System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $2000 Performance PC

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]you mean at all? actaully it probably should be in tomorrow's roundup. I was trying to get a feel of why you guys hate amd so much or if these builds are just for intel only from here on out.[/citation]No hate: Don got reamed by the readers for putting an AMD CPU in a $1000+ build around a year ago (as I recall, my time might be off though). Paul's last $500+ AMD build was a failure as well, but not as bad a failure. If anyone could make AMD coincide with the performance/price perspective, it would be Paul.

 

[noob2222]

This is the last AMD cheap build

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-overclock-graphics-card,3032-10.html

I wouldn't call that a failure. The only loss was on crysis at the lowest resolution.

There hasn't been one since then.

 

[riskyfrisky247]

I think the lack of AMD-based CPU builds is fair enough, considering what's available right now. But three builds and not a single AMD GPU? That can't be right surely.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]This is the last AMD cheap buildhttp://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 32-10.htmlI wouldn't call that a failure. The only loss was on crysis at the lowest resolution. There hasn't been one since then.[/citation]This is the feedback thread for the $2000 PC, not Paul's $500 PC, and he's the best one to answer your questions. In fact, he's probably not even reading this. Have you posted your question in the feedback for his $500 PC?

 

[mayankleoboy1]

medium settings , 1280 and 1680 resolution in a 2000$ PC are irrelevant.

 

[azxcvbnm321]

Enough of the hate. This was a very good build. The people who have problems are really only complaining because this build wasn't optimized for THEM. I mean a 320SSD but no storage HD? Come on. For a general build that will satisfy the majority of people, this is very good.


On a larger issue, we have to ask, what is the monitor size and resolution of the person who will spend $2000 on a computer system? I have a 1920x1080 monitor and my budget is $1200 max. I think that the average person who can spend $2000 on a computer will still be stuck with a 1920x1080 resolution because prices get crazy if you go larger. Any other thoughts on this?

 

[ubercake]

For consistency's sake, I would not have varied he video card, but it's good to see the comparison of builds Q2 and Q3 builds.

 

[Cash091]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]Soderstrom didn't pick any of the major components. Back in the Q2 SBM, readers complained that they wanted an SB-E and LGA-2011 in the $2000 machine. Readers also complained about the price of its GTX 680, since the GTX 670 performed almost as well for much less money (the GTX 670 wasn't available when the order was placed). Readers also complained that the SSD should not have been shrunken from the Q1 system's 240GB. So you're complaining about reader picks in the 3930K, single GTX 670 (not enough money left for two), and 240 GB SSD.So your real beef is with your fellow readers, not the builder of this machine.[/citation]
Don't reason... trolls will be trolls...

 

[Cash091]

If I win I would sell some parts from my current rig and build a nice rig for simple internet browsing for the wife and make a killer gaming machine for myself. Been entering these for about 4 yrs now, maybe this is the one for me!!!

 

[ubercake]

Crazy to see the O/C on the Q3 machine adds over 200W of max power consumption. That's pretty significant.

 

[TeddyK]

Put it this way, you could have OC'ed higher if you had liquid cooling. Correct me if I'm wrong. O

 

[ojas]

Hmmm...interesting, interesting. I'm surprised to see that you've not used the Tom's recommended Gigabyte GTX 670. That was overclocked and for the same price, with a better cooler.

I would be interested to see a 3770K + Z77 + 2x7970 (or 7950 3GB) cards, for 60 fps minimum @ 2560x1600, plus astronomical GPGPU performance (since IVB can do compute too)...keep everything else the same. :O

 

[ojas]

BTW, i'm not bashing your build. I recognize that you've built a machine that does almost everything exceptionally well (except maybe game at 2560x1600), was just surprised by the EVGA card instead of the Gigabyte, and the other build was just a suggestion.

 

[Onus]

Other than generic office PCs, every system I build gets a name, usually one that reflects on the person for whom it was built. This PC I would name "Wastrel." It is not a professional's system, but might be built by the professional's spoiled kid.
This machine was a gamer, that can also handle [some] professional work; it needs to be a professional's PC that can also play games. To that end:
1. The shape of the case did otherwise say "Engineer," but please lose the window.
2. Make sure the graphics card can handle GPGPU processing. Kepler isn't it.
3. Provide for greater data safety, such as with RAID1.
4. Not mentioned in the article (so it may have been), but make sure it is quiet.
5. No high overclock. Efficiency got short shrift with this build, and I'd be concerned about stability over long days of work.

To repeat something I mentioned in a past 2K SBM article, please provide context. Before the build, describe the person who will be using it; be as arbitrary as you like, but please describe the user. That will ensure a fitness for purpose. My personal interpretation of this one, which could easily be different from someone else's, is that this PC may not be the best fit for its purpose.

Finally, it would be interesting to see what sort of purpose-built bitcoin miner you could create; e.g. high-end mobo with at least four PCIe slots for graphics cards, as many high Mhash/$ cards as will fit, likely coordinated by a Celeron or Pentium (or AMD; the determining factor will be the mobo, whatever can hold the most high-end graphics cards).

 

[godfather666]

There is a problem with the way these PCs are evaluated.

When it comes to productivity tests, faster is always better. Any second shaved off of any application is very welcome and should be included to boost a PC's score.

But when it comes to gaming, what is the difference between 120 FPS and 250 FPS? Nothing.

So I would either:

1. Ditch the low resolutions
2. Place an FPS cap. Make it such as any number over 120 FPS is just considered 120 FPS.

my two cents....

 

[SinisterSalad]

I feel that a triple 1080p resolution needs to start being the norm. At least on the $2k builds. Monitor prices have dropped over the years, I'm sure it's becoming more feasible for those in the "enthusiasts" category, such as myself.

 

[cknobman]

Interesting build and I completely agree with the sentence in the article:

But, given the option to combine the best parts of our two configurations, we'd mix last quarter's efficient motherboard and CPU with the other components from today's setup. That'd likely provide the best balance of power, efficiency, and value.

The cost of the hexa core Sandy Bridge is just too much money that could either be saved or applied to other components in the build.

(Queue AMD haters)
Heck I might even get rid of that 670 and replace it with a 7970(non reference) overclock the snot out of it to get more performance (at the cost of some efficiency).

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]godfather666[/nom]...when it comes to gaming, what is the difference between 120 FPS and 250 FPS? Nothing....Place an FPS cap...[/citation]
Agreed. I made a comment similar to this on the $1K build. In fact, if it's not 3D, I'd suggest 60FPS is a sufficient cap. For scoring purposes, a machine getting 120FPS should not score any higher than one getting 80FPS; my suggestion there would be to consider awarding points to a new category called "Future Resistance" for exceeding this cap.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]I would be interested to see a 3770K + Z77 + 2x7970 (or 7950 3GB) cards, for 60 fps minimum @ 2560x1600, plus astronomical GPGPU performance (since IVB can do compute too)...keep everything else the same.[/citation]
just checked on newegg, it's coming to $1997 with two of those IceQ Turbo 7950 cards (yes, it seems the Turbo in the US now).

 

[jaquith]

Wow not bad Thomas!

I'd say I was totally surprised that you used a SB-E so IMO Day 3 is the 'Surprise' -- 'Day 5: The Surprise $2000 Alternative Build'

On mine add a RAM drive and run a large SQL job and you'll quickly appreciate a 6-core. Plus it games!

I've never met a SB-E that I couldn't get to 4.8GHz with 1.40v~1.42v vCore...

 

[Augray37]

At first, like some other people on here, I was thinking why not go with IB and save some major dough? But, given that gaming benchmarks make up only a third of the entire suite, I guess it makes sense to go SB-E. This is an enthusiast PC after all, not a budget one. Also, I'm neutral on the choice of GPU. While it's a great value compared to other high-end GPUs, shouldn't we be going for the GTX 680 since, as already stated, this is an enthusiast PC? It may not help a ton in benchmarks, but neither will the choice of SB-E over IB IMHO (It would, just not overwhelmingly so I don't think). I think the SSD choice was spot on, the HDD choice was a great value for the price, I freakin love that case/cooler combo, and everything else looked pretty good too.

 

[JohnMD1022]

"Better yet, the case itself is an award-winning product."

The case, itself, is plug ugly.

 

[dlux]

These system builder articles crack me up with the amount of vitriol and negativity. They build computers to test how well they do.... and then give them away for free. Some people need to chill if they don't use a specific part.

 

[Guest]

I would like to see 3 monitor gaming get a place in the testing. On a 2,000 dollar build I think you will see many people have 3 monitors. I know I am looking at a new system soon and will want something that can support gaming on a triple set up.

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]Hargert[/nom]I would like to see 3 monitor gaming get a place in the testing. On a 2,000 dollar build I think you will see many people have 3 monitors. I know I am looking at a new system soon and will want something that can support gaming on a triple set up.[/citation]
I agree with this, but likely not on the $2K build. Certainly do it on the $1K gamer, but I still think that the $2K Performance PC should be a work PC first, and a gamer second. This is the one where you use a monster CPU (or GPGPU cards) for rendering or some other professional task, then test to see if it also provides playable performance on a single 1920x1080 or 2560x1600 screen.