Even though Don’s $1300 machine overclocked as well as my $1600 PC, Sandra's Arithmetic module reports that his overclock performance is less than my baseline. Since both Haswell-based processors have the same number of physical cores, I can only credit Intel's Hyper-Threading technology and a little extra last-level cache for allowing my CPU to outperform by such a wide margin.
Sandra's Cryptography routine shows closer performance scaling between the two quad-core PCs, while Paul’s little dual-core chip suffers from Intel’s disabling of various high-end features (including much of its cache and AES-NI).
Tired of my good-natured jabs over his previous memory benchmarks, Don Woligroski used DDR3-2400 to prove his machine’s metal in Sandra's Memory Bandwidth test, achieving 28 GB/s. Conversely, my lower-profile DDR3-1866 modules reach only 30 GB/s when manually configured to the same frequency and latency.
The first I think I'd build as an uncle-nephew project, then he and his sisters would have an excellent homework machine that would be capable of some fun too.
Either the second or third I'd mix and match with some of my own parts, but their platforms would become my new primary machine, just to update what I've got. I'd love to win any of them.
Conversely, 1600x900 and 1280x720 ARE able to run on 1920x1080 displays.
Nobody thinks you're using a 1600x900 display. 1600x900 is a backup resolution for people who want to run 1920x1080 with super-high quality, but find that their graphics card is too weak. Options for a slightly-underpowered graphics card are to set 1600x900, which looks good on a 1920x1080 display, or to use lower quality settings. If you're not geek enough to know that, you've no room to complain.
The motherboard would cost around $120 more, the CPU $50 more, and the DRAM at least $50 more to reach slightly lower overall performance rating (DDR4-2133 CAS 16, for example). The added threads would allow faster encoding and compiling times in roughly 20% of the tests, while lower clock rate would cause slower performance in nearly all the other tests. We'd probably be lucky to break even on this benchmark set, while spending more money.
Thanks for not thinking of me as a geek now go tell that to my ex-wife.
People asked us a long time ago to quit with the 2560x1600 tests because hardly anyone had 2560x1600 monitors. And our 2560x1600 monitors won't do 2560x1440, so we'd have to pay for a new "QHD" monitor in order to drop to 2560x1440 from our long-forgotten 2560x1600.
3x 1920x1080 is cheap enough for most high-end builders (I got my screen for around $120 each), and gives you the advantage of peripheral vision. Gaming is pretty cool in "Surround", a lot of guys even prefer it.