System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: System Value Compared

Results: SiSoftware Sandra

With the same CPU used in both systems, the $800 and $1,000 builds are nearly matched in Sandra’s CPU-specific Arithmetic benchmark. Any hopes that a slightly larger CPU cooler would give the $1,000 build a little extra overclocking headroom were dashed when the $800 machine matched its 4.40 GHz.

The $800 PC appears affected by a minor configuration issue in one of the software’s Cryptography tests.

All else being equal—isn’t. Don chose lower voltage for his $800 machine's memory, and was unable to approach the $1,000 system’s bandwidth. The $600 machine takes the middle with moderate memory manipulation.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
116 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • thymanbearpigYou would think with an extra $200 you can get a noticeable difference in fps..


    The only real difference between the $800 and $1000 PC is that the $1000 has an SSD. They both have the same CPU, RAM, and GPU. Gaming should be about the same on both.
    20
  • atomicWARHonestly i would like to see an up-graders marathon. With price points of 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1600, 2000 covered all using the same case, CD/dvd, and mech HDD (not included in cost). Those are the most common carry over parts besides my water-cooling that carries over build to build. I believe it would be a very useful and realistic use of funds many of your readers could relate to.
    That's an awesome idea too! We could get some old-fashioned Chieftech Dragon (or similarly-popular) cases, maybe some older 700W power supplies and hard drives, match everything and just change the platform. Anyone else think this is a good idea?
    19
  • @thymanbearpig They use the same GPU, most games are GPU bottle-necked. That's how they get nearly the same FPS.
    17
  • Other Comments
  • You would think with an extra $200 you can get a noticeable difference in fps..
    2
  • thymanbearpigYou would think with an extra $200 you can get a noticeable difference in fps..


    The only real difference between the $800 and $1000 PC is that the $1000 has an SSD. They both have the same CPU, RAM, and GPU. Gaming should be about the same on both.
    20
  • @thymanbearpig They use the same GPU, most games are GPU bottle-necked. That's how they get nearly the same FPS.
    17
  • Something i posted last quarter too :

    Why would all the machines have same percent emphasis on games and productivity apps ? Why would a $600 gaming PC be evaluated similarly to a $800 enthusiast PC ? The percentwise distribution of each metric should be based on what usage the build was meant for.

    Something like : games, apps, storage.

    $600 build : 85%, 15% . (cheapest, best gaming. Very few apps. Doesnt need fast storage. )
    $800 build : 55%, 35%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for OS + apps OR games)
    $1000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty for OS+apps+games)
    -3
  • ankit0x1still waiting for 2000$ build
    How about building up the $1000 machine into a dual-GPU added-storage $1600 PC?
    8
  • can we have a chart of the combined totals of :
    1) FPS in games
    2)time taken in apps
    for each build?

    so that we may draw our own conclusions from the data? I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn.
    5
  • System Builder Marathons should use a $600, $1200, and $1800 dollar standard.
    8
  • mayankleoboy1can we have a chart of the combined totals of :1) FPS in games2)time taken in appsfor each build?so that we may draw our own conclusions from the data? I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn.
    Percentages are just as accurate, you'll find those on Page 13 along with power numbers.
    0
  • For next SBM how about a $800, $1200, $1600. A little bit higher but more spread. I think that would better determine the sweet spot...
    0
  • Honestly i would like to see an up-graders marathon. With price points of 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1600, 2000 covered all using the same case, CD/dvd, and mech HDD (not included in cost). Those are the most common carry over parts besides my water-cooling that carries over build to build. I believe it would be a very useful and realistic application of funds many of your readers could relate to.
    12
  • bdizzle11For next SBM how about a $800, $1200, $1600. A little bit higher but more spread. I think that would better determine the sweet spot...
    I like that idea too! But the $800 PC...would that be the $600 PC with GPU upgrade and an added SSD? Because the $600 PC topped the charts this time.
    2
  • atomicWARHonestly i would like to see an up-graders marathon. With price points of 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1600, 2000 covered all using the same case, CD/dvd, and mech HDD (not included in cost). Those are the most common carry over parts besides my water-cooling that carries over build to build. I believe it would be a very useful and realistic use of funds many of your readers could relate to.
    That's an awesome idea too! We could get some old-fashioned Chieftech Dragon (or similarly-popular) cases, maybe some older 700W power supplies and hard drives, match everything and just change the platform. Anyone else think this is a good idea?
    19
  • edit.
    2
  • I would too like to see a system built with the Case/PSU/HD/DVD not included in the price, since most people building their own builds would most likely transfer those parts over (but I would probably upgrade the PSU, because it might be 4-5 yrs. old). So if we just didn't include the Case/HD/DVD into the cost than we could actually subtract about ($35 case/$50 HD/$20 DVD) $100-110 from the build costs on these SBM's. This would leave us with $500/$700/$900 build options, if we would like to consider those price points. I myself would like to see $400/$650/$900 builds with the above mentioned parts left out. This would get us a similar results, unless one would use a different GPU from the $650 to $900 build. One could possibly upgrade the GPU and get a 120/128gb SSD to fit within the $250 difference in price.
    1
  • maybe avoiding the same hardware between setups would be a better system comparison.

    I think that there is no point of comparison between the last two setups.... I would have picked an amd setup just to change things...
    1
  • lunyoneI would too like to see a system built with the Case/PSU/HD/DVD not included in the price, since most people building their own builds would most likely transfer those parts over (but I would probably upgrade the PSU, because it might be 4-5 yrs. old). So if we just didn't include the Case/HD/DVD into the cost than we could actually subtract about ($35 case/$50 HD/$20 DVD) $100-110 from the build costs on these SBM's. This would leave us with $500/$700/$900 build options, if we would like to consider those price points. I myself would like to see $400/$650/$900 builds with the above mentioned parts left out. This would get us a similar results, unless one would use a different GPU from the $650 to $900 build. One could possibly upgrade the GPU and get a 120/128gb SSD to fit within the $250 difference in price.


    yeah i think the PSU is one always worth updating as it is the heart of any system.

    so maybe a psu/cpu/mobo/ram/cooling/graphic +what ever extras you can afford on said budget.
    3
  • I'd suggest stepping the budget up by $200 for the next SBM - $800, $1000, $1200.
    -1
  • And a comment on the Visual Studio results - the $1000 machine's lead is almost exclusively due to the SSD, not the faster memory. C++ compilation has lots of disk I/O that dwarfs memory access. Speaking as a professional C++ developer myself.
    4
  • _Pez_maybe avoiding the same hardware between setups would be a better system comparison.I think that there is no point of comparison between the last two setups.... I would have picked an amd setup just to change things...
    BS :) Seriously, if you think there's no point in comparing two similar systems, you're completely missing THE point. Two builders were given full license to build anything they wanted within their budgets, and you ended up with two of the same CPU and GPU because those parts were the parts that made the most sense from a value perspective.

    You're saying that these builds should have been coordinated, rather than competitive, and that a builder should have "took one for the team" by using inferior hardware? This was a competition, that's the point.
    11
  • I think the spread between the builds was too small to show a significant difference. I suggest that you increase the spread with $600/$900/$1200 or $700/$1100/$1500 targets. It would give the builders a better chance to differentiate their hardware.
    4