Benchmark Results: PCMark And 3DMark
The overclocked $1,300 PC edges past the stock-speed $2,500 build, only to be smashed by the $2,500 overclocked configuration. This is only minor vindication for the expensive build, since synthetic benchmarks aren’t used in our value analysis.
PCMark hands a huge win over to the $2,500 system’s super-fast drive array, a lead that only gets bigger with overclocking.
It came so close to the $2500 PC without breaking the bank.
Simply awesome!!
This article can get more interesting if you add previous systems data to the charts.
Sorry, but that wouldn't be fair. First of all, September's systems used different benchmarks, settings, and OS. Second, September's systems used both AMD graphics that pre-date these, plus AMD processors, and people would have used the older graphics as an excuse to beat up on the CPU. AMD fans would have gone nuts as well, claiming the authors were trying to use the superior graphics of this SBM to skew readers against AMD. Tom's isn't interested in publishing invalid results or creating fake controversy.
Windows 7 was only installed for the benchmark analysis. For anyone who would like to copy one of the builds and still stay on budget, Ubuntu is suggested.
If you compare the benchmarks, is more or less identical with 1-2 minor differences. What’s wrong with idea of comparing different configurations? I don’t agree with the thought of AMD fans getting upset about it, to contrary they will be happy about gaining new knowledge.
Second of all, congratulations to Don. His tweaking contributed heavily to the superiority of the $1300 machine. The $700 machine pulled up lame when not gaming, and the $2500 machine was crippled by inadequate cooling.
If I win the big guy, I'll put it in my CM-RC690 and see how it does. The little guy will get my Q9450, but Don's build just needs a better cooler.
Nice series.