The following tables include the stock and overclocked settings for this quarter's enthusiast build. You'll also find the PC we built for Q4 of last year, which is used as a comparison point.
Under that are our benchmarks and settings, for reference. At long last we updated our gaming suite to include Arma 3, Grid 2, and Battlefield 4.
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Q1 2014 Enthusiast PC Test Settings: $1459 of Performance Hardware
Row 0 - Cell 0
Default Configuration
Overclocked
Motherboard
ASRock Z87 Pro3 LGA 1150, Intel Z87 Express
Unchanged
Processor
Intel Core i7-4770K: 3.5 GHz Base Clock Rate, 3.9 GHz Maximum Turbo Boost, 8 MB Shared L3 Cache
4.40 GHz @ 1.2 V
Memory
8 GB Corsair Vengeance LP (2 x 4 GB) DDR3-1866, Model CML8GX3M2A1866C9B, 1333 MT/s, CAS 9-9-9-24-1T
Corsair TX750 V2 750 W ATX12V v2.3 80 PLUS Bronze-Certified PSU
Unchanged
And here are the benchmark details:
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
Battlefield 4
Version 1.0.0.0, DirectX 11, 100-Second Fraps "Tashgar" Test Set 1: Medium Quality Preset, No AA, 4X AF, SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 4X MSAA, 16X AF, HBAO
Arma 3
Version 1.6.89.06, Version 1.5.26.05 (June), 25-Second Fraps Test Set 1: High Preset, FSAA Enabled Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, 8x FSAA Enabled
Far Cry 3
Version 1.04, 50-Second Fraps "Ananaki Village"Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA, Standard Alpha, SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 4X MSAA, Enhanced Alpha, HDAO
Grid 2
Version 1.2, Direct X 11, Built-in Benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 8x MSAA
Audio/Video Encoding
HandBrake CLI
Version: 0.98, Video: Video from Canon EOS 7D (1920x1080, 25 frames) 1 Minutes 22 Seconds, Audio: PCM-S16, 48,000 Hz, Two-Channel, to Video: AVC1 Audio: AAC (High Profile)
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)
wow, I didn't think there would be such a little difference in gaming.In fact, the difference is so small that with all the inherent problems of the SLI, the new rig is always the better choice.
Multi-gpu problems are always overly exagerated. I am using multi-gpu platforms for almost 5 years and the gain in fps over the UNOTICEABLE and overly exagerated stutering sweep away any disavantages.Folks, don't lure yourself, higher resolution demand multi-gpus. Single card is fine for anything around 1080p, more or less, but at 4K or 3 1080p monitors... your system is going to choke even with a 780 ti.
Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.
It's a shame to completely remove the non-core components from the competition, but I understand why it's done here. A couple of ideas to throw out there:
(1) You could include temperatures and acoustics performance in the overall assessment, given I think that is a big part of the case buying decision, and
(2) A way to factor in the intangibles (i.e. blu ray vs dvd, choice of SSD/HDD, etc), you could include a separate vote between this quarter's and last quarter's to see what the readers would choose for the best build given all the performance factors, aesthetics, and other components that do not contribute directly to performance. The reader's vote of this quarter vs. last quarter and/or an overall value winner for this quarter could be included in the final write-up.
I would also 2nd the vote for starting 4K testing. And also, why not 1440p? It seems those two resolutions are more relevant now in 2014 at the level of this competition than 1600x900 and 4800x900 resolutions.
I'm sorry, Tom's, but...You really need to stop misinforming the general public who comes here for your articles and doesn't read the forums in depth.You go with an i7 for the "performance benefits," which are nonexistent for gaming... except that this rig is aimed at gaming. I would have much, much rather seen an i5, with a note explaining that an i7 is a good upgrade if you're doing these sorts of things, but isn't helpful if you're building a gaming computer.There are wayyyy too many new builders out there who think that the i7 is better than the i5 and who are just wasting their money, and you aren't helping them or correcting that misinformation - rather, you're just reinforcing it further.
I'm sorry, Tom's, but...You really need to stop misinforming the general public who comes here for your articles and doesn't read the forums in depth.You go with an i7 for the "performance benefits," which are nonexistent for gaming... except that this rig is aimed at gaming. I would have much, much rather seen an i5, with a note explaining that an i7 is a good upgrade if you're doing these sorts of things, but isn't helpful if you're building a gaming computer.There are wayyyy too many new builders out there who think that the i7 is better than the i5 and who are just wasting their money, and you aren't helping them or correcting that misinformation - rather, you're just reinforcing it further.
Hmm.... What percentage of the performance measures in this article are for gaming?