Many computer enthusiasts have the funds to build cutting-edge machines, but the majority are probably faced with the same financial pressure being exerted worldwide right now. Naturally, picking PC components that offer the best price to performance ratio is a smart play. As evidenced by all of the “green” and “energy-saving” marketing going on, an increasing number of power users are setting aside their need for speed in favor of protecting their pocketbooks.
Thus, we were presented with a challenge to start off 2009: build a desktop PC for less than $750. Achieve the best performance possible while using the least amount of power, yielding optimized performance per watt. The challenge was not only to the US team, but also to the Tom's Hardware Germany, France, and Italy, making this a bit of a competition.
With each of the three criteria weighted equally, winning wasn't going to be an easy task, though. Finding the best blend of speed and power consumption would mean any component chosen must not increase energy usage at a higher ratio than it increases performance.
Keeping this goal in mind, we set out to gather the best components for this challenge. We felt the key to success would be striving for performance, but avoiding quad-core CPU’s and dual-GPU graphics cards, suspecting that neither would shine consistently enough to justify the added power consumption. Let’s take a look our selected components, and then we’ll follow up with a closer look why each was chosen.
| USA System Components | ||
|---|---|---|
| Component | Model | Price (USD) |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16 GHz | 188 |
| CPU Cooler | Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro | 19 |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3L | 100 |
| RAM | G.SKILL PI Black 4GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) | 50 |
| Graphics | Sapphire 100245L Radeon HD 4850 512 MB | 150 |
| Hard Drives | Western Digital Caviar Green WD10EADS 1TB 32 MB cache | 110 |
| Sound | Integrated HD Audio | 0 |
| Network | Integrated Gigabit Networking | 0 |
| Case | Antec Three Hundred | 50 |
| Power | Antec EarthWatts EA 380 380W ATX12V | 40 |
| Optical | LITE-ON 20X DVD±R SATA Model iHAS120-04 | 22 |
| Total Price: | $729 | |
Difference of opinion but i think quad's are now cheap enough that not considering one to get maximum life and performance is a bad mistake.
Dual''s will go the way of single cores soon.
What's needed now is a bang for buck review of a basic but powerful Core i7 versus Phenom II quad core rig....and then some game loving overclocks to see what can be done....with a comparison of stock coolers versus 3rd party air cooling too.
Something like this for the Intel side:
i7 920
Asus P6T non deluxe mobo (or decent equivalent).
3GB DDR3 triple channel Kingston Value RAM with XP Pro(not overpriced 6 GB on a Vista 64 bit OS..let's wait for Windows 7).
GTX260(216 version) or a 4870 1GB, say.
Decent 750watt PSU, i.e. a Zalman, to allow possible 2 way SLI or CF.
That's the current sweet spot for people on a budget who want to get the best way forward at the moment.
This makes me think 64 bit apps made to use more than 4 gigs won't take off for a LONG time or people just don't want it (like the new curved screen iPod).
I also agree with most posters the days of dual-cores are very limited even though most apps can't use 4 cores yet. Personally I think a cheap E0 Yorkfield or Phenom-II makes much more sense in this case..
1 TB hard-drive? I like big drives. But, that's 10x more storage than then average econo user will use. Unless future apps will actually efficiently use lots of drive space like the 64bit apps can address & use 8+ gigs of RAM.
SonOfBlob, it seems to me the Intel system your describing is will cost way more than $750.
Phenom II's were not an option as component selections were prior to NDA and as a requirement needed to be readily available in retail.
Other Quad core's in general were avoided for our system as looking over the benchmark suite, they just don't currently win enough to warrant the consumption. There will be no bonus points awarded for a possible advantage in future aps/benches. But, we'll soon find out if any of the other countries went the quad route.
For now, take a look back at this article.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/e8500-phenom-9350e,2010.html
Citation please
And I thought the “How Much Power Does Your Graphics Card Need?” article taught people the meaning of efficiency? Let me guess, the literacy rates of your neighborhood is 40%.
I guess you are the kind of people that buys Ford Excursion gasoline to drive your 2 person family to work/school.
Did you notice the number after the $ on the title?
GTA4 is around 15GB in size. Enough said.
Totally agree.
Yes, the measured difference between running the Antec 140mm fan at it's lowest speed, vs. just unplugging it altogether. The added airflow wasn't needed, so shaving 1.2W could make a difference come the final comparison day. Again, the SLK 4480 case would have done the job for $20 less and eliminated the need to do this.
Problem is, we couldn't even install the test suite on a 60GB drive. Could have trimmed this down, but there was about 150GB used on the test drive, and if keeping the system for daily use, how much more would we need? I wouldn't have even considered less than 250GB of storage, but even that many readers would chew up instantly. 500GB would have been fine, but only if performance per watt made it beneficial.
@enewman, Matadon - This WD green drive consumed less and outperformed some other smaller "low energy" drives(look at the review linked in the description). We had plenty of room in the budget for it, and didn't see a need for increased budget in other areas. For a Black drive(and any other performance upgrade), you have to ask yourself if the performance gained would outweigh the extra energy consumed...it was a real challenge. Stay tuned for the other three systems and the final comparison.
if the article wasn't about a gaming computer, i would agree but since that is the primary purpose for this build, the 4850e shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as the e8600.