System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: $1000 Performance PC

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The only thing i could have tried to change in this build was to get a 64GB SSD , get a 500GB HDD , and if i have any money left, try to get a HD7950.
Otherwise, not much wriggle room here. Nice build!
 
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]The only thing i could have tried to change in this build was to get a 64GB SSD , get a 500GB HDD , and if i have any money left, try to get a HD7950.Otherwise, not much wriggle room here. Nice build![/citation]No point, We Like Our Games To Load Fast!!![citation][nom]Chairman Ray[/nom]I'm not sure if having an SSD without an HDD is an attractive option for most people. 240GB goes by pretty fast.[/citation]Programs can eat most of a 240GB drive up. In fact, I just shrunk a copy of the test suite, with OS and games, to 132 GB.

Using the drive performance measurement to reflect program load times means loading all the programs on the SSD. And that explains why SSD capacity wasn't sacrificed to make more room in the budget for an HDD.
[citation][nom]lightofhonor[/nom]It actually plays Skyrim WORSE than the $800 build...[/citation]Nobody knows why, but the $800 PC did use a newer GPU driver.[citation][nom]dscudella[/nom]It's the same PC as the $800 build except they just swapped out the HDD for an SSD. Dissappointing.[/citation]So it's going to lose the Day 4 Value Roundup, right?
 
[citation][nom]dscudella[/nom]It's the same PC as the $800 build except they just swapped out the HDD for an SSD. Dissappointing.[/citation]

Looking from another perspective, these two builds, with two different builders, with $200 difference, just show(again) how much better price/performance wise are Intel CPU's and AMD GPU's.
 
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]No point, We Like Our Games To Load Fast!!![/citation]

I see your point, but I'd rather see slower game loads and better FPS , than faster game loads and lower FPS. And, the OS is accelerated in both cases anyway.
 
You guys must really want me to buy that 7870 Myst Edition. I'm actually hoping to see 2 of those cards in a crossfire configuration on the $2000 build.
 
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Looking from another perspective, these two builds, with two different builders, with $200 difference, just show(again) how much better price/performance wise are Intel CPU's and AMD GPU's.[/citation]Builder 2 copied Builder 1's power supply. Builder 1 copied builder 2's RAM. Both were stuck with the same video card due to availability issues :)[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]I see your point, but I'd rather see slower game loads and better FPS , than faster game loads and lower FPS. And, the OS is accelerated in both cases anyway.[/citation]Performance difference between Tahiti and Tahiti-LE is fairly small, right? But the price difference isn't small, is it? $1000 PC builder simply hoped for a better overclock, even though that didn't work out.[citation][nom]coonday[/nom]You guys must really want me to buy that 7870 Myst Edition. I'm actually hoping to see 2 of those cards in a crossfire configuration on the $2000 build.[/citation]Nobody wants you to buy the Myst Edition. Tahiti-LE is a good value, if you like that argument pick your favorite vender. Vender choice wasn't available on purchase day.

But hey, I'm on board with the 7870 Myst Edition CrossFire suggestion...I'll see if we can make it happen!
 
Good call on the bigger SSD over a HDD. Not sure what folks are filling them up with. My other PC has 250GB drive with 400 or so CDs ripped to it, thousands of photos, lots of docs and the office suite and isn't full. Die mechanical drives. Just die.
 
Im going o defend their choice here, this isnt "Build the best gaming pc for the money" its to build the best performance PC for the money. And having a large capacity SSD along with mid-upper end CPU/GPU seems good to me. If they wanted to build a pure gaming PC the extra $200 would just be spent on the GPU.

I think theres something to be said about the value at above $1000 though.. past this price range, people really start caring about having a nice case, nice cooler, etc that are more than just performance but aesthetics too.
 
Just do a $2000 build and name it something as "Imaginary build" or something stupid but just do it as a reference for those who may actually spend $2000 on a build.
 
I think these would be more interesting if they pitted AMD against Intel/NVIDIA at the same price target.

Most likely they'd end up with a similar ugly case that no one would really want, possibly the same memory and hard disk, but the heart of the system would always be different.

Besides, people love rivalries. Sure, AMD processors blow in absolute performance, but they're cheap, and maybe the video card can save the day against the evil Intel/NVIDIA empires. It's a lot more interesting than testing two essentially identical machines, except for the hard disk.

Do it for different price ranges, and it might even be more competitive. $500, $750, and $1000 might not all have the same winner.
 
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]I think these would be more interesting if they pitted AMD against Intel/NVIDIA at the same price target.[/citation]Every time AMD CPU's lose, AMD fans scream that it was intentional. And why would anyone want to pair Intel with Nvidia when Intel with AMD has so much performance for the money?
 
Lets do a "Worse of" builds, just for shites and giggles
Pair a AMD CPU with a Nvidia GPU. So its expensive and may not perform as well.

(I will be extremely happy if this build performs well)
 
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Lets do a "Worse of" builds, just for shites and gigglesPair a AMD CPU with a Nvidia GPU. So its expensive and may not perform as well.(I will be extremely happy if this build performs well)[/citation]I believe Nvidia has lower CPU overhead. So, if you're going AMD for the CPU, you'd might be onto something with the Nvidia GPU.
 
This would make a much more interesting value comparison compared to the $600/800 build's if you'd stuck to a HDD and put the extra $ into GPU performance. Then we'd really get to see where the sweet spot lies. Burning the extra $ on a SSD basically ensures one of the cheaper builds will win.

Honestly I'd like to see all system builder marathon machines tested with the same hard drive configuration and be purely about CPU/GPU combinations. Everyone basically knows what they're getting by adding/subtracting a SSD at this point. They do nothing but skew value comparison's.
 
[citation][nom]ankit0x1[/nom]just also try to build dream pc with 3 titans in SLi , amd fx 8350, 32Ram, 1tb ssd ....oh god![/citation]

Why the FX, out of curiosity?
 
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]I believe Nvidia has lower CPU overhead. So, if you're going AMD for the CPU, you'd might be onto something with the Nvidia GPU.[/citation]
I don't know Thomas, that is possible. But this fluctuates by driver maturity. A year ago, I know for a fact SLI had way less CPU overhead. When earlier, back in 2009, Nvidia was behind both single GPU and dual. At one point AMD's driver team made huge CrossFire improvements, in terms of CPU scaling, rendering a ton of my data, dated and useless.

From the cheap seats I have strong suspicions NVidia driver's now have greater thread dependancy, at least for single GPUs. So Pentiums will compete better when paired with Radeon is my hunch. Since there were other factors clouding this belief, I'm now looking into it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom