System Builder Marathon Q1 2015: Mainstream Enthusiast PC
-
Page 1:Building A Well-Balanced Enthusiast PC
-
Page 2:CPU, Motherboard, Cooler And Graphics Card
-
Page 3:Power Supply, Case, Memory, Storage And Optical
-
Page 4:Building And Overclocking
-
Page 5:How We Tested
-
Page 6:Results: Synthetics, Media Transcoding, Rendering And Productivity
-
Page 7:Results: Adobe Creative Cloud And Compression Tools
-
Page 8:Results: Battlefield 4, Arma 3, Grid 2 And Far Cry 3
-
Page 9:Power, Temperature And Conclusion
Results: Battlefield 4, Arma 3, Grid 2 And Far Cry 3
Battlefield 4
Replacing its predecessor in our bench suite, Battlefield 4 also tends to be limited by the graphics subsystem. CPU performance plays a more prominent role at lower resolutions and detail levels, though. For those of you done with this game's single-player campaign, big multi-player maps are processor-bound as well. In the real world, you'll get even more benefit from a faster CPU than these tests indicate.
We expected the GeForce GTX 970 to do much better than the 770, and it does, especially at the highest resolutions and detail settings.
Arma 3
Arma 3 demands a lot from graphics hardware as you increase the game's resolution beyond 1080p. The GeForce GTX 970 excels under the Ultra detail preset, while the more mainstream High setting exposes a smaller delta between graphics cards. We suspect some other subsystem is responsible as details get turned down, though we're confident Intel's Core i7 positively affects performance.
Grid 2
Like most of Codemasters' racing titles, Grid 2 is platform-limited at all but the highest resolutions and detail levels. In fact, it's so sensitive to memory bandwidth that my new build suffers a loss at default settings when the High-quality preset is used. Stepping up to Ultra with 8x MSAA enabled shifts the bottleneck over to graphics. The GeForce GTX 970 shows its maximum benefit at triple-monitor 4900x900 and 5760x1080 resolutions.
Far Cry 3
More than any other game in our benchmark suite, Far Cry 3 leans heavily on graphics cards and is far less dependent on the host processor and memory. Nevertheless, the Core i7 still helps augment performance in single-monitor resolutions. At 4800x900 and 5760x1080 using Ultra quality, both graphics cards struggle with this demanding game engine.
- Building A Well-Balanced Enthusiast PC
- CPU, Motherboard, Cooler And Graphics Card
- Power Supply, Case, Memory, Storage And Optical
- Building And Overclocking
- How We Tested
- Results: Synthetics, Media Transcoding, Rendering And Productivity
- Results: Adobe Creative Cloud And Compression Tools
- Results: Battlefield 4, Arma 3, Grid 2 And Far Cry 3
- Power, Temperature And Conclusion
And why a PNY SSD? Save the packaging for that. You will need it for RMA.
With a budget that large there is no room for parts with high failure rates.
We have reached the day and age where optical drives are really not necessary and just eat into budget for more useful things.
$925 Performace hardware +
$240 case, os and optical $240
=$1165
This motherboard color is so ugly ( same color 1985 pc ) and all the component except for memory . Just look inside the computer depress me
I also really don't like seeing 1.65V RAM. Perhaps 1.6V, but allowing for how different motherboards may tweak RAM for stability, already running at 1.65V seems like more of a risk to the Intel IMC than is worthwhile. I'd really prefer to keep at the standard 1.5V.
The next great card will be the one that does 4k well at a reasonable price and power usage.
I'm not going to complain about the i7. There's arguments for and against choosing one over an i5 depending on the computer's designed purpose.
I agree with Onus. 1.65V RAM does make me a little uncomfortable on an Intel platform, especially when you can get 1.5V modules for the same price.
I've been looking for a good test bench chassis and have seen a few recommendations to use the HAF XB for one. I might consider one.
And to everyone complaining about the optical drive, relax. It's not robbing money away from CPUs or GPUs so it's not like you can use that money toward faster bench scores.
Nice change-up on the case. I'm not crazy about the looks, but easy access is a nice value add. If you have the desk space, you don't even need to move it to get inside and tinker.
Also why the heck is that psu used? Doesn't make any sense in a $1000( or where abouts) build.
1. CASE. Why choose something 2x bigger than necessary (no SLI, no water cooling, no A/V mixers, no RAID array...) Do you have gorilla fists?
2. PSU. How does an enthusiast machine only have 2 PCI power connections? This bottleneck makes all the interior space even more useless.
3. SSD. An obviously terrible choice to anyone familiar with SSD products or the storage demands of an enthusiast machine.
4. CPU. Not altogether terrible, but only a very small segment of even the biggest PC enthusiasts benefit from the hyperthreading, and even then, only for fairly limited purposes. The other choices make this a terrible multimedia workhorse (limited PCI connections, SSD storage, a/v interfaces, and the absence of a dedicated A/V processor).
5. BLU-RAY BURNER. More wasted $. Unless of course, you're selling bootlegged videos on the street.
The 970 is about the only thing you got right. But a monkey could tell you that the 970 is the best choice for an enthusiast machine. (Well, truthfully, a 290x is probably a better value, but if you go with 2 cards, it's hard to beat the quality of 970 SLI). So yeah, you even got this wrong.
The money on the case doesn't take away from money for the performance parts. What's so bad about a spacious, easy to work in case? Not everyone likes cramped quarters and you don't have to fill a larger case to the brim to justify having it.
Considering the top-of-the-line GTX 980 only requires two cables, why is this a problem? What twin-GPU solution will outperform a 980 for the same money? What two GPUs can even beat a 970 or 290X for the same money? For a single, non-4K display, two PCIe leads are plenty.
I'm somewhat in agreement here. I would've liked to see a more known quantity here, something by Samsung, Crucial, Kingston, Mushkin, Patriot, or A-Data would've been preferred. Still, even the slowest SSD is still much faster than a spindle.
The exact same arguments can be said against SLI/CFX, which you're so adamant about supporting.
Like the case, the BD doesn't steal any money away.
I don't mean to gripe but I am getting rather tired of seeing the SBM's reduced to a competition of who can slap together the fastest piece of junk humanly possible. I know you strive for value but in my book value means more than out right performance, it means quality as well.
This build has improved a lot more than normal.