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
Realistic expectations have always been a problem for the highest-priced build in our System Builder Marathon. Mixing reader feedback with practicality, our benchmark set uses a wide range of games, single-threaded, and more thoroughly parallelized applications. The workstation-oriented processors available to our most generous budget (like the Core i7-3930K we used this quarter) lose much of their value when only one-third of our tests are able to exploit their extra cores. Altering our suite of metrics to unrealistically favor the most expensive configuration would simply be unfair to Don and Paul, whose affordable machines aren't meant to compete in those apps.
Rather than focusing on processor performance, the other pricey path we could follow would be emphasizing graphics. Plenty of enthusiasts understand the desire to cram in multiple GPUs, particularly as graphics card technology advances to the point where gaming across three screens is a truly viable prospect. And when you're not gaming, a trio of displays is great for productivity, too.
It used to be that 2560x1600 was the resolution used to evaluate enthusiast graphics cards. But with 30" screens selling for more than $1000, it remained a setting accessible to only a tiny segment of the folks who'd consider themselves power users. Small, affordable panels able to do 1920x1080 cost a lot less and offer more screen space.
And so we found ourselves wondering how else we might spend our $2000 budget this quarter. Why not tackle a more pointed graphics challenge, leaving the beefy six-core CPU aside in favor of a couple of GeForce GTX 670s? Of course, that'd also require an upgrade to our testing methodology, leaving the $500 and $1000 machines in the dust as we upgrade one of our labs to 5760x1080 testing.

Today’s story compares the original CPU-heavy $2000 configuration to a GPU-laden alternative setup. We're still running the full benchmark set to evaluate its overall value, but today’s test will also address gaming performance at 5760x1080. And, keeping reader feedback in mind, we’ve maintained a high-quality case and high-capacity SSD as part of today’s alternative system.
| Q3 2012 Alternative $2000 Gaming PC Components | ||
|---|---|---|
| Processor | Intel Core i5-3570K (Ivy Bridge): 3.4 GHz Base, 3.8 GHz Maximum Turbo Boost, 6 MB Shared L3 Cache | $230 |
| Graphics | 2 x EVGA 02G-P4-2670-KR: GeForce GTX 670 2 GB (SLI) | $800 |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte G1.Sniper 3: LGA 1155, Intel Z77 Express | $280 |
| Memory | G.Skill F3-1600C8D-8GAB: DDR3-1600 C8, 4 GB x 2 (8 GB) | $55 |
| System Drive | Mushkin MKNSSDCR240GB-DX: 240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD | $200 |
| Storage Drive | Seagate ST500DM005: 500 GB, 7200 RPM Hard Drive | $70 |
| Optical | Lite-On iHAS124: 24x DVD±R, 48x CD-R | $18 |
| Case | Antec Eleven Hundred | $100 |
| Power | Seasonic X-1050: 1050 W ATX12V V2.3 80 PLUS Gold | $200 |
| CPU Cooler | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo | $35 |
| Total Cost | $1988 | |
In comparing our big splurge on a CPU versus today's big GPU expense, the biggest difference between today's machine versus the one you read about two days ago is the loss of a Core i7-3930K in favor of a Core i5-3570K. Stepping down from a super high-end Sandy Bridge-E part down to a lowly Core i5 was necessary in order to honor the budget.
Two other compromises, the loss of a Blu-ray writer and a smaller storage drive, opened up enough budget for a motherboard that supports future four-way SLI upgrades. And, dropping back from 16 to 8 GB of RAM left us enough money to upgrade the power supply for similar reasons.
Before anyone starts shooting these components choices down in the comments section, let's move on to the rationale for our decisions.
- Opening The Floodgates: 5760x1080 And More Graphics
- Budget Stretchers: The Motherboard And Power Supply
- Economizers: CPU, CPU Cooler, And RAM
- Breaking Point: Graphics Cards And Case
- SSD, Hard Drive, And Optical Drive
- Building Our Graphics-Oriented Beast
- CPU And GPU Overclocking
- Overclocked System and Benchmark Configurations
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 3
- Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power, Heat, And Efficiency
- Which $2000 Machine Is Right For You?
That is to say, as much as this one costs, it's still pretty much worthless to the majority of high-end users. Basically it's a $1000 PC with a bunch of extras.
To put it another way, money "wasted" on the other one went towards making it more flexible and practical. Money "wasted" on this one went towards supporting future upgrades to its SLI array. It's nothing more than an expensive toy.
That is to say, as much as this one costs, it's still pretty much worthless to the majority of high-end users. Basically it's a $1000 PC with a bunch of extras.
To put it another way, money "wasted" on the other one went towards making it more flexible and practical. Money "wasted" on this one went towards supporting future upgrades to its SLI array. It's nothing more than an expensive toy.
Really? If it were me, I'd pick this one over the original $2000 PC. There are a lot more people gaming at 5760x1080 and 2560x1600 than they used to be so having more GPU performance is much more beneficial. Although that's primarily for the gamers, for other 3D purposes, video editing, etc the 6-cores 3930K and single GPU might be the best choice
At 3x1 1080p money is wasted on the mobo. If you're going to sli or even tri sli look at the gigabyte ud5h it supports 3 gfx at 8x 4x 4x which should be more than enough for a triple monitor set up.
Also, shoulda gone with the 7970's!
I feel like having additional cores and going up to i7 would help if you're the type of gamer that likes to alt tab while running/flying to a destination and play some sort of FPS in the foreground. Or since we're talking about 3 monitors here, playing different games on each monitor.
I ask this because I don't think having an i5 on a $2000 feels right. It's a really nice quad core yes, but most if not all the benchmarks run on a clean windows and whatnot. I know for a fact as a gamer I have a million different things open and most of the times I get lazy in closing one game so I just have different games open.
For those of you who may wonder as to the CPU in my computer, it was the first version of the Duo Core processors. Due to the thermo characteristics of that Duo Core processor, (which also functions in my basement as a space heater, a pretty good one at that) I did not want to replace one space heater with another space heater (i7-3930K).
(you earlier ran another story about how microstutter was caused by having 2 GPU's in SLI, and how it was solved by adding a third card...)
meaning no offense here but you don't need a $400 (or an $800) GPU to snub the 1280 and 1680 resolutions. most gamers use the 1920 resolution (21.5" - 24" is a very popular monitor range) while not bothering to buy expensive toys either (like you labeled your $2k alt build and i agree on the definition).
i haven't read of any statistics or surveys but most people i know play on 1920x1080 and when they build a p.c. or try to upgrade their aim is a good CPU (1st gen i5 was the i750, 2nd gen the 2500k and 3rd the 3570k) and the best GPU the price range of $150-$250 can buy (depending of their budget at the given time). at the same time the only good peripheral most gamers want is a good laser mouse. toys like mechanical keyboards, 2 or 3 screen setups, $150-$200 PSU's, insanely priced cases and headsets are most of the times out of the question. and to be honest that's only sensible since every couple of years any setup is rendered useless so why spend $2k when you can get satisfaction with $800-$1000.
bottomline, it would make much more sense seeing 3 rigs running on the following specs (or similar);
a. i3-2120 & hd6850 (or gtx560) @ 1920x1080
b. i5-3470 (or 3450) & hd7850 (or gtx560ti) @ 1920x1080
c. i5-3570k (or 3770 is the budget allows) & gtx670 (or similar) @ 1920x1080
p.s. i'm not an expert nor do i pretend of being one, just talking out of experience and what i see from my friends (myself included) and internet acquaintances
This series of System builders series has been the best, you have listened to readers and followed the general thoughts and tested them out.
Seems to me everyone on here though thinks they could do better, so what I suggest it creating a forum category for people to post their builds in the budget range with pics and setup specs alongside the full benchmark runs to see if it is actually better. Money where the mouth is and all that!
On this build, its the choice I would have over the previous $2000, simply because gaming is the greatest use of my PC and running some games in 3d on my 50" with all settings maxed still brings my FPS down and I am using Sabertooth Z77 with 3570k @ 4.6Ghz but have only Crossfire 2 X 5850 @ 950 Mhz! (Which bench the same as a stock 670)
Saving time for a couple of 670 cards I guess!
For me I would of swapped the Mobo and Case for a ASRock Z77 Extreme4 and a Corsair 300r, then added 2 120mm intake fans on the side, blowing cool air straight on the 670's that now have 1 slot of space between them, instead of stacked right on top of each other.
Other than that I would have gone with this 2k build over the other.