System Builder Marathon, June 2011: Value Compared

[Zeh]

As much as I liked this article, I can't wait for AMD be back.

Couldn't wait for Bulldozer either, rocking a 2500k, 8gb, and soon going for double video cards.

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

The new performance calculations: they're much better. Disk speed is important, but I think most could give up waiting 3-5 seconds for programs to launch in order to get better parts.

 

[Guest]

I have a quad-core Q6600 from 2006,which I bought with 200$
The only worthwhile thing that happened in the last 5 years was an increase of 50% in the core count
But those are 1000$ processors,so there is no reason for me to upgrade until the octocores appear 3 months from now,from AMD and Intel
Interlagos will have 16 cores so why would anyone buy a quad-core machine now?

 

[striker410]

[citation][nom]stygian[/nom]I concede the point about the i3. My C+ probably has something to do with the fact that I am typing this on an i3 laptop. The case however I stand by it... awful, just awful. Minimal front ports... okay it's a $30 case I get it but I refuse to believe that a vented top adds more than a few pennies to the manufacturing cost. And the front is horrid. I don't like cases with neon lights and chrome spinners on it but it doesn't need to look like a case that some Soviet bureaucrat typed a five year plan on in 1981.The goal of the $600 machine should be (IMHO) scalability. The motherboard should be able to accept a i5 or i7 chips even if you use an i3 for the initial build. The mobo should be Crossfire and SLI ready even if only 1 graphic card is used for the initial build. I'm willing to bet that there is more than one us out here that would like a machine that we could expand as our cash flow improves. Come to think of it, if that means keeping that horrid case, then so be it. At least I can replace it later. But there is little I can do if I'm stuck with an older chipset on a microATX motherboard! (The TH editor who made that call really does deserve some sort of punishment--pantsing, atomic wedgie, double jock lock, swirly... something--LOL). SBM has done things like this in the past and those machines performed well compared to the $1000/$2000 machines. $500 just isn't cut'n it anymore.[/citation]

I wouldn't say he needs punishment, I mean he only has $500 to work with.

What do you say we do a little akimbo project eh? A $600 machine? Maybe we can get a mod's attention and get it added in, just for kicks?

 

[clonazepam]

[citation][nom]Ozymankos[/nom]I have a quad-core Q6600 from 2006,which I bought with 200$ The only worthwhile thing that happened in the last 5 years was an increase of 50% in the core countBut those are 1000$ processors,so there is no reason for me to upgrade until the octocores appear 3 months from now,from AMD and IntelInterlagos will have 16 cores so why would anyone buy a quad-core machine now?[/citation]

I run a q6600 at a 50% overclock but it is undeniable that the new optimizations in the latest Intel processors can make a huge difference depending on your needs. I already see that $500 build is beating me up in many areas despite running a gtx 570.

 

[lunyone]

I still say you should keep the $500 build. It forces you to make educated and informed decisions. When you start to get sloppy you inflate the build to $600 or more. It's extremely easy to make a much better build with more $, but if you stick to the strict $500 build budget, than your knowledge will come to the fore front. I don't like the mobo that was selected for the $500 build. If I were to build a $500 build right now, I wouldn't even have an Intel CPU in it. Only because the mobo's in the $50-70 price range, just don't support much options. The lack of USB ports and the type, is just one of the things. If you look at just about ANY AMD based mobo (AM3 and up), you will notice that the options that are present on the mobo's are just that much better than just about any Intel based mobo in the same price range. Most of the AMD based mobo's (AM3 and up) usually support even the top tier of AMD CPU's. Intel's $50-70 price ranged mobo's don't always support the fastest Intel CPU's. I would much rather have a fully featured board at a given price range, than have a weak featured mobo.
So to sum up what I'd consider a good $500 build:
* $50-70 fully featured mobo (if at all possible, or at least as fully featured as could be)
* 3 to 4 AMD cores, if possible (The i3 2100 would be fine too, but is a bit spendy at $125 for this kind of build)
* ~$100-150 for the GPU
* 4 gb's of DDR3 RAM
* Decent Case, with room to upgrade (add adition fans if needed later)
* Solid Quality PSU 380w or better (Antec, Corsair, Seasonic, PCP&C, to name a few good brands)

I know AMD has been pretty much in most of the SBM's in the $500 range, and this is because they are a good value in the price segment ($400-500). Once you start to get over $550 or so you start bumping into the Intel zone. This is where the build can come down to personal preference.

I think that right now is a good time to build, if your going with a SB based system. I'd probably build the SB system around a z68 based mobo, so you have more flexibility later. The H and P based SB mobo's just seem a bit restrictive, IMHO. I know they have their uses/places, but for me they are just average.

If you building a system around an AMD platform, than the Phenom II x4 955 BE should be where your starting the build at. You can save $10-20 by going with a Athlon II x3, but I think the 955 BE is the sweet spot CPU for AMD right now, IMHO. They were $115 - $15 promo card earlier last week at Newegg, which puts it at $100!! If you want to chance a bit of future proofing (if it pans out that way) you can get an AM3+ based mobo. The only thing is that your going to have to pay around $100 for one, which sorta pushes the $500 budget too much.

Sorry for the rambling, but I think what I said needed to be said.

*** Keep the $500 SBM build and please work at it a bit better next time. No >$500 build, like the current $526 build. Stick with the budget and leave it at that. Also make sure you include shipping, because I can buy parts all day long, but if there is an exorbitant amount of shipping costs, it's all for not. You can increase your costs by 10% in a $500 build, if you don't count the shipping.

*** I'd like to see $500, $750, $1000, & $1500 build points. This way you can see how far your $ can get pushed. Especially since money is quite tight in the economy.

 

[eddieroolz]

As I wrote in the $500 machine article, I'd have to seriously disagree with the choice of Intel Core i3 in this month's build.

The point of building a custom PC is for expandability and the ability to customize the hardware to your needs. If one has to be bound by the rules Intel sets (which are unreasonable) and as a result limit the choices we have to improve the machine, then the point of a custom PC is lost.

Yes, I'm referring to the inability to do absolutely anything about the clock on the i3. I've never seen a processor stupider than this.

If one went with an AM3 build, it would have been possible to upgrade later, possibly yielding higher performance than the i3 will in a few month's time. Meanwhile, the i3 is stuck where it is for the life of the build.

/rant

 

[lunyone]

^^^ I totally agree with you eddieroolz!!! I hope my previous post was perceived the same way.

 

[Onus]

I agree with you two also. A machine that cannot be expanded is obsolete when built (the builder just may not know it yet).
It wins no benchmarks, but a miserable little X2 265 can play any game, so it makes no sense to sacrifice the motherboard for this build.

 

[rafer]

It would be nice to see the noise quantified - you mention it below the temperatures chart, but don't show me what you're talking about.

 

[hangfirew8]

I think it's great to see an i3 in the $500 build, if only to see what it takes to get there and how it compares to AMD quad cores. I also agree you should stick with the $500 limit, it requires discipline and hard choices. As with any system it can be upgraded later, at the cost of tossing some of the original parts. Yeah, it hurts to see how little M/B you got, but that's the point, at $500 hard decisions must be made. Since a month's pricing changes have already fixed this issue, why complain?

About resolutions, 1280x1024 is nearly an identical number of pixels to the true new low-end, 1440x900, so while I'd like to see the 1440 in the low end slot I suspect the performance numbers would be identical.

Since with the advent of $99 1920x1080 monitors, lower end in resolutions beneath that is talking strictly about the installed base. No sane person today would buy a new monitor under 1920x1080, but plenty of sane people would continue gaming with a two year old 1440x900 or a three year old 1680x1050.

The upshot of all that is while I'd rather see 1440x900 in the lower end slot (and my favorite, 1920x1200 in the middle), it really doesn't matter, what you have now is OK, I can figure out where other systems fall in.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]hangfirew8[/nom]About resolutions, 1280x1024 is nearly an identical number of pixels to the true new low-end, 1440x900, so while I'd like to see the 1440 in the low end slot I suspect the performance numbers would be identical.[/citation]I brought that up a couple times last summer, but the consensus was that low-budget builders might just as often use extremely old monitors.

 

[Guest]

This article contains tons of valuable information, but I do think it's kind of misleading. It's hard to use a system without a monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, and an operating system. With tax and shipping, the $500 computer is closer to $750.