Readers who know the System Builder Marathon know that the cheapest machine always has the best performance-per-dollar, partly because it’s cheap, but mostly because its builder knows which cheap parts are required to reach a certain performance level. But does it really need to always win? Don and I had other plans.
Assuming you’re re-using your case and operating system, building with $946 of the $1300 machine’s parts still gets you a marginal value loss compared to the $600 PC. Yet, if you look back at how slow that machine was in certain benchmarks, it might be worth your time to spend the extra money (if you can).
If you already have an extra Windows license, you might prefer to build with all of our hardware, and only the hardware. Paul’s $600 build retains its value leadership, but my $1600 PC begins to gain on Don’s $1300 machine.
Adding nothing to a system’s performance, a new operating system hits Paul’s value score hard. My $1600 machine starts out stronger than Don’s, but aggressive overclocking pushes his beast into second place.
In fact, games are the only place where I can really find enough of a performance advantage to offset my machine’s extra price. Paul’s $600 machine can't compete there, and if I were to put zeros in places where Don’s system couldn’t play smoothly at 5760x1080, my lead would be even larger. That sounds like a terribly specific place to find value, but Don invented this parameter for our SBMs after all.
In total, Paul’s machine has the best value in numbers, but a look at some of our benchmarks shows that it’s going to be too slow for many of our readers. Make sure you look carefully before you take a leap at that one.
Readers who expect that I’d always pick my own machine should read the conclusion of our previous SBM. Even though my performance standards are high, I’m always interested in value. And going by the charts, Don’s machine looks like the best compromise of fast-enough performance and almost-cheap-enough value.
On the other hand, a look back at some of Hacksaw Don’s installation woes shows that its parts list needs revision before we can make a broad recommendation. And that leaves me, the quiet guy who types a lot, running a quiet machine that computes a lot. I said yesterday that I’d recommend it to anyone who can afford it, and I still do.
- 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




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.