System Builder Marathon, March 2010: System Value Compared

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, this is just my opinion. Blatant Console ports such as MW2 should not be included in the benchmark suite. Games like this were built to run well on hardware such as a tri-core PPC procc, and 5 generation old video hardware. There's no point to 'testing' it on new PC's, we can already guess how they'll run.
 
The sweet spot right is around the $1500 mark. If you waste any more money than that, performance gains start to suck, especially if you start wasting it on water cooling. I'm a video and photo guy so my i7 920 is perfect for doing all my renderings. I'm not gonna pay another $1000 to gain a few extra seconds with the i7 980X. I have 2 GTX 260 in SLI for when I do play games, but I'm not gonna get the $700 GTX 480 if all my games are already running smooth. I would like the latest and greatest, but right now, I rather invest in my camera. It's got a higher resale value and doesn't depreciate as fast. $700 video cards are nothing when you're talking about $1500 just for a lens.
 
3 killer rigs all build with quality parts, I would take anyone in a New York second. As a gamer what more could you want?
 
I was very surprised by the 750 machine put together this time around. It's just too bad that the price of the 5750 isn't low enough to take the place of the two 4850s without increase the budget a little. True there are only a few DX11 games now, but they are coming. I guess it's a hard choice for a budget gamer to choose between a 5770 with eye infinity and DX11, or the superior performance of two 4850s in crossfire.

Anyway, good builds this time around. The $1500 PC proves to be a balanced machine and exceptional choice of components.
 
I always look forward to these system builder marathons. It's great to see what kind of performance you can get for your money these days.

There's one thing that I feel is missing that I was looking forward to seeing in this wrap-up.

The $3000 system was given a Raid-0 SSD array while the other two had regular hard drives.
I think that a quick overview of load times of the OS as well as the games and other benchmarks used for all the systems would be needed so that we can see the benefit and reason behind that choice in hardware selection.
 
Wasting...you know without water cooling the expensive system would have probably been limited to performance roughly equal to the $1500 system right?
Click to expand...

Well yes, most of the extra money spent doesn't really help benchmarks, do they? Same processor and ram.

Blu-Ray +170 - no effect on benchmark
Case +90 - just a case no effect on benchmarks. maybe slightly better cooling??
SSD + 402 - little effect on benchmarks I think, at least not FPS but will affect load times.

That's 660 right there with little effect on benchmarks.

Then
Motherboard +190 - Maybe better overclocks, and extras like USB3.0 etc but big effect on performance?
PSU + 110 - once you meet the minimum power, performance is flat, but extra headway allows higher overclock. Can we have made do with less?

So we're up to 960 with the balance really on the GPU and watercooling.

+190 on the water cooling to allow higher overclocks is probably one of the better bang for buck with regard to the benchmarks.

To summarise, 1500 does seem to be the sweet spot. But you can't look at benchmarks only, the other extras have some value (albeit maybe not 1500 worth)
 
Ok, impressive as usual, but there's one thing I find a little unfair here:

SSD's and RAID not being benchmarked and added to the final charts. The time they save you might also cost money (power, cost opportunity and maybe more) and should be added IMO. That's being biased to some "performance" metrics, a thing I don't like and Tom's don't like either 😉

Great article non the less and keep up the awsome work!

Cheers!
 
[citation][nom]Shin-san[/nom]I would love Tomshardware to try to tackle a way to make a $299 PC (no monitor, with and without an OS)[/citation]

I too would like to see how low Tom's can go and still get a machine that could play some games, and maybe include a list of games that could not be played maybe. Or even just a general-purpose rig for internet, videos, etc. How cheap is too cheap? That is a question I've been asked.

I build only as a hobby, but I have been asked if I could build a machine as cheaply as the ultra-cheapo rigs you see advertised. My answer is, "probably not," or "You wouldn't want to own that PC anyway."

I do think the $750 minimum is realistic for a new gaming PC. If one's budget is much less than that, playing most modern titles could be disappointing, and games yet to come even more so.

But how low can we set the bar? I guess we must assume the machine will be capable of running Windows, with enough power left to run the most popular applications. Can a DIY'er build a functional PC for less than HP or emachines? Include monitor, keyboard, etc too, so we get the big picture.

This might be a genuine service to people that are on the borderline of being able to afford a PC. Include the man-hours spent, so we would know if it was really worth the effort.
 
I think the cheapest PC I could build for someone and keep a clear conscience is about $339, and that's with no OS and no monitor. There's also no video card; it's on a 790GX, so it would be limited to older games, but you could add a HD5750 to it later because it has a 380W Earthwatts PSU.
 
[citation][nom]maydaynomore[/nom]The rules for the giveaway state that you DO NOT get the assembled PC, but the parts instead. I wonder why that is. Can someone from Toms comment on this?[/citation][citation]

[nom]dlochinski[/nom]Probably for shipping purposes. Shipping as is would be iffy, and plus, this is a SYSTEM BULDERS marathon, so it wouldn't make since to send the pc built already[/citation]

Bingo. That is why we even read these articles is to see what can be built, not what can be bought. Plus, newegg (the sponsor of these SBMs) is a parts seller, not a system seller.
 
EYEFINITY BENCHMARKS PLEASE!!!!! There is no noticeable gain on a 1080p monitor between 120fps and 60fps. Anything above 60fps is a waste of money.
 
The $750 build looks like a performance that will be hard to match in the future.

With the 4850's soon to disappear, and the non-guaranteed unlocked fourth core.

Good job though.
 
[citation][nom]draknar[/nom]This $750 rig surprised me on how stood up to other systems.[/citation]

That's right, and it's not for "not trying" on the other builders: The $1500 system used a very effective oversized CPU cooler, and the $3000 system was even pushed to 4.3 GHz. This just proves how relatively poor the value is for high-end computers.
 
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]Did you guys experience any issues with the unlocked overclocked X3 435 during the testing? any at all? It was 100% stable the entire time?[/citation]

It has to be 100% stable because to test it otherwise would be to cheat against the other builders.
 
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]Did you guys experience any issues with the unlocked overclocked X3 435 during the testing? any at all? It was 100% stable the entire time?[/citation]
Yup, as Thomas said, this is a must for our SBM OCs. We owe that to the readers and each other. Zero issues were encountered with the unlocked/OCed $750 PC. Otherwise you the readers would have heard about it and tests rerun with a less aggressive (fully stable) OC.
 
Tom's,
Great builds. You guys are really making me rethink my previous belief that 2 GPU's are a bad idea. The $750 system is an absolute beast and an unbelievable value. I'm also really impressed with the $1500 system. As usual, the $3000 system is a waste of money (sure would like to win it though haha).

Anyway, these articles again prove that high end PC gaming doesn't cost that much.
 
[citation][nom]huron[/nom]Thanks for another fine series. Congrats again to Paul for such a great build at a very respectable price-point. I love seeing how well the lower-priced rigs do.Great work![/citation]


What sucks even worse is that i live in "Merica" and still cannot join these nice contests they have...
 
Where is the love for Battlefield Bad Company 2 and the 16X AA, HBAO? Seems to me benchmarking anything but crysis, dirt2,heaven DX11, and BFBC2 test is a waste of time. Might as well bench mark COD4/COD5 too. Just on my modern war hate path. Great job as always, just want to see games that take these systems to it knees.
 
Where are the battlefield bad company 2 benchmarks? DX11, 16AA, and HBAO. Seems like benchmarking an outdated dx9 game like COD is getting old. Sorry just hating on COD....Great build as always, first post, but have been reading for 6 years. Keep up the great work
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom