Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

A Surprisingly Robust Gaming System

System Builder Marathon, March 2012: $1250 Enthusiast PC
By

Before we wrap this up, let’s consider the aggregate performance data. Keep in mind that we removed the Skyrim results from the following chart because the game's patch altered performance too significantly, rendering a comparison completely invalid.

First up is application performance. On average, the Core i5-2400 does quite well against AMD's FX-6100, especially in light of its motherboard, which artificially hamstrung it with a single memory channel and an inability to specify a constant 3.8 GHz. We did see a couple of benchmark situations where the FX-6100 took a first-place finish when it was overclocked to 4.5 GHz, due to its high clock rate, dual-channel memory, hexa-core architecture, or a combination of the three. In general, though, the Core i5-2400 comes out on top.

As far as game performance goes, the new build's Radeon HD 7970 performs admirably up to the charted resolution of 1920x1080. If we were to focus more intently on 2560x1600, though, the benchmarks suggested to us that the two Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire would have fared much better.

It’s a real shame that ASRock's P67 Pro3 SE isn't equipped with better BIOS overclocking options, and especially unfortunate that it was unable to run our memory kit in dual-channel mode. We’re not sure how much of an impact this had on the final results, but it's possible that we'll try a Core i5-2400 on a different motherboard next time around just to compare the two platforms.

Regardless, looking at the average performance and power consumption of this quarter's build, a Core i5-2400 and Radeon HD 7970 combo are a better bet than an overclocked FX-6100 with two Radeon HD 6950s. Despite its well-documented flaws, the new build is a powerful little system more deserving of our $1250 budget.

We're especially looking forward to Day 4 of our System Builder Marathon, where Thomas will compare the overall value of our three systems. Not to give too much away, but our top-end machine also centers on Radeon HD 7970, so it'll be interesting to see how much platform alacrity impacts gaming performance.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 99 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    confish21 , March 27, 2012 6:32 AM
    I'm totally down for a cheap case but damn! There are better looking case's for 40 bucks.

    I like how the 2400 is used but would it be okay dropping the cooler?

    Read only optical drive? This makes no sense and is probably the worst skimp Ive ever seen. Spend the 5 bucks for a burner. Iso image anyone? This is an enthusiast level build... no mud flaps, no sale.
  • 19 Hide
    ringzero , March 27, 2012 5:22 AM
    "Whoa. The Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire from last quarter's System Builder Marathon beat the Radeon HD 7970 at every combination of resolutions and settings, except 1280x1600 at Ultra details."

    I desperately want a monitor at that resolution.
  • 11 Hide
    ojas , March 27, 2012 4:25 AM
    typo in the table on the first page, a 6970 isn't for $560! :p 
Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    zanny , March 27, 2012 4:21 AM
    Sad thing is dollar for dollar the 7970 is maddeningly inefficient. It only says good things for this summer, when hopefully AMD drops the prices on their cards in response to Kepler kicking their collective butts in performance per dollar.
  • 11 Hide
    ojas , March 27, 2012 4:25 AM
    typo in the table on the first page, a 6970 isn't for $560! :p 
  • 7 Hide
    stm1185 , March 27, 2012 4:41 AM
    7970 guess you wrote this before the GTX 680 review. No way you'd make that recommendation after.
  • 5 Hide
    sempifi99 , March 27, 2012 4:52 AM
    Quote:
    7970 guess you wrote this before the GTX 680 review. No way you'd make that recommendation after.


    When you compare their overclocking potentials, they have about the same performance. And then there is the availability of the GTX 680, which is not. So it makes since why the 7970 was chosen.

    The 7970 has better compute potential too. But I don't think that is relevant for a gaming box.
  • 9 Hide
    killabanks , March 27, 2012 4:58 AM
    i would say wait for the price to come down
  • 2 Hide
    ksampanna , March 27, 2012 5:15 AM
    stm11857970 guess you wrote this before the GTX 680 review. No way you'd make that recommendation after.


    My thoughts exactly. This story was probably done before Kepler, but now with the 680 launched, the editor sure must be feeling a bit shortchanged.
    Of course, the fact that the 680 has disappeared off the shelves is a different story entirely. In any case, within the next few weeks, we should see significant price cuts on the 7970, potentially making this build relevant once again.
  • 19 Hide
    ringzero , March 27, 2012 5:22 AM
    "Whoa. The Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire from last quarter's System Builder Marathon beat the Radeon HD 7970 at every combination of resolutions and settings, except 1280x1600 at Ultra details."

    I desperately want a monitor at that resolution.
  • 8 Hide
    General M00n , March 27, 2012 5:28 AM
    That is the ugliest case I've seen in a long time. No rotated hd bays or bottom mounted psu. Expansion slots at the back are snap off instead of reusable, and screw in on the outside. No CPU access at the back and only one 120mm space at the rear, none on the top. But you do get one tacky red fan that will be louder than your whole system combined.

    Seriously folks, the NZXT GAMMA Classic Case is the best ATX case for under $50.

    Also I agree, 64GB SSD is tiny for gamers. Its fine in an office enviroment, where you only have just the production programs that you use on a daily basis installed, with the actual data stored on a server/database. But for gamers whose Steam folder alone is in the 100s of GBs, its pointless.

    Also, why bother with an aftermarket heatsink if you don't plan to overclock? I can understand if your after a low/noiseless pc (like me), but considering your running a 7970 and noisy stock case fan, it's a waste of money.

    On a positive note, the $650 build was OK.

  • 9 Hide
    Darkerson , March 27, 2012 5:53 AM
    Yes, the 680 is nice, but if you cant find one in stock to buy, it really doesnt help that much, now does it?

    General M00n64GB SSD is tiny for gamers. Its fine in an office enviroment, where you only have just the production programs that you use on a daily basis installed, with the actual data stored on a server/database. But for gamers whose Steam folder alone is in the 100s of GBs, its pointless.


    Not all of us need to run our games off an SSD. I use a 64GB SSD to boot from, and use my 7200rpm HDD to run my games, and it works just fine. I think people are being a little too picky. Especially about a build that will eventually be given away for free.
  • 7 Hide
    ojas , March 27, 2012 5:56 AM
    Quote:
    Whoa. The Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire from last quarter's System Builder Marathon beat the Radeon HD 7970 at every combination of resolutions and settings, except 1280x1600 at Ultra details.

    i think you meant 2560x1600!
  • 0 Hide
    hmp_goose , March 27, 2012 6:01 AM
    Feel free to laugh, but do you think you could have fallen back to that one Cooler Master PSU from the $400 build, or something else in the 450 watt range?
  • -6 Hide
    esrever , March 27, 2012 6:05 AM
    could get a 680 and 2500k instead for better performance.
  • 8 Hide
    Pezcore27 , March 27, 2012 6:05 AM
    It would definitely be interesting to see the results had the MB not had the memory issue. Overall I like the build, minus the case. That thing's hideous!

    Also interesting to note that the FX-6100 seemed to perform better in this comparison, then against the i5-2400 configuration used in the $600 December SBM which wiped the floor with it.
  • 5 Hide
    superflykicks03 , March 27, 2012 6:12 AM
    I've never understood spending money on a SSD for a where the objective of the article generally seems to be maximizing FPS per dollar spent. There have been numerous articles on Tom's that show the gains in gaming with an SSD are minimal. Why not go with a standardized storage device, say, the best HDD money can buy @ $100 each time you do a mid range SBM? That way the results across builds are more comparable at the given price point. Same goes for the comparison between builds at the end of this SBM. The extra spent on SSD could artificially inflate the performance of the 650$ build relative to this one, because extra money was not spent on a non-game-enhancing part.

    I understand that SSD is a no-brainer for a well rounded system. Heck, I myself would never spend north of a grand on a pc and not throw in an SSD. But the FPS per dollar is hurt by adding such an expensive storage subsystem.
  • 9 Hide
    Darkerson , March 27, 2012 6:15 AM
    esrevercould get a 680 and 2500k instead for better performance.


    Im pretty sure they stated in the $650 build that they had this stuff picked out a couple months ago, so pretty much just as the AMD 7xxx series came out, long before the Nvidia 6xx series was released. They also stated they are sick and tired of using the 2500k in their builds. I like it when they experiment. Otherwise we wouldnt have seen how horribly bad the bulldozer build was last time.
  • 10 Hide
    Crashman , March 27, 2012 6:30 AM
    pharoahhalfdeadMushkin, Mushkin, Mushkin... How about trying something along the lines of Corsair XMS3 or another brand? We've seen Mushkin so much, and you sometimes say you want to build different configs, but I never see Corsair in the builds.
    Ahem:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-core-i7-sli-liquid-cooling,3096-2.html
    That was in the previous SBM so you really haven't been looking very long. I gave you a thumbs down just to cancel out some of those thumbs up you received
  • 20 Hide
    confish21 , March 27, 2012 6:32 AM
    I'm totally down for a cheap case but damn! There are better looking case's for 40 bucks.

    I like how the 2400 is used but would it be okay dropping the cooler?

    Read only optical drive? This makes no sense and is probably the worst skimp Ive ever seen. Spend the 5 bucks for a burner. Iso image anyone? This is an enthusiast level build... no mud flaps, no sale.
Display more comments