System Builder Marathon, June 2012: 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 $2000 Performance PC
Day 2: The $1000 Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $500 Gaming PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Introduction
For most of us, PC building, like life itself, is full of compromises. We need to balance limited resources, whether it's time, money, or energy. When we fail, we suffer the consequences of poor management. Our goals and desires often cause us to push up to and beyond our limits. As it turns out, this life lesson directly relates to the planning, design, and outcome of today’s gaming system.
The plan of attack for last quarter's $650 Gaming PC ignored the CPU-heavy leaning of our overall performance score to focus on one specific purpose: a better native resolution gaming experience. While the machine’s Core i3 processor fell flat in our productivity and content creation apps, its higher-end graphics card delivered better gaming performance at 1920x1080 in five of our six games. More importantly, a couple of specific quality settings became playable for the first time.
Here's our warning upfront: this quarter's system makes no attempt to earn favor as the most balanced platform, nor does it represent a gaming configuration Tom’s Hardware recommends. This time, we went far more extreme. Despite the 23% budget reduction, we made an experimental, all-out effort to maintain playable performance using the native 1920x1080 screens that many value-oriented enthusiasts still want to use.
| $500 Gaming PC System Components | ||
|---|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Celeron G530 (Sandy Bridge): 2.4 GHz, 2 MB Shared L3 Cache | $50 |
| CPU Cooler | Intel boxed heat sink/fan | 0 |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-H61MA-D3V: LGA 1155, Intel H61 Express | $60 |
| RAM | Pareema 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1333 MD313C80809L2 | $20 |
| Graphics | ECS NGT560TI-1GPI-F1 GeForce GTX 560 Ti | $210 |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital WD3200AAKX: 320 GB 7200 RPM Hard Drive | $75 |
| Case | Rosewill R101-P-BK MicroATX Mid Tower | $30 |
| Power | Antec VP-450 450 W | $38 |
| Optical | LG 22x DVD Burner SATA Model GH22NS90B-OEM | $17 |
| Total Cost | $500 | |
Shaving $150 off an already-modest budget is bound to hurt performance, particularly since we're spending half of our funds just to cover necessary supporting components (before we're even able to consider the processor and graphics card we want). A slight reduction in storage capacity left us with $260 to split between these two important components.
We had a number of attractive options on the table, some of them more tempting than the one we eventually chose. For starters, we could have paired a capable Core i3-2100 with modest Radeon HD 6850 or GeForce GTX 460 graphics. Either one of those cards could have driven an overclockable AMD FX-4100 platform, leaving us an extra $10 to throw at a beefier motherboard, memory kit, or cooler. Or, we could have mated the well-priced Radeon HD 6870 to the proven Pentium G850. That last option struck me, personally, as the one with the most potential for smooth gaming performance.
But I already knew that, from last December’s system, even a potent Sandy Bridge-based Core i5 isn't enough for the Radeon HD 6870 to shine in all of our tests at 1920x1080. So, I threw caution to the wind and sought maximum 3D might, ending up with a GeForce GTX 560 Ti in what could otherwise be considered a $290 general-purpose machine.

Processor: Intel Celeron G530
The 2.4 GHz Celeron G530 is the least-expensive dual-core CPU available for Intel's LGA 1155 interface, and it's the most affordable desktop processor I’d consider for any gaming build.
An additional $20 could have landed us a Pentium G620, which would contribute an extra 200 MHz and 1 MB of shared L3 cache, totaling 3 MB. It still would have been a dual-core chip, though, with a fixed clock rate and DDR3-1066 memory controller. We would have missed Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technologies still.
Read Customer Reviews of Intel's Celeron G530
CPU Cooler: Intel Retail Boxed Heat Sink And Fan
The boxed cooler consists of a familiar orb-style aluminum heat sink, a low speed PWM-controlled fan, and a push-pin mounting bracket. It's nothing fancy, but it gets the job done in light of this platform's inability to overclock.

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-H61MA-D3V
Gigabyte's microATX H61MA-D3V separates itself from less expensive H61 Express-based boards with features like a 16-lane PCI Express slot capable of accommodating an Ivy Bridge processor and running at third-gen data rates, two USB 3.0 connectors, two SATA 6Gb/s ports enabled by a Marvell add-in controller, an all-solid capacitor design, and Gigabyte’s UEFI DualBIOS technology. Available with a $10 savings this month, I couldn't see spending any less on the system’s platform.
Read Customer Reviews of Gigabyte's H61MA-D3V
Memory: 4 GB Pareema DDR3-1333 MD313C80809L2
The Celeron G530’s memory controller limits data rates to 1066 MT/s, so we looked to spend as little as possible on system RAM. Compatible 4 GB kits started at $20. And while the one we chose may not be well-known, it is earning high-enough ratings from Newegg's customers that we felt comfortable giving it a shot. We’ll be underclocking this RAM, hoping for lower latencies.

Graphics: ECS NGT560TI-1GPI-F1 GeForce GTX 560 Ti
As the only GeForce GTX 560 Ti available within our budget, we could easily give ECS credit for shaping today's experimental build.
While its 823 MHz core frequency, 1002 MHz (4008 MT/s) memory clock, and dual-DVI/mini-HDMI outputs adhere to Nvidia's reference design, ECS hides a rather unique 6.5" PCB under its 9.5" cooler. 
Read Customer Reviews of ECS' NGT560TI-1GPI-F1 GeForce GTX 560 Ti
Despite the affordable price tag, ECS doesn’t hold back on extras, bundling a user manual, driver DVD, DVI-to-VGA adapter, mini-HDMI adapter, and a pair of power adapters,
Hard Drive: Western Digital Caviar Blue WD3200AAKX 320 GB
Making this build happen for $500 required a small compromise in storage capacity, which shouldn't be surprising considering 500 GB drives are still 100% more expensive than the one we used in our $500 Gaming PC this time last year.
Western Digital’s WD320AAKX offers 320 GB of space, a 7200 RPM spindle, SATA 6Gb/s compatibility, and a 16 MB cache. Best of all, it sells for our $75 affordability ceiling.
Read Customer Reviews of Western Digital's Caviar Blue WD3200AAKX 320 GB

Case: Rosewill R101-P-BK MicroATX Mid Tower
The fit and finish details of the Rosewill chassis we used last quarter left us impressed. But we had concerns about the structural rigidity around back, also finding cable management to be a chore. So, we looked at different enclosure options for today's machine.
Although it’s only 1.25" taller, the mid-tower R101-P-BK sports three external 5.25” bays and six 3.5” bays. The inclusion of a 120 mm exhaust fan, adequate room to house our components, and an affordable $30 price tag were our three main considerations for giving Rosewill another shot this quarter.
Read Customer Reviews of Rosewill R101-P-BK Mid-Tower
Power Supply: Antec VP-450 450 W
Since our ECS GeForce GTX 560 Ti comes with a power adapter, we knew we could count on Antec's affordable VP-450 to drive our system. The combined +12 V rating of 30 A is plenty for our needs, while a quiet 120 mm fan, protection circuitry, and Antec’s two-year warranty add to this PSU's value.
Read Customer Reviews of Antec's VP-450 450 W PSU
Optical Drive: LG 22x DVD Burner SATA Model GH22NS90B-OEM
We don't have a lot of room to splurge on fancy optical drives here, so we always look to spend as little as possible on a reliable SATA-based DVD burner. This time around we chose the same favorably-reviewed 22x LG model that served our needs back in March.

Building our $500 gaming rig was a simple, snag-free procedure. Most of the comments worth mentioning center on our $30 Rosewill microATX enclosure.
This rather small mid-tower case is noticeably heavier than the chassis we utilized last round. Double-boxed for added protection, its gross shipping weight was 50% greater. With more concessions for additional drives in a simislarly-sized enclosure, we were left with quite a bit less room for add-in cards. Our 9.5” GeForce GTX 560 Ti had to be angled a bit during installation. Once it was seated, though, it had about half of an inch of clearance between its shroud and the drive cage. Installed, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti does block the two center bays, though.
We again have to criticize Gigabyte's SATA port placement. Installing a dual-slot graphics card renders two of the H61 chipset's integrated ports inaccessible. The problem isn't huge, since we still have access to a pair of integrated connectors, along with two SATA 6Gb/s-capable ports, enabled by a Marvell controller.
Gigabyte bundled two cables with 90-degree SATA connectors in our retail package, rather than including one straight cable, as it did last quarter. This almost presented a problem. The cable either interfered with the graphics card or the bottom of the case, depending on the bay we used for mounting our hard drive.
Cable management was much easier this time around, though. In fact, we didn't use a single tie-strap in our system photos, just to show that it could be done. The enclosure itself also benefited from improved rear-panel rigidity, addressing one of our major concerns last time around. Unfortunately, slightly warped side panels were far more difficult to remove and install. Once they were locked down by thumbscrews, they wouldn't quite line up precisely with the front bezel.
Finally, although I was pleasantly surprised by the quietness of last quarter's 80 mm exhaust and 120 mm intake fans, it turns out that this enclosure's single 120 mm exhaust cooler isn't as quiet. It didn't hum or tick, but the sound of air turbulence made it the most obviously-audible fan in the system. As someone who appreciates a quiet PC, I would probably replace the cooler or experiment with a step down to 5, 7, or 9 V.
Overclocking
With no access to base clock settings, multiplier ratios, or memory data rates above 1066 MT/s, we’re limited once again to pushing lower latencies for any performance increase. Automatic memory timings dialed in 7-7-7-19 at 1.5 V. With a bump to 1.6 V, we found stability at 6-6-6-14 1T. Like last quarter, every attempt to manually adjust memory timings was answered by rapid beeps and a power cycle. The new timings were eventually applied after the restart.
MSI Afterburner served our purposes for overclocking ECS' GeForce GTX 560 Ti. Since I haven't been overly aggressive with our last few Radeon cards, staying within the bounds of AMD Overdrive, we didn't make any attempt to alter our GPU's 1.0 V core setting.
With core clock expectations between 900 and 950 MHz, I began stability testing at 880 MHz, bumping up the core in 10 MHz increments. Attempts to push beyond 900 MHz were punished with artifacts in DiRT 3’s game menus. Here's a helpful hint: if you aren't using DiRT 3, F1 2010, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat, or Just Cause 2 for graphics stability testing, I highly recommend you add at least one of them. They have a tendency to demonstrate weaknesses in stability earlier than artifact scanners, synthetics, or other demanding titles like Metro 2033, Battlefield 3, or Crysis.
As I often do, I played it safe and quit overclocking the GDDR5 memory at 1125 MHz (4500 MT/s) before reaching the upper limits of stability. Our final testing frequencies were then dialed back to 891 MHz core and 1102.5 MHz (4410 MT/s) for the memory.

| Current $500 PC System Test Configuration | ||
|---|---|---|
| Component | Base Settings | Overclock Setting |
| CPU | Intel Celeron G530 (Sandy Bridge), 2.4 GHz, LGA 1155, 2 MB Shared L3, power savings enabled | Unchanged |
| CPU Cooler | Intel retail boxed heat sink and fan | Unchanged |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-H61MA-D3V Intel H61 Express, BIOS F3 (02-16-2012) | Unchanged |
| RAM | 4 GB Pareema PC3-10600 kit 2 x 2 GB @ DDR3-1066, CL 7-7-7-19 1T at 1.5 V | DDR3-1066, CL 6-6-6-14 1T at 1.6 V |
| Graphics | ECS NGT560TI-1GPI-F1 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 823 MHz GPU, 1002 MHz (4008 MT/s) Memory | 891 MHz GPU, 1102.5 MHz (4410 MT/s) GDDR5 Memory |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital WD3200AAKX 320 GB 320 GB, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache | Unchanged |
| Sound | Integrated Eight-Channel HD Audio | Unchanged |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking | Unchanged |
| Power | Antec VP-450 450W | Unchanged |
| Optical | LG 22x DVD Burner SATA Model GH22NS90B-OEM | Unchanged |
| Software and Drivers | ||
| Operating System | Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64 | Unchanged |
| Graphics Driver | GeForce R295 Drive v.296.10 | Unchanged |
| Platform Driver | Intel 6-series Inf v.9.2.0.1030 | Unchanged |
| March $650 Gaming PC System Test Configuration | ||
|---|---|---|
| Component | Base Settings | Overclock Setting |
| CPU | Intel Core i3-2120 (Sandy Bridge), 3.3 GHz, LGA 1155, 3 MB Shared L3, Hyper-Threading enabled, Power-savings enabled | Unchanged |
| CPU Cooler | Intel retail boxed heat sink and fan | Unchanged |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-H61MA-D3V Intel H61 Express, BIOS F3 (02-16-2012) | Unchanged |
| RAM | 4 GB Team Elite PC3-10600 kit 2 x 2 GB, DDR3-1333, CL 9-9-9-24 1T at 1.5 V | DDR3-1333, CL 7-8-7-22 1T at 1.6 V |
| Graphics | XFX HD-695X-ZNFC Radeon HD 6950 1 GB 800 MHz GPU, 1250 MHz (5000 MT/s) Memory | 840 MHz GPU, 1300 MHz (5200 MT/s) GDDR5 Memory |
| Hard Drive | Seagate Barracuda ST500DM002 500 GB, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache | Unchanged |
| Sound | Integrated Eight-Channel HD Audio | Unchanged |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking | Unchanged |
| Power | Rosewill Green Series RG630-S12 630 W | Unchanged |
| Optical | LG 22x DVD Burner SATA Model GH22NS90B-OEM | Unchanged |
| Software and Drivers | ||
| Operating System | Windows 7 Ultimate Edition x64 | Unchanged |
| Graphics Driver | AMD Catalyst 12.1 | Unchanged |
| Platform Driver | Intel 6-series Inf v. 9.2.0.1030 | Unchanged |
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
| 3D Games | |
| Battlefield 3 | Version 1.0.0.0, DirectX 11, 90-sec. FRAPS "Going Hunting" Test Set 1: Medium Quality Preset, No AA, 4X AF, SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 4X MSAA, 16X AF, HBAO |
| DiRT 3 | Version 1.2, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 8x AA |
| Elders Scroll V: Skyrim | Version 1.5.26.05, 25-Sec. FRAPS Test Set 1: High Preset, No AA, 8x AF, FXAA Enabled Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, 8x AA, 16x AF, FXAA Enabled |
| StarCraft II | Version 1.4.3.21029, Toms Hardware Map, 60-sec. FRAPS Test Set 1: High, DX11, AAA, 4x AF, No DoF, No PhysX Test Set 2: Very High, DX11, 4x MSAA, 16x AF, DoF, No PhysX |
| Audio/Video Encoding | |
| HandBrake CLI | Version 0.95: "Big Buck Bunny" (720x480, 23.972 FPS) 5 Min., Audio: Dolby Digital, 48 000 Hz, Six-Channel, English, to Video: AVC Audio: AC3 Audio2: AAC (High Profile) |
| iTunes | Version 10.4.1.10 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s) |
| MainConcept Reference | Version: 2.2.0.5440: MPEG-2 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 |
| Productivity | |
| ABBYY FineReader | Version 10.0.102.82: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages |
| Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 | Version 12.1 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2012 | Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080 |
| 7-Zip | Version 9.22: THG-Workload (650 MB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5" |
| WinRAR | Version 4.01: THG-Workload (650 MB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3" |
| WinZip | Version 15.5 Pro: THG-Workload (650 MB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r" |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark 11 | Version: 1.0.1, Entry, Performance, Extreme Suite |
| PCMark 7 | Version: 1.0.4, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks |
| SiSoftware Sandra 2011 | Version 2011 17.80, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |

We start with a look at the synthetic performance of both systems.
A powerful graphics card keeps the $500 machine competitive at 3DMark's Extreme preset. However, its less muscular processor is outed at the lower two settings, which put more emphasis on the overall platform. Fairly roundly, though, this quarter's build gets beat by our most recent effort.

“Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you.” Lasting lyrics from the 1946 Broadway Musical, Annie Get Your Gun, are so true in PCMark 7. The machine with a 150%-higher processor budget simply cleans house.

However, using the same motherboard and mechanical drives with similar specifications means we get fairly comparable storage performance.


The Celeron G530 trails by a hefty margin in Sandra’s processor tests, while its DDR-1066 memory controller curbs bandwidth as expected.


Battlefield 3
Having explored the synthetic capabilities of our current system, we’re going to jump right in and take on Battlefield 3’s single-player campaign, the most graphically demanding test in our current gaming suite. There are more stressing areas encountered within the game than our 90-second Fraps test, so I shoot for an average of 45 frames per second as a minimum target.
Our $500 PC shows evidence of a CPU limitation at lower resolutions, though it still benefits slightly from reduced memory timings and graphics overclocking. But both builds are plenty capable at the Medium quality preset.

Since the rig was designed specifically to tackle Battlefields 3’s Ultra quality preset, we put in a bit of extra effort into optimizing for these settings. Passing final judgment on our budget gaming builds required extra play time on both configurations.
The current $500 system has a slight lead at all resolutions, especially if we focus on the test set including graphics overclocking.

Although the 2-3 FPS lead in both average and minimum frame rates might seem insignificant, playing through a couple of missions made it clear to us that today's $500 PC offers a better experience at 1920x1080 than last quarter's $650 PC. In fact, in my opinion, this new build feels smoother than December's Core i5-2400/Radeon HD 6870 combination at 1680x1050.
To be fair, though, performance at 1920x1080 must be called marginal. There were a few brief dips below 30 FPS and periods of sustained performance in the mid-30 FPS range. I could live with that in the single-player campaign, though not happily. Unsure of whether the entry-level processor or mid-range graphics card was to blame, I spent more time playing at 1280x720. Dropping the resolution while maintaining the same aspect ratio helps determine which component is the limiting factor. Frame rates rarely dipped below 40 FPS and sustained performance jumped to the mid-40s. Surprisingly, our little Celeron G530 was not the culprit; we needed more graphics horsepower.
We conclude, then, that Nvidia has a slight advantage in Battlefield 3 (at least in the single-player campaign). But more aggressive overclocking could have made a difference for the Radeon HD 6950- and GeForce GTX 560 Ti-powered systems.
DiRT 3
Minimal scaling is seen on both systems using DiRT 3's High graphics preset, as the comparably beefy video cards are held back by their complementary dual-core CPUs. This huge frame rate deficit will handicap the current system when it come the overall gaming evaluation, but the rig still offers playable performance, delivering minimum frame rates in the low 40s at all resolutions.


Ultra detail settings with 8x AA shifts our bottleneck over to the $650 PC's graphics card. But this quarter's machine's CPU continues to limit performance (at least at the lower resolutions). At our 1920x1080 target, the stock $500 build maintains at least 39 FPS at all times. That minimum jumped an additional 2 FPS through overclocking.

The Elders Scroll V: Skyrim
Although we've seen that it's clearly CPU-limited, our current gaming system breezes through Skyrim’s High detail preset settings, never dropping below 47 FPS in its stock form.
At Ultra details, with 8x MSAA applied, the overclocked $500 PC offers about the same experience at 1920x1080 as the stock $650 PC did, trailing by just 1 FPS in both average and minimum frame rates.


However, our Skyrim testing didn’t end with just one quick run through the town of Riverwood. Even under pursuit by guards in the most demanding locations of Markarth, our frame rates never dipped below 30. I don’t doubt that some user-created Skyrim mod can overburden the processing limits of our Celeron chip. But I was truly impressed by this cheap CPU's ability to handle anything Skyrim could dish out.
StarCraft II
This 60-second Fraps run starts out very demanding, but then it eases up as enemies are eliminated from the map. We’ll stay consistent by running the same four resolutions, though the lower ones don't do StarCraft II any justice.

As we noticed last quarter, there's a drop in performance as the aspect ratio gets wider, indicating a CPU limitation.
Fixed CPU multiplier ratios stymie our overclocking efforts, and we're unable to address the processor bottlenecks that appear through our highest test settings.

Minimum frame rates as low as 46 assure us of a solid StarCraft II experience on our stock $500 PC. But, for more epic battles, I’d rather be using a machine armed with a more powerful processor.

Dumping the bulk of our funding into graphics is sure to spell disaster throughout the media encoding and productivity benchmarks. But it's time to face the music.
This quarter's system contains a dual-core Sandy Bridge-based chip locked at 2.4 GHz, while the former build enjoys a pair of 3.3 GHz Hyper-Threaded cores, an additional 1 MB of L3 cache, and a less restrictive dual-channel memory controller.


iTunes and Lame showcases the per-clock performance of a processing core. Because both of these chips center on Intel's Sandy Bridge design, we're not surprised to see the Celeron deliver 73-74% of the Core i3's performance at 72.7% of the frequency, and at only 40% of its cost. Although the results don't look particularly impressive, this low-budget chip could totally embarrass other architectures in these two specific single-threaded tests.


HandBrake and MainConcept, on the other hands, are well-threaded, rewarding the deployment of additional physical processing cores. Neither of these machines would compete agressively against quad-core Core i5 or i7 systems.
In both tests, this quarter's $500 build delivers only 59% of last quarter's performance, meaning March’s system is seeing substantial benefit from higher clocks, two additional logical cores, more L3 cache, and greater memory bandwidth.

This page isn’t going to be pretty either. So, let me stop here and offer my apologies to Thomas Soderstrom, the author of the Day 4 coverage will need to radically adjust his comparison scales to include our $500 build’s lackluster productivity performance.
On the flip side, he should be happy that his speedy $2000 build took just a fraction of the time to complete these workloads running on my Celeron-based machine.


The Celeron G530 suffers more than just a frequency disadvantage, trailing the Core i3 build by 38% in 3ds Max and a whopping 46% in ABBYY FineReader. Image processing times in Photoshop, however, are only three points off the 27.3% reduction in processor frequency.


The $500 machine turns in 77% of last quarter's performance in WinRAR, 74% in WiZip, but just 57% in 7-Zip.
The assumption is that, out of our three compression utilities, only 7-Zip appears to favor the Core i3's inclusion of Hyper-Threading support, more cache, and higher memory bandwidth.

Power Consumption
We enabled power saving features on both rigs and deliberately chose not to override automatic controls. The benefit, of course, is that we enjoy lower temperatures, less heat dissipation, and a quieter fan. On the other hand, some folks argue in favor of turning power-saving features off to maximize performance.

The current build’s 50.2 W power consumption at idle and 77.6 W under full CPU load is quite amazing. Less impressive are the power results when we apply a full 3DMark 11 load to the graphics subsystem.
Temperatures

While the performance of Intel’s retail boxed heat sinks isn't impressive, they both delivered adequate cooling at stock frequencies, operating quietly at the same time.
GPU temperatures may look high, but we had cooling to spare in both systems. Even overclocked, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti’s fan peaked at 54%, while the Radeon HD 6950’s duty cycle never broke 39%.
We summarize performance and efficiency using last quarter's stock $650 system as a baseline.
Performance Summary
Earlier this year, the $650 PC delivered just enough performance to edge out Don's pricier enthusiast-oriented system in overall bang-for-the-buck value, despite being GPU-heavy and built specifically for 1920x1080 gaming.

After achieving only 68% of last quarter's overall performance at 77% of that last system's cost, today's $500 build prepares for total embarrassment in tomorrow’s value comparison.
No, this doesn't come as a surprise. By spending just 10% of our smaller budget on an entry-level CPU, we knowingly showed up to this battle armed with big graphics and little more. Don't get us wrong; the Celeron G530 offers very good performance for its low price tag. But it's not able to compensate for the fact that our big-ticket item only shines in one particular component of the SBM's weighting system.
Efficiency

Using the same amount of energy, on average, as last quarter's effort, while only delivering 68% of its overall performance, today's system suffers a big loss in efficiency. But breaking the power results down a little more tells a more complete story.
In office productivity or content creation tasks (or any other time the GeForce GTX 560 Ti sits idle), this machine's power consumption would be extremely low, and its efficiency would be more in line with the preceding build. Where efficiency suffers is gaming, in which case you care more about playable performance than what's being pulled from the wall.

Gaming performance capped by an entry-level CPU hurts the $500 PC’s overall showing in some of our favorite titles, pretty much assuring its downfall in any discussion of overall value.
But we built this rig specifically to target high-detail gaming at a 1920x1080 panel's native resolution. The following chart drops the influence of CPU-limited low-resolution tests, focusing purely on the highest playable settings.

At our target resolution, this seemingly unbalanced platform delivers a staggeringly impressive 87% of last quarter's frame rates at just 77% of its cost. Even more important than percentages is how successful our little gaming box is in facilitating playable experiences.
The stock $500 PC offers acceptable 1920x1080 performance throughout three of our four games, dipping to 1680x1050 only in Battlefield 3’s single-player campaign. A modest GPU overclock was enough to call this final resolution playable (an accomplishment neither of our previous two entry-level configurations achieved at 30% higher budgets). And, at this one questionable test setting, we proved that our bottleneck was insufficient graphics muscle, not our underpowered processor. I can’t help but to be impressed by the gaming alacrity of Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture, be it in a higher-end Core i7 or this little Celeron G530.
However, I could never endorse such a radical configuration without first confirming its abilities in a handful of other demanding games. I started with the highest settings in Just Cause 2, knowing that the Concrete Jungle benchmark we've used in the past would be a giant hurdle for the Celeron to overcome. Sure enough, average frame rates were under 30 FPS at all resolutions. An hour of actual gaming confirmed we needed to reduce in-game details to find acceptable performance in this title. At the highest settings, we were seeing performance in the 20 to 30 FPS range, with an occasional dip into the teens during intense combat. Although we had enough graphics muscle to handle this game, our CPU simply wasn't up to the task.
Because our goal of maxing out in-game detail settings at 1920x1080 left us with a processor unable to keep up with our GPU, we could only recommend this build to one specific type of gamer: if you want a stock Core i5 or Core i7 and a card like the GTX 560, but can't afford to put both together, a Celeron G530 is a super-affordable way of getting a machine up and running for now, with plans to perhaps upgrade later.
While the gaming potential of our entry-level dual-core chip is worthy of respect, it’s important to remember that its 2.4 GHz clock rate is all you'll ever get from it. Instead, we think that today’s build deserves, at the very least, a step up to Intel's Pentium G850. The extra $38 is a wise investment for anyone looking to duplicate out efforts.










