System Builder Marathon: Performance & Value

By Thomas Soderstrom
published

Is Spending More Justified?

System Builder Marathon, December 2008: The Articles

Here are links to each of the four articles in this month’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published).

Introduction

Even when economic times are good, there are buyers who prefer to save money whenever possible, such as those who drive an old wreck even when they can afford a new car or who eat Ramen Noodles when they have the money for sirloin steak and fresh vegetables. One could argue that anyone willing to accept reduced performance as a penalty for reduced cost shouldn’t even bother with a new PC. Yet there seems to be a threshold of how much a frugal performance enthusiast is willing to sacrifice in order to save a few dollars. For them, our $625 Gaming PC might be the ticket for cheap thrills.

At the other side of the equation, some buyers are willing to spend themselves silly, snatching up the latest and greatest of everything, especially when some manner of performance is in the equation. For them, a $5,000 PC is no big deal--and anything less than that isn't worth the silicon used to manufacture it.

In the middle are buyers who, after carefully considering their own requirements, are willing to spend only as much as needed to achieve a certain performance plateau. The $1,250 budget of our mid-priced system should appeal to the majority of experienced users, while our $2,500 high-end machine should be within reach of middle-income buyers who want to take gaming and storage to a higher level.

We already know that nearly any properly-selected $625 system is going to be a good value, but its performance level won’t suite everyone. Let’s take a closer look at the scope of those differences.

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.
75 Comments Comment from the forums
  • one-shot
    My e6750 @ 3.7Ghz and ATI 4850 look kind of slow compared to these i7 based systems. :(
    Reply
  • very nice article. i love this series.
    Reply
  • skora
    Taken from Dec $625 SBM conclusion:

    Those who don’t want to go back and compare old charts will need to wait for the Performance Analysis to see how the two systems compare in straight-out gaming performance.

    Last line of the Dec $625 SBM:

    All that’s left now is to see how this system compares directly to last month's build and also to the other two more-expensive systems.

    So where is the head to head Dec vs Nov $625 analysis?
    Reply
  • Crashman
    9467210 said:
    Taken from Dec $625 SBM conclusion:

    Those who don’t want to go back and compare old charts will need to wait for the Performance Analysis to see how the two systems compare in straight-out gaming performance.

    Last line of the Dec $625 SBM:

    All that’s left now is to see how this system compares directly to last month's build and also to the other two more-expensive systems.

    So where is the head to head Dec vs Nov $625 analysis?

    Great question. The answer is unfortunate: There was a miscommunication between the $625 system editor and all the other editors.
    Reply
  • SirSuperSouthern
    The GTX 260 Core 216 triple threat allowed our $2,500 monster to chew through frames even at our highest setting.
    No it didn’t. Both Crysis and Supreme Commander were unplayable at 25x16 (TRUE highest setting), whereas they both had acceptable FPS in October’s build that paired two 4870X2s. The proof is sitting in this month’s $2,500 article, where the same group of games was compared to October’s “high-end” build @ 25x16. The final conclusion is simply not accurate as a result.

    Real conclusion:

    GPUs are currently experiencing an awkward, gangly teenage phase. They still desperately need to bulk up on GDDR5 RAM before they can be taken seriously, as evidenced by the one set of benchmarks brave enough to tell the embarrassing truth.

    Gaming @ 25x16 with 4xAA puts enormous strain on the GPUs RAM, which is why the 4870X2s were playable at that resolution while the 260s were not. The 260s GPU is obviously not the problem, it’s a good chip; but it only has 896MB of GDDR3 RAM which is completely inadequate for moving such a large payload. Its like trying to fit a bowling ball inside a garden hose.

    That said, spending $1,000 on two 4870X2s is not a very attractive option either. The next round of cards will have a minimum of 2GB GDDR5 RAM, possibly even 4, we’ll have to wait and see. You’ll be able to get better performance from one while at the same time saving a good deal of power.

    The bottom line is that if your goal is to run the most demanding games @ 25x16 with AA cranked, you best move is, sadly, to wait. I don’t like using that four-letter-word, but I thinks its appropriate in this case. Not only is the current line-up of GPUs RAM deficient, but Intel is coming out with a proper socket for its new LGA 1366 CPUs mid-’09. By that time prices will have dropped on not only the CPUs, RAM and motherboards, but the ABS Canyon 695 PC case might drop a few hundred dollars as well…
    Reply
  • V3NOM
    The dreaded power consumption test will surely disappoint fans of Intel's new Core i7, as these new processors are extremely power-hungry when overclocked.

    Reply
  • coopchennick
    SirSuperSouthern,

    I've read through all of your posts on the other articles and while I do agree with you that the best option now is probably just to wait, I don't really see an immediate solution from you. In the mean time, the articles must be made. I enjoy reading through these articles each month and I think THW did pretty much the best they could do -of course except for the RAM- at this particular time with the given budget marks (which have been chosen due to popular demand).

    Another thing is that the 4870's GDDR5 isn't benefiting the card any more than a 280's GDDR3 because of the narrower bus. Your bowling ball analogy works better for the 4870 - what must be limiting the 260 at 2560x1600 more so (as you pointed out) is the amount of memory.


    Overall, I enjoyed this set of articles - toying with the i7 and whatnot. Though we could have been a little more "mature" (supersouthern v crashman), I like to see these discussions flare up.


    Next month, screw the benchmarks and go with x64.
    I kind of like these price points how they are. Maybe I'm nuts but I don't find it as exciting to spend as much money as you can on each and every component rather than sticking to a (somewhat high for the "enthusiast" build) budget and seeing what type of performance I can get out of that. With the insano-crazy expensive builds, it always seems to me that they are just a little bit unimpressive considering the money spent, and totally impractical for gaining any knowledge for the majority of discerning computer builders who visit this site.

    Thanks for the articles
    Reply
  • randomizer
    1920x1200 Crysis performance on the $2500 system is a thing of beauty.
    Reply
  • Shit! $625 is still expensive for me.
    Reply
  • Crysis is the shittest game ever made
    Reply