System Builder Marathon, June 2011: $500 Gaming PC

[Guest]

@Crashman Convenient of you to ignore the bulk of my argument, poor benchmarks with little relevance to MOST people looking to build a GAMING PC, and trying to pick apart the logical fallacies.

For starters, I did not know that Tom's had exclusivity rights with Newegg on SBM. I just noticed that now. Even so, I fully support other opinions on this forum which have CLEARLY shown that this build could have been cheaper and more effective.

Secondly, of course the i3 would have been the choice of CPU for this budget build as it's pretty much the best dollar/performance ratio you can get at $125. Not only that but it's a newer architecture allowing greater upgradability whereas the Phenoms and the AM3 socket are about to be phased out. Furthermore it stated in the march SBM that the next build would attempt using an i3 CPU. So that's why it's not surprising.

Thirdly, what exactly does Metro 2033 have to do with anything? That game is an average shooter and an incomprehensibly big system-hog. How does running this poorly optimized game for a benchmark prove anything when, like I clearly stated, you're leaving out most games people actually play?

I just want to make it perfectly clear: I'm not discussing the hardware, the build, the OC or anything else hardware related here. It just seems to me that Tom's benchmarks and perhaps their choice of parts for "budget" builds is lacking.

 

[Stardude82]

[citation][nom]annnonyxxxx2[/nom]It just seems to me that Tom's benchmarks and perhaps their choice of parts for "budget" builds is lacking.[/citation]

If you're so great at picking parts, benchmarks and business models why don't you start your own site and put Tom's out of business?

 

[ubercake]

[citation][nom]mightymaxio[/nom]Um lets see, unreal 3 can use hyperthreading, battlefield bad company 2 and battlefield 3 take advantage of hyperthreading, many games such as wow now take advantage of it. Need i go on.[/citation]
This is absolutely true. BFBC2 will use as many thread as you have available.

 

[genghiskron]

Crashman, you imply that there are no funds for a 955 vs i3-2100 comparison. Would it be possible for readers to donate the $170 or so it would take to make this possible, and test it before the $500 build is shipped out? In an interesting twist, you could ship the PC with the preferred setup, and ship the remaining cpu+mobo to an additional winner.

 

[ubercake]

[citation][nom]gondor[/nom]Thanks for elaborating on that Crashman. Is there any chance we could get a 955BE and AM3+ board based $500 review for performance comparison ?While Intel build might be able to outdo it in the efficiency department some users might not care about this as much as they do about pure performance (where 955BE might prove to be more than just a fair a match to i3 2100) and further upgradeability where H61 based braindead board used in this review doesn't leave much wiggling room and AM3+ board might allow upgrade path to Bulldozer CPU, higher speed RAM, come equipped with USB 3.0 etc.[/citation]
Seriously? AMD is more concerned with cramming mediocre video capabilities onto their processing packages than they are about beating Sandy Bridge. For the sake of competition, I hope all the hype leads somewhere, but the likelihood of Bulldozer completely surpassing the i7-2600k and Sandy Bridge in performance is as likely as the Mayan calendar's indication of the end of the world (could be true, but no one knows). We're already waiting for better stepping on these processors (reason for the delayed release). And the AM3 can beat the 1155 chipset how?

As far as an upgrade goes, you could drop an i7-2600k onto this board as well as a new PSU and GTX 580 or Radeon 6970, but I guess that would be a pretty lame system, huh?

You do have a pretty strong USB 3.0 argument though. I'll give you that.

 

[Zero_]

Crashman, you imply that there are no funds for a 955 vs i3-2100 comparison. Would it be possible for readers to donate the $170 or so it would take to make this possible, and test it before the $500 build is shipped out? In an interesting twist, you could ship the PC with the preferred setup, and ship the remaining cpu+mobo to an additional winner.

$170 wouldn't do it. The reason I'm interested in dropping down to the 955BE is that it allows a graphics upgrade for ~$15 more. i.e. the HD6870.

If you are going for a budget build, bang for buck is important.

 

[rflynn88]

I don't get all of the "lack of flexibility" complaints on the 1155 board. Don't get me wrong as far as features go that board is garbage, and doesn't offer any overclocking options. However, for ~$209 you can buy a Core i5-2500 (non-K) and drop it in that board. At that point no AMD CPU is even going to touch it. Also, who cares about overclocking if the overclocked system just competes with another stock system at the same price?

In this particular comparison the AMD system probably makes the most sense. For $500 you get a more feature filled system with similar performance, however at around $600+ I'll take an intel setup.

 

[grody]

Would have been nice to see a few of the gaming benchmarks done with identical drivers and gpu clocks, since the main point of picking an i3 for this build was to compare it the phenom.

 

[dosdecarnitas]

fist off i am AMD fanboy but lets be objective

computers are right now where almost any build is a comfortable build, i mean AMD or intel , Phenom ll or Core i(x) will deliver enough housepower for us to deliver almost any common day to day task and not wonder when like Crysis 1 was around where only high end build would deliver the power

so lets not bash this build cause lets face it Intel has got game while its efficient and ATI has it on the GPU side

Less Power = Cold build = More PLaytime = Happy Gamer!!! lol

 

[shredder777]

I still don't get why they won't use amd. It is way cheaper and better for the price range.

 

[AstroTC]

i think arguing over 45nm vs 32nm technology is rather silly...Even though they perform well I find these builds kinda boring..

 

[ivyanev]

The best thing in the build is the low power consumption.The problem is that programs WILL become even better threaded so in term of future use ,the march build will stand his ground better.

 

[pauldh]

[citation][nom]shredder777[/nom]I still don't get why they won't use amd. It is way cheaper and better for the price range.[/citation]
It should make perfect sense why the $1000 and $2000 systems so not use AMD, they can afford superior K-series Sandy Bridge chips and gobs of GPU muscle at the same time.

As for the Budget Gaming build, it has been ALL AMD platforms (priced between $400-$750) since the last quarter of 2009! We DO use AMD.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-gaming-pc-phenom-ii-radeon-hd-6850,2903.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclock-athlon-ii-x3,2811.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-pc-build-a-pc-overclock,2739.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-gpu-overclock,2659.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/value-gaming-pc,2578.html

This was an experiment away from the norm since it was possible to build a SB-based PC for the same cost as the former Phenom II X4 system. An X4-955 would not have been cheaper than this when we ordered components.

 

[darasen]

I am a bit confused. In the $2000 article the comments were complaining that the build was too similar to the previous $2k build. The comments here are complaining because this build isn't the same as the march build.

 

[pauldh]

[citation][nom]darasen[/nom]I am a bit confused. In the $2000 article the comments were complaining that the build was too similar to the previous $2k build. The comments here are complaining because this build isn't the same as the march build.[/citation]
LOL, pretty much so.

It's a controversial build. The AMD crowd knows continual falling prices and/or speed bumps have kept their brand very competative (even owning) this price slot. Overclockers aren't happy with the limitations of this gen Core i3. Some get it (gaming/stock performance/ efficiency), while others obviously just wanted the (edit) March PC bumped up a notch and re-tested.

 

[SpadeM]

Well I for one am still waiting for a outrageous system (like the one with quad fire cards from way back). This month's SBM was quite plain really ... nothing really stood out. Sure the systems were ok-ish but ... no sex appeal what so ever, they just felt bland. Also regarding the benchmark section, would it be possible to have a antivirus running in the background when u guys benchmark the rigs? Should be more engaging for the systems and spice things up a bit.

 

[striker410]

I'm sort of shocked at the response from the build. I mean, I know it's a very heated debate (been in more than one myself on the forums >.>) But poeple, this is just one opinion. Just because they chose to go Intel this round doesn't make them biased. Both builds are legitimate,and anyone who go's onto Anandtech's bench section can see that the i3 outperforms the 955 (even when overclocked) in gaming. Not saying it's a better choice, but one to consider.

Additionally, in a gaming PC the GPU is the real bottleneck. You are not going to see much difference between the two.

The USB3 arguement is also invalid. On newegg, there is no boards with usb3/sataIII for $60. None. Not even a Biostar. This means you would have to jump to a $70-75 board, eliminating your cost savings.
Now I'm not trying to say the Intel was the way to go. I might have gone AMD, if just for the sake that I'd like to dabble with OC. But 90% of people will leave it stock, where the i3 clearly wins.

Before anyone accuses me of Intel fanboyism, I am writing from an Athlon II x3 and I love it.

Editors, You have my support. It was good to show 2 sides and 2 possible builds. Good job.

 

[cmcghee358]

[citation][nom]Outlander_04[/nom]Looks to me the Phenom 955 owns the $500 spot . Its cheaper , you get a better motherboard that your friends wont laugh at .Can we have this article updated with both rigs graphics cards set at the same clocks ? That would be a telling comparison .[/citation]

Except the previous build is in the happy hands of one of the readers, so it's not exactly readily available. More importantly I think the variance of the clock speeds of the cards demonstrates that there is always the possiblity that your card/CPU won't perform the same as anyone else's. How many times have we seen memory that previously overclocked well, in a new build not overclock in a new build.

 

[triculious]

Hey Tom's people, month after month I read the "why did you choose over you fanboys?", "I'm sure you sold your souls to as you ALWAYS prefer one over the other", "this build sucks and would have been better if MY CHOICE of parts was used" or "why build this kind of machine which is clearly not the best bang/buck out there?".

Wouldn't a simple statement that the SMB is NOT a buying guide suffice? Hatters gonna hate, but I think making it clear would help even a bit.

On the other hand, I enjoyed this build. Gaming focused and helps comparing what a cheap SB can offer against the good ol' reliable Phenom II X4.

Keep up the good work guys.

 

[gondor]

[citation][nom]darasen[/nom]The comments here are complaining because this build isn't the same as the march build.[/citation]

Actually my only "complaint" (I wasn't really complaining about anything, I asked whether it would be possible to get an alternative $500 configuration that promises equal gaming performance in most titles and better performance in heavily threaded applications benchmarked as well) was that it would have been nice to see the performance of 955BE based system so that a fair comparison could be made.

The article, as it stands now, merely speculates about its performance and I don't think that actually performing the comparison would break the piggybank; they probably have suitable hardware (with possible exception of the motherboard) shelved somewhere, just run the tests and slap current prices next to it.

It's just a matter of thoroughness - present valid alternatives to educate us (the readers).

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]As for the Budget Gaming build, it has been ALL AMD platforms (priced between $400-$750) since the last quarter of 2009! We DO use AMD.

This was an experiment away from the norm since it was possible to build a SB-based PC for the same cost as the former Phenom II X4 system. An X4-955 would not have been cheaper than this when we ordered components.[/citation]
Just about 50 AMD noobs and fanboys either reading through or actively participating in the comments section just got owned, once again. It happens every time, despite the fact that Tom's reviewers have consistently chosen AMD components in the past, despite the fact that tom's recommended one high-end AMD graphics card over another... I guess if they don't always choose every available AMD option, they must be biased and bought out by Intel or Nvidia.

 

[haplo602]

good build for the price range. I do agree with the AMD crowd however. A more featured mainboard would have been a better choice.

the CPU is decent for the tasks this budget aims at.

 

[Onus]

This build was so mediocre and boring it was perfect. I'm not being sarcastic; there are good lessons here. It should serve as an excellent baseline of what to expect when accepting every kind of compromise elsewhere in order to cram a Core-i3 into a budget build. As fast as it may be on specific tasks, the CPU does NOT make up for all the other shortcomings. In particular, the mobo is so limited that this is a classic case of being penny wise and pound foolish, because almost any kind of expansion will require a new one. And, hyperthreading may be a nice bonus, but it can't save a dual-core CPU; not any more.

 

[striker410]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]This build was so mediocre and boring it was perfect. I'm not being sarcastic; there are good lessons here. It should serve as an excellent baseline of what to expect when accepting every kind of compromise elsewhere in order to cram a Core-i3 into a budget build. As fast as it may be on specific tasks, the CPU does NOT make up for all the other shortcomings. In particular, the mobo is so limited that this is a classic case of being penny wise and pound foolish, because almost any kind of expansion will require a new one. And, hyperthreading may be a nice bonus, but it can't save a dual-core CPU; not any more.[/citation]

Well I'd love to see your perfect build that includes a 955 CPU, a 6850 GPU, a case, a PSU a dvd burner, and HDD, AND A motherboard capable of CrossfireX, USB3 and SataIII. Oh, and keep it around $500.

This is a BUDGET build. If someone can only afford $500, they aren't going to be expanding. This is all about the FPS for the money, which people like you will never understand. yes they could get a better mobo, but that would mean taking a hit to the FPS. this is a GAMING system, the fps is all that matters.

 

[Guest]

One nice thing about the i3 build presented here is that one can always drop in a MUCH faster processor as an upgrade with small expense or effort. As far as I'm aware, the AMD doesn't have as much headroom. Alternatively, spending the extra $60 or whatever to move up to the i5 from the get-go seems like a good move as well.