The Build Your Own Articles
- System Builder Marathon: Overclocking
- System Builder Marathon: High-Cost System
- System Builder Marathon: Mid-Cost System
- System Builder Marathon: Low-Cost System
- The World's Best Hardware Prices
- DIY Solar-Powered PC: Solar Components
- SBM 5: Price/Performance
- SBM 4: Overclocking The Competitors
- SBM 3: High-End System
- Do-It-Yourself Solar-Powered PC: Live Test
Reviews
Forum
- Why is Q6700 $290 more than Q6600?
- PS question
- suggestions on a CPU...never build a computer before...
- AMD 3700 & 8800 good match?
- Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 or Athlon x2 4600
- System Builder Marathon: Overclocking Day 3
- System Builder Marathon (Overclocking) Day 1
- Will the GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-DS4 work for me?
- Posting and reposting with K9N4 Ultra
- RAM and Motherboard question
11:26 AM - March 28, 2008 by
Thomas Soderstrom
Source: Tom's Hardware US – Keywords: system, builder, marathon
Topics: Overclocking
Syndication:
Source: Tom's Hardware US – Keywords: system, builder, marathon
Topics: Overclocking
Syndication:
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Here's a list of the System Builder Marathon (SBM) articles in this five day series.
- Day 1: The Low-Cost PC
- Day 2: The Mid-Cost PC
- Day 3: The High-Cost PC
- Day 4: All Three SBM PCs Overclocked
- Day 5: Summary - The Price/Performance Winner
With all the testing behind us it's finally time to see how each of our high end systems stands up in terms of value. We already knew that doubling the price of a system wouldn't double its performance level, but meeting basic market demands was our primary objective. Was our sub $1,000 low-cost system adequate to fill all of our basic needs, including games? Would the sub $2,000 mid-priced system provide substantial improvements in all programs, including support for medium gaming resolutions? Did the sub-$4000 high-end system prove itself cost-effective in high-end applications?
We'll go on to make our final value analysis after comparing each system side-by-side in the following benchmarks:
| Benchmarks and Settings | |
|---|---|
| 3D-Games | |
| Crysis | Version: 1.1
Video Quality 1: High Details No Anti-Aliasing Video Quality 2: Very High Details, 4x Anti-Aliasing Benchmark: Benchmark_CPU.bat |
| Prey | Version: 1.3
Video Quality 1: Default (No AA, 8x AF) Video Quality 2: High Quality, 4x AA Benchmark: THG-Demo |
| Supreme Commander | Version: 3.220
Video Quality 1: Default Video Quality 2: High Fidelity, High Shadow, 4x AA Benchmark: Real 60 Game |
| Unreal Tournament 3 | Version: Retail
Texture Detail: 5 World Detail: 5 Field of View: 100 Benchmark: Botmatch (WAR-Torlan, 12 bots, 1 Minute) |
| Warhammer Mark of Chaos | Version: 1.6
Video Quality:Default (Highest Settings) Demo: THG Timedemo (1 Minute) |
| Audio | |
| iTunes 7.2 | Version: 7.1.1.5
Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min High Quality (160kb/s) |
| Lame MP3 | Version: 3.98 Beta 3 (05-22-2007)
Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min wave to MP3 160kb/s |
| Video | |
| TMPEGEnc 4.0 Xpress | Version: 4.2.10.211
Import File: Terminator 2 SE DVD (5 Minutes) Resolution: 720x576 (PAL) 16:9 Audio: Dolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Channel, English Advanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160kb/s) |
| DivX 6.6 | Version: 6.6.1
Profile: Home Theater Profile (720 x 576) 1-pass, 780 kb/s Encoding mode: Insane Quality Enhanced multithreading |
| XviD 1.1.2 | Version: 1.1.2
Target quantizer: 1.00 (maximum quality) |
| Applications | |
| Adobe Photoshop CS3 | Version: 10.0x20070321
Filtering 69 MB TIF Photo Benchmark: Tom's Guide-Benchmark V1.0.0.4 |
| Autodesk 3D Studio Max | Version: 9.0
Rendering One Video Frame Quality: HTDV 1920x1080 & 1280x720 |
| Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus | Version: 7.5.467
Virus Base: 269.6.1/776 Benchmark: Scanning 3.82 GB Application Folder |
| Maxon Cinema 4D | Version: 10.008
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Benchmark: Rose Drop, 8-bits (50 Frames) |
| Rarlab Winrar | Version 3.70 BETA 8
Compression = Best Dictionary = 4096 kB Uncompressed Folder Size: 642 MB |
| Synthetics | |
| SPECviewperf 9 | Version: 9.0.3 |
| PCMark05 Pro | Version: 1.1.0
System, CPU and Memory Tests Windows Media Player 11.0.6000.6324 Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980 |
| Futuremark 3DMark 2006 | Version 1.10
System Test Only |
| SiSoftware Sandra XII | Version 2007.5.11.40
CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Join our discussion on this article!
- Next page Benchmark Results
It's an amazing comparison....!!!
However, it would be appropriate to raise the cost of the low-cost system to $1,000, to corrolate systems that cost $1,000, $2,000 and $4,000 for better distinction, then the low cost alternatve could shine as a value option, with E8500 CPU, 2x2 GB RAM and a 750 GB storage.
However, the second thing I was paying attention to was how the lower end system did in "real world" terms. Except for Crysis, it actually did pretty well on most things, and gave you games that were playable. When it comes to the other benchmarks, sure, you can "render that video in a minute's faster time"; but then again, in the real world, you would be working on something that takes many more minutes to render; long enough that you would probably work on something else in the mean time, or still go for a cup of coffee.
Or you can rip that CD faster, but, then again, now that we're in the realm of mere seconds, is saving less than a minute really of actual value? Not several thousand dollars worth of value.
I think I'm like most people and would shoot for the overclocked middle system.
I still remember the days when rendering took over night!