System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Enthusiast PC

Page 3 - 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.
Great, your disappointment, your fault. I mean, it's not like you actually read the $1600 PC article to find some of the solutions you sought. And then there's day 4's comparison, well, it's not like you actually knew there would be a competition right?
 


Blimey, I'm glad you said that was just your opinion because it's catastrophically wrong. Talk about
a gamer-focused response. 😀 For some tasks an SSD is absolutely essential, eg. AE. And sorry
but it's just nonsense to say an SSD doesn't help in-game performance, it flat out does, I've seen the
effect personally over and over and over again because of all the benchmarking I do. The benefit will
of course vary from one gamer to another, but's it extremely noticeable in the games I play (Oblivion,
Stalker, FC2, Crysis, etc.)

Sounds to me more like you've just never used one.

Ian.

 

yup. ssd prices have always prevented me from buying one... and i've never read about tasks finishing faster due to ssd. that's why i prefer larger mechanical storage when the budget requires tradeoffs.
 


(tasks such as Adobe After Effects benefit strongly from an SSD used for data caching in continuous use,
as will any task where lots of data is being processed all the time, eg. transaction processing; I can only
conclude you aren't reading the relevant articles. 😉

Re pricing, you have a very valid point. I've been moaning for ages about the way SSD makers IMO
have deliberately kept prices up because they don't need to sell them cheaper to achieve good sales.
Two years ago there wa a clear trend of 256GB SSDs heading towards 100 UKP or below, but then in
Feb 2013 it all ground to a halt. I've mentioned it elsewhere - a seller site in the UK listed the Samsung
830 256GB for a good price (125 UKP IIRC) and they sold well over a thousand in about a week! Clear
proof to Samsung I'm sure, and all other SSD manufacturers, that there was no need for a continued
price slide. Thus, when the 840 came out, pricing jumped, and all references to the 830 from seller
sites completely vanished. Not until Crucial released the M500 and MX100 did 256GB pricing finally
go below 100 UKP (I can only imagine Crucial eventually decided, heck with it, we're going after a
bigger slice of the pie).

IMO 256GB is the sweet spot for a boot drive. 64GB/128GB units still have their uses (I've just
bought four Sandisk Extreme II 128GB SSDs for use as dedicated Windows paging file drives in
systems with 64GB RAM), but 128GB is too low for most C-drives (perception of I mean; often it's
actually fine - I use lots of 120GB/128GB units for benchmarking, and even many 64GB where I
won't be installing larger benchmarks such as Viewperf12).

To me this is akin to hardback book pricing in the UK: above about 10 UKP, the public perception
is that such books are not worth it, people wait for the paperback. Many years ago, one book
dealer decided to break the mould and started selling hardbacks at prices reduced by a third,
bringing the typical cost below 10 UKP; end result, their sales shot up by 50%! (more than making
up for the price drop), and of course it brought people into stores who were more likely to buy other
books aswell. However, it didn't last; the pricing fixing agreement in force at the time meant they
gave up eventually (pressure from rivals I suppose) and hardback pricing went back up again.

It's this commercial insistence of milking something for as much as possible which is holding
back a wider SSD market IMO. They're shooting their own feet.

Ian.

PS. Some say SSD price spikes were down the flash supply issues. I don't buy that as it doesn't
correlate with the way pricing changed vs. what models were available, compared to rival products
over the same period, etc.

 

adobe a.e. and....? in the context of this build that's just one data point and the lack of an ssd doesn't seem to badly affect the bench results... as much as dropping down to a radeon r9 280/x would have.
there may be other tasks that ssds can accelerate but i am not aware of them, as i noticed a bit of stagnation and after the hdd prices dropped back to sane levels i lost interest in following ssd information (there's no clear timeline here). in addition to that, i read somewhere, prolly here, that most tasks are processor or system memory bound, not by storage i/o. the ones that were bound by storage i/o weren't within my requirements. so i am waiting for prices for high capacity drives to drop under a level where ssd will be interchangeable with mechanical drives in terms of capacity and price. combined with the massive speed advantage, high capacity ssds will become easy choices then.


 


Proof by negation. You said you'd never read about tasks finishing faster with an SSD; well now you have.
I only have to give on example, Your limited reading scope isn't my problem. 😀

Ian.



 

lol, okay. i didn't read by software benchmarks..well not enough of them, imo. my interest dropped after reading on how much storage i/o affects end performance compared to processors and system memory. i'll try expanding my scope in the future.
 


Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out.

The objective is the article is a price/performance comparison. Sounds like you need to go buy an SSD and find another website that uses SSDs to measure computing performance for applications. SSD does nothing except change the price point of the system for these type of comparisons, but since you clearly know better please have a nice life and come back when you are old enough to not lie on the forum signup sheet 😉
 
Relating to this article, I understand why the OP didn't add the SSD because he was on a limited budget and other components should come first. I would go CPU > graphics card > RAM > everything else. However, a SSD would be something I would purchase as soon as possible if I couldn't afford it the first time.

Off topic, I used to be one of those people who thought that SSD was all hype and that a mechanical hard drive was plenty fast enough for me; I was wrong. If you ever heard the saying that the mechanical hard drive is the slowest component in the computer... it wasn't a lie. Before I swapped out my WD Black hard drive with the SSD I noticed that my Windows 7 would get sluggish in a few weeks of use and I often had to defragment the hard drive just to get things to run smoothly again. With the SSD my Windows 7 did not feel sluggish at all and my programs would open almost instantly. It's a wonderful experience not having to wait for things to take forever to load up and not dreading to have to restart the computer because you installed a new program or game. We spend most of our time in the OS... opening the start menu, opening a folder, scrolling through webpages in browsers, working on spreadsheets, having multiple windows & programs opened, playing music/movies, playing games, etc. The experience should be enjoyable all the time. Having a mechanical hard drive with slow load times felt like I was driving on the highway and I had to count the exact change for the toll booth before I can pass through. It was slow and wasted a lot of my time. Having a SSD was like having a toll tag where I can just drive through the toll booth without any slowdown. This is just my experience with a SSD; no need to start any arguments.
 
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....
Click to expand...

I don't see people "hating" anything. They are just commenting and trying to have a discussion here. One thing I don't get though. Are the different builds in a SBM compared against each other or are Q2 builds compared against Q1?

If the Q2 builds are compared against each other, then this SBM is already screwed. Please compare the way WB 1T is placed in "Enthusiast" build vs "High-End" build. Different categories, if I understand correctly. And the high-end build DOES include the SSD in the Platform cost. Anyway, the price categories are named differently , so I cannot compare the builds directly.

On this thread 1/2 of the people seem O.K. with omitting SSD and in the High-End build it is a crucial part of the platform. Hmm...

Offtopic: interwebs etiquette clearly says that you don't need to comment a rage quit. You just sit back, grab a soda and watch the trainwreck as it happens.
 
I've tried to stay out of the SSD criticisms, but I'm agreeing with some "unpopular" points being made here.
1. I do not believe that Enthusiast = Gamer. Many of each are also the other, but it isn't always true.
2. I'm more of the former than the latter, and can hardly imagine building a system for myself that does not include a SSD. All of my games are enjoyable with a $150 card; I'll take that and a $100 SSD over a $250 card, every time. Pure gamers may disagree; I will caution some of them to be aware of area / level load and respawn time differences, in case it matters. For example, in Guild Wars it does.
3. I understand that the metrics used by the SBM do not show a sufficient benefit to a SSD to justify its inclusion in limited budgets. Until or unless that changes, I'll try not to gripe about one not being included. Most of us know what a SSD can do for us (de5_Roy, I really hope you get to try one soon; make sure your socks are secured).
 

i hope so. my next upgrade is unfortunately in the gfx area (mapesdhs was right, i am a bit gamer-focused. 😉). i'll try to get an ssd after that. my preference is towards the 480GB+ capacity as i'd be able to use the drive as os, programs and everything instead of only os of os and programs.
edit: wasn't sure about the platform system memory caps.
 


de5_roy, I've seen you on the forums quite a while and I must say I'm stunned that you haven't completed a build with an SSD yet. (That's not meant as a slight in anyway, I'm just genuinely surprised.) Along those line I will say this: Once you build a PC with an SSD there is no going back. I can't imagine building anything (with a hardware budget of $750 or more) that doesn't include an SSD, unless the individual told me they didn't care how long boot and load times were (things that make a computer feel slow) and that the only thing that mattered to them was maximizing FPS and eye candy in gaming.

Personally, I'm not that type of person. I finally built a new PC when I had the money because I was tired of waiting. I was always waiting on XP to boot (yeah I upgraded in mid-April and finally got off XP) and even Firefox starting with just one tab opening to Google took forever. I knew from a previous build I did for a friend that new hardware would make a huge difference, but that an SSD would be the part to truly make the computer feel fast. So I made sure I included an SSD when I built.


That said, I hope I'm not coming across to anyone as a "sensationalist" who is "hating on this build". I think this is a very good build, especially for the purpose of maximizing FPS at higher detail settings in high resolutions. Those are things that definitely matter more for certain builds than others. No two builds are exactly alike. My comments regarding the omission of an SSD have more been meant as direction to others who may use this build as a starting point for their own build. I would be willing to bet that most people building in this price range (as I noted earlier) are gaming at 1920x1080, in which case a 770 or 280X would still work very nicely for them and they would very likely appreciate the speed they would gain from including an SSD in their own build.



TL-DR: This build is tailored very well for the purpose of maximizing gaming value at high resolutions. However, I strongly advise anyone using this build as a starting point for their own build to consider reallocating some of the GPU budget for the purpose of including an SSD if they intend to game on a single monitor at 1920x1080.
 

i always face budget limits and make tradeoffs, that's the problem. :) whenever i spec out a full budget build i'd get distracted by parts other than ssd. using newegg as reference, the cheapest 128GB ssd i could find was a sandisk ultra for $60. same amount gets me a 1TB hdd and under $90 gets me a 2TB (basically a speed-for price vs capacity-for-price compromise). mechanical storage is Slow, i am painfully aware of that. but new, full builds often don't leave room for ssd. the quarter's build is a good example how builders face tradeoffs to achieve the goal even at enthusiast price range where an ssd has slowly become a mainstay.
haha, i think know exactly how you feel. i suffered through win 98-xp with sloooooow loading of... everything. i could get other work done before anything would finish loading. 😛 i usually get around slow loading using tweaks i learned from winn98 days so ssd doesn't seem necessary... yet. but i prolly won't go back to using mech. storage as primary storage after i get an ssd, similar to how i won't go back to using 2-4GB ram. otoh, maximizing fps in games is usually a priority for me - that's where tradeoffs come into play.

edit: an ssd is usually recommended at the top of "what to upgrade now that i've used my pc for a while" list. i agree with the last bit: if you game only on (single)1080p, an r9 280x and ssd is a good option.
 


Oh, don't get me wrong, in a case where it comes to choosing between SSD and HDD, I will always choose HDD. You can't build a PC today, unless it is strictly a web browser and office productivity machine (no music, pictures, videos, or games), with only 128 GB - or even 256 GB - of total space. I view the ideal configuration as a minimum 128 GB SSD system drive (preferably 256 GB) and 1 TB HDD. Example: the build I completed in April... right before AMD prices came down. The GTX 760 was an easy choice for me as 280's were still priced higher. I fully expect that graphics card to do perfectly well for the gaming I have time to do over the course of the next 5 years. If it doesn't then GPU is absolutely the easiest part to upgrade in a PC. I'd much rather stick in an upgraded GPU after the fact than add an SSD and have to completely rebuild my software setup.


That old XP machine (Pentium D, 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM) btw, now has Win7 and has been off-loaded to my mother-in-law as her first ever PC.
 
My primary PC, Phoenix in my .sig, has a HD7870 which may be sufficient for some time (even Gypsy's HD7750 is enough for most of my needs). I have a HD7970 in another machine that is mostly idle; I bought it to mine (got about 1.5BTC out of it before I stopped), but it now serves as my future-resistance. I'm hoping that some kind of GPGPU processing (like improved AI in a RPG) will be able to use it. A system most suited to my uses would lie somewhere between the budget- and enthusiast-class systems, likely with lesser graphics, but I'd add a SSD.
 
The Rosewill Hive is built by Sirfa. HardwareSecrets gave the slightly smaller one a Golden Award: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Rosewill-HIVE-650-W-Power-Supply-Review/1460 . Overload tests show that even if the 750W version is just the 650W model with a different label, it would still be able to provide that output. It uses some Teapo capacitors, but those are nowhere near as bad as the Samxons in the Corsair "CX." It may not be in my top three, but I'd use one if I got a great deal on it.
 


That's easy. It was $80 when I ordered.

Simple budgetary concern, and every little bit helped.
 

Three things on that first paragraph, two with the second.
1 ) First, it's grossly wrong. If you want to say the SSD doesn't affect gaming framerates, be my guest. But even that can be untrue in cases where a game does a lot of dynamic content "streaming" with no load screens. In those cases you can get slight stutter while a new section of map is loading. Outside of actual gameplay, if you can regularly cut down half or more of the time you're looking at a load screen, I'd say things are performing better. If games launch faster, load faster, and stream smoother on a SSD, I think that constitutes improving its performance.

2 ) Same thing with other applications. If I can launch an app in a couple seconds rather than 10+, I'd say they're performing better. It may not seem like a big deal with MS Office since it already loads decently on a spindle drive, but load up Photoshop or other huge content creation apps and you'll feel the difference a lot more. Now you did quantify this with "most" so you may be somewhat correct as most people don't have high-level applications where the difference really shines. However, even in the common programs, you will see a notable increase in launching, saving, and responsiveness.

3 ) Judging by your first sentence, it appears to me that, no, you don't understand ( or at least appreciate, ) how a SSD benefits a computer system.

4 ) We're not discussing a low-budget build here. This is a $1200 rig built for the enthusiast in mind. Not strictly a gamer. On Paul's build, no, I didn't bemoan the lack of an SSD. But here, as this is supposed to be a computer enthusiast's build ( not a Steambox, not an HTPC, not an office workstation, ) leaving off the SSD is by-and-large a mistake in my book.

5 ) You don't consider an R9 290 on a single 1080 screen "past the point of reason"? Even with everything completely maxed out, only Far Cry 3 dips below 65 fps. This machine could easily have dropped down to a 770 or 280X, added the SSD, and still kept a comfortable framerate, even with settings maxed out. Across multiple monitors, that's a different story. But if you want great triple-display rates at $1200, you'd have to build a vastly different machine too. And BTW, that should be e.g, not i.e.



Again, you're basing this all on an argument that SSDs don't improve actual performance. Not only that, but you're contradicting yourself. In one breath you say the SSD is too much extra money to take away from other components, but in the next you say it's not that much extra to get. Which do you mean? Also, in this particular build, how would dropping to a 280X or 770 so greatly impede the gameplay? Are you really so worried that you'd only be playing at 60 fps instead of 65?

You're also making the mistake of projecting your habits and tendencies on nearly every other user. Just because you may only reboot your computer once a month doesn't mean everyone else does, or even mostly everyone else does. If I had to take a guess, I'd say most people actually turn off their systems nearly once a day. Personally I shut my personal computer down every night, and I reboot my work desktop at least once a week. And just because you mainly play online action games, doesn't mean that's all anyone else does. I'll tell you right now that a SSD makes a huge difference in Guild Wars 2 since I can load zones in about seven seconds as opposed to the regular 25+.



I've already addressed these incorrect assumptions above. And really, who are you to question someone's age or maturity when you're the one slinging insults at them?



Agreed across the board ( as very often we do on these forums, ) particularly #1.

I would like to see #3 included in the SBMs somehow, but I know it can be tricky to quantify. Overall, it's not so much what the numbers say, but how the experience feels. Too many people get completely caught up in just the numbers and trying to min/max benches that they completely ignore the actual end-user experience. It's not unlike multi-GPU stutter in gameplay. It may not always be reflected in the actual framerate numbers, but the tester can definitely feel something is off.

Like Isaiah, I can only assume that anyone who is so adamant against SSDs in all but the most expensive builds has not experienced one. Like Onus and others, I can't imagine myself ever building another rig without an SSD unless my budget is extremely constricted. And even then I'd try to fit one, even it was only a small OS/boot drive alone.
 


Indeed; having to endure a "rust spinner" boot drive as I did recently
(marvelous phrase a fried of mine had), I'd forgotten just how awful
mechanical drives can be, and this was a 250GB Enterprise SATA, so
pretty slow anyway. When booting, it was taking so long to reach the
desktop I was worried Windows had done a wobbly.

Yesterday I spotted someone selling four new Sandisk Extreme II 120GB
units for 45 UKP each, with free shipping, so I bought the lot. One will go
straight away into an AE system as a dedicated Windows paging drive
(auto-sizing creates a 96GB file because the machine has 64GB RAM),
freeing up lots of space on the C-drive (Samsung 840 250GB) and
reducing wear on the C-drive aswell. The other three will be for future builds.
This is the top price a decent 120GB SSD should be IMO, not the 60+
most models are.

I missed an auction earlier though, forgot about it; someone was no doubt
happy at winning a boxed/new Vector 128GB for 43 total. Ah well. :}

Ian.

 


Not really. It makes a difference when you're playing by the pricing rules, and it allowed me to keep the system budget just under the $950 target.

At the time I ordered the only TX on Newegg was the TX650 for like $120, which is crazy. It looks like the TXs are being phased off of Newegg or something, don't know what's going on there. Remember, we have to get our parts from the 'egg for this series so we can give the systems away at the end.

Having said that, I don't think the CX750 is a terrible PSU for $80, but maybe that's just me. You're certainly entitled to think its a horrendous choice, I don't share your contempt for it but I encourage you to swap out parts as desired. :)

 
Good build but could have been better in terms of quality while remaining in the same budget.

CX series PSU is a below-average quality PSU, not recommended for a build like this. A simliar priced better quality 600-650W PSU should be sufficient for this build.

Also the Gigabyte Windforce R9 290 4GB is for $400 at Newegg, so I see no reason to get Powercolor.


 
@RedJaron - First and foremost, congrats on defending someone who flamed the forums and site and included "Rage-Quitting" in the first line. You must get a rise from correcting people with your impeccable grammar, thanks for stooping to our level to join the fun.

The point of these articles is to measure computing price/performance. That means GPU/CPU system backbone performance. If the editors were purposed to measure data rates, they would include SSDs. You don't have an argument. You might think you do, but the fact remains the editors don't think so, and thus, NO SSD is included in the article.

Yes, I am primarily interested and speaking of FPS. If you aren't playing games, there is little reason to have more than 8GB DDR3, an i7, and an SSD, and an entry level GPU (with exception to a handful of specific niche rendering professions and disciplines).

This article isn't intended for what you want it to be, so move on 😉
 


I had some very similar ponderings regarding the format of the SBM series. (TBH, I absolutely love the new pricing format. Great change TH.)

In a nutshell, it seems the SMB has three main goals:

    1. Give a starting point of what the "best bang for buck" is going to be a give price ranges for potential builders.
    2. Provide a price/performance comparison between each of the build tiers to determine where overall "best bang for buck" is. (Pretty much always going to be $800-1000)
    3. Provide a comparison of how performance has changed at a given price point from last quarter.


This may be a little off from TH specific goals for the SMB, but from the outside looking is these appear to be close to the mark.

Running under the assumption that those are the main goals, I think adding something like an FPS cap, at least to the "enthusiast" and "budget gamer" builds, would make a lot of sense to me. Most people I know who would only have ~$1100 total to spend on a system are not going to have (or have had) the extra money needed to grab a monitor with 120Hz refresh rate or run a multi-monitor setup. They are much more likely to have a single, 60Hz monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution. Therefore anything beyond 60 FPS is unlikely to add any measurable performance gains to these builds.

Of course, the downside to doing this would be that the high end gaming value would be damaged (thereby increasing the likelihood of a win for the "high end" SMB System) and limiting performance for those who do seek to run multi-monitor setups on ~$1100 systems.

In the end there will always be those who disagree with any specific build due to personal preferences. You can't make everyone happy at the same time can you? And that's why these builds are best utilized as a starting point/guideline for any build completed by an individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom