System Builder Marathon, Q1 2013: 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.
700, 1100, 1500. Each of them a new price point, each of them separated from another by 400, each of them possible choices for a bang-for-the-buck-oriented user/gamer.

1500 is not too high, so that it would justify buying luxury stuff as has been the case with 2000 builds (no one who cares about value would buy a CPU for 500).

700 would allow a little, but significant bit more in bare bones build, it'd be nice to see what you can get with an additional 100 in the lowest price point.
 
I think next quarter should be 400/800/1200. And a larger emphasis on efficiency. For an extra $10 you could have gone from your neo eco 520 80+ to a Rosewill Capstone 450 80+ gold and gained a 7% higher power efficiency. Also noise. Each component you pick should have an effect on performance. Currently there is no reason to pick a good case or a DVD burner.
 
Whether one of these builds would be a "starting point," or "all you'll ever have," I think any of these systems should make its winner happy.
One thing I'd like to see is the value of FPS placed on a sliding scale of some kind. 50FPS is a much better experience than 30FPS, but I personally can't see caring about 80FPS vs 60FPS. At some point, higher FPS has to be recognized as meaningless in a value comparison.
There are other comparisons that either lose, or gain, relevance in actual use. My personal preference would be to accept a lower FPS and/or lowered settings for the overall user experience of a SSD; someone else may say "Hell no!" to that, while a third person might be willing to give up even more, especially in a productivity machine.
Is the $500 (or $600, or $400) machine for a cramped dorm room? Maybe its owner would rather have 60FPS on a 20" 1600x900 monitor, than 41 FPS on a 27" 1920x1080 monitor.
That gets back to fitness for purpose, or this:
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]Something i posted last quarter too :Why would all the machines have same percent emphasis on games and productivity apps ? Why would a $600 gaming PC be evaluated similarly to a $800 enthusiast PC ? The percentwise distribution of each metric should be based on what usage the build was meant for.Something like : games, apps, storage.$600 build : 85%, 15% . (cheapest, best gaming. Very few apps. Doesnt need fast storage. )$800 build : 55%, 35%, 10% (slightly better games over apps. Great apps. fast storage for OS + apps OR games)$1000 build. : 42.5%, 42.5%, 15% (equally good games and apps. fast storage should be plenty for OS+apps+games).[/citation]
...which I also commented on last time (my weighting was no doubt a little different, but we make the same point).
I'd also like to see at least one SBM with tighter budgets, e.g. $450, $600, $750; after that a return to a larger spread like $500, $1000, $1500.
 
[citation][nom]npyrhone[/nom]700, 1100, 1500. Each of them a new price point, each of them separated from another by 400, each of them possible choices for a bang-for-the-buck-oriented user/gamer. 1500 is not too high, so that it would justify buying luxury stuff as has been the case with 2000 builds (no one who cares about value would buy a CPU for 500). 700 would allow a little, but significant bit more in bare bones build, it'd be nice to see what you can get with an additional 100 in the lowest price point.[/citation]
$700/$1050/$1400 may mesh better.

My question, does that remove Thomas from the Competion? Yes, if value calculations don't somehow reward him for those luxury items. So maybe use $600/$900/$1200 for the value formula, BUT allow an additional 10% on top 60/90/120 for the case/optical? May better represent a case people would buy at these price points? What price do we use in the name? =)
 
Hmmm, another idea for the SBM...
Do a contest in advance; pick three winners, one for each price point being used. The winner at each price point gets to submit a Newegg shopping cart that does not exceed that price point. Rebates are not allowed, but combos/promos are; the cart must not exceed the budget. Those parts are ordered, and the systems built for the SBM. The machines are then given away, as usual (i.e. one set of winners gets to spec the builds, the second set gets to keep them).
 
[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]That's an awesome idea too! We could get some old-fashioned Chieftech Dragon (or similarly-popular) cases, maybe some older 700W power supplies and hard drives, match everything and just change the platform. Anyone else think this is a good idea?[/citation]

I think that is a good idea also. It is something I would be doing in the next year.
 
Here is what I suggest:
Q2 Focus on best gaming machine for 1080P, with emphases on playable frame rates on high detail.
$750, $1000 and $1250. Give each system builder $50 + or – to maximize their configuration for best bang for your buck.
No SSD allowed. This keeps the focus on the GPU and CPU. We all know by now the benefits of an SSD and an SSD can always be added later on. Eliminating SSDs will prevent the skewing of the price/performance.
Q3 Focus on best gaming machine for 2560x1600, with emphases on playable frame rates on high detail.
$1000, $1500 and $2000. Give each system builder $100 + or – to maximize their configuration for best bang for your buck.
Again, no SSD to prevent skewing of value.
Q4 – Repeat of Q2
Q1 2014 – Repeat Q3
By doing this we can see what is a reasonable budget to set for high detail gaming at a given resolution. Also, having a flexible budget is a little more real world. Who would not want to save $50 if they can but then who would not spend an extra few bucks to prevent a major bottleneck.
Also this will allow for comparison of hardware changes over a 6 month period. We don’t often see major changes over a three month period so why not spread things out a bit. By comparing Q2 to Q4 we can see how things are advancing.
In addition, by comparing Q2 to Q3 you can set a reasonable budget for your new gaming machine to play on high detail at 2560x1600.
ZuBrique
 
In order to offer an appropriate amount of budget between class builds I think your budget should be more like: 600, 1000, 1400.

This would allow for much more room to truly differentiate between a mid and high end build.

$1000 just is not enough to build a "high" end machine.
 
I agree 100% that the PSU/Case/OpticalDrive/HDD should not be included in the costs. When looking at the gaming/performance potential of a build, those components are afterthoughts, unless you are not using quality parts. As some members said, you can carry them over from a previous build. The only parts that should be taken into consideration is the CPU/MB/GPU/RAM and the occassional SSD.

When trying to find a sweet spot for a particular purpose (ie gaming or overall performance) you need to keep somethings constant to get a more direct comparison instead of changing multiple variables from build to build:
1) purpose for all three builds (all gaming or all performance). That way we would have seen an apples to apples comparison on what exactly our money could buy.
2) CPU/GPU brands (especially for gaming builds). you guys managed to do it this time around with Intel/AMD.
 
Zubrique has some good points about the rate of change, but I disagree that the focus should be so tight on gaming. That will ultimately just boil down to GPU, and there are benchmark charts for that. Rather than dismiss it as irrelevant (which it may be, strictly for games) I'd rather see ways explored to quantify the value a SSD adds. You time productivity runs, why not time Windows boot and/or shutdown? Add that into the score some way. Load up a 20K record database and generate a report out of it, or walk through a portal in a game and time the level load; surely there is a way to measure the benefit of a SSD.
 

click the 'read comments on the forum' link at the bottom of the article pages and go to the comment thread. you'll see editing options at the bottom of your posts. click 'edit' button (not the 'quick edit') and open post editor, then under the preview and submit buttons you'll see a check box for post deletion. check it and click 'submit'.

i don't think that the $1k build is a gaming-only build. the writers explain what each build is for in details. the ssd helps score highly in the 10% storage performance scores. it also helps in certain benches, i think it was one of the content creation tests.

my minor nitpick with the builds is that the $1k's overclocked i5 uses less power(in the power use chart) in the prime95 test than the one in $800 build. i guess it pays to choose better parts.
 
On the Power Consumption And Efficiency page, the third chart labeled 'Average Efficiency', what does the blue bar represent?
 


Depends on what you mean by value. Seriously -- I know that answer sounds like a cop out, but it's true. I notice my SSD every time I load any program. Does it make a life-altering difference when I'm firing up a browser or an email client? No, but I thank my lucky stars every time I fire up Photoshop. I give thanks every time I install a program. Games load faster than I can read the cutesy loading-screen blurbs.

And as you point out, there are a handful of games on the market that feature absolutely atrocious loading times on an HDD. SWTOR (which I don't play anymore, but still) could take several minutes to load certain planets before I bought an SSD.

I don't think you can put a price tag on the quality-of-life improvement offered by an SSD. And given that you can build a rig that can run max settings in almost every game (at 1080p or less) for ~$700, I don't see any practical reason not to get an SSD if you're spending $800+ in total. It doesn't make sense to deprive yourself of an SSD just so you can spend extra money on rendering horsepower that realistically you won't even notice until the hardware gets really old.

Granted, users who wish to play at very high resolutions might disagree -- but then again, users who wish to play at very high resolutions also probably expect to pay more than $1,000. Your mileage may vary, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't skip an SSD on any build in 2013 unless absolutely every penny counted.
 
I'd like to see, instead of each builder given a specific price point, each builder is given a "bias" and can choose a price at their own discretion. The "bias" can be CPU, GPU, and SSD, and each builder can create their build with a special focus on their "bias".

The CPU "bias" will focus on winning the productivity benchmarks. The GPU "bias" will focus on winning the gaming benchmarks. The SSD "bias" will focus on winning the storage benchmarks. They can then set/balance their budget to maximize value.
 
[citation][nom]BigMack70[/nom][apologies... No worries, Onus]Can anyone actually explain with words instead of thumb downs, why an SSD is worth the money at all in a less than or equal $1k gaming-only build?I have a general purpose + gaming computer with a 240GB SSD. The only time I ever notice the SSD is when I restart the computer (which happens somewhere between once a day and once a week), and in BF3, which I at one point had installed on a fast HDD and moved it to the SSD because of the atrocious load times.My computer felt almost as "snappy" on a 7200 RPM WD Black drive as it does now on an SSD. I do like my SSD, but my build was not concerned with value and was way above these price points. There are impressive benchmarks for SSDs and they've become the new "must have" item due to a lot of positive press over the past two years, but for a GAMING build concerned with VALUE, I just don't understand their inclusion.[/citation]

One reason is that the $1000 build is a "Performance PC" . That means everything is super snappy performance. Whenever you open any application or game, it should start in an instant.
Nobody is suggesting an SSD for the $600 or even for the $800 build.

And very strange that none of the 3 story writers have responded to my and Onus's (and others) suggestion of a different evaluation of the builds for 2 quarters in a row.
 
[citation][nom]Fulgurant[/nom]Depends on what you mean by value. Seriously -- I know that answer sounds like a cop out, but it's true. I notice my SSD every time I load any program. Does it make a life-altering difference when I'm firing up a browser or an email client? No, but I thank my lucky stars every time I fire up Photoshop. I give thanks every time I install a program. Games load faster than I can read the cutesy loading-screen blurbs.And as you point out, there are a handful of games on the market that feature absolutely atrocious loading times on an HDD. SWTOR (which I don't play anymore, but still) could take several minutes to load certain planets before I bought an SSD.I don't think you can put a price tag on the quality-of-life improvement offered by an SSD. And given that you can build a rig that can run max settings in almost every game (at 1080p or less) for ~$700, I don't see any practical reason not to get an SSD if you're spending $800+ in total. It doesn't make sense to deprive yourself of an SSD just so you can spend extra money on rendering horsepower that realistically you won't even notice until the hardware gets really old.Granted, users who wish to play at very high resolutions might disagree -- but then again, users who wish to play at very high resolutions also probably expect to pay more than $1,000. Your mileage may vary, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't skip an SSD on any build in 2013 unless absolutely every penny counted.[/citation]
+1 on the SSD. I only install the OS and drivers/chrome on the SSD, using 15% of it's space, and the difference is night and day. Even with everything else on the HDD, the system is extremely responsive while something is loading.

Occasionally I'll symlink a game to the SSD, but there aren't many games that really need it. MMOs, BF3, and Diablo 3 benefit greatly from it, but everything else works well without it.
 
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]And very strange that none of the 3 story writers have responded to my and Onus's (and others) suggestion of a different evaluation of the builds for 2 quarters in a row.[/citation]
I think that would just make the end result harder to understand. Every PC would be held to a different standard, and would have a different focus. Comparing PCs on different criteria doesn't make much sense.
 
[citation][nom]Fokissed[/nom]I think that would just make the end result harder to understand. Every PC would be held to a different standard, and would have a different focus. Comparing PCs on different criteria doesn't make much sense.[/citation]

And comparing PC's built for different purpose on the same benchmarks makes sense ?
 
Agreed the ssd is a little overboard here. If this build would have stuck with the hdd you could have gotten 7970 Black in there for $1020. Keep the case and your back another $10. $10 bones over budged for a total game performance win, likely beating the $2000 q4 machine. I know this isn't only a gaming comparison but I'll trade the ssd for the 7970 any day.
 

If you can quantify the benefits of a SSD, and put that into the score, it can be weighted appropriately; once again the productivity scores need to count for less in the "gaming" build, and for more in the others.
 
+1 to the System Upgrader's Marathon (SUM) idea. I would suggest starting off with a base mid-range system that is 4-5 years old and let the builders figure out what would be the best way to improve performance. You could start with a Phenom II/C2Quad + 8800GTX/HD 4890 (maybe check the archives for old SBM builds).

The basic idea is: Here is the system you put together when you started college. Let's see what it takes to get it to an acceptable performance level now that you have a bit of expendable income from the new job. Possible price points I see are $3/6/900.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom