Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: The $400 Spirit Of Mini-ITX
By ,
1. An Inexpensive Console-Sized Gaming PC

System Builder Marathon, Q2 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 $650 Mini-ITX Gaming PC
Day 2: The $1300 Mini-ITX Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $2500 Mini-Performance PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Day 5: The $400 "True Spirit of Mini-ITX" PC

Introduction

As PC builders, all of us fine-tune our parts lists to satisfy certain goals, and generally under the limits of a budget. Often, our goals are at odds with each other, at times bordering on mutual exclusivity. For instance, what happens when we try to do the impossible, combining small size and big performance? Bound by today's technology, we end up compromising both areas to some degree.

Mini-ITX motherboards themselves are good examples. There are smaller form factors out there. But standard-sized processor interfaces, slots, and ports allow us to fit conventional desktop hardware into more compact spaces. But these boards are far more limited in features, and they simply cannot enable the PCI Express connectivity needed for multi-card graphics configurations.

And unlike a couple of enthusiasts who took measures into their own hands and designed the NCASE M1, we are generally limited to available retail parts that require the appropriate amount of space to work together, while remaining adequately cool. When the perfect solution doesn’t (yet) exist, or is just out of reach financially, it becomes all about finding the right balance of compromises.

This quarter, we set out in search of big performance from small boxes. Our rules were fairly relaxed, aside from the use of mini-ITX motherboards and enclosures designed around the form factor. There would be no cheating-up to microATX or larger. All three of us even pushed our budgets a little higher and leave out unessential parts, like the optical drive.

Whether we were driven by competition or beholden to reader feedback, Don, Thomas, and I stayed true to the System Builder Marathon series by maximizing performance at each price point. The trio of configurations packed huge graphics for high-resolution gaming. And, in the end, we all ended up with boxes that were probably bigger than what we originally intended. It's probable that many Tom's Hardware readers would do the very same thing, facing the same limitations. Others would find our stubby-looking cases only somewhat more inconspicuous than the full ATX chassis we usually end up with.

We couldn't help but measure our top two builds against Falcon Northwest's Tiki and pit our gaming PC against Alienware’s X51. Those pre-built systems pack Ivy Bridge-based Core i7 processors and dual-slot graphics cards (albeit through the use of a PCIe riser) into slim enclosures measuring no more than four inches wide. Without access to that same level of engineering, we either had to choose boxier cases that claimed more desktop real estate or give up on high-end gaming entirely.

As the spending limited increased to cover the mini-ITX premiums, I became concerned that my $650 gaming machine was no longer a budget-friendly option for many folks. Add in an operating system, monitor, and peripherals, and you're looking at closer to a $1000 setup. Then, when I read over all three system orders and realized my configuration would be the smallest, I couldn't help but feel that the whole team had missed its mark.

So, for fun, I decided to price out a budget-friendly slim PC and shoot it over to our editor-in-chief and Tiki-owner, Chris Angelini. He was more than happy to get this one ordered as a fourth bonus build. I knew I couldn't replicate a Tiki, or even an X51. But enthusiasts willing to sacrifice graphics performance can still build a tiny machine to serve numerous computing needs (including the potential for decent gaming). Enter our budget-oriented "True Spirit of Mini-ITX PC."

$400 Mini-ITX System Components
ComponentPurchase Price
CPUIntel Pentium G860 (Sandy Bridge): 3.0 GHz, 3 MB Shared L3 cache$70
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink and Fan-
MotherboardFoxconn H61S: LGA 1155, Intel H61 Express$50
RAMCrucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1600 BLT2KIT2G3D1608DT2TXRG$33
GraphicsSapphire 100357LP: Radeon HD 7750 1 GB$110
Hard DriveSamsung Spinpoint M8 ST320LM001: 320 GB, 5400 RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 2.5" Hard Drive$50
CaseAntec ISK300-150 Black Mini-ITX Desktop $80
PowerAntec FP-150-8 Flex (included with case)-
OpticalNone-

Total Price
$393

This was still meant to be a gaming machine, so I wanted to avoid AMD's APUs in favor of discrete graphics. That necessitated an enclosure with at least one expansion slot. I chose Antec’s ISK300-150 as a starting point, offering the desired balance of small size, ventilation, and hardware support. It's smaller than the Tiki in every dimension, and at roughly 426 cubic inches, it cuts more than 40% of the volume (32% less than the X51, which itself relies on an external power brick).

Our console-sized PC certainly has small covered. But its single half-height expansion slot caps us to far lower 3D performance than most of the gaming PCs we build, while the included 150 W custom Flex-ATX power supply further limits the platforms we can use.

Newegg never stocked the niche Afox Radeon HD 7850, which, to our knowledge is still the fastest low-profile desktop graphics card on the market. Even if it sold in the U.S., it'd still be too expensive, and we'd have to worry about its power consumption. Rather, Sapphire’s 100357LP, a low profile reference-clocked Radeon HD 7750 with a quiet, effective, single-slot cooler, stands in for what we're doing. Complementary hardware comes in well under budget.

2. CPU And Cooler

Processor: Intel Pentium G860

As a one-time favorite gaming processor of ours, the Pentium G860 lost some of its favor recently for poor performance in a few heavily-threaded titles. But I have no problem recommending this chip for the right price and purpose. Having just $185 to split between my CPU and graphics card, we’re confident that this 3.0 GHz, dual-core, Sandy Bridge-based Pentium delivers top value, and is perfect for this build.

The G860’s overall appeal is eroded by the slightly cheaper and just-as-fast Ivy Bridge-based Pentium G2020. However, we had no guarantee that our H61 Express motherboard would ship with Ivy Bridge support out of the box. This is a very real concern for real-world users when it comes to pairing older platforms to newer CPUs. And while we have plenty of chips sitting around for the flash, you might not. So, to play this as real-world as possible, we went the Sandy Bridge route. In the end, our board did ship with an Ivy Bridge-enabled BIOS and we could have dropped our out-of-pocket to $388 by choosing a Pentium G2020.

Read Customer Reviews of Intel's Pentium G860


CPU Cooler: Intel Retail Boxed Heat Sink And Fan

Intel’s boxed cooler consists of a low-profile orb-style aluminum heatsink, low-speed PWM-controlled fan, and a push-pin mounting bracket. It is sufficient for the task, and even at full-bore remains fairly quiet. Key to this build, it doesn’t rob funding from other potentially more rewarding parts.

3. Motherboard And Memory

Motherboard: Foxconn H61S

It would have cost us an additional $40 (or 80%) just to get our hands on a 7-series motherboard for this setup. H61 Express was the bargain that made this configuration possible. Casting aside 10% of the total build price would have put the brakes on our plans.

Read Customer Reviews of Foxconn's H61S Motherboard


The entry-level Foxconn H61S is light on features (you don't even get USB 3.0 support). But we have to forgive that. Even an H61-based motherboard with USB 3.0 would have run us $25 or $30 more.

It's a little harder to swallow the fact that we only get a pair of SATA 3Gb/s ports.

Memory: Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer 4 GB DDR3-1600 Memory Kit

We know that the Pentium G860 is limited to DDR3-1333. So why did we pick a DDR3-1600 memory kit? It's simple, really; money. In the few days separating this order from the others, Crucial’s Ballistix Tactical Tracer became the most affordable 4 GB memory kit available. Capable of 1600 MT/s, CAS 8 timings, and a 1.5 V operating voltage, why spend more on basic CAS 9 DDR3-1333?

Read Customer Reviews of Crucial's Ballistix Tactical Tracer 4 GB Memory Kit

4. Graphics Card And Hard Drive

Graphics Card: Sapphire 100357LP Radeon HD 7750 1 GB GDDR5

Our build involves very specific needs in terms of performance, dimensions, and efficiency. Sapphire delivers beautifully by packing a full-fledged reference-clocked Radeon HD 7750, requiring no auxiliary power, into a low-profile PCB. We're counting on this card to match the stock performance of other 7750s we’ve tested. What remains to be seen is if it overclocks, given the tiny cooler and our low-volume enclosure.

Connectivity includes Dual-Link DVI, mini-DisplayPort, and micro-HDMI, going so far as to support three-display output from a low-profile bracket. Sapphire bundles adapters for standard DisplayPort, HDMI, and analog VGA.

Read Customer Reviews of Sapphire's Radeon HD 7750 1 GB


More information on the efficient 28 nm Cape Verde layout is found in AMD Radeon HD 7770 and 7750 Review: Familiar Speed, Less Power.

Hard Drive: Samsung Spinpoint M8 ST320LM001 320 GB

The enclosure we picked lacks a 3.5" hard drive bay and we simply couldn't afford an SSD or faster 7200 RPM disk. So, Samsung's 320 GB SATA 3Gb/s-capable notebook drive gives us an 8 MB cache, a 5400 RPM spindle, and enough capacity to hold the stuff you'd want to put on a diminutive PC. It's even protected by a two-year warranty.

Read Customer Reviews of Samsung's Spinpoint 320 GB Hard Drive

5. Case, Power Supply, And Optical Drive

Case: Antec ISK300-150 Mini-ITX Desktop Chassis

Compact dimensions and good ventilation both major factors, we could say our selection of Antec's ISK300-150 dictated the remainder of this build. Measuring 12.9” x 8.7” x 3.8”, including a 150 W power supply, it's limited to a slim 5.25” bay, a pair of 2.5” internal bays, and a single low-profile expansion slot.

Read Customer Reviews of Antec's ISK300-150 Mini-ITX Chassis


Front ports include audio, eSATA, and a pair of either USB 2.0 or USB 3.0 ports. The case can be positioned flat or upright on the included stand. Antec pre-populates one "TriCool“ 80 mm fan with a user-adjustable three-speed switch mounted on the rear panel, and includes room to add one more cooler.

Power Supply: Antec FP-150-8 Flex (Bundled)

Included with the case is a custom Flex-ATX 150 W power supply with a single 10 A +12 V rail and plenty of power connectors.

Optical Drive: None

As with our $650 PC, this build forgoes its optical drive in the name of budget savings. Antec's ISK-300 enclosure only supports a slim unit, and getting one of those into our budget would have required dropping to a Celeron processor or Radeon HD 6670 graphics card.

Really, only you can decide if an optical drive is important. If you have access to a portable USB drive or another system, it might not be a big deal. If spending the extra money doesn't put you out, then adding it is certainly possible with our chosen case.

6. Assembling Our Little Budget Box

Assembly

Our modest array of components takes up so little space that I couldn't help but think putting everything together was going to be a piece of cake.

I unpacked Antec's ISK300, along with the included hardware kit. Newegg hasn’t updated its specifications yet, but we received the now-common version with front-panel USB 3.0 ports and, thankfully, an adapter for motherboards like ours with USB 2.0 headers. Until those specs get finalized, there is no guaranteeing older stock isn't kicking around in a warehouse somewhere, though.

Prepping the case required very little effort. The wrap-around lid is held in place by three plastic-coated thumb screws, while another trio of screws secures the removable drive tray. With all wires tucked aside, I attached four threaded standoffs, popped in Foxconn’s I/O shield, and secured the motherboard. Intel’s low-profile boxed cooler would leave plenty of room above it once the drive tray was reinstalled.

My heart started racing a bit when it seemed that the PCI Express slot was 1 mm out of spec, and that the graphics card wouldn't drop into place. A closer look revealed the problem to be a slight bend in the ISK300’s structure at the lower thumb screw. The screw appeared to be over-tightened at the factory (I couldn't remove it by hand). For some reason, the rear slot sheet metal wasn’t flat, pressed in slightly towards the PCIe slot at the edge of the enclosure's lid.

Quick attempts to straighten the sheet metal by hand proved futile. Instead, I loosened the motherboard and offset it a tiny bit so the graphics card would drop in without force. It actually took a little patience to position just right. There's even some risk involved; a slightly offset motherboard may ground out to the case and fail to boot.

The other problems I encountered also involved the graphics card and case. Horseshoe-shaped mounting tabs on Sapphire’s low-profile bracket wrapped too far around the slot screw, so I had to trim off a good eighth of an inch to allow the ISK300's hinged clasp to flip into place. Without that modification, the graphics card would have been forced up towards the processor and sat crooked in its slot.

The system booted up just as I expected it to, and was 100% stable through my testing.

The USB 3.0-to-2.0 adapter cable was a bit bulky. Otherwise, cable management wasn’t too bad. Routing data and power cables up to the hard drive went smoothly, although I imagine I avoided a big headache by using a single 2.5” drive, rather than populating all available bays.

There’s not much else you can do aside from stuffing the power supply's cables back into the case near its slotted vents, though care should be taken to preserve airflow. On the other side, the enclosure’s exhaust fan has a very short power lead that needed to run to our motherboard. If you pick a different platform, it's possible you'll need a three-pin extension cable to make the connection.

7. How Small Is It, Really?

Photo Gallery of Relative Size

Before digging into the performance-related strengths and weaknesses of this build, let’s take a closer look at where it shines most brightly: small size.

For starters, our sub-$400 gaming PC is downright puny compared to more conventional gaming enclosures, such as the eight-slot Rosewill Blackhawk or seven-slot Antec Three Hundred Illusion mid-tower cases.

Three ISK300 enclosures stacked up would occupy approximately 1280 cubic inches, falling in between the pictured $650 gaming machine I built for this quarter's competition and the $1300 enthusiast PC in overall volume. This bonus build occupies less than 20% of the space consumed by the BitFenix Prodigy used in Thomas' high-performance build, assuming the upper and lower handles remain attached.

Unfortunately, fractional size also translates to a lot less performance, particularly in games. It's already maxed out when we install a Radeon HD 7750.

 


It’s wider and deeper, but quite a bit shorter (while standing) than the Xbox 360 gaming console. If we cropped Microsoft’s huge power brick in half and added it to the Xbox, the combination would equal the same volume as Antec’s ISK300, which of course includes an internal power supply.

When it comes to mini-ITX, one size does not fit all. Pictured from left to right: Antec ISK110 VESA, this quarter's $400 bonus build (Antec ISK300-150), SilverStone SG05BB-450-USB3.0, this quarter's $650 PC (Cooler Master Elite 120), DIYPC V3Plus-B.

8. Limited Overclocking

Antec’s TriCool fan is super-quiet at its lowest setting. Although the CPU and GPU load temperatures I measured were well within reason, though, I chose to test using the more audible medium setting, just to increase airflow over board components. The highest setting was far noisier, conflicting with one of this build’s goals, so I maintained the same middle setting for overclocking, too.

The platform I picked prevented me from increasing processing frequency, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to leave system performance alone. For starters, memory data rate is limited to 1333 MT/s on the Pentium G860, and our kit defaulted to 9-9-9-24 2N timings. The board did allow manual tuning though, and Crucial’s DDR3-1600 modules proved stable set to 7-7-7-24 1N at a stock 1.5 V.

We then shifted focus to graphics. The low-profile Sapphire Radeon HD 7750 ran cool and quiet out of the box with an 800 MHz GPU and memory operating at 4500 MT/s. Topping out in our Far Cry 3 burn test at 59 degrees Celsius at just 41% fan duty cycle, we knew the graphics processor was capable of more.

Using MSI Overdrive, I raised the power limit by 10%, and created a more aggressive fan profile that'd remain quiet during desktop use, but also assure GPU temperatures would remain in-check while overclocking. Cape Verde topped out just below its preset 950 MHz maximum, while the memory soared to 1250 MHz.

I ran a few tests and found that GDDR5 memory overclocking was very beneficial. 3DMark 11's Graphics suite went up over 80 points. More important, frame rates in each of our game benchmarks were up 1-2 FPS at important settings. But considering the small enclosure and my desire for controlled acoustics, no attempts were made to explore unofficial overclocking limits.

Rather, I dialed frequencies back a bit and tested with a 925 MHz core and 1225 MHz memory. At those settings, the customized fan profile ramped up as high as 60%, keeping the GPU from exceeding 60 degrees Celsius. This turned out to be far more pleasing than even our $650 PC's Tahiti-based Radeon HD 7870, as far as noise went.

9. Test System And Benchmarks

Test System Configuration And Benchmarks

Current $400 Mini-ITX PC System Test Configuration
Component Base Settings Overclock Settings
CPUIntel Pentium G860 (Sandy Bridge), 3 GHz, LGA 1155, 3 MB Shared L3 Cache, Power-saving features enabledUnchanged
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink And FanUnchanged
MotherboardFoxconn H61S, Intel H61, BIOS C31F1P02 (07/18/12)Unchanged
RAM4 GB (2 x 2 GB) Crucial DDR3-1600 Kit at DDR3-1333, CL 9-9-9-24 1T, 1.5 VDDR3-1333, CL 7-7-7-24 1T at 1.5 V
GraphicsSapphire 100357LP, Radeon HD 7750 1 GB GDDR5, 800 MHz GPU, 1125 MHz (4500 MT/s) Memory925 MHz GPU, 1225 MHz (4900 MT/s) GDDR5 Memory
Hard DriveSamsung Spinpoint M8 ST320LM001 320 GB Hard Drive, 5400 RPM, 8 MB Cache, SATA 3Gb/sUnchanged
SoundIntegrated Six-Channel HD AudioUnchanged
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit NetworkingUnchanged
PowerAntec FP-150-8 Flex Power SupplyUnchanged
OpticalnoneUnchanged
 Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 8 Professional x64Unchanged
Graphics DriverAMD Catalyst 13.4Unchanged
Platform DriverIntel 7-series Inf v. 9.3.1025Unchanged
Q2 2013 $650 Mini-ITX Gaming PC System Test Configuration
Component Base Settings Overclock Settings
CPUIntel Core i3-3220 (Ivy Bridge), 3.3 GHz, LGA 1155, 3 MB Shared L3, Power-saving features enabledUnchanged
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink and FanUnchanged
MotherboardASRock B75M-ITX
Intel B75, BIOS P1.60 UFI (11-19-2012)
Unchanged
RAM4 GB (2 x 2 GB) Crucial DDR3-1600 Kit
CL 8-8-8-24 2N at 1.5 V
DDR3-1600, CL 8-8-8-24 1N at 1.5 V
GraphicsPowerColor PCS+ AX7870 Myst Edition 2 GB GDDR5
925 MHz (975 Boost) GPU, 1500 MHz (6000 MT/s) Memory
1100 MHz GPU
1500 MHz (6000 MT/s) GDDR5 Memory
Hard DriveWestern Digital WD Blue WD5000AAKX
500 GB, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache
Unchanged
SoundIntegrated Eight-Channel HD AudioUnchanged
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit NetworkingUnchanged
PowerCorsair Builder Series CX500 500 W ATX12V v2.3Unchanged
OpticalnoneUnchanged
 Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 8 Professional x64Unchanged
Graphics DriverAMD Catalyst 13.4Unchanged
Platform DriverIntel 7-series Inf v. 9.3.1025Unchanged
Q4 2012 $500 PC System Test Configuration
Component Base Settings Overclock Settings
CPUIntel Pentium G850 (Sandy Bridge), 2.9 GHz, LGA 1155, 3 MB Shared L3, Power-saving features enabledUnchanged
CPU CoolerIntel Boxed Heat Sink and FanUnchanged
MotherboardASRock H77 Pro4/MVP
Intel H77, BIOS P1.40  (09-21-2012)
Unchanged
RAM8 GB G.Skill DDR3-1333 Kit
CL 9-9-9-24 1T at 1.585 V
DDR3-1333, CL 7-8-7-22 1T at 1.6 V
GraphicsPowerColor AX7850 1GBD5-DH Radeon HD 7850
860 MHz GPU, 1200 MHz (4800 MT/s) Memory
1200 MHz GPU @ 1.205 V, 1310 MHz (5240 MT/s) GDDR5 Memory
Hard DriveWestern Digital WD3200AAKX 320 GB Hard Drive
320 GB, 7200 RPM, 16 MB Cache
Unchanged
SoundIntegrated Eight-Channel HD AudioUnchanged
NetworkIntegrated Gigabit NetworkingUnchanged
PowerAntec VP-450 450 WUnchanged
OpticalLG 24x DVD Burner SATA Model GH24NS90-OEMUnchanged
 Software and Drivers
Operating SystemWindows 8 Professional x64Unchanged
Graphics DriverAMD Catalyst 12.10Unchanged
Platform DriverIntel 7-series Inf v. 9.3.1025Unchanged
Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
Battlefield 3Version 1.0.0.0, DirectX 11, 90-Second 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
Elders Scroll V: SkyrimVersion 1.8.151.0.7, 25-Second Fraps
Test Set 1: High Preset, No AA, 8x AF, FXAA Enabled
Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, 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
F1 2012Version 1.2, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 8x AA
Audio/Video Encoding
HandBrake CLIVersion: 0.98, 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 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)
TotalCode Studio 2.5Version: 2.5.0.10677, MPEG2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2), Audio:MPEG2 (44.1 kHz, Two-Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s) Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Abobe Creative Suite
Adobe After Effects CS6Version 11.0.0.378 x64: Create Video, Three Streams, 210 Frames, Render Multiple Frames Simultaneously
Adobe Photoshop CS6Version 13 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates
Adobe Premier 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 X ProVersion 10.0.0.396: 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 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 StudioVersion 10.0, Compile Google Chrome, Scripted
Compression
7-ZipVersion 9.28, LZMA2, Syntax "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
Benchmark: THG-Workload-2012 (1.3 GB)
WinRARVersion 4.2, RAR, Syntax "winrar a -r -m3"
Benchmark: THG-Workload-2012 (1.3 GB)
WinZipVersion 17.0 Pro, Syntax "-a -ez -p -r"
Benchmark: THG-Workload-2012 (1.3 GB)
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark 11Version: 1.0.3, Performance Suite
PCMark 7Version: 1.0.4, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks
SiSoftware Sandra 2013Version: 2013.01.19.11, Processor  Arithmetic,
Cryptography, Memory Bandwidth Benchmarks
10. Results: Synthetics

Synthetics

I'm comparing this quarter's $400 bonus build to the $650 mini-ITX-based box presented last week, as well as our most recent $500 gaming PC from the end of last year, which paired a 2.9 GHz Pentium G850 up to a beefier Radeon HD 7850 graphics card.

3DMark 11 scores depict a fairly well-balanced $400 configuration, though I fear that a poor graphics showing signals trouble ahead once I start cranking up the details and resolutions in our gaming tests. The $500 build’s 100 MHz CPU clock rate deficit results in a third-place finish in the Physics suite, while its more powerful Pitcairn-based graphics solution propels it forward in overall 3DMarks.

Sporting a 3.3 GHz Ivy Bridge-based Core i3-3220 processor and big Tahiti-powered Radeon HD 7870 graphics card, the $650 PC tops each test, appearing in an entirely different league.

PCMark7 punishes me across the board for using a dual-core processor, Radeon HD 7750 graphics, and a 5400 RPM laptop hard drive. However, when we factor in the 20-40% cost reduction, the tiniest build’s value proposition doesn't look as bleak.

The Pentium G860’s speed bump allows the $400 PC to earn second place in Sandra's Arithmetic and Cryptography components, though all three CPUs are punished for their arbitrary omission of AES-NI support, a result of bad marketing on Intel's part.

The $650 PC utilized CAS 8 DDR3-1600 memory, while the two Pentium-based systems employ DDR3-1333 at CAS 9 (stock) and CAS 7 (overclocked). Yet, we realize slightly lower memory bandwidth from today's H61-based platform than the previously-tested H77 Express.

11. Results: Audio And Video

Before we move on to the games, let's face the reality of a dual-core processor battling its way through our application suite. If all goes well, the slim $400 machine should at least be able to match the full-sized $500 PC in processor-bound tests, but might fall behind if memory bandwidth and storage performance come into play. Also, keep in mind none of these dual-core processors are overclocked, so any speed-ups stem from tweaking main memory timings and graphics card overclocking.

The three builds fall into line based on processor frequency throughout our encoding applications. But, the ability to schedule four simultaneous threads allows the $650 PC to extend its lead in the well-threaded HandBrake and TotalCode Studio workloads.

12. Results: Adobe Creative Suite

This quarter's $400 and $650 PCs both edge out last December's machine across the board. A configuration issue we had with the OpenCL-based Photoshop workload explains those missing data points, but I expect its Radeon HD 7850 graphics card would propel it past the $400 PC, considering other similarities between the two platforms.

13. Results: Productivity

Knocked down from Core i5-3350P to Core i3-3220 this quarter, in the interest of scoring a more potent graphics card, the $650 gaming machine gives up an average of 29% performance in our threaded productivity applications. However, it still dominates the Pentium-based configurations limited to two threads at a time.

Today’s $400 machine hangs onto a distant second place until we start benchmarking Visual Studio, a lengthy test where the slower storage subsystem likely comes into play.

14. Results: Compression

The two cheapest systems trade blows in our compression tests, averaging roughly the same overall performance. Benefitting from a more powerful CPU and GPU, plus greater memory bandwidth, the $650 box completely sweeps all of our tested applications.

15. Results: Battlefield 3 And The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Today’s $400 PC wasn’t built to be a workhorse, and we’re even glad that it performed respectably through our application testing. But now it’s time to see if the compact enclosure and low-profile graphics card possess the fortitude for gaming. I ran both of our current configurations through five matching resolutions.

Battlefield 3

Frame rates in our Battlefield 3 single-player campaign sequence are almost entirely limited by graphics hardware, and not by processing resources. The multiplayer game is entirely different. But I’ve played through the entire single-player campaign on a dual-core Pentium and already know these CPUs are all capable of doing it.

The Medium quality preset appears perfectly tuned for our Radeon HD 7750 graphics card. The cheap build survives through 1920x1080, yielding the 45 FPS average I set as a minimum requirement.

Sporting beefier graphics, the other two machines beg for higher-quality settings.

The Ultra quality preset enables maximum details and 4x MSAA, limiting the overclocked $400 PC to our lowest tested 1280x720 resolution. In stock form, however, it necessitates a drop to 2x MSAA where, interestingly, it delivers the same exact average and minimum frame rates as the overclocked configuration does with 4x MSAA.

Meanwhile, the two more potent rigs survive this game all the way through 1920x1080, although we’d prefer the $500 machine’s Radeon HD 7850 be overclocked.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

In The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, only the cheapest configuration appears graphics-bound at High quality settings. However, even in stock form, it delivers a minimum of 45 frames per second through the highest tested resolution.

Our two pricier PCs remain playable at all resolutions, yielding mostly processor-limited frame rates though Ultra quality details with 8x MSAA. Even the stock $500 PC never drops below 45 FPS at 1920x1080.

The slim $400 build comes up a bit short, requiring lowered anti-aliasing settings to maintain smooth framerates. But, on my couch in front of our 40” 1080p TV, I’d certainly be happier with this overclocked $400 PC at Ultra details, 4x MSAA, and 16x AF than a current-gen console.

16. Benchmark Results: F1 2012 And Far Cry 3

F1 2012

The Pentium G860’s clock rate advantage allows the tiny build to creep up past the $500 PC in the CPU-bound High graphics preset of F1 2012.


However, our most frugal platform’s bottleneck quickly shifts when we switch to the Ultra quality preset, and the Radeon HD 7750 requires overclocking to survive each resolution without us cutting back on anti-aliasing.

Far Cry 3

This joy ride screeches to a halt when Far Cry 3’s High quality preset puts a quick hurting on the Radeon HD 7750, limiting it to 1600x900 or less. Overclocked, I played the game for a little while at 1920x1080. It was a borderline-acceptable experience, with a few dips below 30 FPS. Fine-tuning the detail settings or stepping down to 1680x1050 is a safer bet for folks more sensitive to slow-down.

CPU-bound, the $500 PC remains playable through 1920x1080, while the $650 build’s Tahiti GPU delivers a solid 4800x900 experience.

I have so many hours into testing and playing Far Cry 3 on various platforms that I know exactly what CPU and GPU combinations it takes to make me happy. For starters, a 3.3 GHz Ivy Bridge-based Core i3 is plenty. Paired with a Radeon HD 7970, frame rates never drop below 40 at 1920x1080, matching the Core i5-3570K, even when reduced to 2x MSAA.

However, subjected to 4x MSAA, our $650 PC's Tahiti-based Radeon HD 7870 requires a mild overclock to maintain satisfactory performance, averaging 36 FPS and never dropping below 32. Had it needed more, there was still headroom available (if I was willing to sacrifice more heat and noise).

I also know that an overclocked Radeon HD 7850 can handle Ultra quality at 1920x1080, but only when I drop to 2x MSAA and use a capable quad-threaded processor. The older $500 PC, overclocked, necessitated dropping to Very High quality. Those settings also push the limits of a stock Radeon HD 7850, and stepping up from Pentium to last quarter's Core i5 does little to help until we overclock.

The point I’m getting at is that neither the Pentium G860 nor the Radeon HD 7750 is capable of Ultra quality settings, but the weakest link in this game is by far the graphics card. The $500 rig’s Pentium and Radeon HD 7850 are far more capable.

17. Consumption And Temperatures

Power Consumption

As you know, we enable power-saving features on each system to best reflect real-world default power consumption and cooling performance. I also left the fan controls at their stock settings for my baseline run. In effect, I was trading off thermal performance in the interest of a quieter PC.

I don't have efficiency specifications for Antec's 150 W power supply. However, older units with the same model number were notoriously bad in this area. Regardless, under full load, the overclocked configuration pulls less than 120 W from the wall. Assuming between 70% and 80% efficiency, the power supply was only outputting between 83 and 95 W under full load. That should satisfy any concern that a 150 W PSU is insufficient for today's build.

AMD's Pitcairn and Tahiti GPUs serve up much higher performance than Cape Verde, but they're also a lot more power-hungry. December's $500 machine mysteriously suffered high GPU power use just idling on the desktop, inflating the active idle and CPU load data.

Despite Antec's small enclosure, heat is not a problem for us. The components I'm using are efficient, airflow is decent, and the graphics card is fed cool air through a bottom vent. In warm climates, both the graphics and case fans could spin a lot faster if they're needed, though they'd be louder too. As it stands, my notes suggest this is the quietest of the last three systems I built, particularly after overclocking. Only the $650 system was loud enough to have me reaching for my Sennheiser headset during gaming sessions.

18. Performance Summary

Our pair of lower-cost builds yields almost identical performance in applications, since they both rely on dual-core Sandy Bridge-based G800-series Pentiums distinguished by a scant 100 MHz. The $650 PC isn’t much more impressive, but it does lead from start to finish, benefiting from a faster Ivy Bridge-based Core i3 with Hyper-Threading.

Traditionally, our first set of medium- to high-detail System Builder Marathon game benchmarks is tailored to the least-expensive machine. Today's little $400 setup survived those settings all the way through 1920x1080 at less than 80% of our normal budget. Our newest title, Ubisoft’s brutal Far Cry 3, proved the greatest challenge, though we can forgive its performance knowing that its High detail preset will push $500 machines through 2013.

Packing AMD's Tahiti GPU, this quarter's $650 PC is the big fish in a little pond, ripping through our most demanding game settings at 1920x1080, including Far Cry 3. This system is even able to handle 4800x900 using three screens. So, our main comparison is between the two lower-cost builds, where nearly identical CPUs are matched up to different graphics cards.

We knew this build would fall short of the best-looking graphics settings. Still, we’ll summarize performance at those settings for each game at 1280x720 and 1920x1080. Bear in mind that only the $650 PC remains playable in Far Cry 3.

19. Can Less Equal More?

Armed with the most potent graphics card our budget and chassis would allow, all of these builds were designed for PC gaming. It makes sense, then, to evaluate performance weighed most heavily toward the titles we tested and not on productivity.

Of course, based on average performance, the overall ranking is obvious. But the lingering question is which of these machines offers the most performance for what we spent on them?

The $650 machine captures this crown also, its big benchmark numbers outweighing the extra bit its parts ran us. Today’s $400 PC takes second place, but only because we massaged the weighting a bit and based the outcome on one-third application performance. Note also that the losing $500 PC is the only one that incurs the cost of an optical drive, but doesn't enjoy any speed-up from it. In that way, the comparison isn't perfectly fair.

Overall value isn't based just on benchmark results though, and any of these machines can subjectively be crowned a winner or loser once your own needs are taken into account. The mini-ITX form factor might not be a priority for you. After all, there are price premiums and hardware limitations associated with cramming components into such a compact space.

Combining a fairly tame processor with enthusiast-class graphics, this quarter’s $650 mini-ITX gaming box ripped through our highest game settings at 1920x1080, even driving three screens at 4800x900 at reduced settings. It is by far the most potent gaming machine we measured today. However, its size, shape, and noisy overclocked graphics card wouldn't fly in every environment. We anticipated this to some degree, and chalked it up to the price you pay to play with the big boys, while spending as little as possible.

I called today's build the True Spirit of Mini-ITX because I wanted it to be smaller, quieter, and more affordable. Achieving success in those three metrics wouldn't have mattered if this thing flopped in the tests. But as it turns out, we saw great gaming performance in F1 2012 and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim at 1920x1080 using Ultra details. Battlefield 3‘s single-player campaign was quite a bit more taxing, but lower quality settings got us through it.

Moving forward, processors able to schedule four threads are a safer recommendation, especially in systems with powerful GPUs. But the Pentium G860 continues proving it's a capable value-oriented chip, especially paired to mainstream graphics. Shifting any further to the CPU would have hurt our gaming benchmarks. When our little rig did fall short, its Radeon HD 7750 was to blame and not the Pentium processor.

We’re eager to hear which of these builds best serves your needs. Would you rather have a mini-ITX box that's as small as possible, or just small enough to cram in a GeForce GTX 780 or something like that? Given the number of PCs my family owns, I'm still partial to the little $400 box. Yes, there are several upgrades I'd like to perform with more money. But as it was built, this machine is still a respectable little gaming platform in a kid's room.