Results: Productivity
One of the few applications that benefits from the $1,000 PC’s better RAM settings and faster SSD, 3ds Max resurrects that machine’s position in the value race. Conversely, Blender shows little difference between two systems that have the same CPU.
Hammering the value drum a little louder, the $600 machine shows that its price advantage just might be a little greater than its performance disadvantage.
Like 3ds Max, Microsoft Visual Studio gets a noticeable performance bump from the $1,000 PC’s memory optimizations and its faster system drive.
The only real difference between the $800 and $1000 PC is that the $1000 has an SSD. They both have the same CPU, RAM, and GPU. Gaming should be about the same on both.
Why would all the machines have same percent emphasis on games and productivity apps ? Why would a $600 gaming PC be evaluated similarly to a $800 enthusiast PC ? The percentwise distribution of each metric should be based on what usage the build was meant for.
Something like : games, apps, storage.
$600 build : 85%, 15% . (cheapest, best gaming. Very few apps. Doesnt need fast storage. )
$800 build : 55%, 35%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for OS + apps OR games)
$1000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty for OS+apps+games)
1) FPS in games
2)time taken in apps
for each build?
so that we may draw our own conclusions from the data? I am not entirely satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn.