System Builder Marathon: Performance And Value Compared
-
Page 1:One, Twice, Three Times A PC
-
Page 2:Benchmark And Overclock Settings
-
Page 3:Results: 3DMark And PCMark
-
Page 4:Results: SiSoftware Sandra
-
Page 5:Results: Battlefield 3
-
Page 6:Results: F1 2012
-
Page 7:Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
-
Page 8:Results: Far Cry 3
-
Page 9:Results: Audio And Video Encoding
-
Page 10:Results: Adobe Creative Suite
-
Page 11:Results: Productivity
-
Page 12:Results: File Compression
-
Page 13:Power And Heat
-
Page 14:Average Performance And Efficiency
-
Page 15:Does Paul, Don, Or Thomas Win This Round?
Results: Battlefield 3
A 200 FPS limit in Battlefield 3 hurts value for both the $2550 and $1300 boxes, since their performance is capped in any price-to-performance analysis. The results become more interesting when graphics detail levels push GPU performance below the cap, but that doesn’t happen consistently for the $2550 machine until we reach 4800x900.
The $650 PC only gets tested up to 4800x900, and even then survives that high mark at Ultra quality details when Paul overclocks it.
Summary
- One, Twice, Three Times A PC
- Benchmark And Overclock Settings
- Results: 3DMark And PCMark
- Results: SiSoftware Sandra
- Results: Battlefield 3
- Results: F1 2012
- Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Results: Far Cry 3
- Results: Audio And Video Encoding
- Results: Adobe Creative Suite
- Results: Productivity
- Results: File Compression
- Power And Heat
- Average Performance And Efficiency
- Does Paul, Don, Or Thomas Win This Round?
Basically, at what point between $650 and $1300 does the price/performance ratio seriously diminish?
One of our SBM's focused on that question. It's currently somewhere around $700.
you didn't bother reading the benching at all apparently. The 650 build was way over 60fps in all titles on ultra settings at 1080p except for far cry (it was even over 60fps on skyrim, which really hates amd cpus). Far Cry 3 has always been a gpu melter in the category of crysis 3; so it shouldn't be surprising a 760gtx can't max fc3 on ultra at 1080p. It doesn't in any other bench anywhere either. And fc3 was clearly playable on ultra at 1080p (30-40fps). Personally if i built a $650 machine and it killed every game i threw at it at 1080p and 60fps i'd call it a day. there really isn't a reason to spend more on your hardware unless you're going to spend a fortune on better/multiple monitors with bigger resolutions...
Computer tech has come a long way, that we basically have a mainstream gaming platform at 1080p for $650 is a great thing.
Actually what you realise is that the CPU on the $650 build is probably good enough for a GTX 780/AMD7970 or 2 GTX 760's in SLI. With that added expenditure of only $150-300 you could play anything you want to at 1080p without the PC breaking a sweat. It goes to show that, while the AMD Piledrivers are far behind intel's quad core K series, they can still represent decent value for a gaming PC. Nice article.
GIGABYTE GV-R795WF3-3GD Radeon HD 7950 3GB for $224 ($199 after rebate)
and spent the additional money on a ,
COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus
which gives plenty of headroom to take a fx-6300 to an easy 4.5 ghz OC with low temps. Just built my first 2 FX-6300s this way with absolutely no problem.
With an extra Gig of graphics memory, comparable gpu oc ability and framerates and a solid OC on the cpu I think this system would be an easy walk away winner.
2.) You need application benchmarks to SHOW performance proportionality.
You need those things. We don't. We could just discuss the results without showing them, but that discussion wouldn't make sense to you. And, you might be the first one to ask what we're hiding by not showing the charts.
2013 Ford Taurus SHO
MSRP: $28,900
0-60 time: 5.1
Relative Price: 100%
Relative Perf: 100%
"Value": 100%
2013 Ford Shelby GT500
MSRP: $59,200
0-60 time: 3.6
Relative Price: 205%
Relative Perf: 142%
"Value": 69%
2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S
MSRP: $97,350
0-60 time: 2.9
Relative Price: 337%
Relative Perf: 176%
"Value": 52%
I suppose that means that true "value" is more than just what the numbers say. Price/performance is one thing. "Value" is something much more complex in the mind of the buyer.
I have a feeling this is mostly due to the consoles pretty much dictating visual progress in most cases. As a result there isn't a need to increase performance of machines much, so Intel improves efficiency for other markets.
As a result, people don't really get new machines as often cause there isn't much of a need. Hell I'm sitting on a Core i5 750 and only just recently started considering a new machine. I'll build a new one next year... When my machine crosses the 5 year old mark...
And Tech companies sit and wonder why pc sales have slowed down? :\
Gee, if only there had been extensive benchmarks on all three systems for the last three days. Nah, that's crazy talk.
Also, I really don't need benchmarks to know about performance proportionality. I've been into computer hardware for more than 15 minutes, so it's not exactly news to me that the entire market is subject to diminishing returns. I can't even remember the last time when a $400 CPU or GPU offered more than double the performance of a $200 one.
p.s. Please have newer games next year! 2013 titles should be a min requirement.