System Builder Marathon Q4 2013: System Value Compared

By Thomas Soderstrom
published

Who Wins The Value Comparison?

I already know that my $2400 machine is no more than twice as fast as Paul's $800 effort, and that Don's $1600 configuration falls in the middle.

I also know from reading Paul's Day 1 coverage and writing my Day 3 story that each machine achieves higher value than its predecessor.

Don's previous mid-priced build achieved 70% the value of Paul's low-priced counterpart in September. Don's current build drops to 64% the performance-value of Paul's system. Meanwhile, I climbed from 46% to a much-improved 51%. In other words, Paul wins by more compared to Don, but I lose by less compared to Paul. Considering the traditional low value of high-end parts, I’ll gladly accept that step up.

Those calculations assume you're paying our purchase price, though. What happens if we build the same machines today?

Don’s $1600 machine only went up $5, while my $2400 build increased $300. A smaller $125 price increase hurts Paul’s $800 PC disproportionately, since that's such a significant chunk of the box's original cost. Given the unexpected price hike on AMD's graphics cards, I can only guess that Don's Magic 8-Ball said “Nvidia”. The outcome is that Don gets an unexpected 10% value surge, even though Paul still wins.

Personally, I cut my losses by 2% literally. But that doesn't mean I’m figuratively ready to do the same thing. I like this machine, after all!

A look at the high-resolution gaming performance numbers reveals one reason why I like this machine so much. This work-friendly PC solidly stomps on Don’s game-oriented build, losing the value comparison only by about the difference in CPU prices. And my CPU also proved capable of doing about 70% more work than Don's. So yeah, I'll take that too.

Paul wins as usual, but by less than last time. And his PC is the best value for anyone who can live with it. Builders with the money to spend and the monitors to game on will instead want to choose my $2400 PC. And anyone who wants really great gaming performance at 5760x1080 without breaking the bank should take a closer look at Don’s $1600 machine. But most of you already drew the same conclusions, so I'll turn this Marathon over to the guys giving these three systems away.

Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.
31 Comments Comment from the forums
  • swordrage
    Since it appears that the 4930k is such a great "value", if one can put it into proper use, that 2400 pc with a single gpu seems to be a good idea. That way, one can upgrade the gpu after 2 or 1.5 years or get a second one after 6 months or so if he feels the need, while the cpu will still be going really strong. Comparing the pace of cpu vs gpu progress, I would always second the idea of getting a really good cpu and 2nd or 3rd fastest gpu. Also the 40 pcie lanes make it even more future proof. But of course for tripple monitor setups or 4k dual is the way to go, at least for now.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    12314808 said:
    Since it appears that the 4930k is such a great "value", if one can put it into proper use, that 2400 pc with a single gpu seems to be a good idea. That way, one can upgrade the gpu after 2 or 1.5 years or get a second one after 6 months or so if he feels the need, while the cpu will still be going really strong. Comparing the pace of cpu vs gpu progress, I would always second the idea of getting a really good cpu and 2nd or 3rd fastest gpu. Also the 40 pcie lanes make it even more future proof. But of course for tripple monitor setups or 4k dual is the way to go, at least for now.
    I would have no problem recommending the system with a different graphics configuration, even a single GTX 780 Ti with room for later SLI upgrades.

    Reply
  • Amdlova
    put the same graphic card on these 3 system and show to us the results
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Thanks for another great SBM, but I want to ask if there's a way to include some metrics in a gaming context for SSDs or RAID configs so they weight more for the overall system value.

    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.

    Cheers!
    Reply
  • redgarl
    The problem with these Marathon is that they rely too much on the budget and refuse to show us what we really want. In this case, two R290X with non-reference cooler. The overclocking is not what we know this card can accomplish.

    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.
    Reply
  • redgarl
    Yuka, If you have simple games, putting on your HDD instead of your SSD will make barely any difference. If you are like me and have some indie games, then save your space on your SSD for the big titles. I don't know many people can claim not having enough space with 256GB of SSD due to the amount of games they have.
    Reply
  • doomtomb
    All benchmark results below 1080p should be excluded and discontinued. What gamer is going to buy or build one of these monsters and play on a 19" 1600x900
    Reply
  • cangelini
    @redgarl: There are exactly two non-reference 290X cards listed on Newegg right now, one of which is out of stock. The one that's available wasn't there when we ordered parts for the SBM, but even if it was, it sells for $650. Two of them at $1300 aren't even an option for two of these three builds.
    Reply
  • jlanger
    Problem with SSD's is that the big titles are getting massive. BF3 took up nearly 65g of my HDD, and BF4 is already at 58gb. I have a 240gb SSD coming and with Windows 8 and BF4 I'm not going to ahve much alternative room left!
    Reply
  • Crashman
    12316734 said:
    The problem with these Marathon is that they rely too much on the budget and refuse to show us what we really want. In this case, two R290X with non-reference cooler.
    They weren't available when the cards were ordered.
    12316734 said:
    The overclocking is not what we know this card can accomplish.
    Au contraire, this is EXACTLY what THESE cards could accomplish with good cooling. I know that by the temperatures, but I understand that the temperature charts are easily overlooked.

    Reply