System Builder Marathon, June 2012: $2000 Performance PC

[chesteracorgi]

I'd like to see the same rig with the pair of GTX 670s, I expect that it would rip the doors off with graphics.

 

[Reynod]

Why are we building an enthusiast PC with an Ivy Bridge processor in it when they are terrible overclockers crash?

It much rather put a 2600K in it with a decent cooler and overvlovk that for a good stable overclock and not have to worry about the processor thernally throttling.

I doubt the overclock you got would have been stable, and throwing that much voltage at it would have caused massive power draw.

It would have died on a hot day or throttled and effectively nullified all of the work and effort to get there.

This is not a realistic result for an enthusiast PC and you would have been far better off with a 2600K - it would have performed better, used less power, and there would have been less chance of it throttling.

Thats just my view.

If you did get it to run ok then that is a fluke I'd say ... but good for Intel's latest offering eh?.

It won;t last long with that sort of voltage either.

 

[Guest]

Overall, it's nice to see an explicit gaming rig build sometimes, but the graph on the last page is laughably disingenuous. Hanging the value performance differential solely on the 7970 is something I find hard to believe anyone responsible would actually publish. You started to be totally upfront with the "we cut x,y and z components" to trim cost, which automatically bloats the % value for the 680, but then you dont even mention the $300 processor cost increase the 7970 was supposed to pick up as well (more than the other 3 combined).

Nowhere, in any build or in any responsible presentation, could someone legitimately print that a 680 can make a "bloody mess" of a 7970. It's better all around, by about 10%, stock vs stock, oc vs oc. It's also about 10% more expensive than the 7970, currently. Was AMD gouging on the 7970 price then? Yup. Is it responsible to present two current products with a tag-line and summation like this? No.

 

[eddieroolz]

GTX 680 proves its muscles again. Unfortunately availability is so spotty right now, its not even funny. I've been waiting for my EVGA version for more than a month now...still no sight of it.

 

[soloburrito]

The A900 at this point is a horrible case for the price. Cable management is non-existent and the interior isn't even painted (cardinal sin for a case with a window). So many other great cases for that price point which would be much worthier of the pricey components in this build.

Also I believe you could've gone with 2x $400 GPUs and still met the budget requirements which would've provided for exceptional gaming performance especially when you start to consider multi-monitor set-ups.

 

[confish21]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]i would never buy a green 5400 RPM over a 7200 RPM drive, no matter the cost.[/citation]

I think this has to do with over half of the Seagate Barracuda 7200's failing...

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]jbc029[/nom]Overall, it's nice to see an explicit gaming rig build sometimes, but the graph on the last page is laughably disingenuous. Hanging the value performance differential solely on the 7970 is something I find hard to believe anyone responsible would actually publish. You started to be totally upfront with the "we cut x,y and z components" to trim cost, which automatically bloats the % value for the 680, but then you dont even mention the $300 processor cost increase the 7970 was supposed to pick up as well (more than the other 3 combined).Nowhere, in any build or in any responsible presentation, could someone legitimately print that a 680 can make a "bloody mess" of a 7970. It's better all around, by about 10%, stock vs stock, oc vs oc. It's also about 10% more expensive than the 7970, currently. Was AMD gouging on the 7970 price then? Yup. Is it responsible to present two current products with a tag-line and summation like this? No.[/citation]

10% better while costing less is a huge bloody mess. Keep in mind the components are purchased months ahead, when 7970 was still at $550. NVidia is also not gouging people; the retailers are. There are places where a 680 is $519CAD and the same model costs $569CAD at another retailer. NVidia doesn't control that, the retailers do.

In the end, just look at the Kepler launch review for more information.

 

[g-unit1111]

[citation][nom]hellfire24[/nom]that's what i said but i got thumbs down[/citation]

I had an Antec 900 and I finally dumped it for the Graphite 600T because I was tired of not having cable management and having to remove the HD trays every time I needed to add a drive. I like cases that allow for easier HD adding / removing.

The A900 at this point is a horrible case for the price. Cable management is non-existent and the interior isn't even painted (cardinal sin for a case with a window). So many other great cases for that price point which would be much worthier of the pricey components in this build.

That's exactly why I dumped mine - I'd far go for an Arc MIDI, Corsair 400/500R or even the Antec 1100 over the 900. On a $2K build I'd get the Switch 810 without even thinking about it.

 

[airborne11b]

I just built a 3750k, z77 sabertooth, 2x 670gtx, 240gb ssd, bluray burner, 8gb ram, 1050hx corsair psu, h100 cooler and a d800 corsair case for about $2000. Im loving it. 2x 670s are amazing and they are very available.

 

[10tacle]

This is similar to my SB 2500k build last year. Last week there were several 680s available for several days. It looks like this week they've dried up again. However, as one who lucked into getting an EVGA SC 680 early on for that SB build, if I had it to do over, I'd have gotten a 670 (after waiting for that bad batch to flush out of the market). Now I'll be forced to buy another 680 for SLI which will be $200 combined more than a pair of 680s. I'm almost tempted to sell the 680 now for about $50 off purchase price and pick up two 670s.

And that Zalman cooler looks really good. It would look way better than my fugly (but highly functional) NH-D14, but according to Frostytech, it's a few C over that cooler in peak performance. Whoever came up with the color combo of the NH-D14 needs to be banned from ever choosing cooler colors in a company for life. Finally, I don't know why so many people hate on the Nine Hundred case. It's top quality steel, and looks damn fine on top of my desk without being a massive monstrosity. This is one of the best cases for those of us that like to keep our air-cooled rigs away from the floor and up in "clean air."

 

[Twoboxer]

I love these quarterly builds . . . even when I don't agree with certain choices, I learn something new each time. And the composite picture they draw gives me confidence tweaking my own builds to my own needs. Here's where I'd differ with your choices:

I think the Antec 900 is highly over-rated . . . I bought one for my first build based on internet buzz, paying $125 nearly 5 yers ago. It was needlessly noisy, dusty, heavy, and (IMO) ugly. It sits in my basement, unused. There are several quieter, cooler, positive-pressure dust-free cases out there to choose from.

I understand choosing a 120GB SSD when competing for a "value" crown. Personally, I prefer 256GB so I can comfortably keep all my current game interests stored there. But having chosen 120GB, I don't agree with the "green" choice for the main storage drive in a gaming rig, especially when you are so far under budget. I'd love to learn how gaming performance compares when using an SSD vs "black" vs "green". And how much power is actually saved by choosing "green".

Finally, I'd like to see your power efficiency measures put on the same basis as your other value measurement, ie, cost.

I was curious as to what the rather large power savings Q2 vs Q1 would actually save me. At one hour/day and $0.15 per KwH, the savings were $3.67 per year at Idle, $7.01 if cpu-bound, $4.16 if gpu-bound and $9.09 per year if CPU+GPU bound. So a 4-hour per day gamer, 1-hour per day browser would probably save ~$20 per year of use, or $81 over the 4-year life of the system.

I'd also like to know/verify the true power consumption of these systems in "sleep" mode. I find it ironic that many folks who want to go green also leave their rigs asleep 20+ hours per day. Assuming only 10W consumption by the entire system when in sleep mode, that costs $11 per year in wasted power.

 

[slakbo]

To be honest, for $2k I want a system that does it all, including walking the dog and shining my shoes, so I am in favor of a multi-purpose build. If that isn't possible, then perhaps a page in the review that is dedicated to parts substitutions that would enhance performance in other areas, such as productivity, video editing, HTPC, etc. I would also like to see other builds. First, an after-action, "best-of" build that uses the optimum price-to-performance parts from the other three builds. Second, I would like to see three "editor's choice" builds that use only the low, medium, and high-price parts recommended throughout Tom's Hardware. I would find that as useful, if not more, than a "buyer rating" build.

 

[chumly]

should've gotten two 670's instead of one 680 to hit you're price cap and get the best performance.

 

[ra3tonite]

Very impressive system!

In response as to whether to keep the gaming focus or move back towards higher-cost do-it-all machines...
I would prefer the builder to at least try to max out the target budget. In that sense, I guess I am biased towards the higher-cost do-it-all-machines. For example, If another situation were to arise that the builder has leftover funds, I think it would be nice to see an extra SSD for a RAID 0 setup, or maybe even throw back in the blu-ray drive to set the 2000$ build in a different class from the rest of the systems.

 

[qarano]

Honestly I would say you should stick with the productivity focus, because even though the majority of the builders on this site are gamers, very few of them would be willing to shell out 2 grand on something solely for gaming, especially since gaming performance pretty much hits it's highest on a budget of around 1200 at resolutions of 1080p or lower (which is what most people have).

No, most people building machines at this budget are doing it for productivity reasons, where an investment like this actually makes sense. Those are the people who could most use the help from these articles.

Maybe when >1080p gaming becomes more widespread, but for now you should keep the forcus on productivity.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Dreadteir[/nom]Personally, I don't mind seeing a system geared towards gaming because, that's what I'm going to want to do on my computer.I am disappointed in seeing such a large remainder for your budget ($259!?). Yes, this is a giming system, and no, that's not enough for another GTX680, but there are still a lot of places you could have used that money. More RAM, a better case, a better SSD, a bigger or faster data drive etc. Agreed on the BD-R, not needed on a gaming build yet.I figure if you have the $2000 budget, use as much of it as possible!Cheers,Dreadteir[/citation]More RAM wouldn't have helped the benchmarks. The CPU was fairly well pushed to the limit too, due mostly to problems between the core-to-IHS interface. So the smart money on performance-boosting would have gone towards to GTX 670's, except that they weren't out when the system got ordered. Hence the leftover money.[citation][nom]w0lfstar[/nom]The RAM seems to be not really in line with the rest of the system. While it's cool that it was possible to tweak a 1600 set up to 2000 while playing with settings, why not spend a bit more of the extra budget cash and put in 2400 or 2600 RAM in?[/citation]Did you see the recent RAM roundup? Those are the same timings that the top-rated modules ran at DDR3-1866. Higher data rates only help when the timings are kept fairly low.[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Kudos for not believing you had to spend the whole budget. For an all-around PC, there's enough left for the BD drive.[/citation]There's probably enough money left to upgrade the case, SSD and optical drives for at-home use of profession-oriented programs[citation][nom]soloburrito[/nom]The A900 at this point is a horrible case for the price. Cable management is non-existent and the interior isn't even painted (cardinal sin for a case with a window). [/citation]Cables are stuffed just fine, and I prefer silver interiors. Better to see when servicing.[citation][nom]REYNOD[/nom]Why are we building an enthusiast PC with an Ivy Bridge processor in it when they are terrible overclockers crash?It much rather put a 2600K in it with a decent cooler and overvlovk that.[/citation]Based on experience with the thing. I have a better sample here (heat transfer-wise) that has been running a couple months at 1.30V, so 1.25V should be OK. And besides, 4.6 is 4.6 right? Do you really think 4.8 on SB would be a step up in reliability?[citation][nom]10tacle[/nom]I don't know why so many people hate on the Nine Hundred case. It's top quality steel, and looks damn fine on top of my desk without being a massive monstrosity. This is one of the best cases for those of us that like to keep our air-cooled rigs away from the floor and up in "clean air."[/citation]Finally, someone who "gets it"

 

[Thomas_89]

[citation][nom]slicedtoad[/nom]On another note, I dislike value comparisons when things like SSD size and optical drives have made an impact in price. A larger SSD does nothing for a benchmark but is awesome in practice. I'd prefer only comparing the combined price of the gpu, cpu, cooler(s) and mobo in the value chart. That's not a perfect solution but it annoys me that things like high quality PSUs, nice cases, blu-ray burners and large SSDs throw things off so much.[/citation]
I very much agree with this, although I think the PSU should be included. They don't throw the comparison off that much and are very essential.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

You can do so much better for $2000 that it's not even funny. Here's a quick example:

Core i7-2600K: $300
CM Hyper 212 EVO: $34
ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3: $150
2x EVGA GeForce GTX 670: $800
Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe 240GB: $230
Samsung EcoGreen F4 2TB: $120
G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3-1600: $47
Corsair HX750: $145
LG 12x/16x Blu-Ray Reader/DVD Burner: $50
Corsair Carbide 400R: $90

Total inc. shipping: $1978

You lose about 3-4% of performance compared to the 3770K stock, but the 2600K can overclock slightly higher on air cooling. Performance difference then becomes a wash, except you're paying $50 more for the 3770K.

The P67 Extreme4 Gen3 has pretty much everything the Z77 Extreme4 has, except PCIe 3.0 (the 2600K doesn't support PCIe 3.0, which doesn't really matter) and four back panel USB 3.0 (it has 2 in the back panel, plus 2 on the front panel for a total of 4).

Two GTX 670s will absolutely demolish a GTX 680 with any third-party heatsink, hands down. The GTX 680 is bad bang-for-buck for a high-end system. Also, why is it necessary for a relative power sipper like the GTX 680 to have a three-slot heatsink? Completely unnecessary.

While staying in budget, I was able to get the same SSD model with twice the capacity. That means all your programs, your OS, and a good quantity of your games would be able to fit. Additionally, the 2TB EcoGreen F4 is the same price as the 2TB Barracuda LP but doesn't have the drawback of a bad firmware and shoddy reliability, plus it performs faster.

The Seasonic PSU included is a bit too expensive. With the HX750 all you lose in comparison is 3% in overall efficiency and nothing else. For $15 less, it's a better deal.

The RAM... well, it's the same specs as what was included in the build. DDR3-1600 is more than enough for this system.

For the optical drive you can get a Blu-Ray Reader/DVD Writer instead. Why would you make a $2000 system that can't play Blu-Ray movies, especially since Blu-Ray readers are so inexpensive these days?

The case (IMO) looks about 4x better than the Antec Nine Hundred and its internal design is also 4x better, easily. It's also $10 cheaper, and if you want more ventilation you have tons of options for additional fans.

This is how it's done for $2000.

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]LOL_Wut_Axel[/nom]This is how it's done for $2000.[/citation]
No, not when the GTX670 was not available when this was spec'ed. You need to read the article, not just look at the parts that were selected.

I have yet to figure out why there are drones who postulate builds that were not possible at the time these articles were planned...

 

[RedJaron]

Now this is my idea of a "realistic dream" machine. Sure, lots of people want to throw a "kitchen sink" rig together but really how many people can afford to dump $2000+ into a computer? $1500 - $1800 is probably the limit most people can afford to get a machine without completely breaking the bank or saving up for a whole year. I like this build, I like the components, I like that it had a clear goal.

Personally I like the idea of coming in under budget. Yes, the surplus would have allowed a fancier case and a larger SSD ( I may have opted for the latter. ) But how many of us set a budget in mind for our last build and then actually stayed at or below it? Perhaps the value comparisons could get weighted slightly in favor of builds that stay under their budget?

As for a gaming vs professional SBM, I agree with others that I'd like to see them alternated. Six months ought to give enough time for new tech to come out that makes a marked improvement over the last iteration and would give a better "compare and contrast." Ideally I'd like to see SBMs for the main computer categories ( budget, mid-range, and extreme for productivity, gaming, and HTPC, ) but nine builds is asking for a lot of extra time and effort.

 

[littleleo]

The GTX670s are a lot more available then the GTX680s. I still have some GTX680s and the GTX690s are very limited and may be discontinued. The GTX670s I have in stock and with the great price and good power I feel its a very good value. AMD has the pricing issues now and they need to get their driver issues taken care of. I hate seeing these AMD card coming back because of driver issues.

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]And then there’s the price. By trimming some of last quarter's luxuries, like the BD-R (for ripping and long-term backups), a silent case (to avoid distractions when working), and a larger SSD (providing more room for performance-sensitive apps), we cut around $300 from this build. This is, after all, primarily a gaming machine, and the $259 we had left couldn't get us a second GeForce GTX 680.[/citation]

But it could have gotten you a decent Blue Ray burner, right?

 

[Kreelor]

I read the Newegg Users Comments. Only 58% of the people who bought this Mb gave it a 5-star rating. That leaves the rest of the people complaining about DOA's, bent pins, BIOS problems, poor ASrock support, pitiful user manual, error codes without explanations, etc. The list goes on on and on.

Almost every motherboard I've seen reviewed and recommended here on THG has a similar story. I have no confidence in buying! It appears to me that the "luck factor" is 50%; you'll get a board that works, or a dud. That's not reasurring. I'm stuck in limbo, trying to complete my new build without gambling on whether or not Newegg will accept an RMA. If I have to wait weeks for that, then the 30-days will expire on all the other parts I bought from them. Geeesh. I guess the system builders on THG are just the luckiest people in the world.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]jkrui01[/nom]I sugest Toms to stop talking about AMD and RADEONS, if Nvidia and Intel always wins ,way put others brands in the reviews? Make it a TomsNvidiaIntelHardware.com. When i dont like something ,i dont test it and talk about it, i ignore it.[/citation]

Almost every SBM has either been purely Radeon cards or mostly Radeon cards for a long time now. AMD CPUs aren't used much anymore because they are not viable CPUs for high end gaming machines in every game (Tom's tried an FX-6100 a few SBMs back and it was disastrous, although the 6100 wasn't the only problem with that machine nor was it the worst problem, especially since a 6100 is decent when overclocked highly, although its still power inefficient). Besides, the previous SBM had the 7970 used in two machines. That's not ignoring AMD Radeons, that's deciding not to use them every single time, especially since back then, the 7970 was still more expensive than the 680 despite being a little slower in most games.

 

[youssef 2010]

Happy with the gaming focus as well. Awesome build. Keep it up, Tom's