System Builder Marathon Q3 2015: Value Comparison

Opinion
By
published

Three experienced builders struggle to find the ultimate performance for the same low price — no excuses, no concessions. Who will win?

Value Conclusion

As the recurring high-end PC builder, I’m used to losing the price-per-performance war. Knowing that buyers pay big bucks to best their friends or boost productivity, manufacturers charge price premiums that far exceed the performance benefits of their high-end parts. So while I’m accustomed to filling my higher budget with such parts, but what happens when everyone gets stuck with the same budget?

Image 1 of 3

After returning from my Prosumer PC victory dance, I’m ready to congratulate Chris for taking second place in overall value with his Gaming PC. Our SBM test suite includes six disciplines, and games are but one of these. Unfortunately, Chris' build appears not to be the true gaming system of this quarter.

Eric had the most powerful graphics card, which gave his Mini PC the best overall gaming performance at high resolutions.

Last quarter, I had to feel a little guilty about scoring a rare win by going up against a builder with limited experience in the enthusiast market. I was met this quarter with seasoned builders, but my victory still feels a little hollow. Part of that is because I’d never build myself a Prosumer PC without an SSD or less than 12GB of RAM, and part of that is because I’d never settle for a case this thin. All three of these shortcuts feel like I’m violating the spirit of the build, yet I’m sure Eric and Chris felt the same way about their CPU purchases. Each of us had but a single high-end part, and any of us could have either cashed-in that part to build a cheap system, or used a bigger budget to balance the rest of our builds.

And so, I’ll leave the future up to you, the readers: How much do you think we should spend on next quarter's System Builder Marathon rigs?

MORE: Latest Systems NewsMORE: Systems in the Forums

Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware, covering Cases, Cooling, Memory and Motherboards. Follow him on Twitter.

Follow Tom's Hardware on Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom
Thomas Soderstrom is a Senior Staff Editor at Tom's Hardware US. He tests and reviews cases, cooling, memory and motherboards.
78 Comments Comment from the forums
  • TNT27
    Console PC ~ 300-400$ build, Average Pc 800, and 1600$ ultimate
    Reply
  • Crashman
    How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
    Reply
  • TNT27
    16706286 said:
    How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs?

    Im kool with that!
    Reply
  • synphul
    I can appreciate the results of these specific systems in terms of performance but I'm seeing some serious flaws here. The 'gaming' build opted for an ssd which has little impact on gaming performance and settled for a lower end gpu while the amd mini build went with a gaming gpu and ditched the ssd? No wonder the amd mini system got best marks for performance/price in gaming. It would have been a much different story the other way around.

    Unfortunately prices are volatile and some of the prices listed aren't accurate. The gtx 970 used in the amd mini build must have been having an incredible sale as it's still offering a rebate card and yet right now on newegg it's $325 ($305 with rebate) which alone blows the $800 budget. I was thinking the newegg links automatically updated to reflect current pricing via newegg's site but it doesn't appear to.

    Similarly I don't recall the wd blue 1tb being close to $70, most times in pc partpicker it's around $48-52 and currently on newegg it's $53. If that gtx 970 were actually $250 it could've been added to the i3 gaming build but at it's actual price blows the budget. Then again it blows the amd mini pc budget based on current price anyway.
    Reply
  • Onus
    I like the idea of seeing what would happen if the current builds were "fixed." This will give useful information on the future-resistance of each build.
    Otherwise, three machines at the same budget has provided some excellent data points. IMHO, this is the best SBM we have seen in a good while now. They're one of my favorite features of the site, and this quarter's series was exceptional.
    Another idea would be to keep the same purposes (and budgets) for which these three PCs were built, but randomly assign each one to a different builder; same purpose, same budget, ok who wins?
    Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    I'd like to propose lowering the budget to $400 and aiming the "gaming" and "HTPC" builds to 1080p. Have a "pro" PC build to target pro and casual gaming workloads with a resoluion of 1440p.
    Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
    In my estimation, (read: guess ;-) slap a Fury or a Fury X on the AMD mini PC and the "gaming" PC and you're pretty much done. That falls within the $900 - $1200 price range.

    I guess the builders could also do a Crossfire or SLI experiment if they really wanted to test out wild ideas (or heck, just look around for a cheap 295X2 :-)
    Reply
  • Crashman
    16706789 said:
    I like the idea of seeing what would happen if the current builds were "fixed." This will give useful information on the future-resistance of each build.
    Otherwise, three machines at the same budget has provided some excellent data points. IMHO, this is the best SBM we have seen in a good while now. They're one of my favorite features of the site, and this quarter's series was exceptional.
    Another idea would be to keep the same purposes (and budgets) for which these three PCs were built, but randomly assign each one to a different builder; same purpose, same budget, ok who wins?
    Randomly...but we each picked our own, it's not as if Eric was assigned the gaming build just because he's filling in for game-system-builder Paul :)

    Reply
  • Aspiring techie
    How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
    I like it! I'd like to see what would happen if the builder can spend whatever he wants. One thing I have never seen here is a build that is completely and totally overkill. That would be cool to see.
    Reply
  • Crashman
    16706970 said:
    How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
    I like it! I'd like to see what would happen if the builder can spend whatever he wants. One thing I have never seen here is a build that is completely and totally overkill. That would be cool to see.
    We started out with a completely overkill $4400 build the first time. No OS in the price either :) Everyone hated it.
    Reply