and drop down to a 4 GHz overclock at stock voltage. I can handle a small performance hit in the name of better acoustics. What remains to be seen is whether Don or Thomas handle their new budget levels as gracefully. Game on, guys!