After several days of system descriptions and basic testing, we reach the most anticipated portion of this month’s System Builder Marathon: the overclocking competition. All three of our new builds are purposely designed to offer the best overclocking performance for the dollar, which is almost certain to provide the biggest gains to the slowest processor. Yet excessive cooling provides a glimmer of hope for our most expensive system, and that’s where we’re starting this month.
Before we move on to individual system details, here’s a look at the one constant for all systems: the benchmark set.
|Row 0 - Cell 0||3D-Games|
|Row 2 - Cell 0||Video Quality 1: High Details No Anti-Aliasing|
|Row 3 - Cell 0||Video Quality 2: Very High Details, 4x Anti-Aliasing|
|Row 4 - Cell 0||Benchmark: Benchmark_CPU.bat|
|Row 6 - Cell 0||Video Quality 1: Default (No AA, 8x AF)|
|Row 7 - Cell 0||Video Quality 2: High Quality, 4x AA|
|Row 8 - Cell 0||Benchmark: THG-Demo|
|Commander||Video Quality 1: Default|
|Row 11 - Cell 0||Video Quality 2: High Fidelity, High Shadow, 4x AA|
|Row 12 - Cell 0||Benchmark: Real 60 Game|
|Tournament 3||Texture Detail: 5|
|Row 15 - Cell 0||World Detail: 5|
|Row 16 - Cell 0||Field of View: 100|
|Row 17 - Cell 0||Benchmark: Botmatch (WAR-Torlan, 12 bots, 1 Minute)|
|Mark of Chaos||Video Quality:Default (Highest Settings)|
|Row 20 - Cell 0||Demo: THG Timedemo (1 Minute)|
|Row 21 - Cell 0||Audio|
|iTunes 7.2||Version: 220.127.116.11|
|Row 23 - Cell 0||Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min|
|Row 24 - Cell 0||High Quality (160kb/s)|
|Lame MP3||Version: 3.98 Beta 3 (05-22-2007)|
|Row 26 - Cell 0||Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 min|
|Row 27 - Cell 0||wave to MP3|
|Row 28 - Cell 0||160kb/s|
|Row 29 - Cell 0||Video|
|4.0 Xpress||Import File: Terminator 2 SE DVD (5 Minutes)|
|Row 32 - Cell 0||Resolution: 720x576 (PAL) 16:9|
|Row 33 - Cell 0||Audio: Dolby Digital, 48 kHz, 6-Channel, English|
|Row 34 - Cell 0||Advanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 kb/s)|
|DivX 6.6||Version: 6.6.1|
|Row 36 - Cell 0||Profile: Home Theater Profile (720x576)|
|Row 37 - Cell 0||1-pass, 780 kb/s|
|Row 38 - Cell 0||Encoding mode: Insane Quality|
|Row 39 - Cell 0||Enhanced multithreading|
|XviD 1.1.2||Version: 1.1.2|
|Row 41 - Cell 0||Target quantizer: 1.00 (maximum quality)|
|Row 42 - Cell 0||Applications|
|Photoshop CS3||Filtering 69 MB TIF Photo|
|Row 45 - Cell 0||Benchmark: Tom’s Guide-Benchmark V18.104.22.168|
|3D Studio Max||Rendering One Video Frame|
|Row 48 - Cell 0||Quality: HTDV 1920x1080 and 1280x720|
|Grisoft AVG||Version: 7.5.467|
|Anti-Virus||Virus Base: 269.6.1/776|
|Row 51 - Cell 0||Benchmark: Scanning 3.82GB Application Folder|
|Cinema 4D||Resolution: 1280x1024|
|Row 54 - Cell 0||Benchmark: Rose Drop, 8 bits (50 Frames)|
|Rarlab Winrar||Version 3.70 BETA 8|
|Row 56 - Cell 0||Compression = Best|
|Row 57 - Cell 0||Dictionary = 4096 kB|
|Row 58 - Cell 0||Uncompressed Folder Size: 642 MB|
|Row 59 - Cell 0||Synthetics|
|SPECviewperf 9||Version: 9.0.3|
|PCMark05 Pro||Version: 1.1.0|
|Row 62 - Cell 0||System, CPU and Memory Tests|
|Row 63 - Cell 0||Windows Media Player 11.0.6000.6324|
|Row 64 - Cell 0||Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980|
|3DMark 2006||System Test Only|
|Sandra XII||CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic, Multimedia|
|Row 69 - Cell 0||Memory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark|
And now for the results!
I have mine clocked at 3.6GHz@1.325V on a P35-DS3L, and up to 4.0GHz at 1.425V (although I would never run it at that voltage)
Maybe the MSI mobo wasn't the best choice
The whole test was Nvidia crap motherboards and NVidia graphics cards? This test was a total fail. They could have done way better, even for the money on each test for overall performance.
it just shows me the people working there just like their paychecks, because they sure don't do any real research on what systems are really good for the money. it looks like they just tossed a bunch of things together they probably got for free and benchmarked it.
The sub 1000 build is an embarrassment to an organization like Toms. Toms should not allow such failures to happen, he needs systems that command respect. All that review commanded was laughter.
No you're not, you've read enough to know that this series was published three weeks late and that the 4850 wasn't available when the systems were built 5 weeks ago. So why would you say this if you knew better? I think we can understand your motives. Shame on you.
Intel makes great chipsets, but they didn't support the best graphics cards in SLI mode. These great graphics cards didn't become crap simply because the 4850 was released, instead the 4850 raised the bar. That put former upper-midrange nVidia cards into the lower-midrange.
LOL, if you'd done any research you wouldn't have said that. But you seem inteligent, so you probably did your research, figured out that these were superior configurations when specified in May, then, just to insult everyone for being late, feigned ignorance.
Unfortunately, your comments are too sick to command laughter. The $1000 system was a brilliant build in May, and its simply unfortunate that the article didn't go up on June 9 when it was planned.
The motherboard problem was unfortunate. The team tested a bunch of processors on the MSI motherboard, and the E7200 was the only one with the problem. It was the best SLI motherboard for around $150, and if the guys had any idea this would happen they might have chosen a different processor.
What I meant was, the whole thing was a total waste of time. When a TOTAL and COMPLETE shift in graphics cards comes out about 2 weeks ago, and it was published the last 3 days, there is no excuse, whatsoever for not including it. So delay the thing 2 more days. No big deal.
Total waste of time. And 3.1 GHZ on that Wolfdale? Shame, shame.
My 6 year old kid clocked his wolfdale to 3.6 just reading basic information I told him to read on overclockers.com.
So the guys at Tom's can't do better than my 6 year old son? And if that motherboard sucks, how about using another one. Its no excuse. its just lazyness.
What that review showed the world, is like I said. The people doing the tests don't give a flying hoot, no matter what they say, about doing great tests that are usefull, all they care about is their paycheck.
its undisputed. Its a garbage waste of time, and it should have never been published. I think we can agree on that.
I can't think of 1 site better than Tomshardware. its the top level of reviews, period.
And they do that? people should be fired.
Its total lazyness.
And yes, after the 4800 series came out, which they had 2 weeks of time to use, they should have shifted the review immediately.
Its like me having a car review site, and reviewing a 07 car, then the new model comes out 2 months ago, and I just ignore it, and don't even mention it.
I would be mocked, and my boss would **** fire me.
I guess the guys at Tom's Hardware are just a little more honorable than you. They get a bunch of very well selected components for a system in May, they make promises to use those parts in some articles, then when the articles are delayed they still follow through on their promisses.
People who don't keep their promisses deserve to be fired.
To abandon the article would be pure laziness. And it takes more than two days to shift hardware, it takes at least a week to get new hardware and several days to test it.
So, if not for Tom's Hardware keeping its promisses, they could have delayed the series until the middle of This month and given you what you wanted.
That is, unless new hardware came out within those two weeks. Then, you'd be making the same claims about the new system.
for me, these configurations are a merely a dream and by sharing their experiences with these kinds of gear, it is well appreciated by my book.