System Builder Marathon, August 2012: The Articles
Here are links to each of the five articles in this quarter’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published). And remember, these systems are all being given away at the end of the marathon.
To enter the giveaway, please fill out this SurveyGizmo form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!
Day 1: The $500 Gaming PC
Day 2: The $1000 Enthusiast PC
Day 3: The $2000 Performance PC
Day 4: Performance And Value, Dissected
Day 5: The Surprise $2000 Alternative Build
Introduction
The objective of most System Builder Marathon machines is to give you more value than the last time you read our series. We spread these out at easy intervals of $500, $1000, and $2000, creating simple comparisons and fixed budgets. Last time around, however, I managed to build a PC I was happy with for $1741, leaving quite a bit of cash on the table. And, for the first time ever, our highest-end machine came within 3% of winning the overall value comparison. We know how hard diminishing returns usually hit the priciest configuration, so I considered that setup a remarkable success.
Many of you didn't agree, though. We didn't spend all of the money. Our SSD was too small. The machine's optical options were too limited. The platform was pulled from Intel's lowly mainstream segment. Its enclosure didn't look like it belonged in a true boss' office. And maybe we should have cut corners elsewhere in order to create a true leader on the value chart. The feedback was all over the place, and not necessarily unanimous.
For a great many folks, however, the idea of a nicer system has as much to do with its quality as its performance. There are plenty of features we can't represent in a benchmark suite, and we quite often spend money on better parts that don't end up helping our cause when we compare performance per dollar. Nevertheless, our high-end builds start with high expectations, and so we give you this:

Today’s build looks like it might be designed for gaming, but it still has enough class to fit in at the office. Better yet, the case itself is an award-winning product. In fact, most of the components in today’s $2000 build are either award-winners recommended by Tom’s Hardware staff, or newer versions of previously-recommended products. This configuration includes most of the features that you requested from our previous-quarter’s $1741 machine, it comes in at only 0.1% over budget, and, ironically, we can almost guarantee that it'll lose tomorrow's value comparison.
| Q3 2012 $2000 PC Components | ||
|---|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i7-3930K (Sandy Bridge-E): 3.2 GHz Base, 3.8 GHz Maximum Turbo Boost, 12 MB Shared L3 Cache | $570 |
| Graphics | EVGA 02G-P4-2670-KR: GeForce GTX 670 2 GB (Standard) | $400 |
| Motherboard | ASRock X79 Extreme4: LGA 2011, Intel X79 Express | $225 |
| Memory | G.Skill F3-1600C8Q-16GAB: DDR3-1600 C8, 4 GB x 4 (16 GB) | $115 |
| System Drive | Mushkin MKNSSDCR240GB-DX: 240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD | $200 |
| Storage Drive | Western Digital AV-GP Green WD20EURS: 2 TB, 5400 RPM Hard Drive | $117 |
| Optical | Asus BW-12B1ST: 12x BD-R, 16x DVD±R, 2x BD-RE | $90 |
| Case | NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal | $100 |
| Power | Seasonic SS-850HT: ATX12V V2.3 80 PLUS Silver | $130 |
| CPU Cooler | Scythe Mugen 3 Rev. B SCMG-3100 | $55 |
| Total Cost | $2002 | |
We had to make three minor compromises to get this setup so close to our target budget. They won't seriously detract from the machine's overall quality, though.
To begin, we dropped the GeForce GTX 680 and replaced it with a more value-oriented GeForce GTX 670. We also gave up our 80 PLUS Gold-certified modular power supply to grab a similarly-stable Silver-rated unit, fully aware that our chassis of choice was designed to hide its left-over cables. Finally, we compromised our preferred CPU cooler in favor of a highly-recommended model that costs less.
One question remains, however: as we watch Paul and Don exploit advances in technology to generate even more value from their machines, can I even get close to what last quarter's build managed to do for less money?
- Finding Value In Higher Quality
- CPU, Cooler, And Memory
- Graphics, Motherboard, And Power Supply
- Case And Drives
- Assembling Our $2000 Performance PC
- Getting Our Core i7-3930K To 4.6 GHz
- Pushing GeForce GTX 670 To Its Limit
- Test Settings And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3 And DiRT 3
- Benchmark Results: Skyrim And StarCraft II
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- Sometimes, Lower Value Is OK
Your config would only be better if there were significant changes to the benchmark set.
So your real beef is with your fellow readers, not the builder of this machine.
So... i notice now that it opens at August 20, not August 19 when the $500 SBM appeared. I submitted my entry at August 19 10:30 PM. So that means that i haven't entered into the sweepstakes, or did i? I am confused, cause only one entry can be accepted.
Gigabyte G1 Assassin Z77
120GB SSD
500GB HDD
2xGTX 670
2x4GB DDR3 1866
And still probably cheaper with obviously better performance.
It would be very interesting, the IvyBridge chips in productivity numbers hold quite well with the SB-E chips that is the only area which should be a contest.
2x670 is overkill for 1920x1080.
But a 2000$ build is already overkill. So this SLI setup is OK
I just tossed a build together on PC Partpicker that would absolutely DESTROY this build.
CPU - 3570K
CPU Cooler - Corsair H100
Mobo - ASUS P8Z77-V
RAM - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB (2x4GB) 1600
SSD - Corsair Force GS 360GB
GPU - ASUS GTX670 x2 in SLI
Case - Corsair 550D
PSU - Corsair AX750
Optical - Asus whatever
If you purchased everything from Newegg it would be $2070. Yes, a bit over the budget, but I am sure I could trim that off somewhere without too much difficulty. I definitely didn't go with the best valued products in my build. The Platinum ram is double the price of their normal RAM, but it fit with the theme espoused by the author of this article of having a QUALITY build, which I totally agree with.
On the subject of quality, I have chosen a better cooler, better case, and better PSU. How can anybody seriously justify buying a non-modular PSU for a $2k build? That is insane to me. I wish I had the $2k to actually put this build together with a couple of tweaks and put it up against Soderstrom's build and watch him weep as his system gets destroyed.
Also, I realize I haven't selected a storage drive. I just went with one big SSD. Yes, the 2TB is nice, but I don't think most people actually need that kind of storage, and if you are somebody that does need it, it is a separate cost that should be part of the main build, IMO. Similarly, we typically don't include monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. pricing into builds. I think mass storage needs to join this category.
Your config would only be better if there were significant changes to the benchmark set.
I'm going to take a long shot and say, blow the leftover money on quad SLI support. That could lead to even more tests down the road, no?
Of course an Ivy Bridge SLI build would still lose under this benchmark set, so it would need to be tested at higher gaming resolutions. Is everyone OK with 5760x1080?
Have you looked at the test results? The old build with a GTX680 beats the current build when you look at maximum settings at 2560x1600. Let me say this again, at the highest settings and full resolution the old build with the GTX680 beats the current build on every single game tested in this article. Every single game.
A 670 SLI setup would only further the performance gap.
On the other hand, heavily-threaded programs make up 50% of the encoding and 75% of the productivity benchmarks. That's 37.5% (15%+22.5%) of the benchmark totals. 37.5% is a much larger portion than 7.5%, so 3930K+GTX 670 beats 3570+SLI. It's simple math, and the only way to change that math is to change the benchmarks.
Really, dropping the 3930K only furthers the performance gap.
First, I would argue that when it comes to a $2k build, the only thing that matters in terms of gaming benchmarks are the max settings and resolution. When you are spending that much, it literally doesn't matter how well it can do on mid settings and 1080p. Completely irrelevant.
Secondly, I might have to argue that the benchmarks should be changed to better reflect real-world scenarios instead of reporting Sandra numbers.
It is just extremely frustrating to see a build like this. With $2k there is so much potential to put together a truly great and balanced machine. This build is far from that. Soderstrom had all that money, and it just feels like he picked out a crazy CPU and then just went down the line and picked random other hardware. I also realize some of the choices are personal preference. I personally think the Phantom 410 just looks awful. When I see a case that looks like that, it makes me think of a 14 year old kid building a "cool" PC.
There is also that fact that every single component in this build all come from different companies. For budget builds that absolutely makes sense. You have to find deals where they are and that pretty much always means buying different brands. But, he had $2000. It is just something that makes no sense to me, to open up a PC and see that every single component not matching up in any way.
The whole build just feels like Soderstrom picked a CPU, and then just added the rest of the parts to the cart and he just didn't save the proper budget for a GPU and decided to downgrade it instead of figuring out where money was just being wasted.
So your real beef is with your fellow readers, not the builder of this machine.