We ran into an issue gaming at 4800x900 on the 4K monitors. Basically, the resolution wasn’t available, even though 1600x900 was. Because of that, we had to exclude it from our comparison.
Overall, Big Build excelled at 1600x900 and 1920x1080 across the four games we benchmark. This wasn't the case at 5760x1080, though. Grid 2 is the exception; it was fairly smooth at the High Quality setting.
Looking at the charts from a historic perspective, the overclocked Big Build kept up with Thomas’ past creations, including his dual-card configuration from Q1 2015. The only trouncing I really received in the game testing came from Battlefield 4's Ultra quality preset, where most of Thomas’ builds outright beat me (though in one case, just by 3.2 FPS).
now cue the corsair psu haters in 3....2.....
edit: i see a lot of different ideas of what "could" have been done with the money, but honestly we all know what these suggested parts can do already. using non-traditional parts in the build gives up numbers on some pieces we may not have tried out before. the numbers may not be overly positive but i learn something from them either way. so maybe take this as a lesson on "what not to do" and move on if you're so inclined. always nice to see stats on machines built with "other" parts at least for the learning opportunity :)
You can get RAM for almost half that price, a good SSD for about half that price, and an SLI-capable motherboard for half that price.
If it is I want one!
I am not a gamer but I do build a lot of CAD workstations at work. I do not see why the xeon is not a massive improvement over the i5. It is missing the integrated graphics, but that should not matter for gamers same as it works for my CAD workstations.
I have wondered about this for a long time, someone please explain.