System Builder Marathon, June 2012: System Value Compared

[dannoddd]

I would like to see a 700 or 800 dollar PC. I come across a lot of people asking me to build their rigs with a target of 650 and a max of 800. They usually want to play some games at 19x10, web browse, use photoshop, office stuff and browse the web.

I would also love to see dB ratings of these systems. They typically like to build a quiet rig that can stay on overnight, etc.

System Builder Marathons are my favorite, just wish I could win one.

 

[eddieroolz]

I think I still like the $1750 build a lot more. It's balanced and performs admirably for its price.

 

[K2N hater]

In the end it all comes to the word purpose and that's where the marathon is questionable.

We could compare all 3 rigs to the 70s muscle cars as their value was then measured according to the cubic inches and the final price solely. But it takes a week after the purchase to figure handling, brakes and even the driving position are of extreme relevance.

The comparison above is the exact focus of all 3 rigs. They're really great performers per dollar in the FPS scores but we can say some harsh words would we turn the perspective even a little bit.

My suggestion is that the following marathons focus all components. From the case cooler to the keyboard. And every single aspect should have its own methodolody and scoring in order to get us car that can do more than just accelerate quickly in a straight line.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]All true, but the 670 also costs much less, and iirc after an OC it can catch the 680. Could have cut $60-80 in the $1000 build if it were available then. That could have gone into a better case, and a 2500K. Might not have left room for an SSD though, seeing that they were already over by $34...but yeah $1100 could get you that as well...[/citation]

I was going by the parts that were available at the time. Since the 7970 was what was available and people were whinging about the 670, I simply acknowledged how close the the two are. Also, the 7970 can also catch the 680, just not in every game and at every resolution and setting. The 680 can't catch the 7970 in every situation either, so we shouldn't expect the 7970 to catch the 680 or 670 in every situation. The 670 can catch the 680 in pretty much every situation because the two scale performance in games similarly due to being almost identical cards whereas the 7970 has a whole set of advantages and disadvantages. With a wide selection of games (such as Anand's), we can really see how these cards perform over the greatest number of games and the 7900 cards do paint a better picture when more than just a few games are bench-marked. Granted, the GK104 cards win in what are mainly the more popular games and Tom's might not always have the time to benchmark every game, so it's understandable to not have huge selections in their suite, but let's not pretend that a smaller selection is always representative of the whole nor that it should be considered as thus.

At the time of when they ordered parts, a drop to the 7950 would have made much more sense, especially with how the 7950 can have equal performance to the 7970 when overclocked if they have the same PCB and cooler and that would have left room for a cheap SSD and i5-2500K, although probably not for an after-market cooler. I notice how a lot of people saying that the i5-2500K could have been fit in like this failed to mention also having an after-market cooler and there is no way that a very good one could have fit in this budget unless they dropped the graphics even more. I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather not dropt the graphics below how well it performed here, so going below a 7950 back then would have at least been unfavorable. However, it could have been done it need be. A 7870 could be overclocked fairly far, although it can't reach nearly as far past it's stock as the 7950 due to it having an already 25% hgiher frequency at 1GHz (or more if it's a factory overclocked version).

Sure, the 7950 almost definitely wouldn't be better than a GTX 670 (It would still be close, but the 670 would have almost definitely won somewhat), but that wasn't available at the time and thus isn't relevant.

Of course for the CPU, the i5-2500K would have then been an option and would've been better, but Tom's could have put a little more of an overclock on the $1K machine's i5-2400 through the BLCK. Even regular i5s, through a combination of Turbo and BLCK overclocking, should hit between a 20% and a 30% overclock if you actually want to. With the BLCK upped to just 105MHz, then the machine would have been overclocked almost to the 25% mark or so and that's not bad. It wouldn't be a great overclock, but it would have left the machine at least reaching for around 3.8GHz to 4GHz, depending on the workload.

 

[RedJaron]

I'd love to see a SBM at the $1500 price point. $1000 means you usually have to trim something or other out and $2000 usually just means overkill. $1500 means you can usually add in everything you want without completely breaking the bank. It may not win the value award in the strictest sense, but it's balanced, versatile, and will have a long, long lifespan.

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]The sub-$2000 machine excels at 2560x1600, while the $500 PC merely survives at its 1920x1080 target. Surprisingly, the $1000 PC gains ground against the higher-cost build as details are increased, almost catching it at our highest test setting.[/citation]

This shouldn't be a surprise because the 7970 is known to loose less performance than the GTX 680 as the resolution is increased and there's no big difference in CPU architecture.

Also, from a personal experience. NEVER pair a strong GPU with a weak processor. I had to endure a year with a 4870 and a Pentium D 925+. Needles to say, I was getting 19 FPS in some areas in Mass Effect. WHen I upgraded to the Phenom II, I got no less than a constant 62 FPS in those same areas.

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]And so, the almost-excellent $1000 build almost gets our recommendation. With a couple of little alterations (and a slightly higher cost) we end up asking: would anyone like a $1100 Enthusiast PC?[/citation]

Definitely. But, After owning an SSD, I'm so addicted to the boost in system responsiveness that I can't imagine owning a future system that doesn't include one

 

[adgjlsfhk]

I want to see how good a computer you could make without a gpu. You would use an I5-2500k, 8 gigs of ram, and an ssd. It might make a great productivity build while squeaking by in games.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]This shouldn't be a surprise because the 7970 is known to loose less performance than the GTX 680 as the resolution is increased and there's no big difference in CPU architecture.Also, from a personal experience. NEVER pair a strong GPU with a weak processor. I had to endure a year with a 4870 and a Pentium D 925+. Needles to say, I was getting 19 FPS in some areas in Mass Effect. WHen I upgraded to the Phenom II, I got no less than a constant 62 FPS in those same areas.[/citation]

+1

At least most people here should know by now that the Tahiti cards do better relative to GK104 cards as the workload increases. We've seen this in every single review that both benches in multiple resolutions and/or settings and includes both a GK104 card and Tahiti card.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]I want to see how good a computer you could make without a gpu. You would use an I5-2500k, 8 gigs of ram, and an ssd. It might make a great productivity build while squeaking by in games.[/citation]

Squeaking by? HD 3000 doesn't even work in some games and when it does, even the absolute minimum setting at the minimum supported resolutions can be crippling. Also, that's without a discrete graphics card, not without a GPU. Nit-picking, I know, but the i5-2500K's HD 3000 IGP is still a GPU.

Even more important, a lot of productivity work relies on discrete graphics cards, so building a productivity build without a discrete card nowadays could be crippling.

 

[sterlonn]

I also would like to see a $600-$900-$1200 gaming build off.

 

[assafbt]

I don't know, suggestions about a 600-900-1200 builds that I've seen here, really would miss out on the best that is still within a reasonable price-effectiveness ratio. I'd trade the 900 for a 1800 build, giving a 600-1200-1800 SBM. But that is just the case that could be made for this time around, prices must not be strict, and the points of price to effectiveness do fluctuate a bit, so I'd like the TH team to imply reason and set more flexible limits around these 600-1200-1800 price points, at times a 550$ build can cut it for the budget, and in the same manner there are times that a 1950$ build would go the extra mile for the high-end.
Sure, I suggest returning to subjective limits around the 3 price points, but this is a review site for god's sake, who is allowed to have subjectivity if not a review site?

 

[adgjlsfhk]

blazorthon, I meant the I5-3750k. It still is not great, but it is a big difference between hd 3000 and hd 4000.

 

[vikjha]

I'm sorry for not starting a new thread but i wanted this to get read by a larger amount of people for a more rounded view... (and since this article is about value and i'm a broke ass grad student it sorta makes sense)

I've been reading Tom's for about 6 months now planning on building my own gaming PC (i only own a PS3... i'm sorry for consoles holding back comp graphics guys)... basically because i wanted to experience amazing graphics and when rumors surfaced that the new PS would have a amd6670 i was pissed.

the latest rumor http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka [...] u-2gb-ram/

is much cooler... i'm happy to hear that it may be a 7900AMD... only clocked at 800mghz (for overheating protection i guess?)... when it comes out in holiday 2013... it will be what... 1 generation behind maybe 2?

for a person like me, who jus wants the most beautiful graphics at 1080p... if this were true do you guys think it will compete with PC graphics for a couple years at least? I could really use the extra money for some traveling.. but i don't know if 800mghz clock would seriously stunt it (not to mention the x86 processor fusion thingy) ... i think i could get by for a year and a half with last of us, tomb raider (i hope u guys get much more amazing graphics and not a shit port)... thanks in advance for ur opinions

 

[zyzz]

what the hell... you can build a way better computer than #1 or #2 for the price listed up there.

I had no idea Celeron's still exist. They are CRAP. Who would buy a celeron?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]zyzz[/nom]what the hell... you can build a way better computer than #1 or #2 for the price listed up there.I had no idea Celeron's still exist. They are CRAP. Who would buy a celeron?[/citation]

I'd say that better than the first one is doable, but the second one has fairly unbeatable performance for the money when it was made. Beyond that, Celerons are not crap. The $500 build, at 1080p, did excellently. With a GTX 560 TI, that isn't a very CPU limited resolution in most games.

 

[adgjlsfhk]

That said, it still did not do as well in games.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]That said, it still did not do as well in games.[/citation]

I thought that it did fairly well in games since it stayed at between about 50FPS to 80FPS at 1080p with reasonable settings for the GTX 560 TI. For the most part, it looked like 1080p let the 560 TI be a greater bottle-neck than the Celeron G530 was. Granted, some games will not tolerate a dual core CPU too well here (BF3 MP would probably struggle), but most games seem fine with it.

 

[zyzz]

Celeron were never good. Celeron are cheapest of the cheap!

I am sure even on budget someone could wait for sale and get an AMD chip which would be better.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]zyzz[/nom]Celeron were never good. Celeron are cheapest of the cheap!I am sure even on budget someone could wait for sale and get an AMD chip which would be better.[/citation]

What AMD CPU would you recommend that costs about the same at about $50?

 

[lunyone]

I would all of these builds if I won them, but..... I think some of the builds were a bit odd (as previously mentioned above).
I still like the idea of a strict budget (like most of us have): $500, $750, & $1k-$1.5k builds. This would require more thought about the build and it's intentions. All builds would be "gaming" themed, but make sensible "daily" computer systems. I like the idea that was put into the $500 SBM this time, just because it was something different and shows some of it's limits. Which is the whole point of building under strict budgets. One can see where the weakness is in a build and make adjustments where needed.
On the $500 build:
* I would have spent about $20-30 more on the CPU.
* Spent more on the mobo, so I could have some options there when I get upgraded parts later (i.e. USB 3.0 peripherals that you get later and want to use with your system). I would have bought the z75 based chipset, which might not have been available at order time.
* Spent a little less on the GPU, so I could afford a better CPU and Mobo.

This are all preferences that I would have made if I was buying it or if I was building it for a friend/family member. I'm all about giving the best all around experience for the prospective client and still giving a better gaming experience for the $.

 

[pauldh]

[citation][nom]zyzz[/nom]Celeron were never good. Celeron are cheapest of the cheap![/citation]
NEVER? You don't date back far enough to know at one point in time (440BX chipset days) Celerons were highly desirable enthusiast chips. For example, overclocked to 464 MHz, a $130 Celeron 300A could hang in there with the top $800-1000 Pentium II's.

Granted, over time the Celeron name has lost appeal. But I think you'd be surprised how far up AMD's (stock-clocked) line-up this $50 G530 would rank in overall gaming abilities. If you are calling it junk for games, does the same trash-talk apply to other chips it beats?

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]NEVER? You don't date back far enough to know at one point in time (440BX chipset days) Celerons were highly desirable enthusiast chips. For example, overclocked to 464 MHz, a $130 Celeron 300A could hang in there with the top $800-1000 Pentium II's. Granted, over time the Celeron name has lost appeal. But I think you'd be surprised how far up AMD's (stock-clocked) line-up this $50 G530 would rank in overall gaming abilities. If you are calling it junk for games, does the same trash-talk apply to other chips it beats?[/citation]

Granted, this would kill power efficiency, but a Phenom II x2 @ over 3.6GHz would probably beat the Celeron G530 in performance by a little. Sempron 130 ($40) unlocked and OCed to about 4GHz would also stack up well to the $50 Celeron G530 and an FM1 Athlon II or A4 with the IGP disabled would do better than the AM3 Athlon II x2s and unlocked Semprons. Still, the G530's stock performance for the money and power efficiency for its performance is unbeatable.

Cost over time through the power bill would kill any chance that AMD's dual cores had of beating the G530, but with some overclocking, they could at least be similar in performance, if not a little faster. Whether or not the stock cooler for them is the same as their bigger quad/six core brothers would be the deciding factor in whether or not they'd beat the G530 without going over its budget to have an after-market cooler.

However, we both know that the G530, unlike what zyzz said, is most certainly not junk. Any CPU that can keep the GTX 560 TI performing above the Radeon 6870 in a computer that has a Sandy Bridge i5 in most games at 1080p is not junk IMO.

 

[dark_lord69]

If I win the $500 PC I'll be installing a Core i5

 

[fb39ca4]

You could have used an NZXT Source 210 for the $1000 PC. It is also $40 like the trash can that was in the parts list.