If you’re going to spend upwards of $3,000 on a PC gaming rig, you’re probably expecting a monster machine that can take whatever you throw at it, spit it out, and then ask for more. And with perfectly good gaming machines available in the $1,500 range, you’d be right to expect something special for double the price!
iBuypower wanted to prove to us that their Gamer 942IL system was worth every bit of its $3,599 asking price, so they sent us a test unit to vigorously pummel with high resolution gaming benchmarks, as well as anything else that tickled our fancy.
If you’re looking to invest in something that will last a long time before reaching obsolescence; if you have money to burn and an ego to feed; or if you’re just plain curious about what the latest and greatest hardware can accomplish, read on!
I would think someone who's going to spend that much money on a PC would like to know how the computer fairs in the mother of all benchmarks.
How about benchmarking some newer games that are actually a bit more demanding than the old games you're using just to show some high numbers?
Also, why on earth would someone spend all that money when you can get the same configuration yourself for half the price?
Tech support is never worth that much money, IMO.
That was the only gaming benchmark that I was planning to take note of when I started the reading the article. This is like reviewing a new system 2 years ago and not running an Oblivian benchmark. Makes no sense?
Pre-built systems may look nice though they generally are built for people who are going to burn money once every two or three years on a new system. I'm still happy with my 939 setup and won't bother to upgrade until socket AM3 any way.
Second, why would they even do the testing when the system they recevied is not the one customers will get? If someone is spending $3500 on a system, chances are they are not saavy enough to build one themselves, then they are probably not going to overclock the system. Also, the system they received is not even covered under the company's warranty.
All Tom's did is prove they are desperate for material to right articles about, that Uberclok is a superior company, and that ibuypower is a bunch of cheating crooks.
It's really been a mixed bag lately with Tom's sites. I've got to start looking elsewhere for my tech news.
First off, I challenge anyone who says that a product isn't worth reviewing. If all we did was review the industry best, 100% of the time, we really wouldn't have any idea what differentiates the best from the rest - would we? So the elitist 'let's only review the stuff we already know is great' attitude is pretty lame, as far as I'm concerned.
Crysis? Yeah, that would have been nice. The reason we didn't bench it is that the closest system we had to compare the iBuypower to was the Uberclock system, which Crysis wasn't benched on and we no longer have in the lab. It wasn't my call not to bench Crysis on the Uberclock system in the first place.
Having said that, who here is incapable of recognizing a performance difference without Crysis holding their hand? Seriously. Does the existence of Crysis make all other forms of performance measure useless? I don't think so, the delta is still there and demonstrates the point. And what about all of the other non-gaming benchmarks that are quite valid?
Clearly, you guys want to see Crysis as a benchmark staple, I'm not even disagreeing with you and I'll do what I can to make sure it's always included in the future.
What I don't understand is the hair trigger you guys have on the gun that instantly blasts any review as useless when, really, there's a hell of a lot of relevant content in there. There's plenty of information to base a valid conclusion on, even without Crysis.
Even though Crysis should not be the only means to benchmark a system, it is a standard today that should be used. Not all games scale the same with different system configurations, so looking at Prey and Quake 4 benchmarks will not definitively tell me how Crysis will perform on a specific system.
Considering that game benchmarks are based on absolute numbers like FPS, having done a benchmark with Crysis would still be useful even though the there was no data available for the Uberclock.
I still think the article was useful however.
The fact that the performance results were so close kind of justifies the comparison...
I don't think you disagree with me, I never said Crysis shouldn't be benchmarked. As I said, I'd have preferred to have Crysis included as well and will do what I can to make sure it's included in the future.
My point is that the lack of Crysis doesn't automatically invalidate the results and the review.
I bought a $4,000 laptop from Alienware, it was DOA, sent it back, came back a month later and still DOA, asked for a refund, they said it's been over a month.
Honestly, you can't possibly do worse than Alienware. They are the bottom of the bucket, most aweful computer company on the planet. www.alienwaresucks.com
I think my disagreement stands. Even though you never said it shouldn't be benchmarked, you are saying it didn't matter. If you're reviewing a gaming PC today, especially a $3600 one, then Crysis is a must because it tests the extremes. It doesn't invalidate the results but they're incomplete and it leaves a gaping hole for the majority of readers.