System Builder Marathon: Performance & Value

Status
Not open for further replies.

skora

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2008
1,498
0
19,460
56
Taken from Dec $625 SBM conclusion:

Those who don’t want to go back and compare old charts will need to wait for the Performance Analysis to see how the two systems compare in straight-out gaming performance.
Last line of the Dec $625 SBM:

All that’s left now is to see how this system compares directly to last month's build and also to the other two more-expensive systems.
So where is the head to head Dec vs Nov $625 analysis?
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff


Great question. The answer is unfortunate: There was a miscommunication between the $625 system editor and all the other editors.
 

SirSuperSouthern

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2008
27
0
18,530
0
The GTX 260 Core 216 triple threat allowed our $2,500 monster to chew through frames even at our highest setting.
No it didn’t. Both Crysis and Supreme Commander were unplayable at 25x16 (TRUE highest setting), whereas they both had acceptable FPS in October’s build that paired two 4870X2s. The proof is sitting in this month’s $2,500 article, where the same group of games was compared to October’s “high-end” build @ 25x16. The final conclusion is simply not accurate as a result.

Real conclusion:

GPUs are currently experiencing an awkward, gangly teenage phase. They still desperately need to bulk up on GDDR5 RAM before they can be taken seriously, as evidenced by the one set of benchmarks brave enough to tell the embarrassing truth.

Gaming @ 25x16 with 4xAA puts enormous strain on the GPUs RAM, which is why the 4870X2s were playable at that resolution while the 260s were not. The 260s GPU is obviously not the problem, it’s a good chip; but it only has 896MB of GDDR3 RAM which is completely inadequate for moving such a large payload. Its like trying to fit a bowling ball inside a garden hose.

That said, spending $1,000 on two 4870X2s is not a very attractive option either. The next round of cards will have a minimum of 2GB GDDR5 RAM, possibly even 4, we’ll have to wait and see. You’ll be able to get better performance from one while at the same time saving a good deal of power.

The bottom line is that if your goal is to run the most demanding games @ 25x16 with AA cranked, you best move is, sadly, to wait. I don’t like using that four-letter-word, but I thinks its appropriate in this case. Not only is the current line-up of GPUs RAM deficient, but Intel is coming out with a proper socket for its new LGA 1366 CPUs mid-’09. By that time prices will have dropped on not only the CPUs, RAM and motherboards, but the ABS Canyon 695 PC case might drop a few hundred dollars as well…
 

V3NOM

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
2,599
0
20,780
0
The dreaded power consumption test will surely disappoint fans of Intel's new Core i7, as these new processors are extremely power-hungry when overclocked.[/quote

lolwhat? who cares about power consumption?
 

coopchennick

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2008
166
0
18,680
0
SirSuperSouthern,

I've read through all of your posts on the other articles and while I do agree with you that the best option now is probably just to wait, I don't really see an immediate solution from you. In the mean time, the articles must be made. I enjoy reading through these articles each month and I think THW did pretty much the best they could do -of course except for the RAM- at this particular time with the given budget marks (which have been chosen due to popular demand).

Another thing is that the 4870's GDDR5 isn't benefiting the card any more than a 280's GDDR3 because of the narrower bus. Your bowling ball analogy works better for the 4870 - what must be limiting the 260 at 2560x1600 more so (as you pointed out) is the amount of memory.


Overall, I enjoyed this set of articles - toying with the i7 and whatnot. Though we could have been a little more "mature" (supersouthern v crashman), I like to see these discussions flare up.


Next month, screw the benchmarks and go with x64.
I kind of like these price points how they are. Maybe I'm nuts but I don't find it as exciting to spend as much money as you can on each and every component rather than sticking to a (somewhat high for the "enthusiast" build) budget and seeing what type of performance I can get out of that. With the insano-crazy expensive builds, it always seems to me that they are just a little bit unimpressive considering the money spent, and totally impractical for gaining any knowledge for the majority of discerning computer builders who visit this site.

Thanks for the articles
 

butcher

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2006
71
0
18,630
0
i like reading theses articles

one thing that people must also remember bout the higher end PCs is that you get more of everything

things that the benchmarks dont test

better case (i love a nice big case thats easy to work with),a lot more storage with redundancy, ect
 

zodiacfml

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2008
1,226
26
19,285
0
the reason why we don't get much from from these expensive boxes is diminishing returns on buying multiple video cards.
we don't buy dual/triple cards in a set/package, they were bought separately, so buying those will be like giving profits to the companies twice/thrice.
after that, performance scaling on such is not linear.

i agree with sirsupersouthern,(i am not a fan of dual of triple setups) one has to wait for a better highend machine. in my opinion, for those buying a highend machine today get the core i7 system and buy a highend single card. in one 1 or 2 years, replace it with a better card or multiple gpu setup that can run crysis with ease.

for now, multiple gpu setups only benefits Crysis and Supreme Commander only (more than 50-60FPS is useless on other games), and they're not the only games in the pc world.
 

Pei-chen

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2007
1,255
0
19,280
0
I have to agree with SirSuperSouthern as well. GTA IV at 1920*1200 with highest setting requires a card with 1.5GB memory buffer. No gaming card in existence has that much memory so it is necessary to wait for GTX 200 refresh or the next gen card from ATI & Nvidia.
 

DFGum

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2008
71
0
18,630
0
The I7 being power hungry when OC'd is BS .
With proper OC'ing and setting of voltage away from the defaults i was actually able to OC and save on power at the same time.
 

sojrner

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2006
1,733
0
19,790
1
Good work guys, I only have one quibble. Even w/ the value and ppd charts nicely done up as they are it does not change the fact that "value" is subjective. IF you use the lowest system as your base "need" then yes, your conclusions are right. But what if you require the performance of the mid-system as MINIMUM? If you set the base at that mid-system stock speed and then re-calc the ppd chart it changes everything. All of a sudden that $625 system is possitively worthless and the $2500 system is not quite so bad.

I realize that was not the point of the article, nor do I assume you guys do not know this stuff. Don't take this as a complaint per-se, rather mention that all things related to "value" are relative to individual need. (which in itself is subjective... lol) Not looking for flames, just trying to temper the enthusiasm over the perceived value of that low-end system.

game on.
 

gaiden2k7

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2008
15
0
18,510
0
The numbers (especially the last page) are always interesting, BUT the end result was always too predictive. Mid-range builds tend to always strike a great balance between Dollars Spent VS Performance.

I have an idea for a more interesting article: TH hold a staff build competition basing on a budget voted by the readers.

Comon TH - take a chance ;)
 

sojrner

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2006
1,733
0
19,790
1
Probably sounded good at first to many, but after thinking on that, wouldn't it just give us most building the exact same machine with a few "rebels" trying to get something more out of less? Just look at the past reviews of boutique builders... when they all come in there is very little hardware difference. At any given price, best performing machines are gonna be pretty much the same thing.

IMO we could get all excited and go to a yawning festival as well...
 
G

Guest

Guest
Very nice!
I love that a 'more affordable' pc has been added in the likes of $600.

However the majority of the sales are pc's lower than $500; granted they are not gaming pc's.

The memory bandwidth makes me realize I might rather go for the $1250 pc than the 600 one.
5GB VS 17GB is quite a lot of difference.
However, if there where any pc inbetween (eg:a well balanced and speedy $800 machine) I would love to see how it would perform to a $1250 pc.

I think most gaming pc's bought are between $450 and $850; with generally a better processor or videocard determening the price difference.

On next month's budget probably a $800 pc can be compared with the results of todays $600 pc?
It's hard to find the middle way between gaming quality and money.
Probably the cheaper you go the greater the buy (all downto a simple core2duo with 633Mhz DDR2 memory and an ATI 3x00 card.

Most monitors bought are generally 22" TFT at best, with 1600something resolution.
Being able to play a game on 1900 pix does not really benefit a 1600 x 1024 (or something) pix screen.

Few gamers actually play on (or can afford a) dual monitor setup anyways. And few games work well with more than 1 monitor.

I'd love to see a review of a 'gaming cube'; small mini pc the size of 5 to 7 14" notebooks stacked on top of eachother.
A gaming machine for the occasional gamer. One which uses very little power (low power consumption), and when needed is able to play most games fine on today's monitor resolutions.
Acouple of setups for around $300 - $600.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]V3NOM[/nom]
The dreaded power consumption test will surely disappoint fans of Intel's new Core i7, as these new processors are extremely power-hungry when overclocked.[/quotelolwhat? who cares about power consumption?[/citation]
Well,as for starters I do!
And a lot of people do!
If you calculate for office tasks, a regular pc uses about 250W; and replace that with an Asus EeeBox,which has sub 28Watts; you'll actually save over $300 on 4 years time,and totally buy back the pc in that timespan.
For gamers;depending on how long they play (and whether they are responsible for their electric bill or not) they could save 300-900$ on electric bill on 4 years (generally 4 years is a large timespan for a gaming PC).
4 years from now, 300-900 is like upgrade yourself to a Corei7 system you see on today's top chart!

Especially for LAN gamers,and those who're running all-nighters playing all sorts of games.

And for those with smaller bedrooms, that would mean not being in a hot sticky 32 degrees Celcius room (90 F), but a still comfortable 24 degrees (75F).

Really; some gaming computers could (and should) be used to directly heat up the bathroom for granny.
 

ifko_pifko

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2008
17
0
18,510
0
Awww... I would love to see a comparison of the Mid-range and the "Enthusiast" builds to some C2Q machines with according budgets....
(it should probably be called "Enthusiast gamer" actually because of the low amount of RAM... at budget of $2500 you have to be kidding me...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'm sorry I just have to jump in here and say this. I'm getting rather turned off about every video card review I see there's always some smartass comment like
"The $1,250 machine could play at a lowly 1280x1024 resolution"

Guess what not everyone has a gaming LCD at my house I have 2 options 1024x768 on an old LCD that I don't care enough to upgrade or my 720p TV.

I just bought a new card and I damn near bough at 4870x2 because I though that's what I needed. And then I saw the trend of lawling about anything < 1080p and so I took a chance with the 4850 1gb and it works wonderfully.

So for the love of PC gaming please perform test at what you've considered the lawl resolutions
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
I'm sorry I just have to jump in here and say this. I'm getting rather turned off about every video card review I see there's always some smartass comment like
"The $1,250 machine could play at a lowly 1280x1024 resolution"

Guess what not everyone has a gaming LCD at my house I have 2 options 1024x768 on an old LCD that I don't care enough to upgrade or my 720p TV.

I just bought a new card and I damn near bough at 4870x2 because I though that's what I needed. And then I saw the trend of lawling about anything < 1080p and so I took a chance with the 4850 1gb and it works wonderfully.

So for the love of PC gaming please perform test at what you've considered the lawl resolutions
High end gaming systems are appropriate for 1920x1200 monitors, "elite enthusiasts" occasionally buy 2560x1600 monitors, and "budget gamers" often have to settle for 1440x900 or 1280x1024 monitors, but the biggest market for gaming systems fits the 1680x1050 space.
 

Bodhammer

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2008
4
0
18,510
0
I really appreciate these articles as I'm getting ready to do a new build. I currently have a P4EE @ 3.5Ghz (Gallatin Core), 2GB of DDR, and a Sapphire AGP HD3850. Most of my current games are running fine (BF2142, SoSE, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Bioshock, GTR2) with the exception of Flight Sim X and DCS Blackshark. I wish you would add a simulation benchmark with these tests. I know I'm seriously CPU bound with my current setup but I'm really debating whether to go with a LGA775 or i7 CPU. A set of simulation benchmarks would help be a great deal!

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY