System Builder Marathon, March 2012: 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.
Pardon my ignorance, but does the P67 chipset allow for the use of the dedicated codec hardware on Intel's CPUs? I thought you had to use either the lower-end chipset that includes video out, or a Z68. If this is accurate, then Don's MB selection also hampers the performance and feature set of the system as far as video enc/dec and other tasks are concerned. I know that the 7970 can offload the CPU in theory... but it does not necessarily do so any faster, nor with as little power consumption or image quality, as Intel's implementation. I don't know whether image quality is equal or better with 7970-assisted video processing vs. the on-die Intel codec. I also dont' know whether power consumption would be higher or lower (probably higher...), and finally I don't know what will happen if/when AMD enabled their own on-GPU codec chip. But unless the 7970 can equal or better the power/performance/quality of the Intel codec, then that at least is a meaningful loss caused by the MB selection.
 
[citation][nom]De5_roy[/nom]good builds, nice articles as usual.i think i am the only one who's a bit bored because of the absence of an amd cpu in one of the builds. last quarter was very interesting with the $1200 pc's performance. i actually liked how the current $1250 pc's i5 2400 (4 core) kept up with last quarter's fx 6100 (6 cores) in productivity and apps and outperformed it despite it's hardware issues.this quarter it's just intel vs intel vs intel. cpus are less priority in gaming but higher priority in productivity and performance in apps which $1200 and $2500~ builds seem to focus on. i am just nitpicking because i don't find anything wrong with any of the builds. i am more or less okay with the part choices except the asrock p67 motherboard.i found the comments various people made on gtx 680 hilarious.[/citation]

The boring part for me is the AMD CPU, and including a part that obviously won't perform as well, dollar for dollar or top end either one, would be pointless to me.

Doubly so because Tomshardware has done plenty of recent builds to show how much AMD's offerings bottleneck performance, so it''s not like the issue hasn't been addressed. I don't see why they have to do an AMD build every quarter to show what they've already shown (and is backed up by every other hardware review site out there).

😉
 
As I mentioned in my comment on the $650 PC article (that didn't make it to the comments section), the problem with series has been outlined here. It is true that most want ~$1k machines. Therefore, provide them what they want. The article series should have 4 PC's instead of 3. 1 at $500, 1 at $1k, 1 at $1.5k (the other frequently requested cost of a machine), then... lastly... a $2k+ build for those that want and can afford a PC with everything. (Silence, looks, consumer workstation workload capability, and gaming performance.)

The $500 machine would be the entry gamer machine, the $1k the low end enthusiast, the $1.5k the high end enthusiast, and the $2k+ for those with the cash to spend.
 
[citation][nom]grumbledook[/nom]I have a suggestion, how about adding a mini itx build and/or a htpc build? There's options to make both of those relatively powerful computers if you need it focused on that.[/citation]
I've been wanting to do a mini itx gaming build for 6 months now, but it would probably require a complete round of rigs based on portability (like we did a couple years ago). Actually even have wishlists created for two such systems, including an older $650 version, and a more recently updated $525 version. Both were housed within Silverstone's Sugo SG05 (with either 300W, or 450W version depending on the GPU). Case & mobo ate up a good portion of the budget, so such a build would not match the bang of the past two gaming rigs. (i5-2400+ HD 6870) & (i3-2120 + HD 6950)

Anyway, if enough reader's show interest, it may steer one quarter that direction.
 
[citation][nom]confish21[/nom]Great read[/citation]
Agreed. Sums it up well: two game-focused machines that required sacrifices for their target settings vs. one impressive Jack-of-all-trades that really made no sacrifices (within it's intended purpose). Nice work Thomas!

Also, I'm appreciating the contructive comments from those who read through the series. Many thanks!
 
I don't understand the need for such a large SSD, 16GB of RAM, and even a Seasonic brand PSU if you're capped to $2600 and have to sacrifice Crossfire. A larger SSD provides a negligible performance boost over a smaller one, and not in gaming. 16GB of RAM is usually useless in gaming, and Seasonic improves the quality and prolongs the life of the system, but isn't necessary for a performance boost. I realize it's not ALL about gaming, but a lot of it is, and the builder seemed genuinely frustrated by having to go with a single GPU.

I don't get it. Someone please enlighten me.
 
jtt, nice choice. I like their use of a standard 5.25" bay and ATX PSU. Apart from the fanless Q07, they are probably a bit pricey for the budget build.

Gaming centered minimum thought for me would be G540+ HD 6790. Would be nice to bump both those up a bit, maybe SB Pentium + Hd 6870/GTX 560 if possible.

Looks wise, something fitting for the living room (near the bigscreen), plus able to be carted about if/when the desire arises.
 
[citation][nom]terr281[/nom]As I mentioned in my comment on the $650 PC article (that didn't make it to the comments section), the problem with series has been outlined here. It is true that most want ~$1k machines. Therefore, provide them what they want. The article series should have 4 PC's instead of 3. 1 at $500, 1 at $1k, 1 at $1.5k (the other frequently requested cost of a machine), then... lastly... a $2k+ build for those that want and can afford a PC with everything. (Silence, looks, consumer workstation workload capability, and gaming performance.)The $500 machine would be the entry gamer machine, the $1k the low end enthusiast, the $1.5k the high end enthusiast, and the $2k+ for those with the cash to spend.[/citation]
I think you just want more chances to win a PC. 😉
 
Intel’s enterprise-oriented RST drive slowed performance so much that we reverted to Windows 7’s default AHCI driver for the overclocked test.
Click to expand...

Can someone elaborate more on this issue?

Is it the X79 chipset specific, iRST software, or just the chipset drivers: Intel INF 9.2.0.1030.

Could this effect my Z68 mobo, if I have that INF version? I think not, as they mentioned you "rolled back to Z68 drivers."
 
Again, nice Article and it is very appreciated! :)

So to sum it up -- you get what you pay for.

The folks that are suggesting or out right saying the i7-3930K (SB-E) is a waste or the frame rates don't really matter -- I say try your rig on three monitors 5900 x 1080 look at those frame rates -- next turn-on 3D and watch those frame rates drop by half! A few FPS makes the difference between playable and not.

Further, I use my PC for a little more than only gaming, and my time is extremely valuable. If the SB-E can cut 10~20+ minutes off a SQL test, multiply that by a few hundred or more then that's a big honking about of time; time = money. The SB-E pays for itself over and over.

I still disagree and so would ASUS with the SB-E OC methodology, it's your CPU. Also, properly installing the Intel RST Enterprise divers (F6) and using Intel's latest drivers does make a huge difference.
 
[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]jtt, nice choice. I like their use of a standard 5.25" bay and ATX PSU. Apart from the fanless Q07, they are probably a bit pricey for the budget build.Gaming centered minimum thought for me would be G540+ HD 6790. Would be nice to bump both those up a bit, maybe SB Pentium + Hd 6870/GTX 560 if possible. Looks wise, something fitting for the living room (near the bigscreen), plus able to be carted about if/when the desire arises.[/citation]

On the G540 + 6790 comment.
I have a G530 + 6790 as a secondary cheap build for my GF using left over parts. It performs very well surprisingly in games but kind of lacks in anything demanding. Overall for most games it does well enough. :)
 
I still think you should have a real "Budget" gaming build at $500, FIRM! This would force the builder to make hard choices to make the budget, thus selecting quality products for less. I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a decent gaming system for $500.

Most people looking to get a budget gaming system also have to worry about the OS (~$100), monitor (~100-150), & keyboard and mouse (~30-75). This would make the budget gaming machine close to ~$800 for the full setup (which is close to where most people are willing to spend for their budget). Yes the $150 more than the $500 budget is probably worth it, but most people don't have the luxury of the added budget.
 
[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]I've been wanting to do a mini itx gaming build for 6 months now, but it would probably require a complete round of rigs based on portability (like we did a couple years ago). Actually even have wishlists created for two such systems, including an older $650 version, and a more recently updated $525 version. Both were housed within Silverstone's Sugo SG05 (with either 300W, or 450W version depending on the GPU). Case & mobo ate up a good portion of the budget, so such a build would not match the bang of the past two gaming rigs. (i5-2400+ HD 6870) & (i3-2120 + HD 6950)Anyway, if enough reader's show interest, it may steer one quarter that direction.[/citation]

Glad to hear you've thought about it. If it does happen it will be interesting to see just how much performance dip you need to take for it compared to the other systems.
 
[citation][nom]grumbledook[/nom]I have a suggestion, how about adding a mini itx build and/or a htpc build? There's options to make both of those relatively powerful computers if you need it focused on that.[/citation]
I'd love to see an HTPC build. Maybe not in the SBM, but as a separate article even. I think a lot more people are building HTPCs now, so it should be interesting for a lot of people.
 
nice reading and all but i gotta ask bout which goal was set when he builed the 2600$ pc?

if were for gamming it is and epic fail i gotta say: less ram, less ssd, less glittering case, may be keeping the cpu cooler? more powerful psu, crossfire or sli, may be not the blu ray drive in favour for a dvd ram unit which i think its not needed since ur spening 2600$ after all.

what im trying to say its just that the focus on the hihger tier pc is somewhat cloudy if it is for gamming thats all, in any case it is a nice powerful pc good for all and good enough for gamming

remember that with every gamming pc comes sacrifices xD
 
[citation][nom]lunyone[/nom]I still think you should have a real "Budget" gaming build at $500, FIRM! This would force the builder to make hard choices to make the budget, thus selecting quality products for less. I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a decent gaming system for $500.Most people looking to get a budget gaming system also have to worry about the OS (~$100), monitor (~100-150), & keyboard and mouse (~30-75). This would make the budget gaming machine close to ~$800 for the full setup (which is close to where most people are willing to spend for their budget). Yes the $150 more than the $500 budget is probably worth it, but most people don't have the luxury of the added budget.[/citation]
I think the hard drive price rise killed the $500 gaming PC for a while. A year ago I was buying 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3s for $50. They went up to $160 in January. Now they have come down a bit in price but are not even close to the $50 I was seeing in 2011.
 
I really like the $650 and $1300 builds, but I have to say.... That sandy bridge-e cpu in the $2600 build was a total waste. I know you have been using socket 1155 for your top-end builds for a while now and you wanted to change things up a bit. I understand that. But you had to know that thing was going to jump off a cliff when it came time to campare it's value!!! Here is an interesting thought..... Use an i5 2500k or 2400 and use a pair of hd 7970's, get the build to around $2000 and then re-compare the value against the $1300 and $650 and 2600$ rigs... It wont do as well in productivity, but it might score the highest 3dmark11 score of any SBM!!!!!
 
[citation][nom]Zoroastro[/nom]nice reading and all but i gotta ask bout which goal was set when he builed the 2600$ pc?if were for gamming it is and epic fail i gotta say: less ram, less ssd, less glittering case, may be keeping the cpu cooler? more powerful psu, crossfire or sli, may be not the blu ray drive in favour for a dvd ram unit which i think its not needed since ur spening 2600$ after all.what im trying to say its just that the focus on the hihger tier pc is somewhat cloudy if it is for gamming thats all, in any case it is a nice powerful pc good for all and good enough for gammingremember that with every gamming pc comes sacrifices xD[/citation]
The $650 and $1250 PC were built specifically for gaming, targeting realistic resolutions rather than over-inflated framerates at rather meaningless (low) CPU-limited settings.

Summarized from that article: the $2600 PC was meant to do all things well, 1) performance in a new more CPU-heavy test suite (where only 30% is gaming), and 2) perceived quality (case aethetics and acccoustics, Blu-ray, large SSD program drive, etc).

Many folks who can afford such a system, are after the complete package, not just gaming performance. A dream system requires a larger budget, which this one could pretty much become just by adding another HD 7970 and maybe another identical HDD (RAID).
 
[citation][nom]Zoroastro[/nom]nice reading and all but i gotta ask bout which goal was set when he builed the 2600$ pc?[/citation]The performance goal? Look at the benchmark set.

It could have been a crappy $2320 system with similar performance and a cheap case, cheap optical drive, cheap CPU cooler, and 128GB SSD. But I contend that anyone who drops $2300 on a PC would also want the quality and features of those parts to represent their high-priced build.
 
[citation][nom]iamauser[/nom]Translation: we don't actually stand behind any of these builds as being worthwhile to emulate.[/citation]

There is no such thing as "one size fits all".
 

I'll counter by saying I don't understand the need for Crossfire/SLI when you're already pushing 100 fps. Care to enlighten me?

And if you're paying that much for a CPU, chances are high you'll be doing more demanding things with it than gaming, things which are generally very RAM hungry, so that answers another of your questions.

As for the SSD, actually larger ones tend to have notably faster write speeds compared to smaller ones. And apart from faster writing speeds, the larger SSD allows ( duh ) more storage. But maybe you enjoy shuffling your currently installed games around ( and we all know what a picnic installing and uninstalling can be with current DRM methods. ) But even if you don't fill it up, the SSD provides an extremely fast scratch disk for that other demanding software you'll be running outside of games.

And, yeah, who wants a long-term reliable PSU for this thing? I mean, if you're throwing around this much money, surely you don't need high efficiency, right? And who cares if the PSU burns out and fries your rig, you've got more than enough money to buy another, right? Here's a performance boost tip: an operational computer performs infinitely better than a non-operational one.

Indubitably, good sir! I would hazard a guess that many people do the same at the $1200 bracket too. Sacrifice a bit on the GPU and perhaps the mboard to get a better case, a few accessories, and the numerous little things that make you proud to have built the machine.
 
^+1. The last few PCs I've built for myself have all had something about them that pleased me beyond the mechanics of mere performance; maybe the Signature PSU in one, or the Sabertooth mobo in another. Those little 5-1/4" bay drawers don't do jack for FPS, but they're certainly useful. RAID-1 won't show up in benchmarks (and is no excuse not to do backups), but my data is safer; etc...
 
[citation][nom]pauldh[/nom]I've been wanting to do a mini itx gaming build for 6 months now, but it would probably require a complete round of rigs based on portability (like we did a couple years ago). Actually even have wishlists created for two such systems, including an older $650 version, and a more recently updated $525 version. Both were housed within Silverstone's Sugo SG05 (with either 300W, or 450W version depending on the GPU). Case & mobo ate up a good portion of the budget, so such a build would not match the bang of the past two gaming rigs. (i5-2400+ HD 6870) & (i3-2120 + HD 6950)Anyway, if enough reader's show interest, it may steer one quarter that direction.[/citation]

+1 on itx build marathon
... or at least another mATX run if the case+mobo+psu will cause the budget build to rely on onboard graphics

heck! the Llanos pack some 'decent' integrated graphics nowadays, mini itx might still be feasible at $500-650
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom