System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2009: $2,500 Performance PC

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

feanorgem

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2009
5
0
18,510
0
How about 4 500GB hard drives? What about only using 4GB I always have plenty of free memory leftover. I wish I could get Windows to use it to speed the system up. And what about a performance Green system?
 

feanorgem

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2009
5
0
18,510
0
How about 4 500GB hard drives, in parallel and mirrored (about $200-240)? What about only using 4GB I always have plenty of free memory leftover and I only have 2GB so you could go smaller, faster, cheaper and less power. I wish I could get Windows to use the free memory to speed the system up. And what about a performance Green system build?
 

zerxezz

Distinguished
Dec 23, 2009
2
0
18,510
0
On the whole this has the feel of a system that was thrown together. Emphasis was put on high end components and little or no attention to making it all work together. You put $2,500 worth of components into a case knowing you didn't have enough cooling and didn't put $20-30 into some extra fans? There are only two kinds of desktop computers at this price point. Gaming machines and CPU intensive workstations. You need to clearly define which you are building so you don't wind up with a system like this that is a compromise of both. If this was a workstation it should have been water cooled with a $35 video card and the storage solution you chose. If it is intended to be a gaming machine at this price it should have been an i5 with a much better cooler, 4GB of RAM, Extra case fans an SSD and a 1TB secondary drive. Gaming doesn't require a lot of boot drive capacity, certainly doesn't need 8GB of RAM and the bluray drive would be sufficient backup for personal data. I would be shocked to find that someone with the skills and money to build this system doesn't have a home server. I am not questioning Tom's Hardware's technical skills you guys are very good. Just pointing out that you cannot have it all for $2,500 at that price point you have to determine ahead of time the purpose of the machine. Otherwise you end up with a machine that could be much faster, but is handicapped by mismanaged cooling, and a set of parts that when combined don't run at their full potential. I hope this doesn't offend, but you said you wanted feed back for future builds. My recommendation is build something you personally would build for yourself at a given price point.
 

xtc28

Distinguished
May 8, 2009
1,434
0
19,310
6



Says Who? A workstation with a $35 Gfx card now that makes me giggle. Thrown together you say! Now that makes me laugh!!! As for the rest LMFAO!!!! Come on man sit down hold on and shut up!
 

doron

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
553
0
19,010
24
[citation][nom]zerxezz[/nom]On the whole this has the feel of a system that was thrown together. Emphasis was put on high end components and little or no attention to making it all work together. You put $2,500 worth of components into a case knowing you didn't have enough cooling and didn't put $20-30 into some extra fans? There are only two kinds of desktop computers at this price point. Gaming machines and CPU intensive workstations. You need to clearly define which you are building so you don't wind up with a system like this that is a compromise of both. If this was a workstation it should have been water cooled with a $35 video card and the storage solution you chose. If it is intended to be a gaming machine at this price it should have been an i5 with a much better cooler, 4GB of RAM, Extra case fans an SSD and a 1TB secondary drive. Gaming doesn't require a lot of boot drive capacity, certainly doesn't need 8GB of RAM and the bluray drive would be sufficient backup for personal data. I would be shocked to find that someone with the skills and money to build this system doesn't have a home server. I am not questioning Tom's Hardware's technical skills you guys are very good. Just pointing out that you cannot have it all for $2,500 at that price point you have to determine ahead of time the purpose of the machine. Otherwise you end up with a machine that could be much faster, but is handicapped by mismanaged cooling, and a set of parts that when combined don't run at their full potential. I hope this doesn't offend, but you said you wanted feed back for future builds. My recommendation is build something you personally would build for yourself at a given price point.[/citation]

I totally agree. And xtc28 go to your mother to learn some more manners.
 

tankerpilot

Distinguished
May 26, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
zelannii 12/22/2009 9:16 PM Hide--1+
Toms, on the request for what we'd like to see next time, lets focus a bit more on use cases to find dollar levels, not picking dollar levels arbitrarily. I'd say a base $500-600 machine for simple media and basic gaming (WoW at default settings class, the "all i can afford" machine); a $900-1100 performance game/home media center class (the "I like games, but I'm not rich" box); a $1900-2100 enthusiast system; and a $3000-3500 power gamer system. For each class, not only build out one core system within those ranges, but offer suggestions that would bring up/duwn the performance a few steps withing a reasonable range of the pricing.

Also, a key feature that should be focussed on for all but the $3K+ system, upgrade options after 12-18 months to keep it "current" or improve it's class standing.

Build the best machine you can for the customer in question, not the price point, and stay within a range not a hard line price. Show examples of "if you could squeese another $100-200 in your budget, add this..." and "if you can't quite reach this price point, saccrifice this to save $200, you can allways upgrade it in 12 months to get that and more back." Build the honest best system of the day, without so strict of a number you're staying under which innevitable leads to saccrifices.

I agree with everything zellannii said above. Ranges with options is the way to go. Keep the build articles coming, they're all very informative and provide food for thought. You won't be able to build one system that satisfies everyone. You guys are doing a helluva job, keep up the good work and thanks.
 

Spanky Deluxe

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2009
506
0
18,980
0
Not a bad system on the whole. However, since the 5970s are now out they would have been better. I wouldn't really want to build a $2500 system without being able to future proof for a six core CPU later down the line so I'd rather go with a 920 build. I really don't understand the HD choices though. Why get two 2TB drives at $300 each when you could get a 128GB Crucial SSD for $429 + either a 2TB energy saving drive for $149.99 or two 1.5TB drives for $109.99 each. To save cash you could just get two 1TB drives. There are more SSD options than just "two Intel 80gb X25-Ms". I'd rather have an SSD with MB/s than an HDD with 140 MB/s. There's no way I'd ever consider spending $300 on a non SSD drive now.
 

doubleagent

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2009
1
0
18,510
0
Only 3.6 Ghz??! Seriously?

I've got my I5 (2.6ghz stock) running at 4ghz reliably. I did it with the Corsair water cooler and Corsair 1600mhz memory/fan. I think the motherboard did a great job, too, it's a Asus P7P55D Pro. I did have to add a fan on the side, where the intake usually is, to keep the motherboard cool. Otherwise, no problem.

I'll have to look at getting a an I7 and trying over-clocking it.
 

cnyte

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2009
9
0
18,510
0
This is a very nice build for the money. i would do it if i have the money. Some great spec on this computer. i like the benchmarks.
 

zodiacfml

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2008
1,144
0
19,280
0
I think the heat problem can be lessened by using those small water cooling kits you reviewed before so as to prevent the powerful cpu dumping heat in the case.
 

Lamiel

Distinguished
Jul 5, 2009
81
0
18,640
3
"Knowing about the upcoming release and the minimal gains achieved when moving from three to four graphics processors, we really wanted to try three Radeon HD 5850s instead. Unfortunately, neither solution would fit our budget unless we made major compromises for the rest of the system"

What? Major compromises? You could have saved $400 if you chose 1TB WD Caviar Blacks instead. That would have been more than enough storage space to get you by until you actually needed more, which probably wouldn't be for a VERY long time. Also, 8GB of RAM is overkill for a gaming rig. There aren't any games out there that would even use 4GB. Strange choices...
 

Bolas

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2009
45
0
18,540
1
I definitely want to see a higher end build with a larger budget. I'm currently planning out a blazing fast all-around desktop computer with a $6k-$7k budget (including monitor) and I would love to see Tom's Hardware's take on things. I bet they can come up with a better setup than Newegg's supreme combo, which comes out to $4600 without monitor.
 

marraco

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2007
671
0
18,990
1
I completely agree with the SSD as absolutely necessary.

anyway, if you do a RAID, you should do the fisrt partition (short strocked) in RAID 0, and you can do the others partitions on RAID 1
 

Onus

Titan
Moderator
My vote is for frugality. There's no limit to how much one can spend on a "dream" PC, as rean24 describes. You can always add one more SSD to the RAID, or find a $700 case, or whatever. There's no [useful] lesson to be learned from such a build. Useful lessons come from hunting bang/buck or satisfying other constraints, and are often included in the comments after each SBM machine.
 

Brahman

Distinguished
May 14, 2006
2
0
18,510
0
I vote for a sperate High performance general purpose/ enginering/ scientific /programing/ simulation/ large data sets system suitable for
a one man company or individual operator.
 

dark41

Distinguished
Mar 2, 2006
127
0
18,680
0
I can live without SSD, as I think they're a waste of money now anyways. My concern is about transferring large files more than anything SSD provides. But 4x1TB Samsung F1s in RAID 5 or 10 would have been a faster and better option in my opinion than 2x2TB WD Blacks, and saved $200 for other components. Or for the same price go 6x1TB F1 (RAID 5 or 10) and be even faster. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS