System Builder Marathon, June 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]What a piece of junk. Amd gpu and non k series c.pu. All value lost. Fail[/citation]

If being a non K edition and having an AMD video card makes a build a fail... Well, I think that's enough said. Being a K edition does not change performance, it only means more overclocking headroom. The i5-2400 at stock is a very fast CPU and it shouldn't have much trouble at all with the 7970 at 2560x1600. Having an AMD video card doesn't make something a fail. Being biased about them despite the 7970 being on-par with the then yet-to-be-released GTX 670 is the fail here.

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]The difference is hard to see in benchmarks, but the extra memory does help reduce visual problems with memory hungry graphics cards... and leaves breathing room in case you want to do some multitasking. Toms even mentioned it once, right here:http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 778-6.htmlI've also seen the extra memory help quite a bit in min FPS values.Problem is, when you're looking at lame bar graphs that only show average FPS values, you don't see things like increased frequency of low FPS dips, more artifacting, pop in, and so on. So it's incorrectly assumed that the increase from 4GB to 8GB of RAM doesn't improve gaming performance.In this memory article, from Tom's Hardware, your writer "thoroughly recommend a minimum RAM size of 8 GB". So, yeah, actually, the 4GB of memory decision is questionable. More so, actually, would be the P67 motherboard paired with a i5 2400 that can't OC. Which is a mind blowingly strange pairing, since the P67's only benefit is that it could OC the CPU, (but so can Z68, so why pick a P67?) but the 2400 can't OC... but wait! for about a 20 dollar increase in cost you could have got a 2500k and made the P67 board a more valid decision.I totally don't get it. Seems like a mistake, to be honest. Like a "whoops, picked the wrong Mobo" or "whoops, picked the wrong CPU", since I don't think anyone would have intentionally picked the 2 of those together.But, yet, it was on purpose.Like choosing 4GB of DDR3 1600 for 34 dollars, when you can bump that to 8GB for a mere 12 dollar price increase, was apparently, also on purpose.[/citation]

The i5-2400 can and did overclock through the Turbo. Tom's just didn't push it further with BLCK overclocking on top of the Turbo. That would have probably given it another 4% to 6%. I wouldn't call that a large improvement, but coupled with the Turbo Boost, it'd be better than nothing at an over 22%ish overclock.

 

[fulle]

They struggled their asses off on a 3.8 OC, when a 2500k would have been able to hit 4.2GHz at lower than stock Vcore.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]They struggled their asses off on a 3.8 OC, when a 2500k would have been able to hit 4.2GHz at lower than stock Vcore.[/citation]

Tom's could have used the BLCK to struggle towards 4GHz instead of 3.8GHz and they probably could have also lowered Vcore if they wanted to.

 

[RedJaron]

All too often though I see peeps on here spending money on larger psu's and spendy boards for the hopes of one day adding a second vid card that most likely they never will and what that does is short them in the gpu dept. right off the get go.

All too true. I've seen many, many new builders get recommendations for 800W - 1000W PSUs for the CFX/SLI headroom. First, all but the most power-hungry GPUs can be doubled up on a quality 850W or less. And second, as you said, how many people actually carry out their plans to grab that second GPU? I'd hazard a guess that if you don't get the second card within a year of the first ( probably closer to six months, ) you never will. After a year, I think most people start eyeing the new tech and want to upgrade that way rather than dropping in a second, older card. Then the whole vicious cycle starts over again with them upgrading to a single new card and then telling themselves they'll double up on it down the road.

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Tom's could have used the BLCK to struggle towards 4GHz instead of 3.8GHz and they probably could have also lowered Vcore if they wanted to.[/citation]

Probably true, but adjusting the BLCK often compromises stability, and the 2500k would still have a LOT more OC headroom.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]Probably true, but adjusting the BLCK often compromises stability, and the 2500k would still have a LOT more OC headroom.[/citation]

Yes, but it would have been out of budget and BLCK adjusting isn't bad on a good board if you limit it to about 4% to 6%. 4-5% is all it would take for Tom's to be shooting for 4GHz.

 

[fulle]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Yes, but it would have been out of budget and BLCK adjusting isn't bad on a good board if you limit it to about 4% to 6%. 4-5% is all it would take for Tom's to be shooting for 4GHz.[/citation]

I disagree with the "out of budget", since there are Z68 motherboards available for 100 dollars, that should have been able to work fine, for a modest OC. For the same cost, Don could have chosen an inexpensive Z68 motherboard, with a 2500k, and hit a stock cooling OC between 4-4.3GHz, depending on how lucky the draw is on the 2500k's thermals. That's losing 200-500MHz on the CPU, for no reason at all.

 

[fulle]

Been a jerk, thus far, mostly for the benefit of anyone who wants to build a similar system... pointing out flaws and such. I actually benefit more when they make incorrect choices like this, because I get to see how a less typical system, made with some weird choices, performs.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]I disagree with the "out of budget", since there are Z68 motherboards available for 100 dollars, that should have been able to work fine, for a modest OC. For the same cost, Don could have chosen an inexpensive Z68 motherboard, with a 2500k, and hit a stock cooling OC between 4-4.3GHz, depending on how lucky the draw is on the 2500k's thermals. That's losing 200-500MHz on the CPU, for no reason at all.[/citation]

Budget Z68 boards weren't always good. Go back over a month or so and they were quite a bit worse overall. Price for quality motherboards has gone down dramatically on many boards recently.

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]Been a jerk, thus far, mostly for the benefit of anyone who wants to build a similar system... pointing out flaws and such. I actually benefit more when they make incorrect choices like this, because I get to see how a less typical system, made with some weird choices, performs.[/citation]

I wouldn't call you a jerk over it. This is a fairly big tech site and they have a build that they're showing us, we're probably expected to comment about it with honesty.

 

[cleeve]

Toms even mentioned it once

Yeah, but what's the context? Igor was running max texture details on a graphics card with 1GB of RAM... two years ago?

The 7970 has 2 GB, BTW. So that doesn't really apply to this system.

And, for the record, no texture popping was experienced on this test system on any of the games we tested. Thats at max details, 2560x1600 with AA applied mind you.

In addition, I run some 4GB systems as backup gaming machines and *none* have texture popping issues.

Like choosing 4GB of DDR3 1600 for 34 dollars, when you can bump that to 8GB for a mere 12 dollar price increase, was apparently, also on purpose.

You're not comparing apples to apples though; at the time of purchase, 8GB of memory the same latency was quite a bit more expensive.

I'll take 4 GB of low latency *every day of the week* over 8 GB of high latency, and that was the decision made here.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, based on the evidence I don't think your concern is justified.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Yeah, but what's the context? Igor was running max texture details on a graphics card with 1GB of RAM... two years ago?The 7970 has 2 GB, BTW. So that doesn't really apply to this system. And, for the record, no texture popping was experienced on this test system on any of the games we tested. Thats at max details, 2560x1600 with AA applied mind you.In addition, I run some 4GB systems as backup gaming machines and *none* have texture popping issues.You're not comparing apples to apples though; at the time of purchase, 8GB of memory the same latency was quite a bit more expensive.I'll take 4 GB of low latency *every day of the week* over 8 GB of high latency, and that was the decision made here.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, based on the evidence I don't think your concern is justified.[/citation]

7970 has 3GB, not 2GB. I think that the concern is justified. For anyone who has anything running when they game, such as a web browser, 4GB is simply not enough. Even if it has slightly lower latency, running out of capacity is a far more pressing concern, especially in the long term. People here are saying that with 4GB systems in gaming, they push past 3.75GB and such. All it would take for 4GB to become a problem is a little bit more memory being used by a game and that's for people who don't run something such as a web browser when they play because we already can't do with 4GB. I understand and agree with 4GB being used in the $500 build, but I disagree with its use in the $1K build.

But fine, agree to disagree. We've all argued our points and it's clear that we wouldn't use this system in the same way, so both sides of this argument couldn't be happy with the same configuration. It's not really important, if I did win, I'd just throw in an 8GB kit at my own expense. Seems like a more than fair compromise because if I did win, I'd be getting a free computer, so I'd have nothing to complain about other than the case not fitting properly.

 

[terry4536]

I am running out of incentive to read these System Builder Marathons. The last few have been less than great. I think the 7970 is vastly overpriced and overrated. And the case is crap.

 

[blazorthon]

I am running out of incentive to read these System Builder Marathons. The last few have been less than great. I think the 7970 is vastly overpriced and overrated. And the case is crap.

Overreact much? The 7970 was the only option back then because there was no GTX 670 and the GTX 680 was even more expensive than the Radeon 7970, so not an option. Overpriced, sure. The 7970 would be better off (IMO) if it were priced at the GTX 670's level or slightly below it. However, it is what it is. Overrated? That I can say might be true because with the 7970 and 7950, overclocking performance is pretty equal with the same PCB and cooler. We don't need to agree with these builds wholeheartedly. This is still a very nice computer, especially for gaming. If not for the case, then the only thing that is even controversial is the memory... And that there is simply personal preference, even if it's not my preference.

 

[fulle]

@Cleeve

Years ago, GTAIV would have been a great example of a game that struggles with 4GB of RAM, but I agree it's less likely to have pop in and artifacting with a 2GB card... so long as that's all you're doing.

Yet, in the last couple of years the games have changed, and now... the more likely scenario stressing that 4GB of RAM would be a user playing Skyrim with a texture pack mod. You want to see a system with 4GB choke, there you go.
- hell, all you'd actually have to do to max that out is to make the user recommended INI file tweaks, and with only 4GB of RAM it'd be iffy as hell.

For a 12 dollar cost increase, it currently be unjustifiable to go with 4GB. But, I'll definitely concede that prices may not have been the same when this system's parts were purchased out.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]@CleeveYears ago, GTAIV would have been a great example of a game that struggles with 4GB of RAM, but I agree it's less likely to have pop in and artifacting with a 2GB card... so long as that's all you're doing.Yet, in the last couple of years the games have changed, and now... the more likely scenario stressing that 4GB of RAM would be a user playing Skyrim with a texture pack mod. You want to see a system with 4GB choke, there you go.- hell, all you'd actually have to do to max that out is to make the user recommended INI file tweaks, and with only 4GB of RAM it'd be iffy as hell.For a 12 dollar cost increase, it currently be unjustifiable to go with 4GB. But, I'll definitely concede that prices may not have been the same when this system's parts were purchased out.[/citation]

Again, the Radeon 7970 has 3GB of VRAM. I don't think that a Radeon 7970 2GB even exists. The 7850 and 7870 have 2GB, but the 7950 and 7970 have 3GB. There might even be some 7970 6GB cards... However, no 7970 2GB cards. The 7970 has a 384 bit bus and RAM ICs have 32 bit buses each, so the 7970 needs 12 chips. In order for the 7970 to have 2GB, it would need to have chips of at least two different sizes. AMD does not do this. Cleeve probably had a typo.

 

[K2N hater]

Supposing that's meant to be a spartan build yet fast I would pick a cheap SSD instead of the HDD. Sure you can't keep a dozen of the latest games installed but that's what a spartan build is like.

Like the legion of posters above I agree 8GB RAM is the bare minimum for a Windows 7 gaming PC. Severe swapping also hurts gaming so 4GB is a no go.

 

[alphaalphaalpha1]

Supposing that's meant to be a spartan build yet fast I would pick a cheap SSD instead of the HDD. Sure you can't keep a dozen of the latest games installed but that's what a spartan build is like.

Like the legion of posters above I agree 8GB RAM is the bare minimum for a Windows 7 gaming PC. Severe swapping also hurts gaming so 4GB is a no go.

Severe swapping didn't seem to cause Tom's many problems when Tom's was testing this build and I've played on gaming machines with 4GB. So long as you don't have something that isn't necessary to the game open, it's almost always fine. Considering that this is a $1000 computer, I would have liked to see 8GB. However, to say that 8GB is a minimum would be wrong. 4GB is the practical minimum right now. 4GB might not be enough before this year is out or it might take two or three years before it is truly impractical, but as of right now, 4GB is enough and unless you are using your RAM for something other than gaming or playing a specific game in a very specific way, 4GB should not be a bottle-neck except maybe on a computer running Vista with only 4GB of RAM.

Also, like blaz said earlier, switching down to a 7950 and using some of that money for a cheap SSD would solve the problem that some of you have when there isn't an SSD and it could do it without sacrificing gaming performance if you overclock that 7950. Heck, it would have also made 8GB of RAM a more practical option too. Radeon 7970/GTX 680 are epeen and nothing more when it comes to gamers who overclock.

 

[terry4536]

Overreact much? The 7970 was the only option back then because there was no GTX 670 and the GTX 680 was even more expensive than the Radeon 7970, so not an option. Overpriced, sure. The 7970 would be better off (IMO) if it were priced at the GTX 670's level or slightly below it. However, it is what it is. Overrated? That I can say might be true because with the 7970 and 7950, overclocking performance is pretty equal with the same PCB and cooler. We don't need to agree with these builds wholeheartedly. This is still a very nice computer, especially for gaming. If not for the case, then the only thing that is even controversial is the memory... And that there is simply personal preference, even if it's not my preference.

Hi,
I was a little excited waiting for the new 2012 Radeon cards to come out. The first graphics cards to use PCI Express 3.0 x 16. Along with Ivy Bridge & Z77 motherboards, everything was looking up. After reading the reviews, I thought I had misread something. The only thing that seemed to improve was the cost.

I don"t think spending half of the budget on a graphics card makes much sense. And lastly, the 7970 was not the only option. The CPU for example was a rerun from the last marathon.

 

[blazorthon]

Hi,
I was a little excited waiting for the new 2012 Radeon cards to come out. The first graphics cards to use PCI Express 3.0 x 16. Along with Ivy Bridge & Z77 motherboards, everything was looking up. After reading the reviews, I thought I had misread something. The only thing that seemed to improve was the cost.

I don"t think spending half of the budget on a graphics card makes much sense. And lastly, the 7970 was not the only option. The CPU for example was a rerun from the last marathon.

I didn't say that the 7970 was the only option and in fact, I said that the 7950 would have been a better option. Also, PCIe 3.0 can be very important in several situations, even some gaming configurations. PCIe 3.0 usually isn't good unless it's a very high end build with limited PCIe bandwidth for the graphics because most low end or mid-ranged systems (and even most high-end) have no trouble with supplying enough PCIe bandwidth for their graphics performance.

 

[terry4536]

I didn't say that the 7970 was the only option and in fact, I said that the 7950 would have been a better option. Also, PCIe 3.0 can be very important in several situations, even some gaming configurations. PCIe 3.0 usually isn't good unless it's a very high end build with limited PCIe bandwidth for the graphics because most low end or mid-ranged systems (and even most high-end) have no trouble with supplying enough PCIe bandwidth for their graphics performance.

Hi,
I would tend to agree with you that PCIe 3.0 isn't necessary now. But in an effort to future proof my system, I wouldn't buy a motherboard today that didn't have PCIe 3.0.

 

[Bartendalot]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]i'd put an SSD in any system i build. Its so much better than a HDD.[/citation]

An SSD is huge for noticeable performance upgrade but not really a cost effective form of data storage yet. I got one for my last build as a boot drive and ended up tethering another to it because the performance is sooooo much better - but they are still expensive.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]bartendalot[/nom]An SSD is huge for noticeable performance upgrade but not really a cost effective form of data storage yet. I got one for my last build as a boot drive and ended up tethering another to it because the performance is sooooo much better - but they are still expensive.[/citation]

I think that the cost of a decent SSD is justified in a $1K build and an SSD should be pretty much mandatory in the $2K build, at least until something even better comes along. I wouldn't get a fancy and expensive SSD for the $1K build, but something like these seems reasonable:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120%204026&IsNodeId=1&name=%2450%20-%20%2475

 

[Bartendalot]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I think that the cost of a decent SSD is justified in a $1K build and an SSD should be pretty much mandatory in the $2K build, at least until something even better comes along. I wouldn't get a fancy and expensive SSD for the $1K build, but something like these seems reasonable:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 0-%20%2475[/citation]

The only thing with getting a 60GB SDD is that it will basically serve as a boot drive and not everyone has the tech-savy to operate a boot and storage drive (know which to save their files to). I saw one on Newegg that was 256GB for $209. I would put it in a build for $1000 even if sacrificing graphics card power because the effect is so noticeable - but I wouldn't build it like that for a friend who didn't have a decent understanding of how to use it.

We are kind of in agreement...

 

[RedJaron]

Considering how much SSDs have come down in the last year ( you can get a 256GB now for about what you paid for a 128GB this time last year, ) I'd also consider them a "requirement" for $1000 builds and up. I'd say 64GB is the absolute minimum for a $1000 build and would expect to see a 128GB if at all possible. Any $2000+ build should have a 256GB drive. A machine that nice will likely have a lot of games being put on it and 256GB means you can keep more simultaneously installed.

Bartend does have an excellent point about an SSD in a machine with someone who doesn't know how to use it, though.

 

[bmyton]

I am not sure how far in advance you guys have to order this stuff, but as of today I think this build would be a more interesting use of $1000...



ASRock Z77 Pro4 ATX Intel Motherboard $109.99

PNY XLR8 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory $27.99

SilverStone SST-RL01B-USB 3.0 Black Computer Case With Side Panel Window $54.99

COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus RR-B10-212P-G1 120mm sleeve CPU Cooler $29.99

EVGA GeForce GTX 670 02G-P4-2670-KR Video Card $399.99

Intel Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor $219.99

ASUS 24X DVD Burner - Bulk Black SATA Model DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS $16.99

SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive $79.99

[strike]COOLER MASTER GX Series RS750-ACAAE3-US 750W Power Supply $99.99[/strike]
>CORSAIR Builder Series CX600 V2 600W ATX12V v2.3 80 PLUS $$69.99<

Grand Total: $[strike]1,039.91[/strike] 1009.91