System Builder Marathon: $2,500 Enthusiast PC

[fo0b4er]

And again: http://www.evga.com/support/faq/afmviewfaq.aspx?topicid=40&faqid=58304

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]fo0b4er[/nom]And again: http://www.evga.com/support/faq/af [...] aqid=58304[/citation]

I don't know what their issue is, but THG RAMDRIVE is set to 2GB so the system wouldn't even function if it didn't have close to 3GB available.

RAMDRIVE is only used for a few benchmarks, and the reduced amount of system RAM in those benchmarks is "fair" because all three systems had the same reduction.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]geotech[/nom]I"m curious as to why more ram and Photoshop CS4 Was not used. With it being 64bit on windows now I would love some benchies.[/citation]

The German team writes benchmarks, the US team keeps hoping they'll be done with the 64-bit compatible ones "soon".

 

[brucek2]

Add me to the other readers unimpressed with the offered defense for limiting this system to 3GB RAM. Would you have considered limiting yourself to a CPU from two years ago or a single graphics card if the benchmarking scripts were constrained in those ways too? I can't believe you would.

So it seems like the unspoken implication is that you believe any performance benefit of 6GB RAM vs. 3GB is so negligible that it is outweighed by the availability of more benchmarks. If that's your position, fine, please just say so directly -- and if possible then reconcile to the previous Tom's article documenting the non-trivial gains from 6GB (which I realize came from a RAM manufacturer, so could be suspect.)

As an enthusiast considering a system build, all my intuition tells me that I should go for the 64 bit OS with larger RAM and sacrifice elsewhere, but it's disconcerting to see the differing approach in this build and not really understand what was behind it.

btw, thanks for this great, long-running series of articles. My response today is a reflection of the attention and trust I feel this site deserves.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]brucek2[/nom]Add me to the other readers unimpressed with the offered defense for limiting this system to 3GB RAM. Would you have considered limiting yourself to a CPU from two years ago or a single graphics card if the benchmarking scripts were constrained in those ways too?[/citation]

3GB was used only to allow additional benchmarks to run. It was NOT recommended for daily use. It IS recommended to use 6GB and Vista x64 in a similar build.

Waiting for the German team to come up with revised benchmark files has caused no end of frustation to the US team, but calling the US team's decisions into question when it was out of their hands is simply insulting.

The 64-bit benchmark updates are supposed to be ready in February or March. I'm sure the German team has good reasons for not finishing them sooner, such as an overly-filled publishing schedule.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

[citation][nom]Quantums[/nom]I agree with many of the other posters...this is not an optimum build for most. 3x SLI Video and 3x 1TB drives is silly. Having only 3GB ram is silly.[/citation]

The proof is in the pudding. This build beats last month's build most of the time for $1500 less money. The question is: What is it that 3GB of RAM on a 32-bit Windows desktop operating system can't do that 6GB in a 64-bit Windows desktop OS can? Based on the benchmarks, right now the answer to that question is: not much.

The only fault I have with this build is it's future compatibility, but even then, one could always upgrade the RAM and pop on 64-bit Windows 7 or whatever when the time comes.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]The proof is in the pudding. This build beats last month's build most of the time for $1500 less money. The question is: What is it that 3GB of RAM on a 32-bit Windows desktop operating system can't do that 6GB in a 64-bit Windows desktop OS can? Based on the benchmarks, right now the answer to that question is: not much.The only fault I have with this build is it's future compatibility, but even then, one could always upgrade the RAM and pop on 64-bit Windows 7 or whatever when the time comes.[/citation]

Tom's would rather have buyers start out with 6GB and have the unused portion "in reserve" for any applications, including future applications, that might beneift.

Right now the benefit isn't usually very good, but occasionally it is, and for the price difference it's OK to cater to those occaions. If you read the 6GB vs 3GB article, you'd see larger performance differences, with the explanation that 64-bit applications use more RAM and that the difference between 6GB Vista x64 and 3GB Vista x86 is much smaller.

 

[brucek2]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]3GB was used only to allow additional benchmarks to run. It was NOT recommended for daily use. It IS recommended to use 6GB and Vista x64 in a similar build.[/citation]

Thanks Crashman. This statement makes sense to me. Sentences two and three strike me as critical comments that deserve to be prominently highlighted in the main body of the article.

This exchange has surfaced for me the primary disconnect that happened in my reading of this article. The #1 reason I read these SBMs is to see how expert system builders would allocate a given budget to get the best overall results. I was therefore expecting that any system detailed would in fact be the recommended best system possible for real world use by the target group (budget/enthusiast/etc).

It may be just my opinion, but in a case like this month's where production needs (like benchmarking scripts) are in conflict with the primary goal (best possible system for the price), the primary goal ought to win. In the extreme case I'd rather read a well-reasoned, well-informed article with no measurements at all on how to best spend the dollars, vs. a well-measured article describing a system that no one is actually recommending as the best way to spend a given budget. Maybe there's a compromise way of meeting both objectives? (ie run just the extra benchmarks with the limited RAM?)

Meanwhile, I can certainly understand your frustration if all these decisions are coming out of a group you have no control over and don't mean to be insulting you personally (or anyone). Thanks again for clarifying the situation.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]brucek2[/nom]I can certainly understand your frustration if all these decisions are coming out of a group you have no control over and don't mean to be insulting you personally (or anyone). Thanks again for clarifying the situation.[/citation]

There was another option: To simply not run the benchmarks. Choosing this option slated the overall results of the previous high-end system when it was compared to the mid-priced and low-cost PC's in the October SBM.

 

[rubix_1011]

Waste...64 bit OS, 6GB RAM. Probably better off dropping one of the GTX's (or ay 3rd card) and getting a RAID controller for those 3 drives. You are sacrificing a ton of your available system memory due to the GTX having what...something around 896mb of RAM? I realize that SLI only accounts for 1 card and the RAM, but still...almost a gig that could be used by the OS to run Vista? Might as well give the system the ability to breathe with 64bit OS and more RAM.

 

[cangelini]

Guys,

As we've said in SBM's past, we weigh very heavily the reader feedback we receive in these stories. Hopefully you've seen those opinions affect our stories from one month to the next. You wanted to see more conservative price points--you got it. You wanted power measurements--you got it. You wanted to see AMD-based configurations--ok, so we're waiting for Phenom II before we revisit that one. But the point is, you want to see Windows x64 and 6GB of RAM, so as we plan upcoming Marathons, we'll take that into account and simply drop the benchmarks that won't run under that environment if need be.

Hope everyone has the chance to kick back a little tonight, relax, and join me in hoping for a bright 2009.

Happy New Year's all,
Chris

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]rubix_1011[/nom]Waste...64 bit OS, 6GB RAM. Probably better off dropping one of the GTX's (or ay 3rd card) and getting a RAID controller for those 3 drives. You are sacrificing a ton of your available system memory due to the GTX having what...something around 896mb of RAM? I realize that SLI only accounts for 1 card and the RAM, but still...almost a gig that could be used by the OS to run Vista? Might as well give the system the ability to breathe with 64bit OS and more RAM.[/citation]

Nothing was sacrificed, the system got 3GB and the graphics got almost 1GB. Those two are separate address spaces. x86 supports 4GB of addresses, and with only 3GB of system RAM the remaining 1GB of addresses went to "everything else that has RAM".

 

[Shadow703793]

I'll skip on upgrading most of my builds to i7 until med 2009 when the other i7 socket is suppose to come. Good review, hopefully x64 benching problems will be solved soon.

Btw, why no Water cooling? I under stand there aren't many blocks for the i7 but there are conversion kits for almost all the good blocks (ie GTZ,etc) from the "old" LGA775 which are good enough for i7.

Special request: As this is a Tri-SLI set up I would be interested in how well BadaBoom runs on it. Please post results if possible. Download the trial here: http://www.nvidia.com/content/graphicsplus/us/download.asp

 

[Divine Amoeba]

I prefer to run Ubuntu as my primary OS. I do not game and mainly use vmware to run windows apps. Would anyone please comment on how this build will work with ubuntu 8.1 64 bit. This was a very well done build. I thank the members of Tomshardware for maintaining their focus on the everyday useability of the machine and keeping the complexity of the build low.

 

[SirSuperSouthern]

I'd first like to say that I really enjoy reading these SBM, but I'm disappointed in this month's high-end build. People spending top dollar wanna play at 25 x 16... period.

260s only have 896MB RAM, making them a very poor choice for a high-end system compared to 4870X2's 1GB x2. Just look at those Crysis benchmarks at 25 x 16 with 4xAA. Its playable at 30 FPS while 3 260s get 0... ZERO! Disgusting.

I also hate the $2,500 price-point. I know we're in a recession and its all doom-and-gloom but throw me a frickin' bone! The "enthusiast" builds should always be top-of-the-line, regardless of cost. The builder should decide where to cut corners between the mid-range and high-end, throw us the fast ball!!!

Look, I don't mean to come off as utterly obsessed as that freak crashman, but I WILL be playing Diablo 3 maxed out at 25 x 16 with all the bells in whistles regardless of cost... its non-negotiable. In future SBMs, I would like to see the "enthusiast" build meet its namesake. The one we got this month had a less than ideal CPU, laughable RAM, questionable HDDs, and a sickening choice of GPUs. Do better guys...

 

[Crashman]

Look, I don't mean to come off as utterly obsessed as that freak crashman

Thanks! BTW, the difference between 896MB (GTX 260) and 1GB (4870 x2) isn't much, the 2560 issue appears to be drivers...or possible architecture, but most likely drivers.

You did know that the 2GB 4870 X2 only has 1GB addressable right? All the memory is identical between GPU's.

That means 3x 260 = 896MB, 2x 4870 x2 = 1024MB.

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]thomasxstewart[/nom]Lastly, GTX 295 in 3 way sli should hit 38,000 in 3D Vantage. Thats ALL Folks.SignedHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART von DRASHEK M.D.[/citation]

The GTX 295 is a dual GPU card, so it would be 6-way SLI, which I don't believe is supported, or works.

I certainly hope you aren't practicing medicine.

 

[SirSuperSouthern]

You did know that the 2GB 4870 X2 only has 1GB addressable right? All the memory is identical between GPU's

Yes, I do know that, which is why I wrote:

4870X2's 1GB x2

You must've missed that part.

The fact that 2 4870X2s can run Crysis at a playable 30 FPS at 25 x 16 compared to ZERO is all I needed to see. Make excuses about drivers all you want, its almost as bad as this crap about using a 32-bit OS because of a few lousy benchmarks.

I have no idea why you keep trying to defend this system so adamantly, it may be the worst system I've seen built here at THW. Do me a real favor and tell me where you scored that stupid lookin' avatar, my LOLCats could use some company...

 

[SirSuperSouthern]

One last thing before I release my vice-grip on your peniclneck, Crashman. You said:

All the memory is identical between GPU's.

FAIL! The 4870X2 uses GDDR5, whereas the 260s use GDDR3, noob. So not only does the 4870X2 have MORE RAM, its also alot FASTER. That means you can actually play Crysis at 25 x 16 - the goal of most high-end gamers.

Dismissed, tard...

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]SirSuperSouthern[/nom]One last thing before I release my vice-grip on your peniclneck, Crashman. You said:FAIL! The 4870X2 uses GDDR5, whereas the 260s use GDDR3, noob. So not only does the 4870X2 have MORE RAM, its also alot FASTER. That means you can actually play Crysis at 25 x 16 - the goal of most high-end gamers.Dismissed, tard...[/citation]

You missunderstood what he said. He wasn't saying the quality of the Memory was the same between cards. He was saying that each GPU in the configurations uses the exact same information. It's redundant information, so that 2GB is actually just 1GB.

 

[SirSuperSouthern]

[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]It's redundant information, so that 2GB is actually just 1GB.[/citation]
Which is why I said:

4870X2's 1GB x2

I know that. What I don't know is why THW went with 3 260s when their whole point was to get the best bang-for-buck in the $2,500 price range. Tomorrow's round-up will prove me right, watch.

The third 260 was hella wasteful, and doing benches with them probably isn't useful to anybody honestly considering a "high-end" rig. Neither was the 32-bit OS.

Like I said, I love THW, but the "enthusiast" build needs to go back to being balls-out-bad-ass...

 

[cangelini]

SirSuper,

Everyone's idea of enthusiast is going to be different--we just have to live with that. I think the interesting point is how much value you can buy today versus two months ago. Given a price tag nearly 50% of that $4,500 box, plus reasonable overclocking, the returns start falling off pretty quickly as you spend more money.

Personally, I'd like to see I/O souped up with SSDs. And I'm doing all of my overclocked i7 versus Phenom II testing with 6GB/4GB and x64. But to spend much more on a 965 Extreme or GTX 295s in a four-way SLI configuration, I have to imagine, is not going to yield the same sort of perf/$ you get from an overclocking 920 and the three GTX 260 c216s Thomas has here. Those parts are downright good, same as I'd say for the HD 4850.

 

[SirSuperSouthern]

[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]SirSuper,Everyone's idea of enthusiast is going to be different--we just have to live with that.[/citation]
Good point, one of the first orders of business here at THW should be to clearly define what “enthusiast” translates to. IMHO, I think it starts with 25 x 16. If your goal is to game at lesser resolutions, you aren’t very enthusiastic. If you have unrealistic price-caps, you aren’t very enthusiastic. When I take the time to read all twelve pages of a SBM break-down, I wanna salivate over the “enthusiast” build, not nit-pick questionable decisions.

Personally, I'd like to see I/O souped up with SSDs.

Agreed. When I assemble my “enthusiast” rig, the only thing I’d use an HDD for is to maybe set my box on top of for another inch of separation from the top of the coffee table it’ll be sitting on.

But to spend much more on a 965 Extreme or GTX 295s in a four-way SLI configuration, I have to imagine, is not going to yield the same sort of perf/$ you get from an overclocking 920 and the three GTX 260 c216s Thomas has here.

So now we’re back to the definition of “enthusiast”. On water, the hardware you just listed could be cranked to the point where one might honestly reach 50-60 FPS playing Crysis on a 30 inch monitor at 25 x 16. Just thinking about it makes me enthusiastic to begin the challenge…

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]SirSuperSouthern[/nom]Which is why I said:I know that. What I don't know is why THW went with 3 260s when their whole point was to get the best bang-for-buck in the $2,500 price range. Tomorrow's round-up will prove me right, watch. The third 260 was hella wasteful, and doing benches with them probably isn't useful to anybody honestly considering a "high-end" rig. Neither was the 32-bit OS.Like I said, I love THW, but the "enthusiast" build needs to go back to being balls-out-bad-ass...[/citation]

Well, speaking of balls...

Three GTX 260 Core 216s beat two GTX 280s and four HD 4870s except under a few odd circumstances.

Bold statement or just bad-ass?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]SirSuperSouthern[/nom]Good point, one of the first orders of business here at THW should be to clearly define what “enthusiast” translates to. IMHO, I think it starts with 25 x 16. If your goal is to game at lesser resolutions, you aren’t very enthusiastic. If you have unrealistic price-caps, you aren’t very enthusiastic. When I take the time to read all twelve pages of a SBM break-down, I wanna salivate over the “enthusiast” build, not nit-pick questionable decisions.Agreed. When I assemble my “enthusiast” rig, the only thing I’d use an HDD for is to maybe set my box on top of for another inch of separation from the top of the coffee table it’ll be sitting on.So now we’re back to the definition of “enthusiast”. On water, the hardware you just listed could be cranked to the point where one might honestly reach 50-60 FPS playing Crysis on a 30 inch monitor at 25 x 16. Just thinking about it makes me enthusiastic to begin the challenge…[/citation]

Most enthusiasts use 24" displays. Most people with $2500 systems use 24" displays. That's a nice convergence that makes 2560x1600 as irrelevant in the $2500 PC market as RAID 5 is in the gaming system market. Wooops, better check the intent on that RAID 5 array 😛