Part 1: Building A Balanced Gaming PC

Features
By
published

Power Consumption

Power Consumption

Rather than our typical idle and Prime95/Furmark load consumption data, for this story, we decided that the single most important number would be the max consumption seen while gaming. The highest consumption recorded was seen in GTA IV, but because the Radeon HD 4850 could not run this test, we used the close runner-up Crysis. 

The GeForce GTX 260 doesn’t consume too many more watts than the Radeon HD 4850, while generally offering a significant boost in performance. Considering the impressive results seen when paired with an efficient dual-core CPU, the Radeon HD 4890 also stands out in this category. 

Big performance does come at the expense of big power consumption and heat. The GeForce GTX 295 consumes less wattage than the Radeon HD 4870 X2, but often requires a more powerful (and power-consuming) CPU to shine in performance tests. Core i7-920/GeForce GTX 295 consumed exactly the same as Core 2 Quad Q9550/Radeon HD 4870 X2, while offering a higher level of performance--offset, of course, by a greater initial purchase price.

Paul Henningsen
189 Comments Comment from the forums
  • yoy0yo
    Wow, this is an amazingly in depth review! I kinda feel that its sponsered by Asus or Corsair, but I guess you kept with the same brand for the sake of controls etc.

    Thankyou!
    Reply
  • winner4455
    I see a great series coming
    Reply
  • inmytaxi
    Very helpful stuff.

    I'd like to see some discussion on the availability of sub $400 (at times as low as $280) 28" monitors. At this price range, does it make more sense to spend more on the LCD even if less is spent initially on graphics? I would think the benefit of 28" vs. 22" is so great that the extra money could be taken from, say, a 9550 + 4890 combo and getting a 8400/6300 + 4850 instead, with the right motherboard a second 4850 later will pass a 4890 anyway.
    Reply
  • frozenlead
    I like the balance charts. It's a good way to characterize the data. This article is well constructed and well thought-out.

    That being said - is there a way we can compile this data and compute an "optimized" system for the given hardware available? Finding the true, calculated sweet spot for performance/$ would be so nice to have on hand every quarter or twice a year. I'll have to think about this one for a while. There may be some concessions to make, and it might not even work out. But it would be so cool.
    Reply
  • ghost111
    Nice one.Now i want to see part two.
    Reply
  • Neggers
    I feel like the person that did this review got it finished alittle bit late. I can only assume he did all the testing some months back and has only just finished writing up his results. But its sad to not see the new P55/i5 Systems, AMD Athlon II Quad Cores, or the Radeon 5000 series.

    Good review, but hopefully it can be updated soon with some of the newer equipment thats out, to turn it into a fantastic guide for people.
    Reply
  • brockh
    Great job, this is the information people need to be seeing; the way people provide benchmarks these days hardly tells the story to most of the readers. It's definitely important to point out the disparities in ones CPU choice, rather than just assuming everyone uses the i7 all the sites choose. ;)

    Looking forward to part 2.
    Reply
  • sinny1
    wow! Awesome works! Can't wait til you guys get to the ATI 5000 series. Keep it up! :)
    Reply
  • Onyx2291
    This will take up some of my time. Even though I know how, it's nice to get a refresher every now and then.
    Reply
  • mohsh86
    you are really kidding me by not considering the ATI 5000 series, although am a fan of nvidia , but this is not fair !
    Reply