Value & Conclusion
My build takes top honors in the overall value chart for the third quarter in a row, but it’s only the second time I’ve competed against Chris and Eric, but we can see these guys sneaking up, so my future as a builder may not be as triumphant.
Moreover, Eric saved $20 on his OS by getting the download version, then spent an extra $4.46 on a thumb drive to allow him to send the OS to the winner without requiring the winner to download it a second time. And he didn’t even include the price of the thumb drive in his build. But he’s not the worst offender.
You see, I was the only builder who didn’t include an adequate amount of storage space. Both Eric and Chris added 1TB hard drives to theirs, even though secondary storage doesn’t put any points into the performance analysis. To top it off, I used a $20 case. Platform price-to-performance is really the only fair way to compare the value of these machines, since Eric and I scratched $20 and $100 off what we should have respectively paid if we wanted to put all three builds in the same class.
When we compare these machines fairly, my 99% baseline (of the total average) value is a dead match to Eric’s. Only by overclocking am I able to retain my victory against a system with a locked CPU. And that is fair, because the extra amount I paid for overclocking capability is in the calculation.
If we only look at the 5760x1080 tests, Eric proves that he’s the only builder with top gaming value. Chris’ gaming machine even falls behind my own dual-purpose build, but that’s because it’s actually a slightly more expensive dual-purpose build in spite of its name.
Nobody ever said that every System Builder Marathon needed to be a fair competition. We could all be building for different purposes, and at different prices, as we were a year ago. The Platform Performance Value chart shows that my competitors are quickly progressing towards best-overall-value victories, and the final chart shows that Eric nailed his gaming-value theme.