Results: Adobe Creative Suite
Adobe After Effects shows the $2400 machine performing nearly twice as well as the $800 machine, boosting the value of the cheaper build. On the other hand, it punishes Don's $1600 PC for having the same core count as Paul's $800 PC.
Photoshop’s OpenCL-based filters prefer the $1600 machine’s Kepler architecture over the $800 PC’s GCN-based Radeon. It demonstrates even stronger disapproval for the $2400 build’s two Radeon R9 290s in CrossFire, though the same machine’s CPU does very well when switched to host-processing-heavy filters.
Premiere scales well with core count. Meanwhile, our PowerPoint-to-PDF test is single-threaded. In that benchmark, the most effective architecture operating at the highest clock rates is going to win.
The first one I can think of, being kind of boring as it might be, its the most obvious one to have: loading times. There are games that load a bazillion things on the fly and are some-what storage sensitive (MMOs basically) and we all hate waiting for everything to load, right? It can be clocked with a 10% error margin (thinking it usually takes around 200ms for human response).
I'm asking this, because RAID0 could become important if we see the value it adds to our builds. I know they're nowhere near SSDs, but Steam + other games take a LOT of space. My own Games folder racks up 410GB, where Steam is 300GB alone. You could slap 2x500GB HDDs in RAID 0 for half the value of a 240GB SSD if memory serves right and 2x1TB HDDs are just a tad more expensive. You can even use notebook HDDs if you want, haha.
Also, I would have cut the memory by half and remove the SSD for getting these 2 cards. Also... you really needs to change your SBM... it is ridiculous at this point.