System Builder Marathon: Performance And Value Compared

[chirojpo]

I would have liked to see the 2500 comp water cooled, but the editors did say they were looking for a portable comp. A large radiator out the back isn't as portable. Sure 2 295s in SLI is great and all, but perhaps 2 285s or 275s watercooled and oc'd would have provided more performance. Hindsight is always 20/20...unless you go blind or lose an eye. The cube design cases are fascinating, but without proper air flow are like little saunas. Which would I like to win? I don't think I could afford the electricity bill for the 2500...but 2 295s...that's pimp! I would definitely move all the parts into a larger case with better airflow. The 1250 one wouldn't be bad either. I need to upgrade my computer anyway...too slow...too noisy...and I want to tinker.

 

[brisingamen]

3 high med and low amd/ati rigs along side this review asap would be amazing.

absolute performance for the dollar really is important, if i had 1300 to spend on a PC right now it would be thus,

OCZ Plat 4GB DDR3 2X2GB CL 7-7-7-24 D/C Memory Kit $72.13
AMD Phenom II X3 720 2.8GHZ +
Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P DDR3 Motherboard /Combo $287.71
Gigabyte Radeon HD 4890 1GB x2 $486.88
Corsair TX850W 850W Powersupply $130.43
Azza Solano 1000 Black ATX Mid Tower Case $108.69
WD 500GB SATA2 7200RPM Hard Drive OEM $59.87
Samsung SH-S223F 22X DVD Writer SATA OEM $23.47
Arctic Cooling Freezer Extreme REV2 $36.71
YOUR TOTAL $1,205.89 US funds

i priced it this morning and didnt even price match anything, . . .
when it comes to value per dollar this thing will sing, has AM3 upgradeability for the future.

i would put this rig up against the 1300 dollar intel nvidia rig in this article any day of the week, anyone here who doesnt think this rig would slap that i920 rig in the face please protest, its things like this that incites the AMD chants,
this article really brings new meaning to the word negligible.

as far as $625 rig the obvious base should be a

kuma 2.7 BE
dirty cheap crucial rendition ddr2
4770 crossfire

these two rigs make a case for thier never even needing to be a 2500 dollar pc to begin with, . . just nonsense.

 

[Kill@dor]

The $600 system would be better with some good ram. It would clock higher with better memory bandwith and could almost match the $1250 system's default settings. Just because its 800MHz FSB does not mean it can't be clocked higher.

 

[cokenbeer]

I personally loved the articles, especially the 2500 dollar and the 600 dollar builds. It was awesome to see all that power fit inside the SG-04 (I also have that case with an i7 build) and I loved that you went even smaller and on such a small budget with the 600 dollar build.

I personally think that if you were going for something as large as the TJ08 that you might as well have gone with the Lian Li for the 2500 dollar build. Yes it is a fair amount bigger, but if I'm gonna stuff two GTX295's in a case along with an i7 then I probably would've learned to live with a slightly larger case.

Otherwise you should have left the 1250 system in a similar sized case. As of now you've basically screwed the comparison by giving one system a massive heatsink (even if it was poorly oriented).

Finally, either give up on the high end GPUs, or start using 30 inch monitors! Yes they are expensive, but there are a LOT of people out there who have them (myself included) and if I were going off of this I'd assume that the mid range build would be more than adequate to drive my monitor when I KNOW that's not always the case. Had you put 2 4890's or 285's and water cooled the cpu you'd probably have much better overall performance!

Either way, I loved this SBM, it was one of the most interesting and controversial yet!

 

[brisingamen]

i think the 285 is still nvidias best card, something about the 275 and 295's odd numbers make me uncompfortable.

 

[masop]

This article is totally biased. It is nothing but pro "Intel" and pro "NVidia". Why not an AMD and ATI setup? These system builder articles are great but only tell half the story. We need an AMD and/or ATI setup in place alongside Intel, otherwise it isn't a complete analysis. Just my 2 cents.

-- MaSoP

 

[bounty]

Maybe the 2500$ machine should have been a Shuttle i7, GTX 295 with lots of RAM, BluRay, SSD + 1 TB drive? The rest of the $ could be thrown at the multiplier and get a i7 940 or something. At least then it should beat the midrange box plus it's smaller.

 

[IzzyCraft]

[citation][nom]Kill@dor[/nom]The $600 system would be better with some good ram. It would clock higher with better memory bandwith and could almost match the $1250 system's default settings. Just because its 800MHz FSB does not mean it can't be clocked higher.[/citation]
Wth you talking about that is quailty ram 4-4-4-12 at 1.8v that can easly do 1066 around 2-2.1v

 

[anartik]

So tired of the exaggerations of power consumption...

I pay about 10 cents per KWH and I have a 1000 watt Corsair so I'll use that as an example.

1000 watts (assuming the PS is drawing a full 1000 all the time which it isn't) is 1KW. So at my rate of .1 per KWH I pay 10 cents per hour. If I ran 7x24 (which I don't) that’s $72 a month. At 8 hours a day which is more typical it drops to $24 a month. If you’re an after work user, the price drops to $12 a month for 4 hours a day. One KW is 1000 watts so KW is 1, 1200 would be 1.2, 800 would be .8 etc. I’m sure someone will chime in about higher rates and needing to leave a system on 24hrs because it’s a server but we are talking gaming systems.

KW x hours x rate = cost

 

[stasdm]

Think cheaper GPUs with faster disks (Intel x25 or OCZ Vertex) will make $2500 system faster.

 

[lanestew]

Any of the systems. My (39 system is long in the tooth and it makes me sad.

 

[xthekidx]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]This article is totally biased. It is nothing but pro "Intel" and pro "NVidia". Why not an AMD and ATI setup? These system builder articles are great but only tell half the story. We need an AMD and/or ATI setup in place alongside Intel, otherwise it isn't a complete analysis. Just my 2 cents.-- MaSoP[/citation]
No it isn't. AMD and ATI were considered for these builds, but at these price points, it made more sense to go with Nvidia and Intel. You can't beat the i7 for performance, and it deserves to be in the higher end rigs, and at the time it only cost around $80 more for the i7 over Phenom II 940, which made it worth-while for the midrange system. At the low end, nothing comes close to the E5200 for performance/cost ratio after it has been overclocked, as it can reach speeds in excess of 4ghz when cooled properly. And before you say that the 7750 BE can pretty well too, consider that you aren't comparing two similar chips. One uses an old 65nm architecture, the other uses a far more efficient and much more advanced 45 nm architecture that produces less heat and is faster clock for clock. A 7750 Be Kuma chip OC'd to 3.5ghz does not compete with the E5200 at 3.5ghz.

All you people convinced that Intel and Nvidia have bought THG need to give it a rest. There is no conspiracy here. Those decisions just make more sense when these articles were written.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]anartik[/nom]So tired of the exaggerations of power consumption...I pay about 10 cents per KWH and I have a 1000 watt Corsair so I'll use that as an example.1000 watts (assuming the PS is drawing a full 1000 all the time which it isn't) is 1KW. So at my rate of .1 per KWH I pay 10 cents per hour. If I ran 7x24 (which I don't) that’s $72 a month. At 8 hours a day which is more typical it drops to $24 a month. If you’re an after work user, the price drops to $12 a month for 4 hours a day. One KW is 1000 watts so KW is 1, 1200 would be 1.2, 800 would be .8 etc. I’m sure someone will chime in about higher rates and needing to leave a system on 24hrs because it’s a server but we are talking gaming systems. KW x hours x rate = cost[/citation]

Nice post. I've recently invested in one of those P3 Kill-A-Watt devices to determine my computers actual power consumption on average. My system runs 24/7 but idles about 18 hours per day. I will be paying a fixed rate of 10.8 cents per KWH, for the next 24 months.

UPS (on 24/7): 4 Watts, $3.78/yr, $0.32/mo, $0.01/dy
Desktop (on 24/7): 128 Watts, $121.10/yr, $10.09/mo, $0.34/dy
19" LCD (on 6/7): 34 Watts, $8.04/yr, $0.67/mo, $0.02/dy

My desktop includes:

Asus M2N-E Mainboard
AMD X2 5600+ CPU
OCZ 4GB PC2-6400 RAM
Asus Radeon x1950 Pro 256MB PCI-E
WD 640GB HDD (Qty 4)
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Gamer
Floppy Drive
Case Fans 80mm (Qty 4)

As you can see, my computer with lcd and ups backup only costs about 37 cents per day to have on. I rarely ever turn it off and don't use it more than 4-6 hrs daily, mainly in the evening after work. Those numbers are conservative too, as I use it even less than those calculations reflect except on weekends. Anyone who thinks a computer being on 24/7 is killing the electric bill needs to think twice before blaming the computer, lol. Anything that has a motor or engine (especially compressors, ie; a/c, heat pump, refrigerator, washer/dryer, etc) is going to pull the greatest amount of electricity. A computer does not fall under that category.

Consider that a single lamp with a 60watt light bulb on 24/7 is only going to cost $56.76/yr, $4.73/mo or $0.16 per day to have on constantly, at least at my rate of 10.8 cents per KWH. That is 1/3 the cost of my computer, lcd and ups combined, lol. Gotta love technology!

-- MaSoP

 

[Guest]

3 way SLI with GTX 285 should beat easily the dual 295 solution, but it's more expensive and power consuming.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]xthekidx[/nom]No it isn't. AMD and ATI were considered for these builds, but at these price points, it made more sense to go with Nvidia and Intel. You can't beat the i7 for performance, and it deserves to be in the higher end rigs, and at the time it only cost around $80 more for the i7 over Phenom II 940, which made it worth-while for the midrange system. At the low end, nothing comes close to the E5200 for performance/cost ratio after it has been overclocked, as it can reach speeds in excess of 4ghz when cooled properly. And before you say that the 7750 BE can pretty well too, consider that you aren't comparing two similar chips. One uses an old 65nm architecture, the other uses a far more efficient and much more advanced 45 nm architecture that produces less heat and is faster clock for clock. A 7750 Be Kuma chip OC'd to 3.5ghz does not compete with the E5200 at 3.5ghz.All you people convinced that Intel and Nvidia have bought THG need to give it a rest. There is no conspiracy here. Those decisions just make more sense when these articles were written.[/citation]

I said nothing about money, cost difference or conspiracies. If the whole world owned a computer with an Intel CPU and an NVidia GPU, this argument would be moot and my previous statement wouldn't have been made. The whole point in analyzing both sides of the fence is to cover all bases.

Unfortunately alot of people either don't buy intel or nvidia because they are an amd or ati fanboy or because of the cost difference between the two platforms/designs. I've had both in the past, so I know about the price difference. I'm not one to whine about price, as my first computer was $1600 in 1993 and is several hundred times slower than what you can buy these days with 1/3 of that amount of cash. The whole point is, if one is to analyze system builds, and there are 4 players (cpu and gpu) in the field, all players should be involved, not just 2.

But again, that is just my 2 cents. If anything, the system builder marathon should have been split into 2 parts. One set of Intel builds and one set of AMD builds. Then compare the 2 sides for a much more comprehensive and complete analysis. Although it would involve more hardware, I seriously doubt money would be an issue here, just a little more time and effort would be needed. I'm betting it would get a much more overall positive response in general. Anyone agree?

-- MaSoP

 

[vanerian]

I ‘m with everyone on the AMD issue! Intel is a better processor BUT, BUT!!! I just built my first Intel rig since the Northwood. I felt like I was betraying my beliefs in supporting the underdog but being in college i wanted something i could overclock and get the most out of for the longest. I don't have A/C and the only thing running in the apt is the computer (during the day).
The furnace used to run but now that it's warm not even that runs, just the computer.

MY ENERGY BILL DOUBLED! FROM 38.00 A MONTH TO 67!

I miss my AMD spider platform that powered down CPU + CHIPSET + GPU...

 

[marraco]

It's weird. And even more weird that I agree:

It looks like there is no point to invest on another thing than an I7 920, or a really cheap processor.

AMD, and Intel really messed up with his price structure.

I mean, If you have spare money to buy something more expensive than an I7 920(which is not cheap), you spend the money a lot better on other hardware than on more expensive processor.

And even if I had more money to invest, I would not invest it on an higher I7.

By the way, I think that the performance PC can have better sotrage.

I would had make a JBOD array of a small (but fast) SSD, and 1Tb cheap HD.

 

[xthekidx]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom]I said nothing about money, cost difference or conspiracies. If the whole world owned a computer with an Intel CPU and an NVidia GPU, this argument would be moot and my previous statement wouldn't have been made. The whole point in analyzing both sides of the fence is to cover all bases.Unfortunately alot of people either don't buy intel or nvidia because they are an amd or ati fanboy or because of the cost difference between the two platforms/designs. I've had both in the past, so I know about the price difference. I'm not one to whine about price, as my first computer was $1600 in 1993 and is several hundred times slower than what you can buy these days with 1/3 of that amount of cash. The whole point is, if one is to analyze system builds, and there are 4 players (cpu and gpu) in the field, all players should be involved, not just 2.But again, that is just my 2 cents. If anything, the system builder marathon should have been split into 2 parts. One set of Intel builds and one set of AMD builds. Then compare the 2 sides for a much more comprehensive and complete analysis. Although it would involve more hardware, I seriously doubt money would be an issue here, just a little more time and effort would be needed. I'm betting it would get a much more overall positive response in general. Anyone agree?-- MaSoP[/citation]
Why would you split the categories into different brands? Why not leave it open to all options, like Intel + ATI? Its not like they stuck only to Mushkin or Corsair Ram in these reviews, they picked the best looking option for the price point. I don't see Manufacturers as a way of looking at these builds, but each individual CPU and GPU in their own separate category. AMD vs Intel doesn't exist when I plan a build, just what has the most potential for the dollar spent. I think if you look at it that way, which is how the authors probably looked at these builds, and you set the specific price points that were set, you come up with the E5200 and Core i7 CPU's making the most sense, and the GTX 260 Core 216 making the most sense at these specific price points. For the high end system, I think GPU's could have been chosen better, but it makes sense that they went for the best out there, which just happens to be from the green team.

Of course we would all like to see more articles, but if you can only have 1 at each price point, I think this is what makes sense.

 

[xthekidx]

And at the same time, I think if the price points were set at $1000 and $500, the low and midrange systems would have been forced to go with AMD options, because at those intervals AMD chips make sense.

The thing about AMD chips though is that they cannot OC very high since they have very low tolerance for heat. The intel chips can withstand much more heat than the AMD chips can, which makes them better options for overclocking, especially in a crowded case with low airflow.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]Draven35[/nom]Try using a cooler meant for a 2U server on the $2500 system, they are designed to force air to move front-to-back[/citation]

Great Idea!

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]"3DMark shows nearly-perfect scaling for the graphics systems of each machine. Because it was the last graphics benchmark tested without any change in software, the $2,500 machine’s huge win here helps to prove the legitimacy of its configuration, in spite of losses in a few games."No, I think the benchmark win demonstrates the irrelevancy of benchmarks in the face of real-world performance. The machine's poor real-world showing vs. a machine costing half as much, added to its tremendous power draw, clearly illustrate that this type of build simply doesn't make sense. It would be interesting to see if building it in a large case would give it the room to stretch out, but for the money spent I doubt it would be enough.The next experiment would be to replace the e5200 with a Q9xx and see how much it improves.[/citation]

It shows the graphics system is working, the previous real-wold results were not a driver issue.

 

[curnel_D]

It'd be cool to see a follow up to this with an investigation on why the $2500 machine blew so much compared to the lower priced config. Perhaps throw it in a different case and really crank the 920 to see what 'could have been.'

 

[knutjb]

If I were buying, the 1250 has a good bang for the buck. If I could take one home, the 2500 and get a bigger case and CPU cooler so it can breathe. Given what I have now, the 625 would be a big step up. Thanks for doing these comparisons it provides an interesting, real-world look at off-the-shelf combinations. Since I turn off my computer when I'm done, power consumption isn't a huge issue.

 

[curnel_D]

[citation][nom]masop[/nom] The whole point is, if one is to analyze system builds, and there are 4 players (cpu and gpu) in the field, all players should be involved, not just 2.
Anyone agree?-- MaSoP[/citation]

No, actually. This article is set up to find people the best bang for their buck in certain price ranges, not to compare AMD/ATI and INTEL/NVIDIA systems.

If that's what you want, there are some handy CPU/GPU charts that you can find up top.

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]xthekidx[/nom]Why would you split the categories into different brands? Why not leave it open to all options, like Intel + ATI? Its not like they stuck only to Mushkin or Corsair Ram in these reviews, they picked the best looking option for the price point. I don't see Manufacturers as a way of looking at these builds, but each individual CPU and GPU in their own separate category. AMD vs Intel doesn't exist when I plan a build, just what has the most potential for the dollar spent. I think if you look at it that way, which is how the authors probably looked at these builds, and you set the specific price points that were set, you come up with the E5200 and Core i7 CPU's making the most sense, and the GTX 260 Core 216 making the most sense at these specific price points. For the high end system, I think GPU's could have been chosen better, but it makes sense that they went for the best out there, which just happens to be from the green team.Of course we would all like to see more articles, but if you can only have 1 at each price point, I think this is what makes sense.[/citation]

Look at the history of the "system builders marathon". Intel is exclusive in at least 4 of the last 6 SBM (may 2009 included) articles. In May of 2007, the AMD X2 3800+ was the low-cost pc. In March of 2008, the AMD Phenom 9500 was again the low-cost pc. Every other system build from May 2007 to May 2009 has been either a Pentium E, Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Extreme system.

It shouldn't be all about Intel all the time, price points or not. I just don't see why AMD/ATI didn't make it into the current and past system builder marathons, aside from those 2 low-cost builds in 2007/2008. Also, I don't know anyone who has ever owned a i7 based system in order for me to care how such a system would perform. This is why I said "biased" originally.

-- MaSoP

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]No, actually. This article is set up to find people the best bang for their buck in certain price ranges, not to compare AMD/ATI and INTEL/NVIDIA systems.If that's what you want, there are some handy CPU/GPU charts that you can find up top.[/citation]

The best bang for the buck is not always Intel. I've done my share of research and price comparisons over the last 15 years and know that is a fact. Geez.

-- MaSoP