
System Builder Marathon, March 2010: The Articles
Here are links to each of the four articles in this month’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 check out this Google form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!
Day 1: The $3,000 Performance PC
Day 2: The $1,500 Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $750 Gaming PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Introduction
It’s always been the goal of our System Builder Marathon (SBM) series to present three levels of enthusiast builds, beginning with budget-performance and ending with extreme-performance configurations. However, last year’s price increases took particularly hard hits on the low-cost system’s memory and high-end system’s cooling configuration. Moderate expectations and a wider selection of mainstream parts offer a little more flexibility in the middle. However, maintaining the same price structure meant increasing all three budgets by a similar level. Getting back to where we were at the beginning of last year pushed the occasionally-broken $2,500 budget to $3,000, the frequently-breached $1,250 budget to $1,500, and the completely-disregarded $625 budget to $750.

Each of the three builders approached the new budget limits with a different perspective. The $3,000 PC builder quit spending when he ran out of economically-feasible performance upgrades, coming $100 short of what he considered to be an actual limit and leaving plenty of room for several weeks of price changes. The $1,500 PC builder treated the budget as theoretical, maximizing scalability with an LGA 1366 platform that pushed the budget $23 beyond its limit before time-restricted discounts vanished. The $750 system builder focused on cramming in the highest possible gaming value at purchase time, with far less regard for what the future of prices (or upgrades) would bring.
| March 2010 System Builder Marathon Components | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| $750 PC | $1,500 PC | $3,000 PC | |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte MA790GPT-UD3H Socket AM3, 790GX | ASRock X58 Extreme LGA 1366, X58 Express | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 LGA 1366, X58 Express |
| Processor | AMD Athlon II X3 435 2.90 GHz Triple-Core | Intel Core i7-920 2.66 GHz Quad-Core | Intel Core i7-920 2.66 GHz Quad Core |
| Memory | G.Skill DDR3-1600 CAS 9 2 x 2GB (4GB Total) | Crucial DDR3-1333 CAS 9 3 x 2GB (6GB Total) | Crucial DDR3-1333 CAS 9 3 x 2GB (6GB Total) |
| Graphics | 2 x Sapphire HD 4850 512MB GDDR3-1986 625 MHz GPU | 2 x Visiontek HD 5850 1GB GDDR5-4000 725 MHz GPU | PowerColor HD 5970 2GB GDDR5-4200 Dual GPU at 750 MHz |
| System Hard Drives | WD WD6401AALS 640GB, 7200 RPM, 32MB | WD WD7501AALS 750GB, 7200 RPM, 32MB | 2x Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB x 2 (128GB Total) |
| HDD Accessory | None | None | SNT-SATA2221B 2x 2.5" Mobile Rack |
| Additional Hard Drive | None | None | WD WD1001FALS 1.0TB, 7,200 RPM, 32MB |
| Optical | LG GH22NS50 22x DVD±R | Samsung SH-S223C 22x DVD±R | Lite-On DH-4B1S-08 4x BD-R, 2x BD-RE |
| Case | Antec Three Hundred | Cooler Master CM 690 | Cooler Master Cosmos-S |
| Power | Antec EarthWatts EA650 650W | Corsair CMPSU-750TX 750W | SilverStone ST1000-P 1,000W Modular |
| CPU Cooler | Xigmatek HDT-SD964 92mm Tower | Rosewill FORT120 120mm Tower | Swiftech H20-220 Ultima XT Liquid Kit |
| Current Price | $789 | $1,582 | $2,926 |
The value goals of today’s comparison meant frivolous spending would be out of the question. Less than 10% of the $3,000 system’s total price was spent on added storage and Blu-ray capabilities. Similarly, less than 10% of the $1,500 system’s price was spent on upgrading to LGA 1366. The $750 PC builder was even thriftier, with less than 1% of the PC's price spent on an upgrade to 640GB.

| March 2010 SBM Test Configuration | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| $750 PC | $1,500 PC | $3,000 PC | |
| Motherboard (Overclock) | Gigabyte MA790GPT-UD3H Socket AM3, 790GX Overclocked to 257 MHz HyperTransport Clock | ASRock X58 Extreme LGA-1366, X58 Express Overclocked to 195 MHz BCLK | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 LGA-1366, X58 Express Overclocked to 205 MHz BCLK |
| Processor (Overclock) | AMD Athlon II X3 435 2.90 GHz at 3.60 GHz Fourth Core Unlocked, 1.49V | Intel Core i7-920 2.66 GHz at 3.90 GHz Overclocked 20x 195 MHz, +0.0V | Intel Core i7-920 2.66 GHz at 4.30 GHz Overclocked 21x 205 MHz, 1.36V |
| Memory (Overclock) | G.Skill DDR3-1600 CAS 9 CAS 9-9-9-24 at 1.60V Overclocked to 1,369 MHz, 7-8-7-15, 1.65V | Crucial DDR3-1333 CAS 9 CAS 9-9-9-24, 1.50V Overclocked to 1,540 MHz, 8-8-8-18, 1.60V | 3 x Crucial DDR3-1333 2GB CAS 9-9-9-24, 1.50V Overclocked to 1,640 MHz, 8-8-8-18, 1.65V |
| Graphics (Overclock) | 2 x Sapphire HD 4850 625 MHz, GDDR3-1986 Overclocked to 700/2,360 MHz | 2 x Visiontek HD 5850 725 MHz, GDDR5-4000 Overclocked to 775/4,500 MHz | PowerColor HD 5970 750 MHz, GDDR5-4200 Overclocked to 980/4,880 MHz |
| System Hard Drives | WD WD6401AALS 640GB, 7,200 RPM, 32MB | WD WD7501AALS 750GB, 7,200 RPM, 32MB | 2 x Crucial CT64M225 SSD 64GB x2 (RAID 0) |
| Case | Antec Three Hundred | Cooler Master CM 690 | Cooler Master Cosmos-S |
| Power | Antec EarthWatts EA650 650W | Corsair CMPSU-750TX 750W | SilverStone ST1000-P 1,000W Modular |
| CPU Cooler | Xigmatek HDT-SD964 92mm Tower | Rosewill FORT120 120mm Tower | Swiftech H20-220 Ultima XT Liquid Kit |
| Software | |||
| O/S | Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 | ||
| Graphics | AMD Catalyst 10.2 | ||
| Chipset | AMD Catalyst 10.2 | Intel INF 9.1.1.1020 | |
All three systems achieved at least somewhat-admirable clock speeds and the $1,500 build amazingly reached 3.90 GHz at stock voltage after it was determined that increased voltage wasn’t helping. Gone is the problematic Core i7-860 of last-month’s high-cost build, while the new system’s liquid-cooled i7-920 reached 4.30 GHz with ease. The $750 system builder was even able to unlock his processor’s fourth core without suffering a major loss in stability, although his memory couldn’t match the CAS 6 capability of equally-priced award-winning modules from our previous shootout.
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
| 3D Games | |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 | Campaign, Act III, Second Sun (45 sec. FRAPS) Test Set 1: Highest Settings, No AA Test Set 2: Highest Settings, 4x AA |
| Crysis | Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA Test Set 2: Very High Quality, 8x AA |
| Dirt 2 Demo | In-game benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA |
| S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call Of Pripyat | S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Call Of Pripyat Benchmark version Test Set 1: High Preset, DX11 EFDL, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, DX11 EFDL, 4x MSAA |
| Audio/Video Encoding | |
| iTunes | Version:9.0.2.25 x64 Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min. Default format AAC |
| Handbrake 0.9.4 | Version 0.9.4, convert first .vob file from "The Last Samurai" (1GB) to .mp4, High Profile |
| MainConcept Reference 1.6.1 | MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264), MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2), Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 KHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Mode: PAL (25 FPS) |
| Productivity | |
| Adobe Photoshop CS4 | Version: 11.0 x64, Filter 15.7MB TIF Image Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2010 | Version: 11.0 x64, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV) |
| Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus 9.0 | Version: 9.0.663, Virus base: 270.14.1/2407, Benchmark: Scan 334MB Folder of ZIP/RAR compressed files |
| WinRAR 3.90 | Version x64 3.90, Dictionary = 4,096KB, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334MB) |
| 7-Zip | Version 4.65: Format=Zip, Compression=Ultra, Method=Deflate, Dictionary Size=32KB, Word Size=128, Threads=8 Benchmark: THG-Workload (334MB) |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark Vantage | Version: 1.0.1, GPU and CPU scores |
| PCMark Vantage | Version: 1.0.1.0 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks |
| SiSoftware Sandra 2010 | Version 2010.1.16.11, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Our new benchmark suite is working fairly well, although we’re still seeing somewhat temperamental results in AVG. We’re currently working on a new antivirus application.
While the latest installment of Call of Duty adds some impressive visuals, it still presents a relatively light load for high-end graphics solutions. With CrossFire boosting even our cheapest system, we expect to reach CPU performance limits at most settings.


An overclocked Core i7 processor nearly uncaps Modern Warfare 2 and all of the systems appear CPU-limited at stock speed. Even with its far more restrictive CPU limits, the $750 machine is completely playable at its highest-tested resolution and settings.
Crysis has always presented problems for multi-GPU configurations at 2560x1600 and we even forwent anti-aliasing (AA) testing due to a CrossFire compatibility issue at that resolution. Discarding that resolution from the $750 system’s tests helps to avoid any potential embarrassment in a market where builders are unlikely to own a 30” display anyway.

Both of the overclocked Core i7 machines reach playable frame rates at 2560x1600 using the high-quality preset, while the $750 machine at least reaches 1080p.

Stepping up to very-high-quality presets drops the expensive systems into 1080p territory, while the $750 gets there only when overclocked.
DiRT 2 Demo defaults to the highest DirectX version of the graphics card, handing a DirectX 11 advantage to the $1,500 and $3,000 builds, while handicapping the $750 machine with DirectX 10.1. However, we still don’t expect to see any performance problems, since the game is almost playable with integrated graphics.


We believe the cheapest system could have pushed the DiRT 2 Demo to our maximum settings, but again, that's still not a likely pairing to such an inexpensive build.
The latest S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Call of Pripyat benchmark presents significant challenges to many single-GPU systems, but all of ours have CrossFire. With previous-generation 512MB cards, will the $750 machine survive?


High-quality presets without AA are little challenge to the $750 PC at its display panel limits, but stepping up to ultra-quality and 8x AA puts it out of the running. With minimal frame rates far lower than the averages seen here, even the big machines have trouble exceeding 1080p at the higher specifications.
Apple’s iTunes encoder is still single-threaded, but it does appear to have a slight preference for Intel processors, even though it ignores three physical and four virtual cores.


Huge HandBrake performance gains for the $750 system’s overclock can be attributed to the builder unlocking the processor’s fourth core. The program appears to have a slight preference for Intel’s technology.

The numbers might be different, but MainConcept’s performance chart looks identical to that of HandBrake.
Photoshop loves Core i7 processors, but enabling the fourth core on the $750 machine’s triple-core CPU still provides a big boost for lower-budget buyers.


Intel’s high performance continues to compliment its high price, but the overclocked and core-unlocked AMD processor isn’t too far behind.

There’s no apparent logic to AVG 9 performance, and we’re looking forward to replacing it.

CPU overclocking appears to benefit 7-Zip more than WinRAR, to the point that the overclocked $750 system catches up to the stock-speed $1,500 PC. However, Intel’s clock-for-clock superiority does come at a price, as Core i7 processors would only fit the budgets of the expensive machines.
Unlike most games, 3DMark shows a significant performance difference between the overclocked $1,500 and $3,000 machines. Because synthetic benchmarks don’t represent real-world performance differences, the results aren’t used in our final value assessment.


Poor hard drive performance results for the $1,500 PC can be partly attributed to its builder not using AHCI mode for the drive controller. Excellent results for the $3,000 PC’s drives were achieved thanks to the low latency and high bandwidth of its Level 0 (striped) SSD array.
With identical processors in the $1,500 and $3,000 PCs, Sandra Arithmetic appears to indicate a slight base clock difference between ASRock and Gigabyte motherboards. The $750 machine lacks several recent CPU optimizations.


Big cooling allows big overclocks, resulting in a big Sandra Multimedia lead for the $3,000 machine.

Core i7 memory performance scales almost perfectly with clock speed and AMD’s dual-channel memory controller performance even looks proportional to Intel’s triple-channel performance. That’s a good showing for all systems.
While power differences are significant, we really expected even larger differences between the overclocked/overvolted $3,000 system and the stock-voltage overclocked $1,500 build. Given its far lower performance, the $750 system’s efficiency is already starting to look a little weak.

Putting the performance differences into numbers gives us perspective, while also allowing us to further calculate efficiency.

All three machines were built for overclocking and the overclocked $3,000 PC leads the overclocked $750 PC by an impressive 71% (238% ÷ 139%, above). Those with high expectations and less cash might instead find the overclocked $1,500 system’s 53% gain acceptable.
Efficiency is determined by dividing average performance by average power consumption, using the slowest configuration as the baseline.

With 70% higher performance than the slowest configuration while consuming 24% more power, the stock-speed $3,000 machine leads our efficiency chart. Thanks to its use of stock CPU core voltage in overclocking, the $1,500 PC gains 1% in efficiency at the higher speed. Another impressive efficiency increase is the $750 overclocked configuration, as enabling its fourth core improved performance significantly at a marginal power consumption increase.
The cheapest system usually provides the most performance per dollar and this is where we usually issue a caveat about its performance not being up to the standards of high-end users. However, builder Paul Henningsen appears to have pulled a rabbit out of his hat this time by building a $750 gaming system that, by enabling the fourth core of its three-core AMD processor, has a broad range of capabilities.

Users who play Crysis or S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Call of Pripyat at extreme settings might not be able to tolerate anything less than the overclocked $1,500 PC, but most other gamers will find the $750 build a superb value. Power users might be willing to fork over 3.7 times as much money to get our previously-defined 71% performance increase from the $3,000 PC, while anyone looking to split the difference will be more than happy with the overclocked $1,500 system’s 53% gain.
The bottom line is that the $750 PC doesn’t just win a trivial value analysis, but does so while reaching a level of performance that many enthusiasts will find acceptable. Yet the real winner is not the machine but its builder, as Paul Henningsen achieved a best value coup with AMD’s low-cost, overclockable, and unlockable Athlon II X3 435 processor. We wish anyone who copies his efforts similarly good fortune.
Of course, remember that we're giving all three of these machines away to lucky readers. If you haven't yet entered our contest, flip back to page one and make sure you're in the running!