System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $600 Gaming PC

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think a 960T with 2 X 6850's or 2 X 460's could be the best over all. If the 960T were to unlock it would be a clean sweep. To ensure this possible a 1035T could get a reasonable OC. This said I don't like the lower resolutions as they push the results in favor of the better CPU. The only resolutions that give the GPU's a test here are 1920X1080 and higher. Given all the other CPU only tests every win is based far to much on CPU power.
 
[citation][nom]mortsmi7[/nom]I wonder how this compares to the $1200 fail rig?[/citation]
It really was a fail rig. lol. I haven't seen a rig fail like that one in a very long time.
 
Maybe some SBM's could be designed for gaming, and others could be designed for office productivity. Most people build for one or the other, but these SBM's cater to the rare person that builds for both. I think that's where you see a lot of confusion in the comments from people expecting a cheaper cpu and beefier gpu.
 
The $500 (or $600) build has been a "gaming" build for at least the last few years iirc.
Actually, the "fail" rig was one of those fails so epic it was a win; a win because it absolutely clarified for anyone not blinded by fanboyism that Bulldozer sucks like a Hoover. The more I think about it, the more irritated I become, although I remind myself that my 970BE+GTX560Ti didn't suddenly slow to a crawl, and is handling everything I put on it just fine. I could pass the CPU down to my wife, who has a 720BE, but I cannot possibly rationalize dumping a 990FX Sabertooth.
 
[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]If you game at 1920x1080 and tweak your graphical settings to the max playable for your hardware, then yes I’d say very often this would be a more potent combo (depending on the game). Although, it would lose in our average gaming performance, which factors two settings and all resolutions.[/citation]
This begs the question: if the overall system score is weighted (40% towards gaming marks), why not weight the resolutions in the gaming segment, alloting more points for higher frames in the higher resolutions, since lower resolutions are basically scalping stats (CPU power) from the productivity segment, giving high-CPU systems eseentially double-points and rewarding the system for sacrificing high gaming performance in the gaming marks segment.
 
personally, in this range, I would have gone for a i52500k/p67/6850 setup for the money, you can always upgrade the gpu down the road, not to mention that most 6850s have nice oc potential.... in the end I think it would be better to get the better cpu/mobo
 
I like this particular build, even if it does extend the budget a little. It shows how different cpus can bottleneck your gpu. So I guess the lesson to walk away with is how to properly match your cpu and gpu so you don't overpower one with the other causing bottlenecks and therefore wasted budget money. For gaming I could agree to bias the budget toward the graphics, but when you look at other multithreaded apps, perhaps some weight should be focused on cpu. I guess it's all in what you intend to do with the machine. But since these articles seem to focus on gaming machines (going by the title here...) I would have to side with a stronger gpu if budget truly is not flexible.

So this makes me wonder now (feel free to drop me an opinion) - I have a Phenom(nom) II x3 720 that is unlocked with 4 cores and an overclocked P0 state @ 3.4GHz. In other words, it's not stock ;-)
I was thinking of upgrading my gtx 260 (216 core) with either a gtx 560 ti 448 core (or a gtx 570) or a radeon 6970/50. Would it be worth this upgrade given the current cpu? Oh, I also have 4GB of DDR2 1066 ram. The system is older (built almost 3 years ago) but I'd be interested to play some new games with DX11 features. Based on this latest build, I may be bottlenecking a new graphics card and throwing my money away on something overly fast. Last piece of info, my monitor runs @ 1680x1050
 
[citation][nom]zakaron[/nom]I may be bottlenecking a new graphics card and throwing my money away on something overly fast. Last piece of info, my monitor runs @ 1680x1050[/citation]
At 1680x1050, the SBM (September one, which is most similar being PhenomII x4) was more hobbled by the GPU than the CPU. In your case, you could drop on the 6970, be somewhat capped by your CPU in some games, but in 6 months, upgrade to a i5-3400 (yes, Ivy Bridge) or i5-3500K to unleash your card (by the 10fps you my be missing out on). Another 6 months down the road, drop another 6970 in there for xfire and you'll be doing fine (if you weren't satisfied with the single GPU)
 
the i5 2400 is priced too close to the 2500k to make it worth purchasing. intel realy need to create some space between their cpu line cost-wise. In Australia its only $28 more for the i5 2500k, and i'd be happy to spend the extra $28 for that. Hopefully the release of ivy bridge cpu's will push some prices down, they have remained stagnant since the initial release of these SB cpu's. I guess that is what you get when the only competition for intel, is intel...
 
why not this??? why not that??? why not hit it with a wiffle ball bat???

all jokes aside....you're not really putting out a budget pc that beats up on the 1200$ pc....are you....
 
[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]The two rigs share HDD (up $10) and video card (up $5 since we did not subtract the $10 promo code), which would have added $15 to the price of the Septemeber rig as built. Yes, the September PC had $6 more into the case that could be subtracted. We had H61 mobo options in the $55-60 range that would have performed on par, but chose a $70 board for the added features. Nothing against the Asrock M3A770DE (I've used it in numerous builds for it's price, stability, and overclocking) but it is shy on features (this H61 has) such as USB 3.0, SATA 6 Gb/s, UEFI, number of fan headers, solid caps throughout. Check out the cost of adding those features to an AM3 or AM3+ board and you see why I retained the Asrockk 770DE last time.[/citation]

Fair enough. You can get the Biostar TA870U3+ for 85$, the 960T for 125$ and a hd6950 1GB for the exact same 607$. While the board has all the features you mentioned (minus UEFI), plus 4 dimms, overclocking and core-unlocking features. Though the budget won't allow for an aftermarket HSF so you'll probably have to decide between the potential core unlocking / better oc and the 6950. Still my opinion is that it's a better value than this machine.
However, you've made your point and I can see now how this is a matter of personal taste rather than a clear cut as I originally thought, just like you've mentioned in the conclusions.
 

Thanks for the link, but the smallest Sandy Bridge listed was the Pentium G620T.
 
I would much rather have a Athlon II x3/x4/Ph II x4 or even i3 CPU and a better GPU for this kind of budget range, IMHO. You would get decent office performance and excel better at GPU based situations.

So if you went close to what I'd suggest you would:

* Save $70-100 on the CPU (Athlon II x3 or Ph II x4 960T or i3 2100)
* Spend that $70-100 on an upgraded mobo and also on the GPU.

This would allow you more upgrade path in the future (more GPU's or more slots for other add-in cards, if you need that). And also give a bump up in the GPU department too, not that the 6870 is a bad choice.

This is how I'd see a $500 (pre flood prices):
* ~$120 AMD Ph II x4 960T (or Intel i3 2100 or equivalents), if you went with the still viable Athlon II x3 455 (at $80) you could use that ~$40 in savings to afford the currently inflated HD prices and still make the $600 budget!
* ~$60-80 ATX mobo
* ~$40 for 8 gb DDR3 (no need for upgrade for awhile)
* ~$40 for a case
* ~$40-60 for 2 x 6 pin PCI-e power supply from a quality manufacturer (Antec/Corsair/PCP&C/etc.)
* ~$50-60 HD (currently at about $100, but I'm using this SBM's price)
* ~$20 for DVD Burner
* ~$230 for 6950 GPU
Total ~$600!

Yes this setup would not match up (on the CPU laden benchmarks) to the $190 i5 CPU, but would give you more GPU power, which would allow for a more enjoyable gaming system, IMHO. It all depends on where your system will be used the most.
 
Lunyone, this will be one of those rare times I will disagree with you. Your build would certainly be viable, but it's been done before, several times. This SBM, by using the i5 CPU, is providing another set of data points. The abject failure of the $1200 build suggests that a weak CPU cannot get the best results from a strong GPU, especially at the lower resolutions and/or single-monitor configurations likely to be common among budget builders.
 
Honestly find any and all comparisons to the September $500 PC invalid. You "cooked the books" so to speak by bumping your budget up $100, and then tried to cover your tracks with your "value" comparisons. I know it's hard to draw a line in the sand on dollars for a machine, but WHEN you do so comparing to the previous lower cost has little relevance. Go back and add another $100 worth of graphics card to that September PC and I guarantee your performance numbers would have gone up significantly, and tossed your "value" comparisons out the window.

Very disappointed in Tom's Hardware for such a flawed comparison.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom