System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Enthusiast PC

[cleeve]

I have to say guys, that enthusiast level build is terrible. Apevia case? Turbo Duo 290? NO SSD? Come on. For 16 bucks less I put together a system WITH an SSD, a decent case, a much better 290, and a better motherboard/cpu cooler. Hell, I even managed to get a color scheme together for it as well:

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/FRyNgs

"Terrible" = same CPU, cooler, graphics card, and equal benchmark performance?

The case we chose really doesn't matter, as the first page of article points out. Case/optical drive is completely subjective. That's exactly why we've separated the performance parts price from case/optical/OS.
By the way, are you just assuming Apevia its bad because you prefer other well-known brands? It did a fantastic job for the purposes of this article, so other than brand, what's your issue with it? Is brand the same problem you have with the 290? Because it's cooler is quite good.
Speaking of coolers, the Hyper 212 EVO is virtually the 212 plus with a different fan. Is this really the huge difference you're implying it is?

You're also specing it out two months after we did, with lower prices. An SSD would have been great, but two months ago when we ordered there was no room in the budget, and we weren't willing to sacrifice the 290.

Bottom line, you're being a little sensationalist about picking nits.

 

[cleeve]

My critiques :

* Running memory at 1333 is an obvious bottleneck, even if it's small, it's measurable enough to be significant. I can't understand what you stand to prove by bottlenecking the system with the RAM. It's well understood that 1600 mhz DDR3 is the "entry" level for i5 systems.

I'm not sure what kind of performance boost you expect out of faster RAM, but based on the tests we've done over the years I doubt it's as dramatic as you assume. And frankly, we didn't have the budget for it.

* The change in dollar value was unwarranted haha. This is just my one opinion, but an extra 200-500$ goes a long way at this sector, because the 1200$ price point allows more into the GPU/CPU which makes a huge performance bump.

I think the $400 Core i5/Radeon R9 290 stands exceptionally well vs. the Core i7/GeForce GTX 780 Ti when it comes to value, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Based on the feedback we get, ~$1200 systems are exponentially more popular than ~$1700 systems.

 

[elbert]

Every time I read these I have a desire to find the last quarters parts list. Could you please add last quarters spec's with this quarters parts list. Thanks!

It's there, just not clogging up space on page one. Check the Test Configuration page. It specifies the parts and settings (stock/oc) used for both machines.

For this story... Page 6, second table down, should give you what you seek.

Thanks Pauldh. Just what I was looking for and must have overlooked.

 

[geofelt]

In reading the article, I was invited to read the newegg user's comments on the PowerColor TurboDuo AXR9 290
There were only 5 from verified purchasers.
What was disturbing was that 80% had a negative 0 egg rating.
The saving grace is that for $30 you get a 240gb Samsung evo.
So I filtered on the most popular R9-290 cards from verified purchasers.
In order are the 0-1 egg unfavorable percent ratings:
18%
43%
11%
20%
30%
36%
An abysmal indicator of satisfaction.

 

[Guest]

I have to question the need for Z97 mobo. If you go with the Haswell and not the Haswell update and you do not include M.2 SSD, then why go with Z97? If you are choosing the Z97 to have a upgrade path, you should also go for the Devil's Canyon cpu. Budget-wise it is a really bad idea to even think about going for D.C. Haswell chip later on.

The ssd gives you an easily felt sensation of speed every time you boot. Just got an ssd myself like 2 months ago. Any other go-fast parts come secondary. Ditch the Z97 and the ODD and you could squeeze in a SSD.

Since when does getting a z97 board means you have to pair up with a Devil's Canyon CPU? Z97 can be pair up with any 1150 cpu as long as it's with your budget. Also others get the latest chipset is for newer technology like SATA Express and M.2. If you don't see the need, it doesn't means others won't need it or either.
The Z9 in this smb is one of the cheap one. There is not much you can save by getting a z87 board, to squeeze in a ssd.

I did not claim that Z97 needs to be paired with Devil's Canyon. I also noted that why get Z97 if you don't have any components requiring it. I especially mentioned M.2 SSD. And you come back with a reply
"Also others get the latest chipset is for newer technology like SATA Express and M.2."
So basically we agree?
But this build is going to be benchmarked right here right now. Performance per $ counts. So Z97 did not add any value to this build. Even a previous gen SSD would add value. Also I did not suggest Z87. Where did you get that? Why not go for non-z O.C. capable H87 mobo?

 

[cleeve]

But this build is going to be benchmarked right here right now. Performance per $ counts. So Z97 did not add any value to this build. Even a previous gen SSD would add value. Also I did not suggest Z87. Where did you get that? Why not go for non-z O.C. capable H87 mobo?

Well, we needed an overclocking board as that is a key target for our SBM. H87 wouldn't cut it.

As far as Z87, could have done that, yeah. Might have saved $10 or so, but the price difference was so small I simply wanted to check out ASRock's new Z97 board. You can obviously save that $10 if you want an older Z87 model.

You said "Performance per $ counts" and then "an SSD would add value". Those thoughts aren't on the same page, as an SSD doesn't add to performance/dollar when it comes to apps, it's more of a convenience add when it comes to boot times. With the budget we're talking about, we're looking at low-end SSDs, so we'd need a conventional hard disk to store programs anyway.

 

[mapesdhs]

... What was disturbing was that 80% had a negative 0 egg rating. ...

Alas this doesn't really convey anything useful. Such data suffers from horrendous sample bias,
ie. apart from being a tiny sample, people who are unsatisfied with their purchase are far more
likely to leave feedback. How many times have you bothered to leave feedback for something
on such a site when the item you bought worked just fine? When something goes wrong, people
feel a need to vent their frustration. Also, the presence of existing complaints can encourage
someone who's annoyed to post their own complaint, ie. group-think.

It's a bit like waiting for a bus - we conveniently forget about the days when the bus turns up on
time. Even better example: why are there ever only 'holiday from hell' programmes on TV? Why
no 'holiday was perfectly ok' programmes? Because nobody cares about good news. Just watch
any TV news programme for proof of that. 😀

Seller site feedback is the same. People who are happy with their purchase generally don't bother
leaving feedback stating that's the case.

Ian.

 

[Onus]

FWIW, if it seems at all relevant, I try to leave feedback on all of my Newegg purchases.

 

[BilinearCheese]

A reply to Cleeve after his comment on my first post:

I'm not assuming Apevia is bad because of my own personal preferences at all, simply because you never see them mentioned and they are super budget. Either way like you said it doesn't factor into what is being built for your recommendations.

As for the fact that you guys were building two months ago, the 290 windforce by gigabyte was on sale then for 400 according to NewEgg's price history. Even based on pricing two months ago. Even then 2 months ago your ram and OS were cheaper than they are now.

I didn't intend to be sensationalist but at the same time I still see very obvious concerns with the build at this budget. What's more having this as a resource people use to determine what kind of build to put together when pricing history on it is two months old and you're limited to newegg only makes it somewhat misleading. Regardless, you could still have fit an SSD into this budget and had a better version of the 290 for the same price.

 

[mapesdhs]

FWIW, if it seems at all relevant, I try to leave feedback on all of my Newegg purchases.

This qualifies you as a decent human being. 8)

Ian.

 

[Adroid]

My critiques :

* Running memory at 1333 is an obvious bottleneck, even if it's small, it's measurable enough to be significant. I can't understand what you stand to prove by bottlenecking the system with the RAM. It's well understood that 1600 mhz DDR3 is the "entry" level for i5 systems.

I'm not sure what kind of performance boost you expect out of faster RAM, but based on the tests we've done over the years I doubt it's as dramatic as you assume. And frankly, we didn't have the budget for it.

* The change in dollar value was unwarranted haha. This is just my one opinion, but an extra 200-500$ goes a long way at this sector, because the 1200$ price point allows more into the GPU/CPU which makes a huge performance bump.

I think the $400 Core i5/Radeon R9 290 stands exceptionally well vs. the Core i7/GeForce GTX 780 Ti when it comes to value, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Based on the feedback we get, ~$1200 systems are exponentially more popular than ~$1700 systems.

* My first point wasn't that you include faster RAM in the build, rather that you run the selected RAM at the rated speed. It appears you essentially did the benchmarks for the stock clock speed while having the RAM underclocked per say. I know I'm splitting hairs here, but it's fun to see how much a difference overclocking makes within a given system, underclocked RAM will further handicap the system and may portray a false read on the performance variance. From the dozen or so articles or comparisons I have read, below 1600 hurts performance, above 1600 the difference is negligible.
* Fair enough. The extra 200$ gets us to 290x / 780 bracket, the extra 400$ gets us to the 780ti bracket. It is what it is. Maybe it's time for a 4th system builder category? 😉 . I don't mean that seriously but I do advise my friends of how to build systems, and I'm hard pressed to recommend anything less than an i5 for a gaming machine (twice in the last few weeks), which starts us right around the 1200$ mark of this system.

 

[Onus]

For the sake of longevity, I too would be hesitant to recommend less than an i5 (except on a really tight budget), especially since most games are enjoyable on less than "UltraMaxOhWOW!" settings. I've seen rules of thumb like "spend twice as much on the graphics card as on the CPU," but I suspect they only work in certain ranges. It's easy enough to turn down settings, but you'll kick yourself for a too-weak CPU. That's another reason I wonder if the Kabini is one such "kick yourself" CPU for being too weak, or can it provide a good experience on decent (e.g. "high") settings?

 

[cleeve]

I'm not assuming Apevia is bad because of my own personal preferences at all, simply because you never see them mentioned and they are super budget. Either way like you said it doesn't factor into what is being built for your recommendations.

So you just don't like the idea of a no-name case, then. Honestly, unless you have a specific problem with it I don't consider that a valid concern.

As for the fact that you guys were building two months ago, the 290 windforce by gigabyte was on sale then for 400 according to NewEgg's price history. Even based on pricing two months ago. Even then 2 months ago your ram and OS were cheaper than they are now.

As I mentioned, the Powercolor 290 was $380 when we ordered, $20 cheaper than the Windforce. The Powercolor has performed very well in our tests, the cooler is great and the card overclocks well, so what's the concern other than brand name?

The OS price hasn't changed. Ram we chose was the same price, but the RAM you chose is $15 more and has the same clocks and timings from what I can tell. Brand issue again?

I didn't intend to be sensationalist but at the same time I still see very obvious concerns with the build at this budget. What's more having this as a resource people use to determine what kind of build to put together when pricing history on it is two months old and you're limited to newegg only makes it somewhat misleading. Regardless, you could still have fit an SSD into this budget and had a better version of the 290 for the same price.

No, I could *not* have fit an SSD and 290 for the same price, as the 290 you suggested is $20 more than the one I chose at time of ordering. If I could have had an SSD, I would have. And you know what? I absolutely advocate getting an SSD for the extra cash, without hesitation. You know what else? Would have made no difference in any benchmark except maybe PCMark synthetics.

I mean, I think I can see where you're coming from. but honestly, don't you think "terrible" is a sensationalist word in this context for a machine that will deliver identical benchmark scores?

It's not like I picked a Core i3 and Radeon 7770 with a super-expensive case and $200 motheboard and $300 PSU. *That* would be "terrible". Your issues seem like minor subjective brand-based irritations at most.

 

[cleeve]

* My first point wasn't that you include faster RAM in the build, rather that you run the selected RAM at the rated speed. It appears you essentially did the benchmarks for the stock clock speed while having the RAM underclocked per say. I know I'm splitting hairs here, but it's fun to see how much a difference overclocking makes within a given system, underclocked RAM will further handicap the system and may portray a false read on the performance variance. From the dozen or so articles or comparisons I have read, below 1600 hurts performance, above 1600 the difference is negligible.

Fair enough. I find a value in seeing what the motherboard defaults to for folks who build and run it that way, other's don't. i understand that but I don't consider it a false read. Having said that, I will probably invoke XMP by default next time for consistency with the other builds.

* The extra 200$ gets us to 290x / 780 bracket, the extra 400$ gets us to the 780ti bracket. It is what it is. Maybe it's time for a 4th system builder category? 😉 . I don't mean that seriously but I do advise my friends of how to build systems, and I'm hard pressed to recommend anything less than an i5 for a gaming machine (twice in the last few weeks), which starts us right around the 1200$ mark of this system.

We can't do an infinite number of builds each month, obviously, but we do push the price brackets from time to time to avoid making the same builds each quarter. Note that our last build was an i7-780 Ti combo. The data is all there for anyone who wants to know if the extra cash is worth it.

 

[RedJaron]

For example, an SSD is really just a luxury item that doesn't actually change the performance of applications or games all that much once they are loaded

Key phrase there being "once they are loaded." Would you change your tune if they added an "Application Load Time" metric?

Not everything about a computer system can be reflected in a benchmark. No, a SSD isn't a hard requirement since you can operate a computer without one. But the extra responsiveness, faster boot times, faster updates, faster game load times ( both initial and save game loading, ) and overall snappiness begs the question of why DIDN'T you include one when spending $1000+ on a system.

 

[Adroid]

For example, an SSD is really just a luxury item that doesn't actually change the performance of applications or games all that much once they are loaded

Key phrase there being "once they are loaded." Would you change your tune if they added an "Application Load Time" metric?

Not everything about a computer system can be reflected in a benchmark. No, a SSD isn't a hard requirement since you can operate a computer without one. But the extra responsiveness, faster boot times, faster updates, faster game load times ( both initial and save game loading, ) and overall snappiness begs the question of why DIDN'T you include one when spending $1000+ on a system.

SSD is irrelevant to gaming and most application performance. Most people understand how a SSD benefits a computer. If they want one, they buy one and get the expected results.

For a gaming system, especially one on a budget, the SSD is an afterthought. 99/100 scenarios putting 100$ on the GPU is going to be money better spent, unless you are running ridiculously low resolutions or you are already past the point of reason at standard resolution (i.e. GTX 780 or better @ 1080p or less).

So to answer your question - where are you going to squeeze 100$ out of that 1000$ build to justify an SSD and not cripple gaming performance as a result?

 

[Traciatim]

Key phrase there being "once they are loaded." Would you change your tune if they added an "Application Load Time" metric?

Not everything about a computer system can be reflected in a benchmark. No, a SSD isn't a hard requirement since you can operate a computer without one. But the extra responsiveness, faster boot times, faster updates, faster game load times ( both initial and save game loading, ) and overall snappiness begs the question of why DIDN'T you include one when spending $1000+ on a system.

Which is exactly why I also stated it's one of the best ways to spend extra money on the system. They key being extra money that isn't needed or can't be spent on actual performance items. Which turns it in to a luxury item when you are talking about measurable performance per dollar of actual use. If you had to take 80 bucks out of this machine to put a 128GB SSD in there then you would seriously have to impede performance by selecting a slower video card or processor, that's not a great trade off. In the real world generally people should either just order a machine like this and deal with load times for a while until they can buy an SSD or they would just wait until they had the extra cash around since it's not that much more to order the machine with one. When you have a hard budget limitation that's going to cut in to what the machines primary function is so you can boot in 15 seconds instead of a minute the once a month you restart you machine during active use, or you can wait on the load screen of a game for 4 seconds and then wait the other 26 seconds for everyone else to load before the match started then it's not a good value for the dollar.

 

[Steve Simons]

I like this price point because it truly is a trade-off and probably where many enthusiasts are at in their price point, especially when you factor in the cost of sound system, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. It's one thing to upgrade a system where you already have that in place (and might be able to justify $1500), and another when you are starting from scratch.

 

[Isaiah4110]

For example, an SSD is really just a luxury item that doesn't actually change the performance of applications or games all that much once they are loaded

Key phrase there being "once they are loaded." Would you change your tune if they added an "Application Load Time" metric?

Not everything about a computer system can be reflected in a benchmark. No, a SSD isn't a hard requirement since you can operate a computer without one. But the extra responsiveness, faster boot times, faster updates, faster game load times ( both initial and save game loading, ) and overall snappiness begs the question of why DIDN'T you include one when spending $1000+ on a system.

SSD is irrelevant to gaming and most application performance. Most people understand how a SSD benefits a computer. If they want one, they buy one and get the expected results.

For a gaming system, especially one on a budget, the SSD is an afterthought. 99/100 scenarios putting 100$ on the GPU is going to be money better spent, unless you are running ridiculously low resolutions or you are already past the point of reason at standard resolution (i.e. GTX 780 or better @ 1080p or less).

So to answer your question - where are you going to squeeze 100$ out of that 1000$ build to justify an SSD and not cripple gaming performance as a result?

I try to run my recommendations for a ~$1000 build around a $200 price point for CPU and ~$250 price point for GPU with the knowledge that most people running this build are not going to be dropping an extra $500 on a triple monitor setup. Most common/likely gaming resolution in this price point is 1920x1080.

Armed with that idea, this is how I would have tweaked the build to fit a SSD:

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4670K 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($219.99 @ Newegg)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus 76.8 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.99 @ Newegg)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97 PRO3 ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($79.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Crucial MX100 256GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($112.48 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($57.99 @ Newegg)
Video Card: PowerColor Radeon R9 280X 3GB TurboDuo Video Card ($269.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Apevia X-HERMES-RD ATX Mid Tower Case ($67.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 750W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSB0 DVD/CD Writer ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 (OEM) (64-bit) ($102.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $1151.36
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

I removed the discounts for mail in rebates and combo deals and tried to keep the rest of the parts at the same price point where they were when purchased in May. As you can see, the overall price comes out roughly the same as it did for the actual build. AFAIK, there shouldn't be any real noticeable performance differences between the 290 and 280x when gaming at 1080p.

Of course, as already noted, the real world performance boost from the SSD would not show up in any of the weighted benchmarks, so I would absolutely expect to see this actual build top my theoretical build in the "value" chart.

 

[jlwtech]

Wow. Everyone is hating-on this build. Sensationalism running rampant...

The whole point of the SBM is to evaluate their performance and their value, at a given price point, based on a predefined set of test/benchmarks.
How can you fault them for choosing parts that will maximize their performance-per-dollar within that criteria? That's what they are supposed to do!

An SSD will reduce performance-per-dollar in their SBM tests, so OBVIOUSLY they didn't buy one for that exact reason.
It's also pretty obvious, that they would buy an SSD, if it was their own rig. But that's not the point.
Seriously people....

 

[jlwtech]

I really like this build. Even better than the budget build.
I was a little worried about that TurboDuo 290, and I'm glad to see it did well.
The PSU is a little overkill, but it leaves room for another r9 290, and it was a good deal.

All in all, I wouldn't change a thing. Best SBM build ever!

I love the direction you guys are going with the SBM. Maybe add the SSD to the "non performance parts" section of the budget, to shut-up the whiners?

 

[lp231]

I have to question the need for Z97 mobo. If you go with the Haswell and not the Haswell update and you do not include M.2 SSD, then why go with Z97? If you are choosing the Z97 to have a upgrade path, you should also go for the Devil's Canyon cpu. Budget-wise it is a really bad idea to even think about going for D.C. Haswell chip later on.

The ssd gives you an easily felt sensation of speed every time you boot. Just got an ssd myself like 2 months ago. Any other go-fast parts come secondary. Ditch the Z97 and the ODD and you could squeeze in a SSD.

Since when does getting a z97 board means you have to pair up with a Devil's Canyon CPU? Z97 can be pair up with any 1150 cpu as long as it's with your budget. Also others get the latest chipset is for newer technology like SATA Express and M.2. If you don't see the need, it doesn't means others won't need it or either.
The Z9 in this smb is one of the cheap one. There is not much you can save by getting a z87 board, to squeeze in a ssd.

I did not claim that Z97 needs to be paired with Devil's Canyon. I also noted that why get Z97 if you don't have any components requiring it. I especially mentioned M.2 SSD. And you come back with a reply
"Also others get the latest chipset is for newer technology like SATA Express and M.2."
So basically we agree?
But this build is going to be benchmarked right here right now. Performance per $ counts. So Z97 did not add any value to this build. Even a previous gen SSD would add value. Also I did not suggest Z87. Where did you get that? Why not go for non-z O.C. capable H87 mobo?

Perhaps your point of view is different from mine? My meaning of getting a Z97 board for the latest technology like SATA Express and M.2, isn't to use it right away. By getting certain Z97 boards means you'll be ready for it when more of these drives are available. Right now there is no true SATA Express drive and a 256GB M.2 drive at Newegg cost around $180, which is expensive for most of us. A PNY 240GB SSD is around $80 dollars and that is a difference of $100. For the extra $100, we can either save it, or put it towards a better CPU or video card.
Haswell refresh brings no major changes except for a slight speed bump over Haswell. Also most of us here who read this site are enthusiast and would most likely get a K CPU so it can easily be overclocked. Non K CPUs are fine too, if your not planning to overclock. The only updated K CPU are the Devil's Canyon i5 and i7
Pentium 20th Anniversary Edition is also a unlock CPU, but that isn't based on DC.
DC CPU is just a few degrees cooler over Haswell, nothing exciting about that.
Also a H87 board is not officially supported for OC, it depends on the motherboard maker to decide whether they want to implement OC features in it or not. Getting a H87 board for the sake of saving is a gamble, when it comes to OC. If you want to take this path with your build, then that is your choice, but for those who wants to OC not have to worry about whether the board supports OC or not, get a Z87 or Z97 board.

 

[de5_Roy]

i like this build. it's balanced for it's price and performance.
the case and o.d.d. are decoupled from the price of performance hardware, so i don't have an issue with the case. besides, that thing comes with 3x 120mm + 1x 200mm fans preinstalled. i usually prefer the corsair carbide 200r, it's at similar price point but has only 2x 120mm fans iirc.
i also like that it gave up the ssd for more gaming performance and opted for 1TB storage. last time the build had only 500GB (for the total price range) and an ssd. imo, ssd is the one component that influences the price of performance hardware but doesn't add significant amount of "performance" to the price of performance hardware like other parts e.g. the psu or gfx card. that's why trading it off for more gaming perf seems like a good choice.

it is kinda bummer seeing you guys not winning the silicon lottery for cpu o.c. i hoped that this time the cpu would hit 4.5 ghz. may be next time.

now the nitpicks. first, the motherboard. budget asrock boards creep me out. i was looking at the final build photo and seemed like the relatively bigger gfx card was gonna slide off the motherboard. that thing looks strangely competent yet so flimsy and er... narrow. the usb 3.0 front panel header placement was definitely problematic. asrock coulda tried by putting an angled header like the ones on msi motherboards. however, majority of the usb 3.0 fp cables are so stiff and thick that connecting those to an angle header might cause even more problem. the psu coulda been from a different brand like seasonic 12ii bronze lineup, may be.

 

[Guest]

I am rage-quitting this thread and the site while I am at it. Nothing to learn from this article. Obviously the selection of components for the quarterly build is not debatable.

I am not sure if the guys behind the tagnames defending this build are involved with TH and this article. Many readers are trying to tell what they VALUE in a build (ssd, better psu etc.) But in the replies there is a common theme: "No! You're wrong! SSD is not necessary" So, readers who VALUE a fast-booting pc are wrong. Note taken. I will never question the sanctity of the Benchmarks again.

Also here in TH, Enthusiast == Gamer. I am enthusiastic about PC builds, but I also want the PC to do some actual work and let me be productive. I am also interested in performance/Watt. So not checking up on TH is gonna save some W*h and slow down global warming. No, I am not starting a debate on global warming. I am done.

 

[de5_Roy]

wow.. i think benjam disabled/deleted his account when i was typing the reply...?

I am rage-quitting this thread and the site while I am at it. Nothing to learn from this article.

your loss if you quit. i hope you stay.

I am not sure if the guys behind the tagnames defending this build are involved with TH and this article. Many readers are trying to tell what they VALUE in a build (ssd, better psu etc.) But in the replies there is a common theme: "No! You're wrong! SSD is not necessary" So, readers who VALUE a fast-booting pc are wrong. Note taken. I will never question the sanctity of the Benchmarks again.

i dunno about others, i am not involved with thg. imo, an ssd isn't necessary because it doesn't accelerate tasks like a cpu, gpu or ram does. with ssd, you get faster booting and reduced loading times. that's.. pretty much it. if you have money to spend for that, by all means go for it. in this q's build the focus was on getting more performance which makes the tradeoff (under the current budget) worthy. No one is saying users who value fast booting pc are wrong. but that value might not be as quantifiable as you think.
i look at ssds as i see discreet sound cards. my integrated audio chip does just fine. sure, quality dsound cards are way better.. but if getting a dsound card meant giving up gfx performance, i'd skip the card as much as i'd skip the ssd, or a higher end aio lcs.
if you build in steps, you can save much more and slowly add all your preferred components over time.(edit2: i mean save up front. your end cost of all parts will be higher) this is a full build from the begining, working under more limited budget.

edit: another reason i am not interested in ssd is their prices compared to mechanical storage. i'll skip hdds when 512GB ssds drop under $100. but that's just me.