Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: System Value Compared
By ,
1. In Search Of The Best Possible Value

System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: 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 $600 Gaming PC
Day 2: The $800 Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $1,000 Performance PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Day 5: The $1,600 Alternative PC

Introduction

Our System Builder Marathon series typically includes three builds that target the best gaming value, the best overall value, and the best overall performance. That formula usually works well for us, and the mid-priced setup does take top honors in our final analysis (at least it has the previous three quarters). Of course, we also use a really wide spread of price points most of the time: $500, $1,000, and $2,000, or some variation of doubling price two times. With time, we've figured out that you usually get the best performance for your dollar somewhere in the $1,000 range.

Can we get even more precise, though? 

This quarter, we're zooming in on that sweet spot by narrowing our focus to price points all around it. I typically find that the most value-oriented components can be combined into a complete hardware solution (minus peripherals) that costs around $800. That price falls closest to our usual mid-range build. So, our results almost always support my theory.

Don, Paul, and Chris decided that it was time to put some money on that claim, which is how $800 became the mid-point for this quarter's System Builder Marathon. I was forced to give up half of my $2,000 budget to build a $1,000 system, while Don dropped from $1,000 to $800. Paul, on the other hand, jumped from $500 to $600 (lucky him). Knowing that an $800 system win would hand me the debate and a $1,000 system win would hand me the competition, I had only one thing left to say to those odds: Game on!

The one thing I didn't anticipate was that an extra $100 would give Paul the opportunity to use an Ivy Bridge-based processor with limited overclocking to the tune of 400 MHz over its stock setting. Surely that small speed-up wouldn't be enough to let the $600 machine keep up with fully-unlocked $800 and $1,000 boxes, right?

Q1 2013 System Builder Marathon Components
 $600 Gaming PC$800 Enthusiast PC$1000 Performance PC
ProcessorIntel Core i5-3350P: 3.1-3.3 GHz, Quad Core, 6 MB L3 CacheIntel Core i5-3570K: 3.4-3.8 GHz, Quad Core, 6 MB L3 CacheIntel Core i5-3570K: 3.4-3.8 GHz, Quad Core, 6 MB L3 Cache
GraphicsHIS Radeon HD 7850 1 GB H785F1G2MPowerColor PCS+ AX7870 Myst Edition 2GBD5-2DHPPV3E PowerColor PCS+ AX7870 Myst Edition 2GBD5-2DHPPV3E 
MotherboardASRock Z75 Pro3: LGA 1155, Z75 ExpressASRock Z77 Pro3: LGA 1155, Intel Z77 ExpressASRock Z77 Extreme4: LGA 1155, Intel Z77 Express
MemoryG.Skill Ripjaws F3-12800CL9D-4GBRL: DDR3-1600 C9, 2 GB x 2 (4 GB) Crucial Ballistix Tactical BLE2KIT4GD31608DE1TX0: DDR3-1600 C8, 4 GB x 2 (8 GB)Crucial Ballistix Tactical BLT2K4G3D1608ET3LX0: DDR3-1600 C8, 4 GB x 2 (8 GB)
System DriveSeagate Barracuda ST500DM002: 500 GB SATA 6Gb/s HDDSeagate Barracuda ST500DM002: 500 GB SATA 6Gb/s HDDMushkin MKNSSDCR240GB-DX: 240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD
Storage DriveUses System DriveUses System DriveUses System Drive
OpticalSamsung SH-224BB/RSBS: 24x DVD±R, 8x DVD±R DLSamsung SH-224BB: 24x DVD±R, 12x DVD±R DLLite-On iHAS124: 24x DVD±R, 12x DVD±R DL
CaseXigmatek Asgard II B/B
Xigmatek Asgard II B/BRosewill Redbone U3
PowerAntec Neo Eco 400C: 400 W, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUSAntec Neo Eco 520C: 520 W, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUS
Antec Neo Eco 520C: 520 W, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUS
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink And Fan
Rosewill RCX-ZAIO-92Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus RR-B10-212P-G1
Total Cost$600 $795 $980
2. Hardware, Software, And Overclock Settings

Today's chart shows the stock and overclocked settings for each system, but it doesn’t show the baseline memory differences between our $800 and $1,000 PCs. Both systems use RAM that’s rated at DDR3-1600, but defaults to DDR3-1333, relying on Intel Extreme Memory Profiles (XMP) to reach its full ratings. Since XMP is an overclocking technology, Don chose DDR3-1333 as his baseline. Since XMP is a default overclock, I used that as my baseline. Don then “overclocked” his 1.35 V RAM to its 1.50 V secondary XMP profile, while I shot straight for 1.60 V and far-higher data rates. History will dictate whether 1.60 V is too much for this 1.35 V kit over the long term.

The $600 PC starts off with 1.5 V RAM, so Paul's 1.6 V overclock settings is comparatively less aggressive. His higher bandwidth is ready to give the $800 machine a run for its money in a few of our applications, even though the machine is limited to half the capacity.

Test Hardware Configurations
 $600 Gaming PC$800 Enthusiast PC$1000 Peformance PC
Processor
(Overclock)
Intel Core i5-3350P
3.10 GHz, Four Physical Cores
O/C to 3.70 GHz
Intel Core i5-3570K
3.40 GHz, Four Physical Cores
O/C to 4.40 GHz, +0.085 V
Intel Core i5-3570K
3.40 GHz, Four Physical Cores
O/C to 4.40 GHz, 1.28 V
Graphics
(Overclock)
HIS H785F1G2M: 860 MHz GPU,  GDDR5-4800
O/C to 1,220 MHz GDDR5-4800
PowerColor 2GBD5-2DHPPV3E: 975 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6000
O/C to 1,150 MHz GDDR5-6200
PowerColor 2GBD5-2DHPPV3E: 975 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6000
O/C to 1,200 MHz GDDR5-6400
Memory
(Overclock)
4 GB G.Skill DDR3-1600
CAS 9-9-9-24, O/C at 1.60 V
to DDR3-1866 CL 9-9-9-24
8 GB Crucial DDR3-1600
CAS 8-8-8-24 1T, O/C at 1.50 V
to 800 MHz CL 8-8-8-24 2T
8 GB Crucial DDR3-1600
CAS 8-8-8-24, O/C at 1.60 V
to DDR3-2133 CL 9-9-9-24
Motherboard
(Overclock)
ASRock Z75 Pro3:
LGA 1155, Intel Z75 Express
Stock 100 MHz BCLK
ASRock Z77 Pro3:
LGA 1155, Intel Z77 Express
Stock 100 MHz BCLK
ASRock Z77 Extreme4:
LGA 1155, Intel Z77 Express
Stock 100 MHz BCLK
OpticalSamsung SH-224BB/RSBS 24x DVD±RSamsung SH-224BB 24x DVD±RLite-On iHAS124 24x DVD±R
CaseXigmatek Asgard II B/BXigmatek Asgard II B/BRosewill Redbone U3
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink and Fan
Rosewill RCX-ZAIO-92Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus
StorageSeagate Barracuda 500 GB, 7,200 RPM SATA 6Gb/s HDDSeagate Barracuda 500 GB, 7,200 RPM SATA 6Gb/s HDDMushkin Chronos Deluxe DX 240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD
PowerAntec Neo Eco 400C: 400 W, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUSAntec Neo Eco 520C: ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUSAntec Neo Eco 520C: ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUS
Software
OSMicrosoft Windows 8 Pro x64
GraphicsAMD Catalyst 13.1AMD Catalyst 13.2 Beta 5AMD Catalyst 13.1
ChipsetIntel INF 9.3.0.1025Intel INF 9.3.0.1025Intel INF 9.3.0.1026
Benchmarks: 3D Games
Battlefield 3Campaign Mode, "Going Hunting" 90-Second Fraps
Test Set 1: Medium Quality Defaults (No AA, 4x AF)
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Defaults (4x AA, 16x AF)
F1 2012
Version 1.2, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 8x MSAA
The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimUpdate 1.5.26, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25-Second Fraps
Test Set 1: DX11, High Details No AA, 8x AF, FXAA enabled
Test Set 2: DX11, Ultra Details, 8x AA, 16x AF, FXAA enabled
Far Cry 3V. 1.04, DirectX 11, 50-Second Fraps "Amanaki Outpost"
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA, Standard ATC., SSAO
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 4x MSAA, Enhanced ATC, HDAO
Benchmarks: Adobe Creative Suite
Adobe After Effects CS6Version 11.0.0.378 x64: Create Video which includes 3 Streams, 210 Frames, Render Multiple Frames Simultaneosly
Adobe Photoshop CS6Version 13 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates
Adobe Premeire Pro CS6Version 6.0.0.0, 6.61 GB MXF Project to H.264 to H.264 Blu-ray, Output 1920x1080, Maximum Quality
Benchmarks: Audio/Video Encoding
iTunesVersion 10.4.1.10 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)
HandBrake CLIVersion: 0.98: Video from Canon Eos 7D (1920x1080, 25 FPS) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds
Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, 2-Kanal, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile)
TotalCode Studio 2.5Version: 2.5.0.10677: MPEG-2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Benchmarks: Productivity
ABBYY FineReaderVersion 10.0.102.95: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages
Adobe Acrobat XVersion 10.0.0.396: Print PDF from 115 Page PowerPoint, 128-bit RC4 Encryption
Autodesk 3ds Max 2012Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080
BlenderVersion: 2.64a, Cycles Engine, Syntax blender -b thg.blend -f 1, 1920x1080, 8x Anti-Aliasing, Render THG.blend frame 1
Visual Studio 2010Version 10.0, Compile Google Chrome, Scripted
Benchmarks: File Compression
WinZipVersion 17.0 Pro: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r"
WinRARVersion 4.2: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"
7-ZipVersion 9.28: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
Synthetic Benchmarks
3DMark 11Version: 1.0.1.0, Benchmark Only
PCMark 7Version: 1.0.4 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks
SiSoftware Sandra 2011Version Version 2013.01.19.11, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Cryptography, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
3. Results: 3DMark And PCMark

The biggest hardware difference between $800 and $1,000 PCs is the more expensive build’s SSD, and that doesn't affect 3DMark at all. The top-end system's next most-impressive advantage is its high overclocked memory data rate, which does appear to help facilitate a victory in this synthetic graphics-oriented benchmark.

As we move to PCMark, the SSD becomes far more influential as an influencer of performance. Storage makes up a big part of the benchmark’s overall score, and the $1,000 PC’s solid-state storage stands out even more prominently when we look at its storage score specifically.

Storage benchmarks make up 10% of our final performance scores, and we use the above three test patterns to represent real-world use. This is the only time you'll see a synthetic impact our value analysis, since it's a practical way for us to quantify user experience.

4. Results: SiSoftware Sandra

With the same CPU used in both systems, the $800 and $1,000 builds are nearly matched in Sandra’s CPU-specific Arithmetic benchmark. Any hopes that a slightly larger CPU cooler would give the $1,000 build a little extra overclocking headroom were dashed when the $800 machine matched its 4.40 GHz.

The $800 PC appears affected by a minor configuration issue in one of the software’s Cryptography tests.

All else being equal—isn’t. Don chose lower voltage for his $800 machine's memory, and was unable to approach the $1,000 system’s bandwidth. The $600 machine takes the middle with moderate memory manipulation.

5. Results: Battlefield 3

The $800 machine’s secret-weapon beta driver doesn't help it in Battlefield 3 (already a title pretty well-optimized for), though my $1,000 machine’s higher memory data rate does appear to help performance a bit.

The cheapest PC wasn’t even tested at 2560x1600, yet its tiny Radeon HD 7850 performs impressively at Ultra quality details and 1920x1080.

6. Results: F1 2012

On one hand, the optimized beta graphics driver used in Don Woligroski’s $800 machine are said to boost F1 2012 performance. On the other hand, the game’s proven memory bottleneck favors my $1,000 machine’s overclock. The result is that we see both systems trading places depending on the game’s settings, with 2560x1600 favoring my more expensive build.

Tested at a maximum 1920x1080 resolution, the $600 PC maintains its fluid performance throughout.

7. Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

The $800 build beats my $1,000 combination of parts under Skyrim’s High quality preset. But a shift to Ultra quality puts the two very similar systems back in check.

The $600 PC plays smoothly through its highest-quality settings at 1920x1080, where testing stopped. While 2560x1600 results might have been interesting, we doubt many gamers are going to spend one and a half times more on a monitor than their PC.

8. Results: Far Cry 3

Far Cry 3 looks like it gets more from the $800 machine's beta Catalyst driver package through our first three test settings, where it beats my $1,000 PC. Beyond that, the highest-end config bests Don's setup. Both overclocked machines reach the limit of playability at 1920x1080 with Ultra quality settings, though.

Paul's $600 PC gives you the choice of either dropping below our Ultra quality preset or reverting back to 1280x1024.

9. Results: Audio And Video Encoding

The same processor with the same overclock yields the same results in both iTunes and Lame, the $800 and $1000 systems finishing in a dead heat. HandBrake and TotalCode Studio might be benefiting from the $1,000 machine's higher memory frequency or faster system drive, though the difference is pretty small.

With a similar processor based on the same architecture at moderately lower frequencies, the $600 PC follows closely behind both of its higher-priced rivals.

10. Results: Adobe Creative Suite

Most of the applications in Adobe Creative Suite show the $800 and $1,000 builds roughly matched, which is understandable since the two systems share the same CPU, graphics, and overclocked frequency.

The $600 system takes a third-place finish that’s too close for comfort. Because today's story compares performance to price, Paul stands to run away with this one by combining almost-there performance and a low price.

Although it can be found in Adobe’s Creative Suite, our results from Acrobat X will show up with the productivity applications in our final results chart.

11. Results: Productivity

One of the few applications that benefits from the $1,000 PC’s better RAM settings and faster SSD, 3ds Max resurrects that machine’s position in the value race. Conversely, Blender shows little difference between two systems that have the same CPU.

Hammering the value drum a little louder, the $600 machine shows that its price advantage just might be a little greater than its performance disadvantage.

Like 3ds Max, Microsoft Visual Studio gets a noticeable performance bump from the $1,000 PC’s memory optimizations and its faster system drive.

12. Results: File Compression

The $800 and $1,000 builds trade blows in file compression, with the $800 machine wining WinRAR and the $1,000 machine zipping ahead in our OpenCL-accelerated WinZip benchmark. Hardware similarities mean that differences here can be credited to, or blamed on, minor configuration differences between builders.

The $600 PC trails closely behind.

13. Power Consumption And Efficiency

Our global wattage readings are taken at the power supply’s input, and some of that power is lost within the power supply itself. That means that all of today’s builds pull less than 400 W from the power supply, and any of these builds could have been made a little cheaper by using a less-capacious unit of similar quality.

SSDs typically draws less power than hard drives, so hardware similarities between the $1,000 and $800 machines should theoretically give the more expensive build a lower power signature. This isn't the case, though. So, the $1,000 machine’s excess power draw is probably due to its extra fan and higher memory voltage.

An SSD gives the $1,000 machine a huge boost in our storage-oriented metric. But that boost affects user experience more than program performance. Because of that, it represents only 10% of our total performance score.

The rest of our breakdown used to be: 30% games, 30% encoding, and 30% productivity. Changes to our benchmark suite now make the totals of 30% games, 15% creativity, 15% A/V encoding, 15% productivity, 15% compression, and 10% storage.

Using the slowest configuration as our baseline, we find this quarter's most-expensive machine on top of its efficiency curve by 6.2%. While overclocking can actually improve efficiency, overvoltage has the opposite effect. Each of our overclocked configurations loses this metric to the same system’s baseline operation.

14. Where's The Value Sweet Spot?

Based on our past experience, the cheapest system doesn’t always prevail in this price-per-performance paradigm. We've even seen a $1,000 machine top the value standings in our past three System Builder Marathons. But those competitions were based on budgets between $500 and $2,000. This time around, we went in search of the best possible value and narrowed that range from $600 to $1,000. Don's $800 machine fills the middle spot where I've traditionally found the best value.

This time around, my $1,000 machine only tops the value chart when we make our comparison at stock clock rates. Unfortunately, I don't pick up enough performance from overclocking to maintain a lead. The most likely explanation is that the SSD in my system does plenty to boost baseline performance, but cannot be overclocked. So, its impact tapers off when we overclock. When it comes right down to tweaking, the $600 machine offers a value lead of 1%.

A lead that small won’t matter to anyone who wants to game at high resolutions, and the extra memory capacity available in both the $800 and $1,000 machines is probably more important in a real-world, multi-tasked environment, even if it has little impact on our benchmarks.

However, anyone in the market for a big monitor probably won't be shopping around for a $600 PC. Furthermore, anyone looking for a gaming PC priced at $600 should be willing to give up a little productivity-oriented performance in the interest of spending as much of the budget as possible on a competent CPU and GPU. Paul Henningsen deserves full credit for a win that breaks the mid-priced PC’s winning streak.

Anyone who can afford a big monitor probably expected to see the $800 and $1,000 machines, which coincidentally employ similar hardware, achieve similar performance, giving the less expensive build a better gaming value outcome. Really, though, that's only true if you're able to tolerate slower boot-up, shutdown, and level load times.

Paul's $600 machine wins the value contest by a small margin when it's overclocked, the $800 box becomes a far more compelling value proposition when you're gaming at high resolutions, and my $1,000 system becomes the best overall value among the three stock configurations. Aside from rejecting the notion of value superiority at $800, today's results don't get us any closer to finding a performance per dollar sweet spot. It now appears to be somewhere around $600 for PCs without SSDs and $1,000 for more enthusiast-oriented setups with solid-state storage, though there’s enough flexibility between all three builds to come up with an SSD-equipped $750 machine that could turn our findings upside-down.

With this many options available, we’ll leave it to you to decide whether the next System Builder Marathon should return to the broad budget ranges of our previous efforts, center around the $600 price point, center around the $1000 price point, or...?