System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014: Our New Enthusiast PC

[cleeve]

I wanted to see how a GeForce GTX 780 Ti and Core i7-4770K compare to last quarter's GeForce GTX 770 cards in SLI and Core i5-4670K. In addition, we updated our price/performance evaluation. So, this System Builder Marathon should be full of surprises!

System Builder Marathon, Q1 2014: Our New Enthusiast PC : Read more

 

[envy14tpe]

Why a Galaxy GPU considering the company pulled out of US market? btw, nice work on the build.

 

[bemused_fred]

I wish more builds would account for the cost of the OS. It can be a significant expense, especially when you're working with builds of $600 or less.

 

[Drejeck]

770 sli also nets better performance when gaming on 120/144hz monitors

 

[Dark Oopa]

wow, I didn't think there would be such a little difference in gaming.In fact, the difference is so small that with all the inherent problems of the SLI, the new rig is always the better choice.

 

[redgarl]

Multi-gpu problems are always overly exagerated. I am using multi-gpu platforms for almost 5 years and the gain in fps over the UNOTICEABLE and overly exagerated stutering sweep away any disavantages.Folks, don't lure yourself, higher resolution demand multi-gpus. Single card is fine for anything around 1080p, more or less, but at 4K or 3 1080p monitors... your system is going to choke even with a 780 ti.

 

[npyrhone]

Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.

 

[vertexx]

It's a shame to completely remove the non-core components from the competition, but I understand why it's done here. A couple of ideas to throw out there:

(1) You could include temperatures and acoustics performance in the overall assessment, given I think that is a big part of the case buying decision, and
(2) A way to factor in the intangibles (i.e. blu ray vs dvd, choice of SSD/HDD, etc), you could include a separate vote between this quarter's and last quarter's to see what the readers would choose for the best build given all the performance factors, aesthetics, and other components that do not contribute directly to performance. The reader's vote of this quarter vs. last quarter and/or an overall value winner for this quarter could be included in the final write-up.

I would also 2nd the vote for starting 4K testing. And also, why not 1440p? It seems those two resolutions are more relevant now in 2014 at the level of this competition than 1600x900 and 4800x900 resolutions.

 

[DarkSable]

I'm sorry, Tom's, but...You really need to stop misinforming the general public who comes here for your articles and doesn't read the forums in depth.You go with an i7 for the "performance benefits," which are nonexistent for gaming... except that this rig is aimed at gaming. I would have much, much rather seen an i5, with a note explaining that an i7 is a good upgrade if you're doing these sorts of things, but isn't helpful if you're building a gaming computer.There are wayyyy too many new builders out there who think that the i7 is better than the i5 and who are just wasting their money, and you aren't helping them or correcting that misinformation - rather, you're just reinforcing it further.

 

[nekromobo]

I would really like to see mATX and mini-itx versions of this article, pretty please

 

[vertexx]

I'm sorry, Tom's, but...You really need to stop misinforming the general public who comes here for your articles and doesn't read the forums in depth.You go with an i7 for the "performance benefits," which are nonexistent for gaming... except that this rig is aimed at gaming. I would have much, much rather seen an i5, with a note explaining that an i7 is a good upgrade if you're doing these sorts of things, but isn't helpful if you're building a gaming computer.There are wayyyy too many new builders out there who think that the i7 is better than the i5 and who are just wasting their money, and you aren't helping them or correcting that misinformation - rather, you're just reinforcing it further.

Hmm.... What percentage of the performance measures in this article are for gaming?

 

[cypeq]

Fresh and new but feels like a deja-vu

 

[npyrhone]

"such a little difference in gaming"... You call 20fps in an fps game little? Thats like almost 30% in far cry.

 

[Sparky4688]

How loud is it at idle? At max stress? Normal operaton?

 

[cheesyboy]

Could we have one of these where you compare 3 or 4 different machines at a fixed budget of, say, $1,000 (or maybe up to $1,250) with a variety of CPUs.

I'm thinking a selection of CPUs as a fixed starting point, and GPU decisions based on remaining budget. Maybe an i7, i5, FX-8, and an APU.

Would be really interesting to see the performance differences across workloads by allocating budget between CPU and other components.

 

[quilciri]

I would prefer using a 3570k, hybrid drive and ddr-1600 (and maybe dropping the case to somewhere around a rosewill challenger) to fit 2x780's in the build instead. Other than that, looks tasty!

 

[clide005]

I kind of feel like only focusing on the price comparison vs performance of the core performance parts is a little like cheating. I feel like we're getting away from what is awesome about these quarterly builds, and that is we're showing regular folks that you don't have to have giant budget to build a good pc. And I think switching the rules around so you can build it better without making adjustments to fit your budget is getting away from the point. Thats just me though for others it may not make any difference. I do like that you separated the costs though in your price breakdown.

 

[keyrock]

This is about the price range I'm anticipating I will have to spend when I build an all new rig later this year, but that won't be for at least 4 or 5 months. By then the Haswell refresh will almost definitely be out, and we may have a clearer picture of Broadwell. I'm still confused about when Broadwell is actually happening. Even if Broadwell launches this year, I have to think that it will only be the low power variants, because why launch a new desktop chip so soon after Haswell refresh? Anyway, back on track, this build is a fairly good comparison to what I plan to build when that time comes, substituting in Haswell refresh (please let them be soldered on) and potentially a Maxwell card for the 780Ti depending on how that all shakes out. I definitely want to go with one beefier GPU rather than 2 lesser GPUs for future proofing purposes. One 780Ti (or equivalent) should have me covered for pretty much anything at 1440p, but come a year or two down the line, if the Witcher 3s of the world are not letting me max out with that card at 1440p, I can always slap another 780Ti in there and then I should be good to go to tackle absolutely any game at 1440p for years to come.

 

[vertexx]

I would really like to see mATX and mini-itx versions of this article, pretty please

Already done for ITX. See here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-your-own-haswell-overclocking,3608.html

I'd second the uATX. In fact, I'd really like to see Crash attempt a uATX dual-gpu setup.

 

[cleeve]

Why a Galaxy GPU considering the company pulled out of US market? btw, nice work on the build.

Frankly, it was the cheapest available card when the systems were ordered.

 

[cleeve]

Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.

Nope.

The purpose is to have a resolution that the low-budget PC can operate at for the comparison article at the end of the week.

 

[cleeve]

I kind of feel like only focusing on the price comparison vs performance of the core performance parts is a little like cheating.

I don't agree. We make it pretty clear that a builder could nab a cheap case and DVD drive for significantly less.

Those items are very subjective... one builder might not consider a budget case an option, while another might consider it a complete frivolity.

 

[cleeve]

"such a little difference in gaming"... You call 20fps in an fps game little? Thats like almost 30% in far cry.

That totally depends on the context.

 

[vertexx]

Having 1600x900 resolution in the gaming charts serves only one purpose: to create the impression that there is not really a difference between the two builds, while in reality the later one is obviously inferior to the previous one.

Nope.

The purpose is to have a resolution that the low-budget PC can operate at for the comparison article at the end of the week.

At this point, if the low budget PC can't game at 1080p, it has no business in this series of articles. Look at the number of 1440x900 monitor models available on Newegg - there are over 300 1080p models available vs only 32 for 1440x900. That would be because people are no longer buying them. It's time to move on from that resolution in favor of the higher resolutions.

 

[cleeve]

It's time to move on from that resolution in favor of the higher resolutions.

Higher than 5760x1080, which we already test?

Last time I checked, that represented less than half a percent on the steam survey. 4k doesn't even register yet... despite the hype, it has no adoption.