System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2009: $700 Gaming PC

[pertshire]

Since your stuck with an Intel build, one can really see how amd tramples intel on the sub $100 market.

 

[dredtom_79]

agreed with skora, this isn't a budget build, 2560*1600!, 2GPU!

if you wonder a little bit on the built forum, u'll see lower-end gaming builds are almost always single GPUed, and then you would be looking for "budget" resolutions, something like 1280*1024, 720p or so..,

i was expecting something around 500$, and now i'm disappointed

 

[JohnnyLucky]

I have not seen the latest stats but if memory serves I think the typical gamer only uses one video card.

 

[caamsa]

I would like to see you guys run a single GPU and show us some results.
I imagine you could drop the price down even further and still get respectable frame rates.

 

[AdamB5000]

I have an honest novice question that maybe someone can answer. I see you spent $70 on a cpu and $250 on two gpus. Perhaps it depends on the application or game, but what if you spent $150 on a cpu and $170 on a gpu (Phenom II X4 + 5770)? Would a beefier cpu and a single video card setup give better gaming performance? Is that question much too generalized for a one word answer?

I'm just trying to take notes for my next build. Thanks.

 

[Summer Leigh Castle]

Much love for the intel dual cores but I'm with the multi-core bandwagon here. A decent AMD tri/quad CPU/combo could be bought for about the same price with room to grow in case theres a need for an upgrade path in the future. I'm no genius when it comes to computer building like most people here but it doesn't make any sense to me to do a "new" build using a dead socket.

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]skora[/nom]I'm going say this budget needs to be backed off a bit. When the goal is to show an entry level gaming system, it should automatically limit this to a single GPU subsystem unless you're using 2 GPUs that cost significantly less just to see. If I'm trying to build a gaming rig for as little as possible, there's no way I'd consider 2xGPUs. Don't listen to all the conjecture about should have done this, should have done that. These articles are very useful in the sole fact that they think outside the box and challenge the perceived status quo. The only way to know if popular opinion is correct is to test the unpopular. Anyone spending enough time to doing research and some forum help can develop a safe build. These systems will find some great solutions, but more often than not, find flaws so we the readers/users, can avoid those mistakes. Thanks for saving our butts.[/citation]
Very good points, but the second one trumps the first; i.e. trying multiple GPUs, which few think to do in a budget build. We've seen a few creative solutions recently, featuring up to FOUR GPUs, which have challenged assumptions.
I agree about lowering budgets. The people most in need of help typically have the lowest budgets. Someone spending $2K can "waste" ten or twenty percent; someone spending $500 needs every dollar to matter; or, it is hard to build a truly bad gamer for $2K, but it is almost as hard to build a good one for $500.
And, finally, I didn't like this build. It's a one-off, a non-upgradable dead end. Add a $200 upgrade in six months, and you've probably made little difference in FPS. Add $200 in six months to a budget AMD build, and you likely have a dramatic difference in FPS. Budget builders typically need that upgrade potential.

 

[pauldh]

I have an honest novice question that maybe someone can answer. I see you spent $70 on a cpu and $250 on two gpus. Perhaps it depends on the application or game, but what if you spent $150 on a cpu and $170 on a gpu (Phenom II X4 + 5770)? Would a beefier cpu and a single video card setup give better gaming performance? Is that question much too generalized for a one word answer?

I'm just trying to take notes for my next build. Thanks.

Too complicated for a one word answer. It depends on your games, resolution, desired level of eye candy, and willingness to overclock. If you don't overclock, the story changes and you'll need more CPU.

The game settings we currently use in the SBM suite have been toned down from our old settings just to help the budget PC show up, but still one sub $200 GPU is often not nearly enough and settings will need to be reduced.

Example: Compare an overclocked Core i5 @ 3.8 GHz with one 5770 here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5770,2446-7.html

.... to the numbers from this SBM. Crysis and WIC are both comparable settings. The cheaper OC'ed SBM combo wins by remaining playable at far higher settings.

I'd value a 45 fps to 35 fps win far greater than a 80 to 60 fps win in a less graphically demanding game/setting.

 

[ryanjm]

I really don't like this build. The biggest problem for me is the decision to get dual GPUs and a crappy processor. If I'm spending $700, I'm going to get a system that has some future-proofing, which means I want the best processor I can get, and I'll 'settle' for a good gfx card that can be be paired with another for cheap later on, or simply replaced when needed and when prices drop.

Here is a system I just priced out with some parts from Newegg, and some from Microcenter which has killer cpu prices:

150 - Intel Core i5 750
120 - Gigabyte UD4P
74 - ram in article
170 - Radeon 4890
50 - 640 GB Caviar black
45 - case in article
70 - power in article
25 - dvd in article

Total: $704

I would take this build any day over the one in the article. If/when more GPU power is needed, the prices will have come down and you can easily pick up another 4890 for probably less than $100 in a year. This makes much more sense to me than buying a CPU/mobo combo that will need to be replaced waaaay before a core i5 would, and be a huge hassle and more money compared to just picking up another gfx card.

 

[Onus]

Sorry, if you get the RAM from this article, you'll need to pay another $90 or so for some DDR3. Otherwise I agree that your build does offer a much better upgrade path.

 

[rambo117]

The build was alright. Being able to squeeze two 4870's into a "budget" gaming rig was awesome, but I think that the system would have been better off with an Athlon II x3 OCed.

 

[dredtom_79]

the one extra factor for budget builds that doensn't generally apply for 1300$ or 2500$ builds is the room for future upgradability, that is because a guy living on budget cannot afford a short-term 300$ upgrade!

the e5xxx on LGA is excellent had intel not introduced two more sockets!

I would definitely trade little bit of right-now-max-fps for little bit of future upgradability.

 

[ryanjm]

^^^good call. I think you meant "you'll need to pay $90," not _another $90, right? So total build cost would be approx $720ish.

 

[uh_no]

what's the point of having a budget if you're just gonna blow by it by 100 dollars anyway?

isn't the idea to see how good a system you can build for 650?

cut the extra graphics card and stick to the budget

 

[qwertymac93]

[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]Were you equally upset to see three AMD builds last round?...[/citation]

yes, yes i was. i know intels pretty much got the high end all for themselves, but i expected the low end system to have amd since its a segment i think amd is actually competitive in.

 

[tapher]

[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]That depends. I don't see a 23" 1080P or even 24" 19x12 out of the question for a budget minded gamer. Of course, that's only if the budget allows a graphics solution to match. Often a single 4800 series GPU means reducing details or disabling AA. Game benchmarking does seem quite CPU limited to an extent, but an overclocked E5300 can still get the job done in almost all cases. Try Crysis or Stalker:CS at max even without AA, and OC'ed E5300 + Dual 4870 will do far better at 16x10 or 19x12 than a i7 920 + single 4870, and do it for far less money. Check out 16x10 Very High in Crysis (or 19x12 in Stalker) for an examples:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 469-8.html[/citation]

Paul's response here encapsulates the real lesson to be learned from not only this build, but all of the overclocked dual-core Intel builds on the last year or so.

People are forgetting, or never learned that the vast majority of games are single-threaded, and will continue to be designed as such so long as they have an online or networking capability. Quad-core online FPSers or MMORPG is not going to happen. Thus the faster you can get a single core running, the better the machine will game. This is why a higher clocked dual core will smoke all triple and quad core processors in games. More cores isn't always better!

This is a GREAT build, as we clearly see that an oc'd dual-core 5xxx isn't going to cpu-limit even a 4870 x2 setup!

An interesting question remains; at what point would a 4.0ghz 5xxx run into trouble managing high-end graphics; or would it run into trouble at all? Could a 5xxx handle an Eyefinity setup gaming across a trio of decent res 24" screens?

 

[Summer Leigh Castle]

/rant

I'm not sure why some people continue to use Microcenter as a reference when building new computers. $150 for i5/i7 is a great steal but rarely accessible to people who live outside of the 22-odd stores.

/end rant

 

[4ILY45]

Ahh. Socket LGA 775 back again!! Where's that AMD Athlon II X 4 620?

 

[Guest]

This and the 2500$ pc were both pretty disappointing. With a 700$ budget, one could easily afford an i5 or PII 955 machine with a single 4870 or 5770. With this you'd have a better upgrade path and no need to worry about a cpu-bottleneck, a dead socket, and ddr2 ram. However, you wouldn't be able to get a very good overclock on stock cooling.

 

[skora]

Thanks; It's hard to cover sub $1000 gaming on just one system and I value both the $500-600 build you speak of, as well as the far more capable $750-850 build also. Both are being considered and we appreciate your feedback. Another option that varies slightly is the upgradeable $600-650 PC, built with a single GPU but with a mobo all set for a second.

There definitely are huge gains to spend just a little more than entry level gaming can provide. Here's an idea to turn this segment into a true marathon. (The benchmarking that would have to be done alone would be a marathon.) You have $4500 wrapped up in equipment now between the 3 builds. I propose you start with an entry level build, like the $600 bracket. Sub $100 CPU on an upgradeable CF/SLI mobo. Right now it would be like the 790GX and you'd have enough lead time for the i3s to hit. Make the rolling build AMD and then intel for 2 SBMs out. Single GPU, aftermarket HSF, and the rest of the required parts. Bench it. Then, add $200 or so worth of parts. Bench it. Keep doing that till you end up with an unacceptable bottleneck. I'm guessing you'd still have enough to do 2+ platforms. It might steer the higher systems to test 3-4 middle GPUs (like the quad 4850 setup did) but that fulfills my out of the box curiosity. Along the way, you'd also find what the range of effective balance is with for the parts you're using.


To all those who are hellbent against a socket 775 system: If someone is building a rig and on this tight of a budget, look to see what they are upgrading from. More often than not, you're going to still find most entry budget builders coming from P4s. They hold onto their systems for 4-5 years. The reality is, they won't be upgrading their CPU in the next few months, and probably not the next few years. This isn't across the board, but getting a cheap CPU, that has the OC potential to last does make sense. The CPU they buy now will be run into the ground and any money put into upgrades will be put into the GPU as they generally won't hang much past 2 years anyway.

 

[Onus]

It would be interesting to add an internal contest to each SBM. Another author gets the exact same budget (not a penny more; but maybe using less adds points) to try and outdo the SBM machine. The winner is used in the giveaway. Constraints of the sort "must use Intel," or "must use ATi" do NOT apply to the challenger, but budget, noise, power, form factor, all DO apply.

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

I think that constantly increasing the budget by $50 per article is cheating. It defeats the point of having only a set amount of budget to use, and shifts the best-for-the-money build closer and closer to the over $1000 build. It isn't the idea to simply build the best system, its to build the best system for those with a strapped budget.

 

[coupe]

I don't agree with this build. Why would you get such a dated and underpowered processor in exchange for SLI.

Beef up that CPU and get a lesser GPU setup. You should always prefer single GPU setups when possible because some games still do not support SLI/Crossfire. And waiting for a new driver to implement support is a hair razing experience.

 

[Guest]

You're all forgetting that Tom's Hardware is a site for hardware enthusiasts. True, you can get great 1920x1080 performance in almost all games with a single $130 GPU, an $80 CPU and a $50 motherboard... but that wouldn't attract the kind of visitors the advertisers want.

 

[tbiggums]

This system is weak, if you find some sweet combo deals on new egg you can build a system with a phenomII x3 and a 5850 for the same price.