Results: 3DMark And PCMark
The biggest hardware difference between $800 and $1,000 PCs is the more expensive build’s SSD, and that doesn't affect 3DMark at all. The top-end system's next most-impressive advantage is its high overclocked memory data rate, which does appear to help facilitate a victory in this synthetic graphics-oriented benchmark.
As we move to PCMark, the SSD becomes far more influential as an influencer of performance. Storage makes up a big part of the benchmark’s overall score, and the $1,000 PC’s solid-state storage stands out even more prominently when we look at its storage score specifically.
Storage benchmarks make up 10% of our final performance scores, and we use the above three test patterns to represent real-world use. This is the only time you'll see a synthetic impact our value analysis, since it's a practical way for us to quantify user experience.
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.