Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
System Builder Marathon, March 2012: System Value Compared
By ,
1. Three Well-Built Machines Face Off

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: The Articles

Here are links to each of the five 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, including the Bonus Customer Choice PC, which we picked out using the highest-rated components in Newegg's feedback system.

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

Day 1: The $650 Gaming PC
Day 2: The $1250 Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $2600 Performance PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Day 5: Bonus Newegg Customer Choice PC

Introduction

Without the benefit of an unlimited budget, improving performance in one area typically means making a sacrifice somewhere else. Recent changes to our benchmark suite slightly deemphasize the importance of beefy graphics at the high-end, since CPU bottlenecks hamper some of its games. On the other hand, Paul, the guy building our entry-level machine, usually can’t afford a fast enough graphics card to see those CPU bottlenecks. Those concepts drive this quarter's cheapest and most expensive systems in opposite directions. I dropped SLI from my $2600 machine, while Paul gave up a capable Core i5 processor from his $650 contender.

More controversial were the choices made by Don, who picked parts for our $1250 PC. He went with the same high-end graphics card as me in an attempt to match the expensive machine in at least the gaming segment of our metrics. Knowing that his affordable quad-core CPU couldn't stand up to my Sandy Bridge-E-based Core i7-3930K in the content creation apps, Don made his stand where he knew he stood a chance. Frequency (rather than core count) determines where most games run into a bottleneck, so Don pinned his hopes on topping-out Turbo Boost technology, since his Core i5-2400 is one of those "partially-unlocked" models.

So, we end up with two purpose-built gaming machines taking on a fully-loaded $2600 heavyweight in the productivity and content creation suites. That's definitely not going to be a fair fight. But you could also look at this match-up as one feature-oriented (overpriced) behemoth taking on two budget-oriented game systems in a battle for the best value. That may be equally unfair. We’ll do our best to present both sides of the performance/value debate, though.

Q1, 2012: System Builder Marathon PC Components
  $2600 Perfomance PC  $1300 Enthusiast PC  $650 Gaming PC 
ProcessorIntel Core i7-3930K
3.2GHz Hexa-Core
Intel Core i5-2400
3.10 GHz Quad-Core
Intel Core i3-2120
3.3 GHz Dual-Core
MotherboardAsus P9X79 Pro
LGA 2011, Intel X79 Express
ASRock P67 Pro3 SE
LGA 1155, Intel P67 Express
Gigabyte H61MA-D3V
LGA 1155, Intel H61 Express
GraphicsMSI R7970-2PMD3GD5/OC
Radeon HD 7970 3 GB O/C
PowerColor AX7970 3GBD5
Radeon HD 7970 3 GB
XFX HD-395X-ZNFC
Radeon HD 6950 1 GB
MemoryG.Skill F3-1600C9Q-16GAB
16 GB (4 x 4 GB) DDR3-1600
Mushkin Enhanced 996981
8 GB (2 x 4 GB ) DDR3-1600
Team Elite TED34096M1333C9DC
4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1333
System DriveMushkin MKNSSDCR240GB-DX
240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD
Crucial m4 CT064M4SSD2
64 GB SATA 6Gb/s SSD
Seagate ST500DM002
0.5 TB 7200 RPM HDD
Storage DriveSeagate ST1500DL003
1.5 TB, 5900 RPM HDD
Hitachi HDS721075DLE630
0.75 TB 7200 RPM HDD
Uses System Drive
OpticalPioneer BDR-206DBKS 12x BD-RSamsung TS-H353C 16x DVD-ROMLG GH22NS90B 22x DVD±R
CaseAntec P280 Case w/Rosewill FansApevia X-Trooper JuniorRosewill FBM-01
PowerSeasonic Platinum-860
860 W, 80 PLUS Platinum
Corsair CMPSU-650TXV2
650 W, 80 PLUS Bronze
Rosewill  Green RG630-S12
630 W, 80 PLUS
Heat SinkZalman CNPS12XCooler Master Hyper TX3Intel Boxed Cooler
 Total Cost $2541 $1263 $649


Notice that the title for each build refers to its budget limit, not its actual cost. Two days ago, we saw Don call his configuration the $1250 build, though he did have another $50 available to him. Amounts left unspent simply contribute to each PC’s price-per-performance calculations.

2. Benchmark And Overclock Settings

Test Hardware Configurations
  $2600 Perfomance PC  $1300 Enthusiast PC  $650 Gaming PC 
Motherboard
(Overclock)
Asus P9X79 Pro:
LGA 2011, Intel X79 Express,
No BCLK O/C
ASRock P67 Pro3 SE:
LGA 1155, Intel P67 Express,
No BCLK O/C
Gigabyte GA-H61MA-D3V:
LGA 1155, Intel H61 Express,
No BCLK O/C
Processor
(Overclock)
Intel Core i7-3930K: 3.20 GHz,
Hexa-Core O/C at 1.38 V to 4.60 GHz
Intel Core i5-2400: 3.10 GHz,
Quad-Core
O/C at 1.19 V to 3.69 GHz
Intel Core i3-2120:
3.3 GHz Dual-Core, No O/C
Memory
(Overclock)
16 GB G.Skill DDR3-1600
CL 9-9-9-24,
O/C at 1.60 V to DDR3-1866
CL 9-10-9-16
8 GB Corsair DDR3-1600,
CL 7-9-8-24,
No DRAM O/C
4 GB Team Elite DDR3-1333
CL 9-9-9-24,
O/C at 1.60 V to DDR3-1333
CL 7-8-7-22
Graphics
(Overclock)
MSI R7970-2PMD3GD5/OC:
1010 MHz GPU,GDDR5-5500
O/C to 1100 MHz GDDR5-6000
PowerColor Radeon HD 7970:
975 MHz GPU, GDDR5-5500,
O/C to 1125 MHz GDDR5-6300
XFX Radeon HD 6950 1GB:
840 MHz GPU, GDDR5-5000,
O/C to 840 MHz GDDR5-5200
OpticalPioneer BDR-206DBKS 12x BD-RSamsung TS-H353C 16x DVD-ROMLG GH22NS90B 22x DVD±R
CaseAntec P280 Case w/Rosewill FansApevia X-Trooper JuniorRosewill FBM-01
CPU CoolerZalman CNPS12XCooler Master Hyper TX3Intel Boxed Heatsink
Hard DriveMushkin Chronos Deluxe 240 GB,
SATA 6Gb/s SSD
Crucial m4 64 GB,
SATA 6Gb/s SSD
Seagate ST500DM002,
0.5 TB SATA 6Gb/s HDD
PowerSeasonic SS-860XP:
860 W, ATX12V, 80 PLUS Platinum
Corsair CMPSU-650TXV2
650 W, 80 PLUS Bronze
Rosewill  Green RG630-S12:
630 W, 80 PLUS
Software
OSMicrosoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
GraphicsAMD Catalyst Graphics 12.2
ChipsetIntel INF 9.2.0.1030Intel INF 9.2.0.1030


The most controversial component in the entire round-up could be the $1300 PC’s 64 GB SSD. Although performance numbers for the system drive are intended to represent general use, our benchmark image weighs in at around 80 GB. Moving data, such as our workload files, onto the secondary drive does allow our programs to fit within a 64 GB envelope, and it'd be easy to argue that a tiered storage subsystem is designed to split information up exactly like that. Even then, though, it’s hard to imagine that anyone would intentionally operate their system drive near its full capacity all the time.

The $2600 build had drive issues of a different kind: Intel’s enterprise-oriented RST drive slowed performance so much that we reverted to Windows 7’s default AHCI driver for the overclocked test.

Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
Battlefield 3Campaign Mode, "Going Hunting" 90-Seconds Fraps
Test Set 1: Medium Quality Defaults (No AA, 4x AF)
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Defaults (4x AA, 16x AF)
DiRT 3V1.01, Run with -benchmark example_benchmark.xml
Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA
Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimUpdate 1.4.27, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25 Seconds 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
StarCraft IICustom map "Tom's Hardware Guide V2", 60 seconds Fraps
Test Set 1: High Details, High Quality
Test Set 2: Ultra Details, Extreme Quality
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 0.95: "Big Buck Bunny" (720x480, 23.972 FPS) 5 Minutes, Audio: Dolby Digital, 48 000 Hz, Six-Channel, English, to Video: AVC Audio: AC3 Audio2: AAC (High Profile)
MainConcept ReferenceVersion: 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, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV
Productivity
Adobe Photoshop CS5Version 12.1 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates
Autodesk 3ds Max 2012Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080
WinZipVersion 15.5 Pro: THG-Workload (650 MB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r"
WinRARVersion 4.1: THG-Workload (650 MB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3"
7-ZipVersion 9.22: THG-Workload (650 MB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5"
ABBYY FineReaderVersion 10.0.102.82: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark 11Version: 1.0.1.0, Benchmark Only
PCMark 7Version: 1.0.4 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks
SiSoftware Sandra 2011Version 2011.10.17.80, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
3. Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark

3DMark helps quantify the performance of many different variables, including a system's CPU. The $2600 machine’s hexa-core processor establishes a significant advantage at the benchmark’s Entry preset. The $1300 PC’s big graphics card steps up its game at the Extreme preset. And the $650 machine struggles to keep up using lower-cost parts.

PCMark’s overall score is tremendously drive-dependent, slamming the $650 build for its use of a mechanical disk. The $2600 PC also looks somewhat bad at its default settings, but only because we were still using Intel's RSTe driver in that out-of-the-box configuration.

Reverting to Windows' AHCI storage driver gives the overclocked $2600 PC a second boost, though it never gets close to performing twice as fast as the $1300 machine.

A breakdown of a few PCMark tests helps demonstrate how well an SSD can perform. We also see where Intel's data integrity-oriented enterprise driver hampers performance, and how far mechanical hard drives trail behind. Because these tests approximate the loads we run on a frequent basis, they are also used in the hard drive rating of our average performance chart.

4. Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra

Sandra's Arithmetic metric shows the $2600 PC generating scores more than four times higher than the $650 machine’s Core i3. If the rest of the system performed that well, the most expensive machine would finally break through barriers in value.

Unfortunately, we already know that the rest of the top machine's hardware doesn't yield four times the performance of Paul's nifty little build, and that’s where the $1300 machine could get its shot at a value crown.

Perhaps most surprising is the big lead Intel's Core i7-3930K establishes over its own Core i5-2400. We’d expect a 50% improvement for its 50%-higher core count, but it instead returns more than 100% on our investment.

The $1300 machine’s memory was hobbled by its low-end motherboard, which is really a shame since the $37 left over in Don's budget could have gone toward a much nicer platform.

5. Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3

Several sacrifices were made in order to get the $1300 build armed with a very high-end graphics card, all so it could hang with the $2600 PC in as many games as possible.

A bottom-end motherboard, a multiplier-locked processor, and a read-only DVD drive were all considered acceptable in this effort to give the big build a black eye. Did the compromises pay off?

Don's approach actually worked better than we might have expected, especially since the $1300 build’s graphics card overclocked better than mine.

The $650 build reaches its Battlefield 3 limit at 1920x1080, which is fine. Paul said from the outset that he'd be happy if his machine could provide playable performance at the highest native resolution most value-seekers are expected to use.

6. Benchmark Results: DiRT 3

The $1300 build continues pushing for big numbers in DiRT 3, actually beating the stock $2600 build at Ultra quality and 2560x1600. It’s too bad that neither its motherboard nor CPU are suitable for “reasonable” overclocking. Another couple hundred megahertz from Turbo Boost could have helped pushed frame rates even higher at CPU-bound settings.

Amazingly, the $650 build continues to demonstrate playable 1920x1080 results at our highest tested detail levels. Paul's mission appears accomplished!

7. Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Overclocking is the easiest way to circumvent CPU bottlenecks in Skyrim, but the $1300 PC can’t overclock as well as the unlocked Core i7-3930K. A higher graphics card overclock helps that machine take the lead at 2560x1600, though. That's an intense-enough setting that a lower-end CPU doesn't even play a role in the benchmark result.

Meanwhile, the $650 PC is still playable through 1920x1080 at our highest test settings, making squabbles between the other machines appear petty. Paul must be mighty proud right about now.

8. Benchmark Results: StarCraft II

The $2600 build continues to use its big CPU to squash the $1300 build in gaming resolutions up to 1920x1080. But CPU bottlenecks again disappear once we hit the GPU-punishing 2560x1600 resolution. At that point a higher graphics card overclock allows the $1300 PC to score its strategic win.

Once again, the back and forth between pricey configurations seems silly to anyone who just wants to play this game at high graphics detail using a 1920x1080 resolution. The $650 survives its fourth and final graphics test.

9. Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding

Apple iTunes and Lame MP3 rely on high clock rates because they're single-threaded. Fortunately for me, the Core i7-3930K is the only unlocked processor in the bunch, allowing me to hit 4.6 GHz and take the win. Granted, that's hardly a reason to celebrate, since I paid $600 bucks for one if Intel's most complex desktop processors.

The $2600 machine strikes back in multi-threaded video encoding apps, demolishing the $1300 build while chasing Paul's $650 PC out of the room.

10. Benchmark Results: Productivity

The $2600 PC achieves roughly 50% greater Photoshop performance compared to its $1300 rival. In light of its roughly 100% higher cost, the value proposition there doesn't look particularly inviting.

Don's $1300 build’s value also shines in comparison to the $650 machine, since it serves up nearly two times the performance at less than two times the price.


Unfortunately for Don, his $1300 configuration gets demolished in both performance and value by my $2600 build in 3ds Max, though my expensive machine fails to outperform Paul's $650 configuration by the expected four-to-one ratio that prices would dictate.

File compression is a mixed bag, since 7-Zip responds well to multi-core processors and WinZip doesn’t. WinRAR falls somewhere in the middle, and the dual-core $650 machine’s value shines overall.

After seeing so many staggering losses in office application apps, we begin to wonder if Don's broken motherboard is hammering its overall performance picture. Don't worry, though. We'll get the marginal motherboard replaced before anyone wins the $1300 configuration.

Although it appears slow, the $650 machine still manages more than one-quarter of the flagship build's performance.

11. Power And Efficiency

Power consumption is one place where slower dual-core processors shine, which gives Paul's effort a chance to top our corresponding chart, where lower numbers are better.

On the other hand, my Core i7-3930K consumes more than two times the idle power of Don's Core i5-2400, even though it only employs two additional cores.

Since efficiency compares work to energy, we first collect performance averages for all tests to determine how much more gets done on the faster systems. Using the slowest configuration as our 100% baseline makes this measurement easy.

Dividing average performance by average power would give us average efficiency, but we weighted our performance charts to account for the 10% maximum amount of time a user might spend waiting for various files to load. The baseline from these calculations starts at 100%, but since nothing is 100% efficient we move the baseline to 0% by subtracting one from the results.

Surprisingly, the $2600 PC actually reaches baseline efficiency when it's overclocked, even though moderate CPU voltage increases were required. The $1300 build shines brightest however, combining an efficient Sandy Bridge quad-core processor with AMD’s moderately-efficient Radeon HD 7970 graphics card.

12. Three Different Goals, One Value Conclusion

As I suggested yesterday, when it comes to building performance-oriented PCs, most enthusiasts start seeing some form of diminishing returns after spending between $600 and $800. That’s because less-expensive parts generally offer far less performance, while better-performing parts generally cost far more money.

This quarter, however, Paul took a big risk by pairing an overpriced performance-oriented part (his graphics card) with a platform that wouldn't overclock at all. We understand where he was going there. More important than simply winning our Marathon, he wanted to give gamers a build that'd manage playable 1920x1080 frame rates, even if it meant getting wasted on the productivity apps.

His approach could have lost him the value competition, had Don not tried the same strategy with a more generous budget. In retrospect, we have to wonder how much more value he could have extracted from a slightly more expensive motherboard (with fully-functional memory) in the mid-priced machine.

Meanwhile, my $2600 build creates value from some of its overpriced components by overclocking well. We're left wondering if sacrifices on the flashy cooler, quiet case, and Blu-ray writer could have been parlayed into even better go-fast hardware, which may have overcome the value enabled by Don's machine. Of course, then I'd have to hear it from everyone in the comments section poking fun at cheap-looking components in a high-end build.

Don certainly proved his point when it comes to graphics performance. He used the same card as me to achieve similar performance at 2560x1600. A little luck with GPU overclocking gave him the upper hand, even, bringing his $1300 machine within 2% of my higher-end box.

But few of us could recommend the $1300 system to a friend or family member. Even Don seemed pretty worried about the quality of his finished product. We recommend that anyone considering a revamp of that build at least read a few of our motherboard reviews before making a revision. Consult with our forum members on parts that haven’t been reviewed yet. And consider whether the recently-released (and less expensive) GeForce GTX 680 might yield even better performance for your money.