Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Graphics And Storage

System Builder Marathon: The $5,000 Extreme PC
By

Graphics: Two MSI GeForce GTX 295 Cards In SLI

Three weeks ago, Nvidia proved to us that while two graphics processors are great, four can be better. We concluded that the only reason to buy more than one GTX 295 was for bragging rights, but with so much invested in the rest of our system, we really wanted those bragging rights.

Read Customer Reviews of MSI's GeForce GTX 295 1,792 MB


A Newegg special on the MSI N295GTX-M2D1792 was enough to seal the deal for us, but a recent price drop for another brand could have made the choice more difficult. With two brands of reference-design cards now available for the same price, our selection process would hinge on the level of the warranty and service if we were to make the purchase today.

System Drives: Two Intel X25-M 80 GB SSDs In RAID 0

One of the most repeated complaints from our previous $2,500 PC was its use of a 2.0 TB RAID 5 array consisting of three 1 TB drives. We had chosen RAID 5 for its redundancy and limited loss of capacity, but questions concerning its performance and overhead were only answered after testing it. The integrated ICH10R controller extracted minimal overhead from our CPU, but the tradeoff was limited transfer performance. Our hopes of something “in the middle” quickly vanished when we saw the PCMark performance scores.

Our budget increase would have left room for a hardware RAID card to boost RAID 5 performance, but many readers wanted to see a build based on SSDs. Using top-model SSDs would again price us out of the hardware RAID controller market, but SSD technology’s resistance to catastrophic failure allowed us to scale back to a performance mode that didn’t require hardware control. Non-redundant RAID 0 also receives little benefit from hardware RAID.

Read Customer Reviews of Intel's X25-M 80 GB SSD


Super-fast single-level cell (SLC) drives are tiny and we wanted enough space to store a few programs for faster launch times. Multi-level cell (MLC) drives, on the other hand, are larger and cheaper, but are typically slower. Intel got around the “slow MLC” problem via parallelism in its 10-channel X25-M drives.

We knew that we’d need at least 128 GB and a 160 GB X25-M would have provided the capacity we needed without completely blowing our budget. Fortunately, each Intel X25-M 80 GB drive costs half as much, allowing us to seek the performance benefits that a RAID controller’s Level 0 mode is known for.

For those who can’t remember RAID controller-level details, Level 0 mode divides data across two drives and the array size equals the total capacity of both drives. (Actually, since RAID means redundant array of independent disks, a non-redundant Level 0 mode can’t logically be called RAID.)

The 80 GB X25-M dropped by an amazing $120 per drive between the day we ordered components and the day we finished testing. That $240 difference is the primary reason our budget wasn’t used up by the addition of other performance gear.

Storage Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TB

Any high-end machine is going to have capabilities beyond gaming and those capabilities place higher demands on storage. A super-fast Core i7 processor and 6 GB of RAM should make our $5,000 PC ideal for heavy tasks such as 3D rendering and video editing and the accumulation of related files can quickly increase storage needs by hundreds of gigabytes. We chose Seagate’s Barracuda 7200.11 1.5 TB hard disk drive as a quick-and-easy way to add mass storage without slowing down our system.

Read Customer Reviews of Seagate's 1.5 TB Barracuda 7200.11


A single part number ST31500341AS doesn’t cost much, but we had already devoted the majority of our budget to performance hardware. Subsequent price drops will allow buyers to add a second 1.5 TB drive in RAID 1 for redundancy, without exceeding a $5,000 limit.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 86 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    xx12amanxx , February 12, 2009 5:11 AM
    Nice article!

    I wish i could own a rig like that,but it would be that or a 383 stroker for the F-body..lol I can dream cant I?
  • 1 Hide
    Crashman , February 12, 2009 5:32 AM
    xx12amanxxNice article!I wish i could own a rig like that,but it would be that or a 383 stroker for the F-body..lol I can dream cant I?


    383 strokers are for copycats. Basically, too many bad 400 blocks and people found a cheap way to re-use the cranks to make their 350's bigger. If you have THIS kind of money, you'd might as well go BIG BORE too. Maybe a bowtie block? At any rate, you'll win more races with a real 400 (or larger custom size) so long as the block is good.
  • 2 Hide
    one-shot , February 12, 2009 6:24 AM
    It is interesting to note on Page 14. On the Sandra XII Multimedia test the Core i7 965 @ 4.2GHz scored 486,971, while the i7 920 @ 4.0GHz scored 386,867. The difference was 200MHz and made such a large difference. Did the Intel SSDs influence such a large gain in performance or the DDR3 @ 1800MHz or perhaps a combination of both?
  • 3 Hide
    Crashman , February 12, 2009 6:45 AM
    Quote:
    It is interesting to note on Page 14. On the Sandra XII Multimedia test the Core i7 965 @ 4.2GHz scored 486,971, while the i7 920 @ 4.0GHz scored 386,867. The difference was 200MHz and made such a large difference. Did the Intel SSDs influence such a large gain in performance or the DDR3 @ 1800MHz or perhaps a combination of both?


    The 965 has a higher-bandwidth QPI link, so it should be good for boosting at least a few synthetic scores.
  • 4 Hide
    xx12amanxx , February 12, 2009 7:24 AM
    Intel is the fastest thats why...This is supposed to be an uber rig.

    Ya crashman thats the problem i dont have that kind of money..lol A fresh stock rebuild bolt on's and spray will have to hold me off until better times!
  • 6 Hide
    JeanLuc , February 12, 2009 8:19 AM
    I would love to seen those Windows boot times with those RAID 0 Intel SDD's!
  • -8 Hide
    gim159 , February 12, 2009 8:35 AM
    Yeah, Optimize the heck out of it and take all of the unnecessary stuff out.. Probably 4 sec boot, Awesome!
  • 0 Hide
    Crashman , February 12, 2009 10:17 AM
    xx12amanxxIntel is the fastest thats why...This is supposed to be an uber rig.Ya crashman thats the problem i dont have that kind of money..lol A fresh stock rebuild bolt on's and spray will have to hold me off until better times!


    I spec'd out a friend's 406 C.I. mouse a few years ago and he got through under $4500 with aluminum heads and a roller cam!
  • 2 Hide
    DjEaZy , February 12, 2009 10:51 AM
    ... maybe build some AMD based systems too, to see, how they stack up against in price/performance... just for tha fun of it...
  • 3 Hide
    _horse , February 12, 2009 10:51 AM
    Great article!

    HOWEVER, Should have used an Antec1200 for that much coin on the case. I have one at home using water cooling and its so much easier than any other case I've used to date. Cheaper too, in this instance.
  • 4 Hide
    Crashman , February 12, 2009 11:03 AM
    _horseGreat article!HOWEVER, Should have used an Antec1200 for that much coin on the case. I have one at home using water cooling and its so much easier than any other case I've used to date. Cheaper too, in this instance.


    I've owned both, the Cooler Master is a nicer case. I mean, we're just throwing opinions around now, right?

    But the Cosmos S is far more portable, and it fits the big radiator perfectly. In fact, it's the only stock case to fit that radiator properly.
  • 0 Hide
    LATTEH , February 12, 2009 11:13 AM
    With a build like that you guys should have tryed to set Crysis with 16 AA!


    well it probably wont be playable but it would just be neat to see.
  • 1 Hide
    _horse , February 12, 2009 11:24 AM
    CrashmanI've owned both, the Cooler Master is a nicer case. I mean, we're just throwing opinions around now, right?But the Cosmos S is far more portable, and it fits the big radiator perfectly. In fact, it's the only stock case to fit that radiator properly.


    Thats true, but I didnt know we were going for portability here, especially with a liquid cooled system.
  • 2 Hide
    rodney_ws , February 12, 2009 11:31 AM
    There's no way that sound "card" is up to the level of a $5k rig.
  • 3 Hide
    jcknouse , February 12, 2009 11:33 AM
    Nice article.

    Question for the writing staff:

    Have you thought about taking all your review statistics, and assembling an "uber system" based on the best parts based on what you have found in your review tests?

    Just curious. I don't remember that ever having been done before here. And for $5,000, you surely could afford to throw together all of the top notch parts into a system for kind of a "what happens when you put all the best parts together" article.

    Now you guys have me itching to build a new system already...and I just built one back in September!! lol
  • 1 Hide
    jcknouse , February 12, 2009 11:36 AM
    That is a really good question too:

    With the width of the video cards, where would you plug in a soundcard? Does it use the 3rd PCI-E x16 slot?

    Just curious. I've always noticed how the ATX motherboard size standard hasn't shifted to grow with the growth of the size of components, such as video cards and component heatsinks.

    Limited room bites. lol
  • 2 Hide
    cah027 , February 12, 2009 11:37 AM
    Why not 3 liquid cooled 285's. Maybe drop the Blueray and or go down to a 920 in the next one. Keep the SSD's.
  • 1 Hide
    Crashman , February 12, 2009 11:49 AM
    cah027Why not 3 liquid cooled 285's. Maybe drop the Blueray and or go down to a 920 in the next one. Keep the SSD's.SSD's are fast but the only benchmarks they matter in are the ones that don't count (synthetics)


    SSD's are fast but the only benchmarks they matter in are the ones that don't count (synthetics)
Display more comments