System Builder Marathon, Q2 2013: System Value Compared
Results: SiSoftware Sandra
The $2500 PC takes a surprisingly large win over its $1300 counterpart in Sandra's Arithmetic component. Both processors possess the same number of physical cores. However, the addition of Hyper-Threading technology allows the Core i7 to post much higher numbers in this synthetic measure of compute performance. In the real world, SMT won't have such a pronounced effect. Then again, that's why this is a synthetic, and why we don't factor most in synthetics to our overall scoring.
The $1300 machine’s CAS 11 memory defaults do a good job of keeping up with the $2500 machine’s CAS 8 XMP configuration, though overclocking makes the big difference.
Unable to operate any faster, the $650 machine’s dual-channel memory controller is stuck at a still-good 20 GB/s.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: Results: SiSoftware Sandra
Prev Page Results: 3DMark And PCMark Next Page Results: Battlefield 3-
manitoublack Great to see M-ITX in a SBM. The days of needing a full sized ATX are mostly over for 90% of people. M-ATO or M-ITX is the way forward.Reply -
DarkSable Sigh. This is why I really, really dislike the system builder marathons; they do nothing but perpetuate the fallacies that already are far too common.Reply
Someone looking at just this article, which isn't that unlikely, would be lead to believe that an i7 is something that an "ultimate" gaming computer has, that an expensive motherboard helps, and that a $2500 PC is going to be far better than a $1500 one. -
slomo4sho 11041161 said:Sigh. This is why I really, really dislike the system builder marathons; they do nothing but perpetuate the fallacies that already are far too common.
Someone looking at just this article, which isn't that unlikely, would be lead to believe that an i7 is something that an "ultimate" gaming computer has, that an expensive motherboard helps, and that a $2500 PC is going to be far better than a $1500 one.
They really should include performance per dollar figures in this writeup. -
DarkSable 11041186 said:They really should include performance per dollar figures in this writeup.
For the parts, or for the computers themselves? Either would be nice, actually.
One thing that would go a long way is stressing how wonky their testing is - most people reading this as advice for building a computer are going to be building a gaming computer purely, rendering 70% of the test bench pointless. -
slicedtoad I still don't like the bf3 benchmarks. They in no way represent the online experience and really, people that play bf3 spend at least 95% of their time on mp. I realize it's nearly impossible to generate a fair benchmark for online play but the current benchmarks are very misleading.Reply
And I'm not griping at tom's, all review sites seem to do this. There should be some way to create a better benchmark. Maybe host a custom server and load it up with scripted "players" or something. -
Achoo22 11041210 said:most people reading this as advice for building a computer are going to be building a gaming computer purely, rendering 70% of the test bench pointless.
I feel like they've modified the benchmarking suite to favor AMD as much as possible. -
slomo4sho 11041382 said:I feel like they've modified the benchmarking suite to favor AMD as much as possible.
And when was the last time an AMD CPU made it into a SBM? Modifying benchmarks to favor a product that is never showcased is a moot point.