Serious Gaming, On The Cheap
System Builder Marathon, August 2012: The Articles
Here are links to each of the five articles in this quarter’s System Builder Marathon (we’ll update them as each story is published). And remember, these systems are all being given away at the end of the marathon.
To enter the giveaway, please fill out this SurveyGizmo form, and be sure to read the complete rules before entering!
Last quarter, I was faced with a $150 budget cut. And yet, I made an all-out attempt to maintain the same playable game performance at 1920x1080 as our previous efforts.
So, for a goal requiring as much 3D might as possible, a rather entry-level $290 general computing machine was outfitted with disproportionately massive graphics hardware.
We're well aware of how important a balanced platform is to gaming performance. It goes without saying that our experimental use of a $50 dual-core processor locked at 2.4 GHz shows how much respect we have for Intel’s Sandy Bridge architecture.
It might have surprised many of you, but last quarter's machine delivered playable performance in every single combination of settings through our four-game test suite, including Battlefield 3’s demanding Ultra quality preset.
However, we couldn't recommend that configuration without clear caveats about its limitations. As we expected, the benchmark results recorded from threaded productivity and content creation applications were abysmal for a modern PC. But the real deal-breaker was a platform bottleneck that surfaced in older game titles, such as Just Cause 2, Crysis, and Metro 2033.
With no path available to overclock our Celeron, we knew it wouldn't be long before we'd need to upgrade this machine's processor or dial-down the quality settings in CPU-intensive games. We were impressed with the Celeron G530's price point, but ended up disappointed by the chip's long-term viability.
|$500 Gaming PC System Components|
|CPU||Intel Pentium G860 (Sandy Bridge), 3 GHz, Dual-Core, 65 W||$90|
|CPU Cooler||Intel Boxed Heat Sink And Fan||0|
|Motherboard||Gigabyte GA-B75M-D3V, Intel B75 Express, LGA 1155||$70|
|RAM||G.Skill NS 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR3-1333 F3-10600CL9D-4GBNS Memory Kit||$24|
|Graphics||MSI N560GTX-M2D1GD5 GeForce GTX 560||$170|
|Hard Drive||Western Digital WD5000AAKX 500 GB SATA 6Gb/s||$65|
|Case||Rosewill R218-P-BK ATX Mid-Tower||$30|
|Power||Antec VP-450 450 W||$38|
|Optical||Samsung 22x DVD Burner Model SH-222BB/BEBE-OEM||$14|
|Row 9 - Cell 0||Total Price||$501|
Obviously, this quarter we wanted to try shifting funding away from the graphics subsystem in order to improve the machine's general alacrity in desktop applications. We wanted this to remain a pure gaming rig, though, so we looked to the Radeon HD 6870 or GeForce GTX 560 for ample graphics performance. Both boards started at $170, representing a $40 cut from the previous GPU budget.
Picking supporting components, such as a case, storage, and a trustworthy power supply, helped determine just how much money was left over for the platform's true guts. Everything came together nicely at the end of the day. A 10-20% price increase for basic 4 GB memory kits was offset by the most affordable DVD burner we’ve used to date. Best of all, perhaps, was an opportunity to increase storage capacity to 500 GB for $10 less than our previous 320 GB drive. At this point, we've trimmed off $50 to put towards this quarter's motherboard and processor.
A desire to buy the fastest gaming-oriented processor within reach again drew us to Intel's dual-core Sandy Bridge-based offerings. Specifically, we set our sights on the Pentium G8xx family, featuring respectable clock rates and DDR3-1333 memory support. At 3 GHz, the Pentium G860 proved to be the sweet spot in a trio of 100 MHz speed bumps, priced just a couple bucks above the G850, but $10 less than the G870.
Remaining funds were then used to grab an affordable 7-series LGA 1155-based motherboard. Its in-cart price rose $5 on order day, putting us just over budget. However, we've seen other prices adjust since then, too.
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
so, looks like 500$ (Euro in europe :P) its enaugh to play any modern game that is trown on the market... ty consoles :PReply
I think it would be interesting if next quarter for your Budget PC you try to bring the performance per watt as high as you can while still maintaining an enjoyable gaming experience. Something like a G620+HD7750/70 with a high efficiency PSU such as Rosewill CAPSTONE 450.Reply
Ever since I read the 7950B/7970GE review on here/anand performance per watt for me has been a priority when selecting components.
I think it would be interesting if next quarter for your Budget PC you try to bring the performance per watt as high as you can while still maintaining an enjoyable gaming experience. Something like a G620+HD7750/70 with a high efficiency PSU such as Rosewill CAPSTONE 450.
On the contrary, for a 500$ build, energy consumption and heat should be least concerns. Tweaking, overclocking and extracting the last possible performance from your hardware are the primary concerns of a 500$ gaming build. Even after HEAVY overclocking, you wont get 50W over the stock settings.
mayankleoboy1On the contrary, for a 500$ build, energy consumption and heat should be least concerns. Tweaking, overclocking and extracting the last possible performance from your hardware are the primary concerns of a 500$ gaming build. Even after HEAVY overclocking, you wont get 50W over the stock settings.Reply
One may presume that someone after a $500 build is on a budget and hence doesn't want higher power consumption from overclocking.
Well, considering that I already have 3570K with GTX570, I'll be interested only in either $2000 PC or a graphic card from a $1000 PC.Reply
At least I can take less heat for recommending b75 mobo...Reply
mayankleoboy1On the contrary, for a 500$ build, energy consumption and heat should be least concerns. Tweaking, overclocking and extracting the last possible performance from your hardware are the primary concerns of a 500$ gaming build. Even after HEAVY overclocking, you wont get 50W over the stock settings.According to the performance summary and efficiency page of this article Overclocking the GPU had a 13%(average according to this article) increase in power consumption for an extra 2% (average) performance. That seems like the opposite thing I'm talking about.Reply
Overclocking is good for performance per dollar, not performance per watt.
Why not substitute some existing parts for either an I3-2100 and/or an eVGA 560 Superclocked?
Nice, looking forward to the next builds. Some times OC does yield its advantages, those few frames can help and have helped me in games running smoothly or just over 30FPS. I honestly don't see why people are concerned with power, PC's don't cost much to run even overclocked. Unless your poor or working at McDonald's, then i see no reason why power is an issue unless otherwise stated. This whole green thing is a pain in the ass. I'm power hungry sorry.Reply
^ there are no existing parts. This is a new build :)Reply