System Builder Marathon, August 2012: $2000 Performance PC

[LukeCWM]

[citation][nom]PCgamer81[/nom]Ah, I see. My mistake.I had it in my mind that this was built for Tom's gaming benchmarks.When you spend so much of your life gaming on the PC, it's hard to consider their value outside of their gaming capabilities.I really don't see why a $2000 machine is needed outside of gaming...No biggie.[/citation]

Not many can afford a $2,000 machine, and not many that can afford it can actually justify it. Often it turns into bragging rights more than utilization. There are needs out there, but most don't have them. For most, it is just Facebook and Microsoft Word and iTunes. For most gamers, it is highish settings at 1080p. You don't need a $2,000 computer for that.

But, if you are given the money, then you choose based on goals. I could make great use of a productivity computer, but $1,200 could buy what I need. But if you are given $2,000, you just spend it best based on your goals. And this quarter's goal, contrary to last quarter's, is more based on productivity and full-featured and less based on gaming and topping the value chart.

 

[PCgamer81]

Not many can afford a $2,000 machine, and not many that can afford it can actually justify it. Often it turns into bragging rights more than utilization. There are needs out there, but most don't have them. For most, it is just Facebook and Microsoft Word and iTunes. For most gamers, it is highish settings at 1080p. You don't need a $2,000 computer for that.

But, if you are given the money, then you choose based on goals. I could make great use of a productivity computer, but $1,200 could buy what I need. But if you are given $2,000, you just spend it best based on your goals. And this quarter's goal, contrary to last quarter's, is more based on productivity and full-featured and less based on gaming and topping the value chart.

Very good explanation, I see now.

That PC would far surpass my gaming rig for heavy multi-tasking, work, and general use - while still being able to hold it's own in 1080p gaming.

 

[hapkido]

I'm with some of the others that a $2000 PC that is going to be used for playing video games, even if that's not all it's going to be used for, should have a lot of graphics muscle. Your target should be 60 minimum fps on ultra settings at 1920x1200. Otherwise $1500 is an easy target for a single-GPU machine that's more than capable or doing very well in your current benchmarks.

I didn't spend too much time looking for great deals, but I think something like this would be interesting to see.

CPU: $339.99
Cooler: $57.99
Mobo: $134.99
RAM: $57.99
GPU: $815.98
SSD: $179.99
HDD: $89.99
Optical: $54.99
Case: $79.99
PSU: $194.99

Total: $2006.89

 

[hapkido]

Links didn't show up.

CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K $339.99
Cooler: COOLER MASTER V6 GT RR-V6GT-22PK-R1 $57.99
Mobo: ASRock Z77 Extreme4 $134.99
RAM: Mushkin Enhanced Redline 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1866 $57.99
GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 670 FTW x2 $815.98
SSD: Mushkin Enhanced Chronos 240GB SATA III $179.99
HDD: SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB 7200 RPM $89.99
Optical: LG Blu-ray Drive $54.99
Case: COUGAR Evolution Black $79.99
PSU: KINGWIN LZP-1000 1000W 80 PLUS PLATINUM $194.99

Total: $2006.89

 

[Nills]

I'm disappointed int this build. It's high end, but with too steep of a premium. Maybe the goals of the builds need to be changed. Here's what I propose:

$500 Entry all-around computer - Good all around performance at 1080p cpu/gpu in balance

$1000 Specialized computer - Go for great 1440p gaming or a Q77 mini-atx high productivity cpu/gpu one greater than the other

$2000 High-End all-around computer - good 1600p gaming and good productivity, some future proofing cpu/gpu in balance


Tom's $2000 build just doesn't make sense to me. LGA 2011 is too expensive for the performance and matching it with a 670 is like a 4 cylinder Cadillac. Civics and Corollas are 4 cylinders and I love them, but a Ford GT has a V8 supercharged.

 

[mousseng]

Tom's $2000 build just doesn't make sense to me. LGA 2011 is too expensive for the performance and matching it with a 670 is like a 4 cylinder Cadillac. Civics and Corollas are 4 cylinders and I love them, but a Ford GT has a V8 supercharged.

While I'll attempt to refrain from pointing out that a 4-cylinder can put out upwards of 700 horsepower, I propose this as an alternative to your idea:

$2000 High end workstation - Fantastic for productivity, professional work, and commercial applications that demand powerful processors, but can also play games well during downtime

That looks quite a lot what the $2k build usually is, doesn't it? Remember folks, computers are used by more than just gamers - there's an entire sector in the computer industry dedicated to business and enterprise. Their needs are vastly different from ours, and often the trade-off between price and performance is negated by the fact that businesses have more money than people. The amount of time and energy saved by choosing high-end cutting edge components can save a company much more money than shaving a few hundred dollars off of a computer.

Sincerest apologies if this comes off as condescending, it's not intended that way.

 

[hpfreak]

[citation][nom]namelessted[/nom]I am sorry. This is one of the dumbest builds I have seen in a long time. It is almost as if the person who put this together was just a complete noob to PC building. Its like they just went to CPU and found a really expensive one and decided to get it.I just tossed a build together on PC Partpicker that would absolutely DESTROY this build.CPU - 3570KCPU Cooler - Corsair H100Mobo - ASUS P8Z77-VRAM - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB (2x4GB) 1600SSD - Corsair Force GS 360GBGPU - ASUS GTX670 x2 in SLICase - Corsair 550DPSU - Corsair AX750Optical - Asus whateverIf you purchased everything from Newegg it would be $2070. Yes, a bit over the budget, but I am sure I could trim that off somewhere without too much difficulty. I definitely didn't go with the best valued products in my build. The Platinum ram is double the price of their normal RAM, but it fit with the theme espoused by the author of this article of having a QUALITY build, which I totally agree with.On the subject of quality, I have chosen a better cooler, better case, and better PSU. How can anybody seriously justify buying a non-modular PSU for a $2k build? That is insane to me. I wish I had the $2k to actually put this build together with a couple of tweaks and put it up against Soderstrom's build and watch him weep as his system gets destroyed.Also, I realize I haven't selected a storage drive. I just went with one big SSD. Yes, the 2TB is nice, but I don't think most people actually need that kind of storage, and if you are somebody that does need it, it is a separate cost that should be part of the main build, IMO. Similarly, we typically don't include monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. pricing into builds. I think mass storage needs to join this category.[/citation]

ROFL! Why don't you build both systems and find out for yourself? Yeah... might spend 4 grand... but that's what you deserve for posting crap.

 

[hapkido]

[citation][nom]mousseng[/nom]Remember folks, computers are used by more than just gamers - there's an entire sector in the computer industry dedicated to business and enterprise. Their needs are vastly different from ours, and often the trade-off between price and performance is negated by the fact that businesses have more money than people. The amount of time and energy saved by choosing high-end cutting edge components can save a company much more money than shaving a few hundred dollars off of a computer.[/citation]

The only place this reasoning would hold up is small companies who both have the IT resources to manage individual, custom machines, and also who use workstations for intensive tasks. For example, if you work for a small software or graphic design company, you may be compiling code / rendering graphics on your workstation, but if you work for a large company, you're probably not. You just need something you can type on. I would further argue professional workstations should have professional graphics cards for users that need them, or use on-board graphics for users that don't. No logical person is putting a gtx 670 in a business PC.

Large companies buy standardized machines from business builders (like Dell) for a number of reasons. I know, because at my last job, I was responsible for buying PCs for a corporation. The more powerful server hardware does all of the heavy lifting. $2000 is not a lot of money to spend on a business PC that comes with a 3-year warranty and business-level support, but no one is signing off on a $400 commercial graphics card for your work PC. And you probably don't have admin rights even if they did, so you're not going to be installing BF3.

The fact remains, these articles are for individuals. The $2000 PC in this article is a very nice PC, it's just not $2000 nice and the "it's for professionals" argument doesn't hold water. I don't fault the builder, they can't keep making the same thing every month, but it really should come with a lot more graphics muscle.

 

[Guest]

That Phantom case looks so sexy in gunmetal

 

[mousseng]

The fact remains, these articles are for individuals.

Exactly, and (within the context of the $2k article) often those individuals on here are the types that you (sorta) mentioned - they work for a small business, own one, or are self-employed (or similar). They're looking for something that they can use for both their work and play because they have those business resources.

That said, there ARE other people that build $2k+ computers for other reasons - and I'm not opposed to having a variety of different kinds of $2k computers (I should have made that clear before), but I am opposed to people criticizing a build in the completely wrong context (eg, criticizing something designed to primarily act as a workstation because it doesn't game well enough). It'd be nice if there were a specific paragraph or such on the first page that described what exactly the computer was designed to do (or some such blurb). It usually seems pretty obvious to me, but I can't assume it is to everybody else as well.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]mousseng[/nom]Exactly, and (within the context of the $2k article) often those individuals on here are the types that you (sorta) mentioned - they work for a small business, own one, or are self-employed (or similar). They're looking for something that they can use for both their work and play because they have those business resources.[/citation]Exactly. I started out as a "professional" engineering designer. In school I always wanted my PC to run the same engineering apps as the lab, so I could spend less time at the lab. And when I graduated into the 2k recession (1999-2002), I ended up switching programs so I could continue my work from home. I also like playing games, occasionally, but at very high detail levels. Now, why on earth would I want a separate PC for games, when my work-at-home PC had the other resources I needed? Easy answer: Put in a big GeForce card and get the programs to use it as they would a Quadro. One PC, far less expense.
Then I went to work for a guy who was wheelchair bound. He was in the same situation from the computing perspective. People do use home PCs for professional work. Many are self-employed, some of them are between jobs, and some of them have hobbies that are similar to their "real" jobs.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

if this build started as a professional build, then give more weight to the productivity scores.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]if this build started as a professional build, then give more weight to the productivity scores.[/citation]SBM has a gaming PC, a mainstream performance PC, and a workhorse that can also game. The current benchmark set is balanced to allow all three to compete evenly. The only problem left is that the low-resolution gaming benchmarks no longer matter. By being almost completely dependent on CPU frequency rather than graphics or core count, they only serve to pull down the overall performance average of systems that have big graphics cards.

The only way I can think of to keep the application balance but adjust individual apps for fairness would be to eliminate 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 results from the averages. The $500 PC is designed for 1920x1080, after all...

 

[jimhood82]

[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 comp[citation][nom]namelessted[/nom]First, I would argue that when it comes to a $2k build, the only thing that matters in terms of gaming benchmarks are the max settings and resolution. When you are spending that much, it literally doesn't matter how well it can do on mid settings and 1080p. Completely irrelevant.Secondly, I might have to argue that the benchmarks should be changed to better reflect real-world scenarios instead of reporting Sandra numbers.It is just extremely frustrating to see a build like this. With $2k there is so much potential to put together a truly great and balanced machine. This build is far from that. Soderstrom had all that money, and it just feels like he picked out a crazy CPU and then just went down the line and picked random other hardware. I also realize some of the choices are personal preference. I personally think the Phantom 410 just looks awful. When I see a case that looks like that, it makes me think of a 14 year old kid building a "cool" PC.There is also that fact that every single component in this build all come from different companies. For budget builds that absolutely makes sense. You have to find deals where they are and that pretty much always means buying different brands. But, he had $2000. It is just something that makes no sense to me, to open up a PC and see that every single component not matching up in any way.The whole build just feels like Soderstrom picked a CPU, and then just added the rest of the parts to the cart and he just didn't save the proper budget for a GPU and decided to downgrade it instead of figuring out where money was just being wasted.[/citation]
lained 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]

I spend far more time reading here than posting. However, I think you are very mistaken.

Real world scenarios include people like myself, who don't own 2560x1600 displays (or larger). I absolutely see no value in testing those resolutions. While great eye candy, the only resolution of any consequence to me was 1920x1080. Though my display is a tad higher resolution than that, it is a great benchmark that hits similar performance. 2048x1156 is not a common resolution, and I don't expect Tom's to be trying to hit that mark. I do expect 1080P though.

This build is exactly what I have been exploring myself, and was very interested in the results. Would I use the exact same parts? No. But only because I have a differing list of quality vendors. EVGA motherboards for example, or Plextor SSD's. But those are preferences from my experience with their products.

The only other thing I could ask for would be dual or tri-display results. I bought into the whole "eyefinity" thing back when the 5xxx series were popular, and found the entire endeavor to be futile. Noting how well newer video cards handled 3x 1080P displays would be worth having.

 

[grokem]

I have greatly enjoyed reading about the three builds and I think they have cemented my belief that we are at a turning point in the building community. While not exactly what I would have built, the $500 build was pretty reasonable if only because there aren't a lot of wiggle room in a $500 system with a discrete GPU. The $1k build was GPU or bust brought into even starker focus when the $2k picked the same GPU. The $2k build wasn't as badly unbalanced but was as the $1k but I wouldn't call it balanced with a CPU taking up almost 1/3 of the price. Given the $2k total price even with an unbalanced CPU most of the other components could still at least make sense a luxury the $1k system didn't have.

 

[grokem]

For those that suggested 1080p resolutions are a waste on a $2k rig I disagree. Unfortunately, the monitor market is eating itself to see who can produce the lowest cost 1080p monitor. The gap in price between 1080p and anything higher resolution makes them out of reach even for those like myself that have no problem spending $2k on a computer. The utter failure of the market to bring better monitors to consumers instead of simply the same monitors only less expensive monitors has shaken my faith in the free market. We should all have 200ppi 30" monitors by now. If I bought two 2550x1440 monitors I'd have $400 left to build a computer. Instead I'll keep using my 10 year monitors and wait for the market to decide they want to compete with Apple when they finally release an high ppi screen.

 

[grokem]

I think the next round of builder challenges should seriously consider namelessted's suggestion to consider certain components in the system "outside" the core build. Just as these builds don't get into monitors, keyboards and mice; bulk storage is pointless to include in these systems given how different everyone's wants, needs or desires are. Given how common USB 2.0, USB 3.0 and eSATA drives are now and how common thunderbolt driver will probably be, it most of us will have their bulk storage on an external drive if not on a 6TB server like I do. Why would I want to add 2TB to my workstation when I have 10TB of drives laying around and 6TB on an easily accessible and fast file server? I'm not saying no one wants large internal drives, maybe most do but most also want a nice new monitor as well but that component isn't part of the core system to increase the focus of the build.

With this rule in place the $500 system would remain the same given that the 500GB was about the right size for a system drive. The $1K build would have been able to move up to at least a 120GB and maybe a 240GB SSD drive which certainly would be usable as the system drive instead of a almost uselessly small 60GB one. The $2k build would have had more money to pick more interesting components.

The other component I'd leave out is the ridiculous optical drive. Last time I looked I couldn't find a store that would rent me a plastic disk. Windows 7 is easy to install via a flash drive. Windows 8 will charge almost 2x more to get physical media rather than downloading the OS from Microsoft and putting it on a $4 thumb drive. Using Blue-Ray for backups is a stretch as well. Not saying there aren't those with a real reason to want or need an optical drive but they are a legacy device that doesn't add any real interest to the build. As one commenter stated when suggested when offering his own version of a build; "Optical whatever drive $40".

Finally, might I suggest that you add a mITX or mATX build int he $1K category. Everyone of the builds could have been done in micro or mini format using the exact same components with different MBs and coolers. It would really be interesting to see how much of a premium is paid for the small format in the value comparisons.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jimhood82[/nom]I spend far more time reading here than posting. However, I think you are very mistaken.Real world scenarios include people like myself, who don't own 2560x1600 displays (or larger). I absolutely see no value in testing those resolutions. While great eye candy, the only resolution of any consequence to me was 1920x1080. Though my display is a tad higher resolution than that, it is a great benchmark that hits similar performance. 2048x1156 is not a common resolution, and I don't expect Tom's to be trying to hit that mark. I do expect 1080P though.This build is exactly what I have been exploring myself, and was very interested in the results. Would I use the exact same parts? No. But only because I have a differing list of quality vendors. EVGA motherboards for example, or Plextor SSD's. But those are preferences from my experience with their products.The only other thing I could ask for would be dual or tri-display results. I bought into the whole "eyefinity" thing back when the 5xxx series were popular, and found the entire endeavor to be futile. Noting how well newer video cards handled 3x 1080P displays would be worth having.[/citation]

I didn't know that EVGA makes motherboards. Are you referring to the graphics card? If so, then I can see it making sense because EVGA is pretty great with graphics cards, especially in their warranties.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I didn't know that EVGA makes motherboards. Are you referring to the graphics card? If so, then I can see it making sense because EVGA is pretty great with graphics cards, especially in their warranties.[/citation]They formerly got their motherboards from Jetway, then they sold Foxconn-manufactured Nvidia reference motherboards. Later they got their own team and produced some very unique motherboards.

Recently they lost most of their team and now it takes them around six months to catch up to competitors. We're hoping they rectify that situation soon.

 

[hapkido]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom] Now, why on earth would I want a separate PC for games, when my work-at-home PC had the other resources I needed? Easy answer: Put in a big GeForce card and get the programs to use it as they would a Quadro.[/citation]

If you're doing professional graphics work, you want a professional GPU. I can see the merits of using your professional GPU to play the occasional game, but using a consumer GPU to do professional work is bass-ackwards. If you really need it for your job, spend the extra money and get the proper tools. This $2000 build is a gaming / general purpose build disguised as a productivity build. Furthermore, who is going to overclock anything they use to make money? In that situation, reliability and stability are far more important than speed.

The entire series needs to be re-worked after next quarter. You are right, get rid of all the low resolution benchmarks. Nobody with a computer built or bought in the last 5 years is using anything less than 1080p. 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2560x1440, and 2560x1600 are the only relevant resolutions for gaming now. Also, the price points should be adjust to more realistic levels: either $500, $850, and $1200 or $500, $1000, and $1500. I'd wager there is a very, very small subset of your readers who spend more than $1200-1500 on their PCs.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]hapkido[/nom]I can see the merits of using your professional GPU to play the occasional game, but using a consumer GPU to do professional work is bass-ackwards..[/citation]Only if bass-ackwards means "the right way to do things". Who pays over a thousand dollars for a GPU in their home rig? Tom's Hardware did some tests long ago that revealed output errors, but those were on the screen not in the file. What you're really implying is that there's no point in owning a sub-$3000 work system, and my experience says you're 99.8% wrong.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]spentshells[/nom]IceQ turbo but not IceQ X turbo[/citation]
Yeah, i know.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7950-review-benchmark,3207-14.html

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]That's because it was recommended by a graphics editor against the wishes of the motherboard editor. Externally-vented coolers make more noise, but they also reduce heat around the CPU. We can see that the CPU cooling was already near its limit, so any more case heat would have required a bigger CPU cooler, more case fans, or both.[/citation]
Aha. Thanks for clarifying that!

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]The only way I can think of to keep the application balance but adjust individual apps for fairness would be to eliminate 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 results from the averages. The $500 PC is designed for 1920x1080, after all...[/citation]
Um...i'd disagree...the $500 build had a GTX 560. It can't really hold 60 fps maxed out beyond 1600x900, save in a few games.
I would think that a $500 build would be targeted at the 720p to 1680x1050 segment, not beyond it. I mean yes, it can manage those resolutions but not in a way one would want to. At least i wouldn't want anything less than a almost constant 60 fps at whichever resolution i'm playing (with, say, an occasional minimum of 40).

 

[hapkido]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]What you're really implying is that there's no point in owning a sub-$3000 work system, and my experience says you're 99.8% wrong.[/citation]

Not at all. I'm saying this PC is complete overkill for work. Very few users will see any advantage moving from an i3, 8GB of RAM, a 60GB SSD, and integrated graphics to an overclocked 6-core i7, 16GB of RAM, a 240GB SDD, and a $400 GTX 670.

The argument that this $2000 computer is a workhorse doesn't make sense. Why overclock and risk instability and errors? What is the large SSD for; are business users installing numerous 20GB professional applications? Why a GTX 670 and not a Radeon 7970 for it's higher GPU-compute performance. Why not have 2 GPUs if you're using them to crunch numbers?

I don't know if you saw it, but I have a post at the end of page 4 which I think is a more sensible $2000 build -- if $2000 on a modern PC could be considered sensible (it can't).

 

[Nills]

[citation][nom]mousseng[/nom] The amount of time and energy saved by choosing high-end cutting edge components can save a company much more money than shaving a few hundred dollars off of a computer.[/citation]

This is true, but the LGA2011 is a Sandy Bridge chipset. It's 2 years behind, and it costs 2x Z77/3770K combo. Ivy Bridge is at least at 22nm so next year's tock cycle of Haswell chipset should work with Z77s.