
Test Settings And Overclocked Configurations
| Test Hardware Configurations | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| $650 Gaming PC | $1300 Enthusiast PC | $2500 Performance PC | |
| Processor (Overclock) | Intel Core i3-3220, 3.3 GHz, Two Physical Cores No O/C | Intel Core i5-3570K, 3.4 GHz, Four Physical Cores O/C to 4.3 GHz, 1.3 V | Intel Core i7-3770K, 3.5 GHz, Four Physical Cores O/C to 4.6 GHz, 1.3 V |
| Graphics (Overclock) | PowerColor PCS+ AX7870 2 GB: 925-975 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6000 O/C to 1100 MHz GPU | Sparkle GeForce GTX 680 2 GB: 1006-1059 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6008 O/C to 1153 MHz GDDR5-6408 | Asus GTX690-4GD5: 915-1019 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6008 O/C to 1200 MHz GDDR5-6400 |
| Memory (Overclock) | 4 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3-1600 CAS 8-8-8-24, No O/C | 8 GB G.Skill DDR3-1866 CAS 11-11-11-28 1T, O/C at 1.5 V to DDR3-1866 CL 8-9-9-24 2T | 16 GB Crucial DDR3-1600 CAS 8-8-8-24, O/C at 1.5 V to DDR3-2133 CL 9-9-9-24 |
| Motherboard (Overclock) | ASRock B75M-ITX: LGA 1155, Intel B75 Express | MSI Z77IA-E53: LGA 1155, Intel Z77 Express | Asus P8Z77-I Deluxe: LGA 1155, Intel Z77 Express |
| Optical | None | Lite-On iHAS124 24x DVD±R | Asus BW-14D1XT: 14x BD-R |
| Case | Cooler Master Elite 120 Advanced | Lian Li PC-Q08B | BitFenix Prodigy w/Mesh Front |
| CPU Cooler | Intel Boxed Heat Sink And Fan | Antec Kuhler H2O 620 | NZXT Kraken X40 |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital WD5000AAKX: 500 GB, SATA 6Gb/s Hard Drive | Adata XPG ASX900S3-64GM-C: 64 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD | Mushkin Chronos Deluxe DX 240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD |
| Power | Corsair CX500: 500 W, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUS Bronze | Corsair CX750M: 750 W Modular, ATX12V v2.3 80 PLUS Bronze | Seasonic SS-660XP2: 660 W Modular, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUS Platinum |
| Software | |||
| OS | Microsoft Windows 8 Professional x64 | ||
| Graphics | AMD Catalyst 13.4 | Nvidia GeForce 314.22 | Nvidia GeForce 314.22 |
| Chipset | Intel 7-series Inf v. 9.3.1025 | Intel INF 9.3.0.1026 | Intel INF 9.3.0.1026 |
Rather than manually overclock his memory, Don decided to run it at SPD defaults for baseline measurements and XMP defaults for overclocked tests. I managed to push my DDR3-1600 to DDR3-2133 by adding one cycle to its timings, while Paul’s non-overclockable platform remains locked into its defaults.
Don’s Core i5 system appears to have hit a barrier at 4.3 GHz, which is slightly lower than the 4.4 GHz I’ve grown to expect from Intel's lower-binned quad-core chips. Conversely, my Core i7 offered a better-than-expected 4.6 GHz at the same voltage setting.
GPU overclocking will likely make a far more consistent performance difference in all three systems, but only in games and perhaps the occasional OpenCL-boosted application.
| Benchmark Configuration | |
|---|---|
| 3D Games | |
| Battlefield 3 | Campaign Mode, "Going Hunting" 90-Second Fraps Test Set 1: Medium Quality Defaults (No AA, 4x AF) Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Defaults (4x AA, 16x AF) |
| F1 2012 | Steam Version, In-Game Test Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA |
| The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim | Update 1.5.26, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25-Second Fraps Test Set 1: DX11, High Details No AA, 8x AF, FXAA enabled Test Set 2: DX11, Ultra Details, 8x AA, 16x AF, FXAA enabled |
| Far Cry 3 | V. 1.04, DirectX 11, 50-sec. Fraps "Amanaki Outpost" Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA, Standard ATC., SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 4x MSAA, Enhanced ATC, HDAO |
| Adobe Creative Suite | |
| Adobe After Effects CS6 | Version 11.0.0.378 x64: Create Video which includes three Streams, 210 Frames, Render Multiple Frames Simultaneosly |
| Adobe Photoshop CS6 | Version 13 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates |
| Adobe Premeire Pro CS6 | Version 6.0.0.0, 6.61 GB MXF Project to H.264 Blu-ray, Output 1920x1080, Maximum Quality |
| Audio/Video Encoding | |
| iTunes | Version 10.4.1.10 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format |
| Lame MP3 | Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s) |
| HandBrake CLI | Version: 0.98: Video from Canon Eos 7D (1920x1080, 25 FPS) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, Two-Channel, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile) |
| TotalCode Studio 2.5 | Version: 2.5.0.10677: MPEG-2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, Two-Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV |
| Productivity | |
| ABBYY FineReader | Version 10.0.102.95: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages |
| Adobe Acrobat X | Version 10.0.0.396: Print PDF from 115 Page PowerPoint, 128-bit RC4 Encryption |
| Autodesk 3ds Max 2012 | Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080 |
| Blender | Version: 2.64a, Cycles Engine, Syntax blender -b thg.blend -f 1, 1920x1080, 8x Anti-Aliasing, Render THG.blend frame 1 |
| Visual Studio 2010 | Version 10.0, Compile Google Chrome, Scripted |
| File Compression | |
| WinZip | Version 17.0 Pro: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r" |
| WinRAR | Version 4.2: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3" |
| 7-Zip | Version 9.28: THG-Workload (1.3 GB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5" |
| Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
| 3DMark 11 | Version: 1.0.3, Benchmark Only |
| PCMark 7 | Version: 1.0.4 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks |
| SiSoftware Sandra 2013 | Version Version 2013.01.19.11, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / Cryptography, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Previous
Next
Summary
- Mini-ITX, Done Three Ways
- Test Settings And Overclocked Configurations
- Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Results: Battlefield 3
- Results: F1 2012
- Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Results: Far Cry 3
- Results: Media Encoding
- Results: Adobe CS6
- Results: Productivity
- Results: File Compression
- Power And Heat
- Efficiency
- So Which Diminutive Box Is Best For You?
Ask a Category Expert
Someone looking at just this article, which isn't that unlikely, would be lead to believe that an i7 is something that an "ultimate" gaming computer has, that an expensive motherboard helps, and that a $2500 PC is going to be far better than a $1500 one.
Someone looking at just this article, which isn't that unlikely, would be lead to believe that an i7 is something that an "ultimate" gaming computer has, that an expensive motherboard helps, and that a $2500 PC is going to be far better than a $1500 one.
They really should include performance per dollar figures in this writeup.
For the parts, or for the computers themselves? Either would be nice, actually.
One thing that would go a long way is stressing how wonky their testing is - most people reading this as advice for building a computer are going to be building a gaming computer purely, rendering 70% of the test bench pointless.
And I'm not griping at tom's, all review sites seem to do this. There should be some way to create a better benchmark. Maybe host a custom server and load it up with scripted "players" or something.
I feel like they've modified the benchmarking suite to favor AMD as much as possible.
And when was the last time an AMD CPU made it into a SBM? Modifying benchmarks to favor a product that is never showcased is a moot point.
Someone looking at just this article, which isn't that unlikely, would be lead to believe that an i7 is something that an "ultimate" gaming computer has, that an expensive motherboard helps, and that a $2500 PC is going to be far better than a $1500 one.
They really should include performance per dollar figures in this writeup.
were you looking for something other than the performance per dollar charts present in the last page?
if you're looking for perf/$$ for individual componentes, look into the component reviews. sbm has figures for the whole pc only, because the whole pc is being tested.
They really should include performance per dollar figures in this writeup.
Isn't that exactly what the last two graphs are all about?
Did you even read the article? At all - or did you just flip through charts? And then not all of the charts, just some of them. In every SMB they always talk about diminishing returns and sweet spots - ALWAYS. And nearly every time the lowest end wins the price/performance category. I've seen the mid rig win a few times, but that was only when they were doing off-the-wall rigs.
Anyway, that's not what i had to say.
What i had to say was, always looking at perf/$ is sort of narrow minded too.
If someone wanted a minimum of 50 fps maxed out at 1600x900 and above, they'd be looking at the $1300 build.
If someone wanted the best of everything, they'd look at the $2500 build.
I personally look to spend that much that gives me around 50-60 fps minimum maxed out (with at least 4xAA) in all games that i play, at the resolution that i play on. Any additional funds go into other things, like storage, power, cooling, the case, etc.
I'm a big believer in an all round rig. If i'm spending money, i don't want to regret small sacrifices later, and i do that a lot (regret small sacrifices).
.
.
.
I personally look to spend that much that gives me around 50-60 fps minimum maxed out (with at least 4xAA) in all games that i play, at the resolution that i play on. Any additional funds go into other things, like storage, power, cooling, the case, etc.
I'm a big believer in an all round rig. If i'm spending money, i don't want to regret small sacrifices later, and i do that a lot (regret small sacrifices).
This. You don't build a PC without specific purpose(s), and without performance targets. And, you cannot judge a build without considering the purpose(s) for which it was built. The SBM PCs are built to compete in certain benchmarks (and to encourage lots of discussion, hopefully intelligent). Most people don't build that way (which is no slight at the SBMs; they are consistently one of my favorite features on this site). My primary PC has a card reader, and one of those 5-1/4" drawers, and a pair of drives for storage in RAID1; you'll never find those in a SBM, nor would I ever call for them. The SBM provides interesting performance and general build data points, and does not claim to be a "build this" instructional article. I do remember a "Build a $500 Gaming PC" article some years ago (featuring a Pentium 805D) which very likely influenced the SBMs, but was written very differently. "Build a ________ PC" would indeed make another interesting and useful instructional series, perhaps one every 2-3 months, NOT always focused on gaming. I'd suggest every other one be devoted [primarily] to something other than gaming, such as HTPC, Home Office, "typical" office, CAD, database, etc. These need not be given away, but could be used as instructional articles for people looking to build. Flesh them out by publishing videos of each actual build, such as on YouTube.
.
.
.
I personally look to spend that much that gives me around 50-60 fps minimum maxed out (with at least 4xAA) in all games that i play, at the resolution that i play on. Any additional funds go into other things, like storage, power, cooling, the case, etc.
I'm a big believer in an all round rig. If i'm spending money, i don't want to regret small sacrifices later, and i do that a lot (regret small sacrifices).
This. You don't build a PC without specific purpose(s), and without performance targets. And, you cannot judge a build without considering the purpose(s) for which it was built. The SBM PCs are built to compete in certain benchmarks (and to encourage lots of discussion, hopefully intelligent). Most people don't build that way (which is no slight at the SBMs; they are consistently one of my favorite features on this site).
...
I do remember a "Build a $500 Gaming PC" article some years ago (featuring a Pentium 805D) which very likely influenced the SBMs, but was written very differently. "Build a ________ PC" would indeed make another interesting and useful instructional series, perhaps one every 2-3 months, NOT always focused on gaming. I'd suggest every other one be devoted [primarily] to something other than gaming, such as HTPC, Home Office, "typical" office, CAD, database, etc. These need not be given away, but could be used as instructional articles for people looking to build. Flesh them out by publishing videos of each actual build, such as on YouTube.
This hearkens to Paul's comment a few days ago how so many people think a certain budget range automatically denotes certain components, or how you can't claim a certain computer category name if you don't have certain components. I feel like Barbosa in that the code is more about guidelines than actual rules. Everyone can and should put their own spin on a build for their own purposes.
I like the idea of an instructional series of how to build machines specialized to a certain task. I remember Tom's used to have a standard configuration area where people could submit build lists for a lot of computer types like Sub $500 Intel, Sub $500 AMD, HTPC, Home & Office, Professional Design, Mid-range Gaming, All-Out Gaming, etc. Do those still happen? Have I just lost track of them due to the site changes?
were you looking for something other than the performance per dollar charts present in the last page?
if you're looking for perf/$$ for individual componentes, look into the component reviews. sbm has figures for the whole pc only, because the whole pc is being tested.
Those graphs use the $650 build as the baseline for comparison. This isn't a true performance per dollar representation.