System Builder Marathon, June 2012: $1000 Enthusiast PC

[blazorthon]

...
COOLER MASTER GX Series RS750-ACAAE3-US 750W Power Supply
Item #:N82E16817171053
$99.99
Grand Total: $1,039.91

Cooler Master PSU? I wouldn't do that.

Also, nitpicking, but did you need to make that post so huge when it doesn't have all that much text?

 

[bmyton]

Also, nitpicking, but did you need to make that post so huge when it doesn't have all that much text?

Good point! I should have previewed the post first, that was obnoxiously huge.

I'm always a bit on the fence with Cooler Master's products, could certainly swap that out for something with a better rep.


<Edit 2>

I also have to wonder how well a mATX build would fare with the boxed 2400 fan and heatsink:


Fractal Design Arc High Performance Cases Arc Midi Black Computer Case $99.99

ASRock Z77 Pro4-M Micro ATX Intel Motherboard $109.99

Intel Core i5-2400 3.1GHz LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor $189.99

Grand Total: $994.92

 

[blazorthon]

Good point! I should have previewed the post first, that was obnoxiously huge.

I'm always a bit on the fence with Cooler Master's products, could certainly swap that out for something with a better rep.

ty

I don't always stick purely with the main three brands of Antec, Corsair, and Seasonic, but Cooler Master is one that I avoid almost as much as some of OCZ's less reputable models. I'm pretty sure that a cheaper, but arguably more reliable PSU could have been had without sacrificing wattage. Heck, $5 more and the Solid can be replaced with an Agility 3 for a performance boost in the storage, again, without sacrifice, by saving just $5 on the PSU. Well, IMO. Personal preferences aside, it's still a great build for the money. I'd also rather get more memory, but who could complain about something as minor as that (and easy/cheaply solved) in what is effectively a free computer?

EDIT: Oh, you edited. Well, forget even needing to drop the PSU, just switch out the Solid for the Agility 3 and you're still below the budget by 8 cents.

 

[bmyton]

still below the budget by 8 cents.

All perfect suggestions. From what I've seen it seems that the 670 is currently the best bet at the $1000 point, and in SLI would make a great option for the $2000 point. Hopefully we can get a "Fan Favorite" build out of this build series that includes the 670 options.

I would love if Tom's would start adding the 1080p combinations to their benchmark setups...

$500 - at 1920x1080
$1000 - at 5760x1080 (x3)
$2000 - at 5400x1920 (x5)

 

[blazorthon]

All perfect suggestions. From what I've seen it seems that the 670 is currently the best bet at the $1000 point, and in SLI would make a great option for the $2000 point. Hopefully we can get a "Fan Favorite" build out of this build series that includes the 670 options.

I would love if Tom's would start adding the 1080p combinations to their benchmark setups...

$500 - at 1920x1080
$1000 - at 5760x1080 (x3)
$2000 - at 5400x1920 (x5)

I thought that they were

I could understand that request, but I don't think that they can do much more than they already do or else bench-marking time would be even longer, possibly meaning even more time between building the computers for an SBM and getting the results to us. I admit that it is something that I'd be interested in seeing.

$500
1440x900 (maybe not)
1600x900 or 1680x1050
1080p

$1K
1080p
2560x1600 or 2560x1440
5760x1080

$2K
1080p
2560x1600 or 2560x1440
5760x1080
5400x1920

Say, would you rather have each resolution of each benchmark/game have the same settings across the board for all machines to get a good comparison of performance, or have each resolution of each benchmark/game have the settings heightened or lowered to get around 60FPS so that the quality that each machine can put out at each resolution is compared instead of just performance? I'd like to see both, but that would almost definitely take way too long for Tom's to benchmark and I think that both could be relevant, even though the latter is often over-looked.

 

[bmyton]

Say, would you rather have each resolution of each benchmark/game have the same settings across the board for all machines to get a good comparison of performance, or have each resolution of each benchmark/game have the settings heightened or lowered to get around 60FPS so that the quality that each machine can put out at each resolution is compared instead of just performance?

I'm not certain, but I have to think that the majority of the gaming PCs out there are driving 1x 1920x1080 monitor, and those with a bigger budget are either running 3x1080 ($450), or a 2560x1440 ($800).

My only thought is that the 3x1080 setup is not outrageously expensive on a moderate budget, especially compared to a $2000 system cost, and it would provide a 50% pixel increase over the 2560x1600 resolution tested. Games like StarcraftII certainly have available graphics horsepower to get to 3x1080, but on Ultra settings BF3 and Dirt3 were 50-70fps at 2560x1600 so I have to wonder if it would be able to hold on to 40+ at 3x1080.

I agree with your point about the optimal settings for 60fps at a fixed resolution being a good way to compare the 3 systems but given the different ways games handle graphics options I think it may not be possible to get a meaningful comparison. At the end of the day everyone wants to flip the switch to "ULTRA" and see what their PC can do, it just might mean that the $500 rig has to scale back to 1600x900.

 

[blazorthon]

I'm not certain, but I have to think that the majority of the gaming PCs out there are driving 1x 1920x1080 monitor, and those with a bigger budget are either running 3x1080 ($450), or a 2560x1440 ($800).

My only thought is that the 3x1080 setup is not outrageously expensive on a moderate budget, especially compared to a $2000 system cost, and it would provide a 50% pixel increase over the 2560x1600 resolution tested. Games like StarcraftII certainly have available graphics horsepower to get to 3x1080, but on Ultra settings BF3 and Dirt3 were 50-70fps at 2560x1600 so I have to wonder if it would be able to hold on to 40+ at 3x1080.

I agree with your point about the optimal settings for 60fps at a fixed resolution being a good way to compare the 3 systems but given the different ways games handle graphics options I think it may not be possible to get a meaningful comparison. At the end of the day everyone wants to flip the switch to "ULTRA" and see what their PC can do, it just might mean that the $500 rig has to scale back to 1600x900.

Yeah, three 1080p displays aren't that expensive. Heck, you can often get three quality 1080p screens for less often than a single 2560x1600 display.

I meant that with each resolution, see what the best quality each PC can do is. IE what each machine can do while getting very high frame rates at each resolution being tested. The point would be to give people an idea of what each machine can do at that resolution. Since displays don't come with these computers, winners have to either already own the display configuration that they would use with the computer or they have to buy the displays themselves. Knowing what the computers can do in the games that they would play at a given resolution could help them to know how well the computers will do at whatever resolution(s) they intend to play at. It would also give us an idea of what we can expect the hardware to accomplish at each resolution.

So we'd keep the same resolutions and such, but also see the best that the machines can do at that resolution. if Ultra is included in that, then we'll still see at what point the machines can do Ultra, just in a more roundabout way. So, we'd know the best that the hardware could do there. I don't think I'd call it a replacement for the current benchmarking info that we get, maybe a supplementary thing. We wouldn't need benchmarks for FPS because we'd know the target FPS, so we'd just need to know the top picture quality that could hit around 60FPS. Food for thought, at the least.

Basically, see what the best that each machine could do with about 60FPS at 1080p and the other resolutions relevant to their budget.

 

[DryCreamer]

Have thought about 7770 in crossfire? From what I've seen, that setup should out perform a 7950 for ~$300

Dry

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]DryCreamer[/nom]Have thought about 7770 in crossfire? From what I've seen, that setup should out perform a 7950 for ~$300Dry[/citation]

Actually, that's a good idea and was already brought up in the $500 SBM comments. We should have brought that conversation over to this SBM a few days ago. However, it would be best to use 7770 2GB cards such as the Asus 7770 2GB. Still, that would be ~$300 and would not only have great performance for the money at stock, but you then also have two fairly overclockable cards... They are a force to be reckoned with. It would be very interesting to see Radeon 7770X2 cards with a CF dongle for triple and quad Crossfire, especially with how well these cards scale.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121642
There's the 7770 that we'd want.

Another thing that came up was using an FX-8120 with one core from each module disabled, giving each remaining core the full resources of each module and a large performance per MHz and per watt boost from that.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21865/2

That would be a very interesting $1K SBM, to say the least, in addition to very high-performing for the money. The 7770s and FX would bring down hardware costs so much (and without sacrificing raw performance) that an excellent SSD could fit into the budget along with a good after-market cooler for that FX-8120 to get it over 4.5GHz without noise issues (stock FX coolers can cool a lot of heat, but they can get kinda loud). It is a more power efficient CPU than the 4100 when used like this, but still not as power efficient as an SB or IB... However, it does beat the i7-920 in power efficiency and keeps up with the more expensive non-K edition SB/IB i5s in performance when they're pushed to nearly 3.8GHz, so it should be plenty fast for this computer.

 

[DryCreamer]

^^^ yea, I tried to edit my comment to say it would need to be 2GB to handle the high resolutions....

I wonder if you could get close to 5Ghz on a 'quad' core 8150?

Dry

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]DryCreamer[/nom]^^^ yea, I tried to edit my comment to say it would need to be 2GB to handle the high resolutions....I wonder if you could get close to 5Ghz on a 'quad' core 8150?Dry[/citation]

Yes, you probably could get close to 5GHz in this scenario and possibly even pass it by. BD is an excellent arch for overclocking stability (although it takes a minor mod such as this for its IPC to be high enough for even frequencies as high as it can hit to finally be competitive in performance). You simply need to have good cooling. However, I'm pretty sure that even the stock cooler could take the 8120 used like this pretty close to 5GHz, if not past that, although it would probably get loud.

EDIT2: The 8120 and 8150 have equal binning, so the 8120 is the better buy. The 8150 is just an 8120 with the frequency and voltage increased. The two overclock equally well.

EDIT: If you want to edit a comment on a tomshardware.com news article, you can click on the "Read the comments on the forums" link at the top of the comments, scroll down to your comment, and there is an edit button. Here's a link if you need it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/3210-56-system-builder-marathon-june-2012-1000-enthusiast

 

[DryCreamer]

well, I like them loud and I like them hot! thanks for the advice

Dry

 

[blazorthon]

well, I like them loud and I like them hot! thanks for the advice

Dry

Anytime.

 

[TheProudNoob]

Wow, there is almost more VRAM than RAM. You're sure that PC is fine? A $1000 PC would be good with a 7850, a 2500K or equivalent, and 8GB or RAM.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]TheProudNoob[/nom]Wow, there is almost more VRAM than RAM. You're sure that PC is fine? A $1000 PC would be good with a 7850, a 2500K or equivalent, and 8GB or RAM.[/citation]

I would rather have more than a 7850 in a $1K machine because the 7850 can be easily fitted into even a $750-850 budget. Why not splurge a little more than the 7850? This build would have been fine if they'd used a different case. I would have also preferred 8GB of RAM over the 4GB kit used in this build, but that point has been brought up and discussed already.

 

[flodisar]

Great build, but I would like to keep AIO(All-In-One)-focus for the machines. Since for instance I believe that there are many people, enthusiasts, like me, who are only casual gamers. But still, of course, appreciate a solid machine that should be able to perform other tasks than gaming.

I would like to see Visual Studio 2010 C#.NET compiling performace of some open source projects for instance. you could also create RAM-disks in your machines and then also measure eventual benefits of higher frequency RAM vs lower latencies. Just as a suggestion of what I'd love to see in future System Marathon Builds....

Also, many enthusiasts devote their PCs to helping humanity by donating CPU/GPU time to Folding@home and WorlCommunityGrid (WCG) and projects as such. A BOINC benchmark showing the number of points per CPU/GPU hour for different running actual projects is then very interesting. Especially since such science calculations usually are able to utilize ALL available cores/GPUs. Also, the GPU will get a great benchmark here for GPGPU applications. For instance, does the GTX680 still outperform HD7970, outside of the gaming domain?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]flodisar[/nom]Great build, but I would like to keep AIO(All-In-One)-focus for the machines. Since for instance I believe that there are many people, enthusiasts, like me, who are only casual gamers. But still, of course, appreciate a solid machine that should be able to perform other tasks than gaming.I would like to see Visual Studio 2010 C#.NET compiling performace of some open source projects for instance. you could also create RAM-disks in your machines and then also measure eventual benefits of higher frequency RAM vs lower latencies. Just as a suggestion of what I'd love to see in future System Marathon Builds....Also, many enthusiasts devote their PCs to helping humanity by donating CPU/GPU time to Folding@home and WorlCommunityGrid (WCG) and projects as such. A BOINC benchmark showing the number of points per CPU/GPU hour for different running actual projects is then very interesting. Especially since such science calculations usually are able to utilize ALL available cores/GPUs. Also, the GPU will get a great benchmark here for GPGPU applications. For instance, does the GTX680 still outperform HD7970, outside of the gaming domain?[/citation]

For SP compute, the 7970 has a roughly 50% lead on the 680 (670 is probably a little worse). For DP, the 7970 is more than five times faster than the 680. Just exactly how well this will translate into projects such as folding@home and the others, IDK, but I have no doubt that the 7970 is generally far superior to the 680 and 670 in any compute application that supports it.

 

[flodisar]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]For SP compute, the 7970 has a roughly 50% lead on the 680 (670 is probably a little worse). For DP, the 7970 is more than five times faster than the 680. Just exactly how well this will translate into projects such as folding@home and the others, IDK, but I have no doubt that the 7970 is generally far superior to the 680 and 670 in any compute application that supports it.[/citation]

Nice with such a fast reply!
Yes, I had my own suspicions regarding the 7970 being superior in comparison with GTX680 when discussing GPGPU. I just liked to point out that such questions and benchmark results would be great to include in the overal score and final judgement for the System Build Marathon series when building an "Enthusiast PC".

To me, an enthusiast is not a hard core gamer. It can be, yes, but it does not imply it. In my world, an enthusiast is someone who:

- may play games
- likes to utilize the latest technology and software that can utilize the newest hardware (with many cores, GPGPU and so on)
- is not a stranger to at least some basic casual Photoshop-ing with the goal of improving digital/digitalized high-res photos, applying some usual filters perhaps...
- is used to converting/encoding/decoding and perhaps editing digital video for different devices and here it is of course very interesting to see GPGPU...
- perhaps does some programming so it would be nice to see benchmarks on compile times and so on
- RAM-disks for some of the abovementioned tasks and comparison of different RAM sppeds/latencies may play some role here...

Just suggestions and brainstorming. I think that ATM there is too much focus on gaming (not that it is bad, but it should be better balanced for the final judgement of the system capabilities and value). Because, then one may actually find that the HD7970 really is perhaps a much better ALL-ROUND choice than the GTX680. Especally since if the system is not aimed at hard-core gamers, then the relatively small loss in game-fps for the HD7970 is perhaps very tolerable and makes no real-world difference when you can do 2xSP and 5xDP computing in comparison with the GTX680.

Well, those are some of my opinions for the System Builder Marathon (especially for the $2k PC).
Just saying that for instance when I built my 2k PC, there were good reasons why I chose 3930K 6-core CPU, X79 platform with Quad Channel, SSD, HD7970, Raided mechanical storage drives and so on...

 

[flodisar]

Concerning the $1000 PC, I think that it is a bit of overkill with HD7970 there. In that price category, to get the most of an "enthusiast PC" (see my earlier post above concerning the $2000 PC), I would have gone for an easily overclockable AMD FX system with 4 modules. Also, from Newegg (All prices with rebates):


SAMSUNG 22X DVD Burner SATA Model SH-222BB/BEBE - OEM
Item #: N82E16827151244
$14.99
COMMENT: The cheapest DVD burner, should do the trick!


Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case with Upgraded USB 3.0
Item #: N82E16811129021
$99.99
COMMENT: Solid case with USB3 ports from well-known Antec. Here, one can of course choose the same case as in the article, basically halving the cost.


Seagate Barracuda ST3750525AS 750GB 7200 RPM SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive
Item #: N82E16822148702
$79.99
COMMENT: The same HDD as in the $1000 PC build article. BUT, notice that I also have a system SSD installed @ 60GB.


ASRock 970 EXTREME4 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS
Item #: N82E16813157262
$99.99
COMMENT: Should be a really solid motherboard for up to three GPUs, USB3 etc..


MSI R7950 Twin Frozr 3GD5/OC Radeon HD 7950 3GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card
Item #: N82E16814127667
$379.99
COMMENT: Instead of a 7970, this 7950 should more than suffice for gaming needs. And for GPGPU applications it should provide a better bang for the buck than the GTX6xx series from nvidia


CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX650 V2 650W ATX12V v2.31/ EPS12V v2.92 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified Active PFC High Performance Power ...
Item #: N82E16817139020
$89.99
COMMENT: I fit the more enthusiast oriented TX series PSU from Corsair with a 50W more power than in the article.

G.SKILL Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory Model F3-1866C9D-8GAB
Item #: N82E16820231550
$59.99
COMMENT: Here I doubled up the RAM to 8GB and also 1866MHz speed

AMD FX-8120 Zambezi 3.1GHz Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core Desktop Processor FD8120FRGUBOX
Item #: N82E16819103961
$169.99
COMMENT: Easily overclockable (unlocked) and should beat the i5 in multithreaded applications.

ADATA S510 Series AS510S3-60GM-C 2.5" 60GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)
Item #: N82E16820211582
$67.99
COMMENT: System SSD drive should give that smooth feeling and responsiveness from the system, which a mechanical HDD can not deliver.

TOTAL: $1,062.91
Ok, a few dollars more than the $1000 PC in the article, BUT ok then just switch to the same chassis case and there you have it!


So why is this better in my opinion?
1. SSD (do I have to say more on this one?) + Mechanical drive
2. Double the RAM. Yes you will appreciate it if you create RAM-disk or do Photoshop/video editing, compressing/uncompressing files for instance.
3. Bulldozer CPU, sure not the highest IPC or efficiency, BUT at least there is some fun ovecklocking it and getting more value out of it. Ok, a better heatsink may be needed for those higher voltages but that can always be arranged later. One should be able to raise the mult quite a bit on this one without upping the vcore.
4. Better PSU. TX series from corsair with 50W more of future-proofing
5. Antec nine hundred seems like a more solid case in my eyes.
6. Total cost is basically the same.

Downsides:
1. GPU performance in games, one step down from 7970
2. Single-threaded CPU performance significantly lower than the i5

What do you guys/gals think?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]flodisar[/nom]So why is this better in my opinion?1. SSD (do I have to say more on this one?) + Mechanical drive2. Double the RAM. Yes you will appreciate it if you create RAM-disk or do Photoshop/video editing, compressing/uncompressing files for instance.3. Bulldozer CPU, sure not the highest IPC or efficiency, BUT at least there is some fun ovecklocking it and getting more value out of it. Ok, a better heatsink may be needed for those higher voltages but that can always be arranged later. One should be able to raise the mult quite a bit on this one without upping the vcore.4. Better PSU. TX series from corsair with 50W more of future-proofing5. Antec nine hundred seems like a more solid case in my eyes.6. Total cost is basically the same.Downsides:1. GPU performance in games, one step down from 79702. Single-threaded CPU performance significantly lower than the i5What do you guys/gals think?[/citation]

With overclocking, the 7950 can be just as good as the 7970 (even with both pushed to a safe maximum), so it's an excellent way to save money. I'd just get a cheaper case, something like a Haf 912 seems good enough. With the FX-8120, what you can do is disable one core per module (some mother boards support this as a BIOS option and for those that don't, a few fairly easy hacks can do this quickly) and you get a large IPC boost by not having two cores share the resources in each module. Sure, you're now not using the remaining cores much (if at all) and that limits highly threaded performance, but you still have four cores/threads, so no big deal for a gaming-oriented computer and if you do certain hacks, then you can easily setup any highly threaded software to be able to use all eight cores if need be. The one core per module mod can let the 8120 fight with the non K edition SB/IB i5s in overclocking performance while not using as much power as it would with all 8 cores working.

All in all, it's a good build. The only other thing that I might look into is 7770 2GB CFX instead of a single 7950. You'd save even more money and you wouldn't be sacrificing performance while doing so, although you would definitely be sacrificing upgrade path.

However, some people might be more partial to a SB/IB i5 build, but I like this way too.

 

[flodisar]

Yes, exactly what I mean. Value by OC'ing is the way to go, especially in a $1000 build. That trick with disabling one core in each module seems neat. Haven't seen any benchmarks on that though but spontaneously it sounds like there might be something to it...

Thanks for your comments on the build. The 7770 CF solution is tempting. Personally I am very sensitive to microstuttering and having heard of some driver problems related to dual adapters. Otherwise it is a very viable solution.

And regarding the case it is as always a matter of tase and what one wants to put on the desktop.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]flodisar[/nom]Yes, exactly what I mean. Value by OC'ing is the way to go, especially in a $1000 build. That trick with disabling one core in each module seems neat. Haven't seen any benchmarks on that though but spontaneously it sounds like there might be something to it...Thanks for your comments on the build. The 7770 CF solution is tempting. Personally I am very sensitive to microstuttering and having heard of some driver problems related to dual adapters. Otherwise it is a very viable solution. And regarding the case it is as always a matter of tase and what one wants to put on the desktop.[/citation]

In my experience and that of seemingly everyone else who I've talked with who tested it, Catalyst 12.6 solves the driver issues completely, especially with CF. I can't comment accurately about the micro-stutter, but I don't think that it is much of a problem for 7700 CF like it is for many other CF/SLI setups. GCN seems to be very good about multi-GPU capability.

 

[flodisar]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]In my experience and that of seemingly everyone else who I've talked with who tested it, Catalyst 12.6 solves the driver issues completely, especially with CF. I can't comment accurately about the micro-stutter, but I don't think that it is much of a problem for 7700 CF like it is for many other CF/SLI setups. GCN seems to be very good about multi-GPU capability.[/citation]

Sounds good that they have solved the issues. I have never run SLI/XFire myself, but I have heard of problems both concerning micro-stutter and driver issues. I haven't had the need to run dual adapters earlier and it has been a "fail-safe" so far also to run single card mode. But as you say, perhaps GCN and the new drivers minimize the problems.

Will soon read the $500 PC build and see what I think of it
Would be nice if they did like a theme one quarter for the builds. Such as $500, $1000 and $2000 HTPC builds - and of course evaluating the different possible needs for such a build (noise, sound, picture quality, fps, media conversion, gaming, aesthetics and so forth). That would in my opinion be nice...

 

[Meganano]

wouldn't an I5-2500K ($170 at Microcenter) be a better performer than that over priced I5-2400? (Somehow I get the impression that Newegg has Tom trapped in a buy-only-from-us-or-you'll-regret-it clause.)

 

[mousseng]

wouldn't an I5-2500K ($170 at Microcenter) be a better performer than that over priced I5-2400? (Somehow I get the impression that Newegg has Tom trapped in a buy-only-from-us-or-you'll-regret-it clause.)

Well, the SBM is sponsored by Newegg. In other words, they provide these parts free of charge (probably). Also, Microcenter only offers that discount for in-store pickups - something most people will not have access to. The vast majority of builders have Newegg as an option though, so using prices from them is the best way to cover most (if not all) of their bases.