Reducing the component list to benchmarked parts shows that the biggest difference between systems is the choice of 3-way GTX 285 or two-way GTX 295 SLI configurations.
However, both companies also offer the competitor’s graphics and motherboard configuration as an option, and everyone expects four GTX 275 graphics processors (two go into each dual-GPU GeForce GTX 295) to beat three GTX 285s. Is this even a fair fight?
| Test System Configuration | ||
|---|---|---|
| iBuyPower Paladin | Maingear PC EPHEX |
| CPU | Intel Core i7 965 (3.20 GHz, 8.0 MB Cache) | Intel Core i7 920 (2.66 GHz, 8.0 MB Cache) |
| Motherboard | Asus P6T Deluxe V2 | Asus P6T |
| RAM | Corsair 6.0 GB | Kingston 6.0 GB |
| Graphics | 2x XFX GeForce GTX 295 1.8 GB SLI | 3x EVGA GeForce GTX 285 1.0 GB, SLI |
| Test Hard Drive | Intel X25-M 80 GB SATA 3.0 Gb/s SSD | Intel X25-M 80 GB SATA 3.0 Gb/s SSD |
| Sound | Integrated HD Audio | Integrated HD Audio |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking | Integrated Gigabit Networking |
Software | ||
| OS | Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 | Windows Vista Home Premium x64 SP1 |
| Graphics | Nvidia GeForce 182.50 | Nvidia GeForce 182.08 |
| Chipset | Intel INF 9.1.0.1007 | Intel INF 9.1.0.1007 |
iBuyPower also used a far more expensive processor, but its slightly lower overclock could tip the performance scale towards Maingear’s less-expensive part.
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
3D Games | |
| Call of Duty: World at War | Patch 1.1, FRAPS/saved game |
| Crysis | Patch 1.2.1, DirectX 10, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool |
| Far Cry 2 | DirectX 10, Steam Version, in-game benchmark |
| World in Conflict | Patch 1009, DirectX 10, timedemo |
Audio/Video Encoding | |
| iTunes 8 | Version: 8.1.0.52 (x64) |
| Lame MP3 | Version: 3.98 64bits (07-04-2008) |
| TMPGEnc 4.6 | Version: 4.6.3.268 |
| DivX 6.8.5 | Encoding mode: Insane Quality |
| Xvid 1.2.1 | Display encoding status = off |
| Mainconcept Reference 1.6 | 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 | |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2009 | Version: 11.0, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV) |
| Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus 8 | Version: 8.0.134, Virus base: 270.4.5/1533, Benchmark: Scan 334 MB Folder of ZIP/RAR compressed files |
| WinRAR 3.80 | Version 3.80, WinZIP Commandline Version 3.0, Compression = Best, Dictionary = 4,096 KB, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB) |
| WinZip 12 | Version 12.0, Compression = Best, Benchmark: THG-Workload (139 MB) |
Sythetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark Vantage | Version: 1.02, GPU and CPU scores |
| PCMark Vantage | Version: 1.00, System, Memory, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks, Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646 |
| SiSoftware Sandra | Version 2008.5.14.24, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Multimedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Yet that aspect of system builders is missed by the current review process. I'd love to see even more about the ordering and support process, but you're right that would require a "secret shopper" method.
I can't speak for all boutique builders, but I bet you would find many of us extremely receptive to any ideas you may have on how we can help mitigate the costs of a secret shopper program in a way that preserves the fairness and anonymity of the review process.
Jon Bach
President - Puget Systems
http://www.pugetsystems.com
Yet that aspect of system builders is missed by the current review process. I'd love to see even more about the ordering and support process, but you're right that would require a "secret shopper" method.
I can't speak for all boutique builders, but I bet you would find many of us extremely receptive to any ideas you may have on how we can help mitigate the costs of a secret shopper program in a way that preserves the fairness and anonymity of the review process.
Jon Bach
President - Puget Systems
http://www.pugetsystems.com
That's the way they shipped them, so it's the ONLY way to run a fair comparison: NO MODIFICATIONS.
Also notice that the system with the newest drivers lost. We tried ripping out the newer drivers and putting in the older ones: a few benchmarks lost around 0.1-1.0 FPS with the "matching" drivers, but it really wasn't worth the time to finish retesting since it only made the worst-performing system perform slightly worse than it had when it first lost. An increased loss of less than 1% (average) is still a loss and the difference isn't noteworthy.
Who buys a $4k+ system to game at 1024 x 768?
Who buys a $4k system to game at 1920? The 2560 results are there.
If they are going to put in premium parts, why do they buy ugly cases to stick them in? When are PC makers going to put more attention into more attractive cases?
$4,000 for an ugly brick. Whatever.
1920 x 1080 or 1200 is "the buzz" resolution for eye candy + fps so yeah ppl who buy a 4k pc do game at 1920 since paying 1000$ for a 30" screen doesn't give a better gaming experience then 22" or 24" screens with 120Hz and fast response times.
Then why even include any other results then 2560 x 1600? One of the systems can be for 2.5k if you build your own. I'd much prefer to spend 1k on a 4 monitor 1920x1200 setup.
So including a resolution I very obviously wouldn't use (1024x768), isn't all that helpful.
Actually, The TJ10 is one of the best-looking cases out there, though Lian Li has some attractive alternatives.
The Antec P180 and P182 are the best looking cases I have ever seen. Cold-rolled steel, and none of those extra ancillary frills.
The problem is that black paint and stick-on dressing doesn't look as good as black anodized aluminum. Well, that's not the only problem, since the P180 and P182 have a fake sports-car-spoiler on the back, use plastic front panels and are heavy. I'd expect to see an Antec case in a $2000 system perhaps, but it doesn't live up to the luxury standards I like to see in a $4k+ PC.
Aye. I know a few people who've been suckered into a certain builder who seems to not make good machines except for review sites/mags. The problem with the "sunday best", is that while this kind of QC failure may be common in everyday shipments, it won't happen to the retailers, which is why I'd never trust an article on a pre-built system unless it was a blind shopper/secret shopper type thing.
My first thought is look at something like resellerratings, or a similar site, but don't just look at the ratings, read the reviews. A company doesn't just get a better rating for having a better product, but also less discerning customers.
Ex. Company A sold computers. They had delayed ship times by 3 weeks+ (5 stars), System wouldn't boot properly (4 stars), and pieces of the computer (memory, CPU, HDD) rattling around the floor of the chasis because they weren't properly connected (3 stars). They had many cases of all these.
Company B also sold computers. They had delayed ship time (3 stars) and that was about it. They averaged between one and two stars below company A, even though the problems weren't nearly as severe.
So, really, do your research, see what you can find from customer feedback in the cases where they don't use blind shoppers.
Agree, 1920 is missing, but 1024 is there to show cpu bound bottlenecks!
Why wouldn't 1680x1050 work just aswell? I mean, these are both Core i7 systems.
Over 4K and both dont have discrete audio? Not that integrated audio is bad or anything but for over 4k Id expect a kick ass audio card.
Also wtf with home premium?
These builders need to realize that they should give a little more value for the money.