Best Bang for the buck: How much should you spend on a new system?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
What is the best bang-for-the-buck GAMER solution that will save you the most money in the future?

Continuing in the spirit of the comparison that started this thread I would like to do an experiment to find out what the best bang-for-the-buck system solutions are that you could by as of May 2009. Of course this will have to take into account their future performance - so it will be impossible to tell now what is the best one. This experiment will therefore continue until 2010-2011 to determine which of the system builds that seemed good now were actually the best in terms of dollars spent and playability. The systems may be completely upgraded in the future - the only winning factor here is the lowest total cost overall throughout the next 2-3 years.

These system builds will only consider CPU, GPU, MOBO and RAM - for the sake of simplicity as these are the components that change the most in terms of gaming performance.

Requirement for these systems (in May 2009) is that they play all games at 30 fps or above on high setting at 1920 x 1200 res. The requirements may change in time (meaning that some systems might have to be upgraded when this happens)

Prices will be taken from Newegg, mail-in-rebates included

May 2009 systems (All games at high settings on 1920 x 1200 resolution) Prices:

Value system(DDR2):

CPU: AMD Phenom II X3 720 Deneb 2.8GHz $140
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103649&Tpk=720%20X3

GPU: MSI R4830-T2D512 Radeon HD 4830 512MB $77
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127420
HIS Hightech H483FN512P Radeon HD 4830 512MB $77
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161260

MOBO:BIOSTAR TFORCE TA790GX 128M AM2+/AM2 AMD 790GX $95
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138130

RAM:OCZ Blade Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) $30
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227420

Total System Cost = $420

Value System Core i7 (DDR3 - future upgradable?)

CPU: Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz $280
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202

GPU: HIS Hightech H487FN1GP Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 $170
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161269

MOBO: ASUS P6T LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard
RAM: Crucial 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333
MOBO and RAM combo $267
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.186559

Total System Cost = $717

Mid-Range system (DDR2):

CPU:AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz
MOBO: GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P AM3/AM2+/AM2 AMD 790X
CPU and MOBO combo: $294
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.182237

GPU: 2 x SAPPHIRE 100245HDMI Radeon HD 4850 512MB 100 + 120 = $220
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102824

RAM: G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000) $50
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231145

Total System Cost: $564

Mid-Range system (DDR3 - future upgradable?):

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz
MOBO: GIGABYTE GA-MA790FXT-UD5P AM3 DDR3 AMD 790FX ATX
CPU and MOBO combo: 245 + 180 - 30 = $394
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128377

GPU: XFX HD-489A-ZDEC Radeon HD 4890 Xtreme 1GB 256-bit GDDR $230
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150360

RAM: Patriot Viper 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 $90
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820220331

Total System Cost: $714

Enthusiast System (DRR3 - future upgradable?):

CPU: Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz
GPU: EVGA 896-P3-1170-AR GeForce GTX 275 896MB 448-bit DDR3
CPU and GPU combo: 280 + 250 -20 = $510
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.187411
2nd GPU: EVGA 896-P3-1170-AR GeForce GTX 275 896MB 448-bit DDR3 $250
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130475

MOBO: EVGA 132-BL-E758-A1 LGA 1366 Intel X58 $290
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188039

RAM:CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 $250
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145232

Total System Cost: $1300

Ok this is now the first draft.. what do you guys think?
 
I don't know if I would put the PII 955 in the mid-range system, its seems more high/mid-high end especially for the price tag. I would think more along the lines of a PII 720 in the midrange, and value/budget system E5200 or maybe E7400.
 
Yeah I was considering that too - but I don't know if the E5200 system will be good enough at 1920 x 1200 res without spending relatively more on the videocard - as high settings in all games at 1920 x 1200 is the requirement of the comparison. Also because I think I can build an AMD system with the PII 720 at about the same price of a E7400 + P45 build (need CF for cost effective performance at 1920 x 1200 i think). However I can't really be certain of this until Newegg starts to work again.

My idea was this:
value: PII 720 DDR2 system at max cost $400-450 (likely 4830 or 4770 CF - 4890 is too expensive I think)
Midrange: 955 DDR3 system at max cost $800

Enthusiast: Core i7 920 DDR3 system at no max cost - just good choices of video cards and mobo for performance (i.e. no point on wasting excessive amounts money really so I assume this will be around $1200 - maybe more if there is good reason for it.)

What do you think about these ideas, and how would you build the systems?
 
Well that is sound reasoning I guess, but I don't think that a budget/value system would likely be coupled with a 24" monitor, more like a 19-22" and not likely to be gaming at 19x12 res.

I do think though that Phenom II definitely owns the midrange build segment of the market, and quite possibly the value end too. Enthusiast definitely belongs to the i7. I think at $190 the PII 940 is the best choice for a midrange processor, $250 for the 955 seems too steep IMO, especially when you look at the price difference of AM2+ to AM3 with the 955, its like $100 if you go with that instead.
 
Agree about the price premium on DDR3 not being worth it really - but that is what I want to find out if the same is true in the long run and if saving those $100 and losing what may be an upgradable AM3 motherboard is worth it in the long run. I think it will be - but this experiment is meant to determine for sure if I am right or not. I might have two mid range builds- one with the 940 and one with the 955 - also one of those using 4850 CF and the other on a 4890 1 GB (for potential upgrade in future to a 4890 CF) - what do you think? I hope that would cover the bases for a future analysis on whether we were right or wrong about upgrading to DDR3 now or later - and the other components as well

Also you're right that the value system isn't really a budget-end cheap system, but that's not really what I intended it to be.
It is meant to be the cheapest reasonable solution to fulfill the requirements.
The mid-range system is supposed to fulfill the requirements, and then some, in a kind of "spirit" of predicting that it will last and be upgradable (like people in the forum argue), and the enthusiast system is meant to excel as far beyond the requirements as is reasonable to do with today's technology (with the bragging rights that an enthusiast needs for his ego).

However I understand that this might be confusing - sorry bout that.
 
Looks pretty good, although a lot of people would opt to not get a dual GPU setup if it could be helped right off the bat if it can be helped, since it occupies all the slots and you don't have the option of upgrading by just adding another later. Also, this requires a better motherboard and power supply than if you just planned on going with one GPU, so the cost of this kind of setup is not always the best option for bang/buck, especially when playing games that do not scale multi-gpu setups well.
 
Yep, have to agree with that too kid - but that's also exactly why I included it - the idea was to have one midrange build that is upgradable (DDR3 and 4890) and one that is not (DDR2 and 4850). This way I can see in the future which one actually was the best bang for the buck. As for the value system I can't really see how to get enough power without CF, if you have any ideas please help. Thanks for the responses mate!
 
IMHO a 4890 doesn't worth the 250 bucks you have to pay for it before rebates when you can get a 4870 1 GB for 190 and have almost (90-95%) the same performance, also, X58 mobo are now under 200, so you can put a core i7, an X58 mobo, 3GB ddr3 tri channel memory and a 4870 for about $700, then later 6-12 months later a second 4870, another 3GB of memory (that by the time should be like another $200) and you'll have a very solid rig for at least another 12 months. Maybe you can even invest another $50 for better colling solution and go OC your CPU.

In short, I think is a better idea to build for upgradeability for the mid term (to build a machine that you can upgrade a year or so after and then keep it for another 1-2 years after a serious upgrade), IMO you'll end up with a more powerful system than if you build from the scratch every year.
 
Ok well I will add a "cheap" core i7 system into this comparison as well and we will see how it all turns out 1, 2 and 3 years down the road.

Personally I don't think that it will be the best, I think the phenom PII 720 solution is the best bang for buck and will be in the future - when upgraded to a core i5 and next gen gpu in 1-2 years time. But the whole point of this is to see if that is right - and you make a good point for adding a bare budget core i7.
 
I agree with Winterblade. Some upgradability is needed, and adding a second card is certainly a viable option. My system illustrates how lacking that can hurt. I'm pretty much limited to single cards, as the second PCIE slot on my system would run at X4. Even so, for the games I play, and at 1680x1050, it has a lot of life left in it.
I usually start out at the "value" end, then upgrade into the mid to enthusiast range; time will ultimately drop it into the "value" range again. My current system started with "only" a 7900GS, which was a great card, but utterly below the radar today. Then it got a 3850, again a card that is now bare minimum (equivalent to a 4670). Now it has a 4850, which is no better than mid-range, even though it is overkill for my games. I've reached a point where I don't foresee a better single card helping a whole lot. If I need more, chances are I'll need Crossfire, which means a new mobo, but I'll probably keep my CPU and RAM. My PSU I hope to still be using in ten years, as I don't want to need a 1kW PSU just to play games.
 
nice!
like how you brought up this topic! 😱

i go with the value rigs..


if you go for the phenom 2 720.. i say you pair it with at least a 4770 😀
 
I also think this has been an interesting thread.
It might be worthwhile to consider the cost of bringing a system that was at each of the levels 5-6 YEARS ago up to snuff to make current games playable, say at 1680x1050 on med-high settings, or 1920x1200 with medium settings. I'd call a game "playable" if you can maintain 30-35FPS. Then add that machine's original cost to the upgrade costs for a total. It would probably be fair to exclude an anomaly like Crysis.
 
I like this thread, especially the debunk of the whole "future proof" BS.

I think this should be a sticky or have it linked to the part choosing thread.
 
I think the graph is somewhat arbitrary; I see no data to support it, and in fact I think it would look very different, as at the high end, more and more money can easily be spent for only small gains in performance.
The next mobo I buy, however, will likely have two PCIE slots on it, if only to allow for the remote possibility that I might someday want two GPUs in SLI or Crossfire.
 
Um - the graph is supposed to show exactly what you said - either I can't draw graphs or you can't read them correctly, but if you look at it the slope increases steeper after the sweet spot indicating more money needs to be spent per unit of performance. I will add units and make a few more with the data from the comparison when I can be bothered
 
I think the graph makes a pretty good representation of the situation, but real numbers would make it a stronger argument...that might get complicated deciding what units to measure performance in though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom