System Builder Marathon, June 2011: $500 Gaming PC

Page 4 - 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.


Hate to say it buddy, but Tom's agree's with me, and so do the benchmarks. Rethink the term "fanboy" when referring to my well explained posts on the forums. I think it is you who is unwilling to realize.....

I'm not saying the Phenom II is bad, not by a long shot. But the i3 is better, IN GAMING. If you can show me the Phenom beat the i3 IN BENCHMARKS, I will gladly change my position. All I have seen you do is blow smoke with nothing to back up your claims.
 
I'd like to see a realistic base software load used during gaming benchmarks. These other things need not be particularly active (e.g. running a scan), but install things like:
1. Anti-virus of your choice (as long as the same one is used on all builds under test). I suggest AVG because it is free.
2. Steam client.
3. Acrobat Reader and/or Flash (which install at least one background task).
4. Latest Java Runtime (which also loads a background updater).
5. IM client of your choice. I would think Yahoo Messenger or MSN. Minimize it to the tray but load it.
6. VOIP client, such as Skype, Teamspeak, or Ventrillo.
6a. What effect does the MagicJack client have on games? What if a call is received during play?
While some gamers try to pare their systems down to the bone while playing, that may not always be an option, AND, we're just going for more metrics here.
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]A crappy Thermaltake PSU cannot support a GTX460; not for long anyway. ...[/citation]

This is the silliest comment I've read on these forums in ages. I've been
using Thermaltake Toughpower PSUs exclusively for the benchmarking I've
been doing recently and they work extremely well; the unit in my main
gaming PC drives two EVGA GTX 460 1GB FTW cards in SLI 100% ok, with the
CPU (i7 870) running peachy at 4270MHz, DDR3/2030 RAM, etc.

I've been using the same PSU model (several of them) with a wide range
of other boards, cards, GPUs and CPUs. Not a single problem.

Now if you'd said 'underpowered' PSU, or suspiciously cheap, bottom of
the range, or whatever, that would be a different matter, but slating all
Thermaltake PSUs in that way is factually wrong.

Ian.

PS. Test results, all of mine done with Thermaltake PSUs:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#PC

 


A very elegant and polite response. +1 respect bro!

I definitely appreciate your view. It's one I've debated over for a while.
Thanks for pointing out my negative attitude. I tend to come down hard on some of these mindless fanboy's 😛 I'll do better.

I hope to run into you on the forums again. This place could use intelligent people like you haha.
 
jtt283 writes:
> I have edited my post to make even more clear what I thought were the
> obvious implications. ...

Thanks! 8)

(how did you edit your post btw?)


> ... I am aware that some of the better Thermaltake PSUs have received
> good technical reviews. ...

Yep, it's the Toughpower series I use, they're excellent.


> ... The model in question, however, is overrated junk:
> http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/art [...] view/332/9

That I can well believe. 😀

Odd though, there are decent low-cost PSUs available. I built a PC for
my neighbour last year, fitted it with a new CiT 700W BE which cost the
equivalent of $45, it worked really well, no problems at all (they've
been using the system for 14 months now). I wanted a decent wattage since
the system has a 6000+ and an 8800GT.

So yes, I can well imagine there are better choices than the example used.

Ian.

 
Just wondering about the intro comments regarding the inability to oc the
i3 2100... for $3 less overall, one could substitute the build with the
following items:

i3 540: $110
Asrock H55M-LE: $65
Mushkin Enhanced Blackline 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3/1600 CAS 7: $47

The CPU can be very nicely oc'd, even with the stock cooler,
and the RAM is a lot better. I wonder how it would compare
to the i3 2100 config with the 540 oc'd to whatever is possible
with the retail cooler (at least 4GHz is possible AFAIK).

And use the $3 on a better PSU... 😉

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]striker410[/nom]If you can show me the Phenom beat the i3 IN BENCHMARKS, I will gladly change my position.[/citation]

And this is precisely what we are asking for - the author of the article implied that 955BE would offer more horsepower than 925 used in March $500 build, possibly coming out on par with i3 in gaming category while trashing it in productivity (and losing in power efficiency), while costing about as much and leaving more money for motherboard with more/better features.

It would provide an interesting comparison and give THG readers more options (which is what these articles ultimately boil down to, don't they ? educating readers). And before some schmuck decides to call me AMD fanboy again: I own 4 x86-based computers. One is P4-M (NetBurst), another one is Pentium-M (Banias) and two are Core2. Exactly zero AMD systems, yet I'm still interested in seeing the comparison we're asking for.
 


To the article author, any chance you could run a couple of more widely available CPU tests on the 2100 system please?
eg. Cinebench 9.5/10/11.529? I'm in the process of sorting out an oc'd i3 540 setup so I could directly compare CPU
performance and from that infer with a reasonably degree of confidence how the 540 would behave. Also, in numerous SB
reviews I've seen charts where the various SB offerings are listed alongside the i7 870 or 875 for gaming tests. Since I'm
running lots of 3D tests on an 870 (both stock & oc'd), one could compare these to the stock & oc'd 540 data and then
extrapolate to where in the charts the 2100 appears in SB reviews. By 3D tests I mean 3DMark06/Vantage/11, Ungine (all 3),
Stalker COP, Juarez and X3TC. Alas I don't have the funds to buy any SB hw, otherwise I would indeed do a direct comparison.

But overall, I do get the feeling an oc'd 540 would be significantly better at this budget level, in which case it really ought to be
mentioned somehow, at the very least in the summary. As another poster said, it's all about educating the reader and enabling
people to make the best choice. IMO, based on what is available, the 2100 is not the best choice in this instance.

Of course though, as soon as the budget can allow for a 2500K without ruining the GPU choice then that'd be more sensible. :)

Ian.

 
Sigh...

Case with yop mounted PSU, non overclockable CPU...

Not a good build in my opinion.
 
(mapesdhs & gondor) - The system is prepped for shipping already and a couple other test platforms on the bench. Sorry; there is just no time for another look.

Understood the i3-540 @ 4.0 GHz would top this machine, but it would lose at stock and in efficiency. I considered it, but personally would not build a LGA-1156 system any longer, not for myself or for an SBM. Now that the platform is essentially dead(for new builds) IMO is not the time I'd start building a dual-core LGA-1156 machine; No way, not a chance! If you ever wanted a CPU upgrade, this current $500 build has a far better path. Upgrade for $5 more to the mobo recommended in the conclusion, and you have SATA 6 Gb/s, PCI slots, and USB 3.0. Personally I'd want to step up in chipset altogether to Z68 or P67 and be ready for Crossfire/SLI and more OC flexibility. But the i3-2100 is NOT a bad starter CPU for a serious gamer.

Another thing people must remember.... today's selections and prices were not available when we ordered our components. My conclusion speaks highly of the X4-955 BE, and for good reason.... plummeting prices on the chip, not available when we ordered. Now, upon the completion of the series, I think it's the better all-round choice for an SBM machine (again, at current prices). It would need 3.6GHz + CPU-NB overclocking just to match this i3 in games, but both are GPU limited where it counts anyway. Neither is a bad choice.

Anyway, I may have failed to be clear on this .... but this machine totally accomplished the goals set out for it! Take me back to order day, same selection, same prices... and I would have chosen the same components without one single change. It's not for everyone, but cheapest SB solution was well worth the look IMO.
 
pauldh writes:
> (mapesdhs & gondor) - The system is prepped for shipping already and a

Ah well, no prob. In time I'll have some useful data people can use.


> Understood the i3-540 @ 4.0 GHz would top this machine, but it would
> lose at stock and in efficiency. ...

Stock speed isn't relevant to my point; as for efficiency, to be
perfectly honest I don't believe people who buy this class of system
give the slightest hoot about efficiency.


> ... If you ever wanted a CPU upgrade, this current $500 build has a
> far better path. ...

You'd have the change the PSU aswell though.


> ... Upgrade for $5 more to the mobo recommended in the
> conclusion, and you have SATA 6 Gb/s, PCI slots, and USB 3.0.

Thing is, the rest of the parts can't explot these features (slowish
disk, etc.) Not really a mark against an H55/P55 build IMO.


> Personally I'd want to step up in chipset altogether to Z68 or P67 and

IMO P67 was a step down. CPU performance, yes, but not breathtakingly
better than previous CPUs (check the review results, it's surprising
how often a stock 870 is so close, or even quicker, than a stock
2500K). Most of all though, I wasn't impressed with the slot layouts of
many P67 boards (or the H series equivalents) and the lack of having
both CF and SLI on many boards is annoying. Z68 is a lot better however.


> be ready for Crossfire/SLI and more OC flexibility. But the i3-2100 is
> NOT a bad starter CPU for a serious gamer.

Serious gamer? I don't think any 'serious' gamer would opt for a build
such as this. By definition, a serious gamer would be going for an
oc'able setup, whether that's a 2500K minimum or a 955 or better, and
they wouldn't be buying a <400W PSU. 😉


> ... It would need 3.6GHz + CPU-NB overclocking just to match this i3
> in games, but both are GPU limited where it counts anyway. Neither is a
> bad choice.

True, but for a system of *this* type, with such low-end components, I
do think a 540 is a perfectly acceptable alternative. It can hardly be
called dead when products are still being sold and the resulant
performance is still competitive (faster in this case); ruling it out
because of ideas about an upgrade path doesn't make sense - anyone who
cared about that to a significant degree wouldn't be buying this kind
of parts selection in the first place, certainly such a low PSU.


> components without one single change. It's not for everyone, but
> cheapest SB solution was well worth the look IMO.

Alas I do agree with the other poster who said it'd be nice to know how
it compared to an equivalent build with a 955, or, from my viewpoint, a
540 instead.

Ian.

PS. In future, please run Cinebench 9.5/10/11.529 on the systems (CPU
tests only). The data really would be useful for other comparisons.

 
Personally, I'd be a bit wary about a 380W PSU pushing a 6850... I think the manufacturer recommends a minimum of 400W on that one. Not including all the other components asking for power in that system. I always throw in bigger unit than I calculate anyway, so this is kinda scary for me.
 
The 380W Earthwatts is an underrated unit, able to put out more than what is on its label, all day every day. Especially when you look at the ACTUAL (i.e. measured, not calculated) power draw of this system, it should be obvious that it is sufficient.
Manufacturers recommend higher-wattage units in the hopeless attempt at compensating for all the overrated garbage units out there, some of which can barely manage half of what's on their labels (e.g. Diablotek).
 

It's maybe not for you, fair enough, but this is what the build was all about. We repeatedly have people voice the opinion they value stock performance over OC'ed performance. To each his/her own. So, in many ways you are missing the point of the build. The Phenom II X4 set a new bar in stock performance for our value gaming rigs, and this one in many areas cleaned it's clock.

As for power consumption and efficiency, I couldn't disagree more with you. (Some) people at all budgets care about going "green", but especially those with limited funds could appreciate any way of saving cash.



Sorry, but you are completely wrong on this one! We have put the EA380D through far higher demands and it's actually more than enough for a CPU upgrade. In fact, you could pop a 6870 in also.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc,2969-13.html

Look at the March 2011 $100 rig.... overclocked 6950 and i5-2500K pulled 323W from the wall socket. Factor in 80-85% efficeincy of the PSU, and you see how little was asked of it (that PSU). How poorly the March $500 AMD rig did vs. this March SB $1000 rig in consumption and bang/watt, is one reason this build had an i3 in it.


Wasn't meant to be. This is to address the many complaints about a stripped down mobo.


Sure Z68 is better, but P67 could allow full multiplier availability of the K-series chip, and dual graphics cards.


I said serious gamer, not RICH gamer. Do you imply those on a limited budget can not be serious gamers? Look at the Steam Hardware survey and you'll see a huge percentage of gamers living with far, far less hardware muscle. How about consoles? Any PS3 or 360 owners consider themselves to be serious gamers?

And clearly not all gamers OC. Most do not! If it makes some OC'ers feel better go ahead and OC the Ph II at this budget, and you'll almost match the stock performance of the i3-2100. 😉 Seriously though, whether you OC a i3-540, X4 955 BE, or run this stock .... this Radeon 6850 is typically going to hold all of them back where it matters most.

I'm not saying an i3-540 is bad, nor that what you are asking to see isn't worth a look. But we'll have to agree to disagree here on some points as we are not on the same page in desires for this system. Take care!
 
pauldh writes:
> I'm not saying an i3-540 is bad, nor that what you are asking to see isn't worth
> a look. But we'll have to agree to disagree here on some points as we are not on
> the same page in desires for this system. Take care!

Hehe, ok! 😀 Still a good article though nonetheless!

Ian.

 
[citation][nom]Zero_[/nom]Is it just me or does anyone get a feeling that the SBM rigs are being sold for advertising? The X4 955 costs $15 less like you said, and allows overclocking even with stock, and $60 would buy a much better equipped AMD board. Also, $185 gets you a HD6870 these days.Result? Better FPS per $ for the same price. TBH, that's what I was expecting. I am disappoint.[/citation]
+1. I was expecting an AMD in the $500 rig, but this is too much Intel worship.
 
Unlike your $1000 build, I'd say this one was pretty good overall. Only things I can see wrong with it is the fact that Intel thought it would be a great idea to make to not make all their CPUs with unlocked multipliers, and the fact that the motherboard was pretty limited in terms of features and the quality of its components.

Hard drive was a solid choice for the price, as was the always-reliable Crucial RAM, the ASUS DVD Burner, the Antec EA380D. Nice case for the price, too.

As another member said, for the next SBM it would be great to see you guys include a Phenom II X4 955, which includes a beefier cooler than the 925. Because of that, and better binning, it should be able to hit 3.5 or 3.6GHz on stock voltage. At that speed there would be no contest between it and the Core i3 2100 in anything other than gaming and perhaps audio encoding. I know efficiency is great and all, but let's face it: this is for a desktop, and energy costs in the US are pretty low. A machine that consumes 270W at full load really isn't a power hog at all.

It would be especially awesome if you could accommodate a Phenom II X4 plus a Radeon HD 6870 into the budget for the next build. Then we'd be talking about almost enthusiast performance.
 
I'd say this is a bit better overall. Anyone feel free to build this for an even lower price than this one:

Lite-On DVD Burner: $19
Xigmatek Asgard Black/Orange Case: $30
Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB: $40
ASRock M3A770DE: $60
HIS Radeon HD 6870: $185
Xigmatek PC-402 400W: $35
G.Skill NS 4GB DDR3 1333MHz: $35
AMD Phenom II X4 955: $113

Total: $518

The Phenom II X4 955 OCs on the stock cooler to about 3.6GHz, easily making it faster than the Core i3 2100 in any task that's not gaming or audio encoding. Overall, it's a better CPU for the price. The motherboard is MUCH better than the one in the article since it has more features. The real change is the GPU, which is almost as fast as a GTX 560 Ti. I know some of you haven't seen the PSU before, so here's what the article from Tom's Hardware had to say:

The units from Corsair, Xigmatek, and Huntkey emerge almost even in these tests, while the FSP Saga II 400 trails slightly (but gets outright disqualified in the US for its lack of 115 V support). Huntkey and Xigmatek share the win, with Huntkey scoring better in the efficiency tests and Xigmatek faring extremely well in the overload tests. Additionally, Xigmatek has more connectors and higher quality cables, but both units are recommended. The Corsair PSU doesn't stick out in any way, but there's nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, Huntkey's offering isn't available in the US, so once again, we have to disqualify it from a recommendation.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely the best you're gonna get for $500.
 
Not to continue to come down on you guys, but I keep seeing "in any task that isn't gaming". Do me a favor, read the article name. Yes, that's right, it says gaming PC. Just making sure you caught that.
 
[citation][nom]AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls[/nom]I'd say this is a bit better overall. Anyone feel free to build this for an even lower price than this one:Lite-On DVD Burner: $19Xigmatek Asgard Black/Orange Case: $30Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500GB: $40ASRock M3A770DE: $60HIS Radeon HD 6870: $185Xigmatek PC-402 400W: $35G.Skill NS 4GB DDR3 1333MHz: $35AMD Phenom II X4 955: $113Total: $518The Phenom II X4 955 OCs on the stock cooler to about 3.6GHz, easily making it faster than the Core i3 2100 in any task that's not gaming or audio encoding. Overall, it's a better CPU for the price. The motherboard is MUCH better than the one in the article since it has more features. The real change is the GPU, which is almost as fast as a GTX 560 Ti. I know some of you haven't seen the PSU before, so here's what the article from Tom's Hardware had to say:This is absolutely the best you're gonna get for $500.[/citation]I say you should ask Paul if he can get approval for a separate article using those parts.
 
A question on opinions. For comparative benchmarking purposes, do you (the reader)
think CPUs like the i7 870 should - for stock speed testing - have the Turbo turned
off and the clock thus fixed at some level? Or better just to leave it all on Auto
which one could argue would be more like 'normal' default usage? Not an issue with
the 540 of course.

So far for the testing I've been doing, I've had Turbo off and the 870 set to 2930
(the oc setting is 4270), but when testing apps like X3TC this could make a big
difference, ie. with all on Auto, the 870 would Turbo up to 3.6 a lot of the time,
something it wouldn't do for most other gaming tests. Test results are certainly
more consistent & repeatable with a fixed clock.

Ian.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom