Paul’s $600 PC performs half as well as my $1600 PC in After Effects, again proving itself to be a value leader. Don’s marginally-cheaper $1300 machine is also a little bit slower.
Photoshop’s OpenCL-based filters prefer Nvidia architecture, handing a rare lead to the $1300 PC’s mid-price graphics solution.
Premiere Pro punishes the $600 PC’s two CPU cores, while giving little benefit to the $1600 build’s added CPU features.
Single-threaded PDF printing is more closely scaled to CPU clock rate.
Previous
Next
Summary
- More Performance, More Value
- How We Tested
- Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Results: Sandra
- Results: Battlefield 4
- Results: Grid 2
- Results: Arma 3
- Results: Far Cry 3
- Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Results: Adobe Creative Cloud
- Results: Productivity
- Results: File Compression
- Power, Heat And Efficiency
- Value Conclusion
Add a comment
Ask a Category Expert
React To This Article




The first I think I'd build as an uncle-nephew project, then he and his sisters would have an excellent homework machine that would be capable of some fun too.
Either the second or third I'd mix and match with some of my own parts, but their platforms would become my new primary machine, just to update what I've got. I'd love to win any of them.
Thanks.
Conversely, 1600x900 and 1280x720 ARE able to run on 1920x1080 displays.
Nobody thinks you're using a 1600x900 display. 1600x900 is a backup resolution for people who want to run 1920x1080 with super-high quality, but find that their graphics card is too weak. Options for a slightly-underpowered graphics card are to set 1600x900, which looks good on a 1920x1080 display, or to use lower quality settings. If you're not geek enough to know that, you've no room to complain.
Thanks.
Thanks for not thinking of me as a geek now go tell that to my ex-wife.
Thanks for not thinking of me as a geek now go tell that to my ex-wife.
People asked us a long time ago to quit with the 2560x1600 tests because hardly anyone had 2560x1600 monitors. And our 2560x1600 monitors won't do 2560x1440, so we'd have to pay for a new "QHD" monitor in order to drop to 2560x1440 from our long-forgotten 2560x1600.
3x 1920x1080 is cheap enough for most high-end builders (I got my screen for around $120 each), and gives you the advantage of peripheral vision. Gaming is pretty cool in "Surround", a lot of guys even prefer it.
for playing mantle-enabled titles, ..... may be. as long as amd properly supports it and the game developer as well. but mantle and dx12 won't help with overall non-gaming application performance, even after overclocking.
they don't work that good. my experiences with them have been rather discouraging. i'll take a high end Hard drive or a low end SSD over a hybrid any day of the week.
Are you a "one is too many" reader, or are there like a dozen of them? If they're in the tables I'd like to know, because I copy and paste stuff and miss it. If they're in the body our copy editors might like to know.
Granted that's only gaming, and 60% of this score is other stuff.
Your decision gets complicated as you move up to the 5930K and 5960X, because you have to look even more closely at the balance of applications you're running. Many power users will likely benefit from the 5960X's added cores, enough to offset its smaller frequency deficiency. Some will even benefit from the 5930K. And you get all 40 lanes with both of those.
Because the 5960X and 5930K are not as slow or as crippled as the 5820K, it's far more difficult not to consider them in any performance build where you have the money. And so, you end up spending a few hours poring over the performance charts and figuring out how much time you spend at each task.