System Builder Marathon, August 2012: System Value Compared
Test System Configurations, With Overclocks
Test Hardware Configurations | |||
---|---|---|---|
Row 0 - Cell 0 | $500 Gaming PC | $1000 Enthusiast PC | $2000 Performance PC |
Processor (Overclock) | Intel Pentium G860, 3.0 GHz, Two Physical CoresNo Overclocking | Intel Core i5-3570K, 3.4 GHz, Four Physical CoresO/C to 4.60 GHz at +.1 V | Intel Core i7-3930K, 3.2 GHz, Six Physical CoresO/C to 4.60 GHz at 1.32 V |
Graphics (Overclock) | MSI N560GTX-M2D1GD5: 810 MHz GPU, GDDR5-4008, O/C to 950 MHz GDDR5-4410 | Gigabyte GV-N670OC-2GD: 980 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6008, O/C to 1241 MHz GDDR5-6504 | EVGA 02G-P4-2670-KR: 980 MHz GPU, GDDR5-6008, O/C to 1301 MHz GDDR5-7048 |
Memory (Overclock) | 4 GB G.Skill DDR3-1600, CAS 9-9-9-24, 1.50 VNo Overclocking | 8 GB Mushkin DDR3-1600, CAS 8-8-8-24, O/C at 1.60 V to DDR3-1866 CL 9-9-9-24 | 16 GB G.Skill DDR3-1600, CAS 8-8-8-24, O/C at 1.60 V to DDR3-2133 CL 10-11-10-24 |
Motherboard (Overclock) | Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3V: LGA 1155, Intel B75 Express, Stock 100 MHz BCLK | ASRock Fatal1ty P67: LGA 1155, Intel P67 Express, Stock 100 MHz BCLK | ASRock X79 Extreme4: LGA 2011, Intel X79 Express, Stock 100 MHz BCLK |
Optical | Samsung SH-222BB 22x DVD±R | Samsung SH-222BB 22x DVD±R | Asus BW-12B1ST 16x BD-R |
Case | Rosewill R218-P-BK | Rosewill Redbone Black | NZXT Phantom 410 |
CPU Cooler | Pentium G860 Boxed Cooler | Xigamtek Loki SD963 | Scythe Mugen 3 Rev. B SCMG-3100 |
Hard Drive | Western Digital WD5000AAKX: 500 GB, 7200 RPM Hard Drive | OCZ AGT3-25SAT3-60G: 60 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD | Mushkin Chronos Deluxe DX 240 GB, SATA 6Gb/s SSD |
Power | Antec VP-450: 450 W, ATX 12V v2.3 | Corsair CX600 V2: 600 W, ATX12V v2.3, 80 PLUS | Seasonic SS-850HT: 850 W, ATX12V V2.3, 80 PLUS Silver |
Software | |||
Operating System | Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 | ||
Graphics | Nvidia GeForce 301.42 | ||
Chipset | Intel INF 9.2.3.1020 |
Differences in CPU overclocking strategies are very apparent; Don followed ASRock’s recommended added-voltage method, while I set a fixed voltage. ASRock prefers added voltage because it allows its motherboards to retain some power-saving features, while I simply don't trust auto-voltage mechanics to stay within safe parameters while overclocked (and I've caught vendors violating this in the past).
An Ivy Bridge-based processor manufactured at 22 nm, a less complex die, and automatic voltage management are three attributes that should let the $1000 machine completely thrash my $2000 build in efficiency comparisons. Let the games begin!
Benchmark Configuration | |
---|---|
3D Games | |
Battlefield 3 | Campaign Mode, "Going Hunting" 90-Seconds Fraps Test Set 1: Medium Quality Defaults (No AA, 4x AF) Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Defaults (4x AA, 16x AF) |
DiRT 3 | V1.01, Run with -benchmark example_benchmark.xml Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA |
Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim | Update 1.5.26, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25 Seconds Fraps Test Set 1: DX11, High Details No AA, 8x AF, FXAA enabled Test Set 2: DX11, Ultra Details, 8x AA, 16x AF, FXAA enabled |
StarCraft II | V1.5.1, "Tom's Hardware Guide V2" custom map, 60s Fraps Test Set 1: High Details, High Quality Test Set 2: Ultra Details, Extreme Quality |
Audio/Video Encoding | |
iTunes | Version 10.4.1.10 x64: Audio CD (Terminator II SE), 53 minutes, default AAC format |
Lame MP3 | Version 3.98.3: Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min, convert WAV to MP3 audio format, Command: -b 160 --nores (160 Kb/s) |
Handbrake CLI | Version 0.95: "Big Buck Bunny" (720x480, 23.972 FPS) 5 Minutes, Audio: Dolby Digital, 48 000 Hz, Six-Channel, English, to Video: AVC Audio: AC3 Audio2: AAC (High Profile) |
MainConcept Reference | Version: 2.2.0.5440: MPEG-2 to H.264, MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG-2), Audio: MPEG-2 (44.1 kHz, Two-Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Codec: H.264 Pro, Mode: PAL 50i (25 FPS), Profile: H.264 BD HDMV |
Productivity | |
Adobe Photoshop CS5 | Version 12.1 x64: Filter 15.7 MB TIF Image: Radial Blur, Shape Blur, Median, Polar Coordinates |
Autodesk 3ds Max 2012 | Version 14.0 x64: Space Flyby Mentalray, 248 Frames, 1440x1080 |
WinZip | Version 15.5 Pro: THG-Workload (650 MB) to ZIP, command line switches "-a -ez -p -r" |
WinRAR | Version 4.1: THG-Workload (650 MB) to RAR, command line switches "winrar a -r -m3" |
7-Zip | Version 9.22: THG-Workload (650 MB) to .7z, command line switches "a -t7z -r -m0=LZMA2 -mx=5" |
ABBYY FineReader | Version 10.0.102.82: Read PDF save to Doc, Source: Political Economy (J. Broadhurst 1842) 111 Pages |
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings | |
3DMark 11 | Version: 1.0.1.0, Benchmark Only |
PCMark 7 | Version: 1.0.4 x64, System, Productivity, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks |
SiSoftware Sandra 2011 | Version 2011.10.17.80, CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMedia, Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark |
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: Test System Configurations, With Overclocks
Prev Page Chasing Down Diminishing Returns Next Page Benchmark Results: 3DMark And PCMark-
abitoms The statistician (really) in me wonders wat might have happened to the $500 system's value if a quad FX was used in it...Reply
I mean swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.
Productivity up by 20% and games down by 20% I guess. Can only speculate.
Btw, thanks crashman for the tip.
This is just me wondering aloud. So...dunno why the thumbs down -
Crashman abitomsdamn,.... thought there was an Edit button somewhere.(sorry)So adding to my prev comment, swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.Above your first post there's a link "Read the comments in the forums". In the forums you can quick edit (on the view pane) or full edit (on a new page), and in full edit mode you can even delete your second post. That is, if you add the missing information the the first post.Reply -
mayankleoboy1 Since the benchmarks give a fair weight to the 'pro' applications, GPGPU benchmarks should be there as well.Reply
And those gaming benchmarks are ridiculous. Most are getting FPS in the 100+ range. So really, there is no comparison between the systems. all values above 60 are the same. How can 150 FPS be better than 120FPS on a 60HZ monitor? -
Crashman mayankleoboy1How can 150 FPS be better than 120FPS on a 60HZ monitor?Hopefully it will go along with a maximum frame time drop from 500ms to 50ms :)Reply
-
I know it's probably hard to do, but it would be awesome if Tom's could find out the price where price/performance is optimal instead of searching for the optimal build for a set price.Reply
-
frihyland Great article, seems like it might be time to switch up the price points for your builds though. $600, $1200, and $1800 seem much more reasonable and would give us better comparisons I think.Reply
Edit: Ninja'd by chmr -
perishedinflames frihylandGreat article, seems like it might be time to switch up the price points for your builds though. $600, $1200, and $1800 seem much more reasonable and would give us better comparisons I think.Edit: Ninja'd by chmrReply
current price-tags feel awkward i have to agree.
to be more specific:
a. Entry level gaming pc ($500): you try to pick the cheapest parts so that you save for the best GPU the rest of your money can buy
b. Enthusiast gaming pc ($1000): how most people try to build, save here and there (either by finding good deals or by dropping quality in RAM and Chassis mostly) so that you can get an awesome CPU & GPU (prolly a SSD too)
c. Hardcore gaming pc ($2000): the tag is too high so you just blindly buy the most expensive parts (like a sheikh on vacation)
what would show more accurate results might be one of the following two:
1. two builds; one of $700-$800 and one of around $1500 (+/- $100)
2. three builds again but with some $150-$200 offset; entry-lvl 650-700, enthusiast 1200-1400, hardcore 1700-1900
-
noob2222 abitomsThe statistician (really) in me wonders wat might have happened to the $500 system's value if a quad FX was used in it...I mean swapping the G860 for a FX 4100 and a Radeon 7770 *might'* have provided an interesting contrast to the above $500 system.Productivity up by 20% and games down by 20% I guess. Can only speculate.Btw, thanks crashman for the tip.This is just me wondering aloud. So...dunno why the thumbs downToms did a bunch of game reviews showing how bad AMD is so they don't have to use them for the SBM articles. 11 of the past 12 SBM have all been Intel, and the one AMD was bugged with a cheap cpu.Reply
Even though SBM was I thought to test hardware with different components, apparently as long as its only with Intel.
BF3 as a test needs to be done online, wether its controlled or not, you can at least get a feel of how its going to work. Especially with a dual core cpu. -
Crashman noob2222Toms did a bunch of game reviews showing how bad AMD is so they don't have to use them for the SBM articles.Nice conspiracy theory, but I'm not party to it. So, go back to bugging the $500 and $1000 PC builders. They must know something I don't.Reply