System Builder Marathon, Q2 2014: Our Enthusiast PC

[RedJaron]

@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.

Defending BenJam, or whatever his name was? No. I just call people out on their rudeness and hypocrisy. Even if he did "flame the forum," as you call it, why does that warrant your name calling and insults? I may disagree with a lot of people, but I'm not the one "stooping" to ad hominem attacks.

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.

Last I checked, this was the System Builder Marathon, as in full system. As for "performance," you keep using that word . . . Please, go back and take a closer look at your precious benchmark scores, particularly the bars labeled "Storage." Don even devoted an entire graph and paragraph JUST to storage scores whereas others included them with the rest of the PC Mark suite. You can look through older SBMs and find similar things. And the editors have actually mentioned many times that while a SSD may not be a huge factor in many benchmarks, they are rather important to a system and its overall performance and feel. It is comical though, that you claim to know exactly what they're thinking.

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

I find it humorous that you imply I can't make this be about what I want, but you're entitled to do just that. But by all means, you and Traciatim feel free to still gang up on me ( or try to do so anyway. ) It does at times make it more fun for me. However, I can see you're more interested in trying ( and largely failing, ) to prove you're right rather than having a worthwhile debate on components and their merits. So adieu.

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.

...
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.

I like the idea of a frame cap or some other limiter to more focus the intent of a build. Perhaps a cap around 75 fps and that above that you don't get any extra points. But if a system can maintain a minimum of 35 fps on a triple display it starts getting points for that. So a build that can hit 90 fps at single screen but struggles hitting 30fps on triple screen doesn't get any additional performance points since that extra power can be considered going to waste since it's not appreciated. However a system that hits 100+ single screen, but also 40 fps triple screen, shows a more diverse gaming proficiency. ( Hopefully that made sense to others. )

I would like to see a scoring scheme like that. I know some people just want to see max framerates, and those numbers have their place. But from the actual user experience, that excess speed doesn't make any difference the vast majority of the time.

Why do they keep choosing amd gpu, when that obviously means you need a stronger psu?

Current gen Radeons don't use that much more power than their nVidia counterparts. Generally it's 20W or less which is a pittance when you have 500W or more on the 12V rail.

 

[talikarni]

Horrible.... Powercolor and sapphire is a generic company that builds junk parts out of substandard leftovers that the other companies refuse to touch.
At this price point, a 2TB storage drive and 256GB SSD is a must have. That still leaves $300 for a much better quality GPU at close to the same performance.

 

[MachineMan]

IMO the rage quitter was funny. I didn't feel like his points were "flaming" as you said. I also felt like the select components were not up to debate. Especially Crashman tends to snap back with snide comments across the board. I don't know what is up with him. Can't believe he is a member of TH staff with that attitude. I felt like the definition of an "Enthusiast" was redefined in the second build. I consider myself to be really moderate with my builds. But the enthusiast build included some bits and pieces that me and others considered subpar.

PS. Many considered SSDs to be too small if budget requires to select SSD or HDD for the only storage component. People mention movies and music... Are they all paid for? Just wondering

 

[Adroid]

I'm done debating with you guys.

I'm a gamer. Computers are fast to play games. I have an overclocked 3570K @4.3 with a GTX 770 and im very happy with it. I bought an SSD when the price hit 50c/GB. Yea I like my SSD, but it's secondary..... I boot to the desktop in 8 seconds flat, but it didn't help my game performance at all. I'm an online gamer mostly - so it's great being the first person to load, unfortunately now I just sit there and wait for the slower pcs so the game can start, overall the SSD didn't really increase my game performance. In every instance, I would recommend someone on a budget spend that SSD money on a GPU. It makes complete and total sense to me. In the case of this build, either the R9 290 or a slower card with a boot drive - I think the 290 is hand downs the best option. If all you SSD lovers could find a way to maintain the overclocked i5 and the 290 and still squeeze a SSD there, I wouldn't argue that you may have a better build but again... This build was created at a certain window in time where prices were set and so was the vendor. PC parts change daily so big surprise they have changed since then..

Maybe you guys are arguing semantics. Maybe we just have a difference in opinion of what "enthusiast" is defined as. And while I may not be able to argue that enthusiast doesn't mean gamer, I don't think enthusiast necessarily means SSD, either.

 

[RedJaron]

I'm a gamer. Computers are fast to play games.

Well, at least you're being honest about it, and I can respect that. Just realize that your recommendations come from a very narrow view of computing: multiplayer first-person action games. If someone comes to you wanting to do very similar things, that's useful advice. However it doesn't always apply to people looking for a much broader range of computing activities.

If your primary goal is just gaming framerates, it'd be better to save the CPU OCing money ( K series CPU, cooler, Z mboard, ) and drop that into the GPU. The few frames you may lose going down to 3.2 GHz will be more than made up with $90+ extra in the GPU. Further, why NOT drop to a 280X or 770? Yes, you may lose a few frames in the benchmarks, but will the final experience be any less smooth when you're still able to run 60 fps in the vast majority of games?

On Newegg now ( yes, I know prices have changed, this is the best I can do now, ) you can get an i5-4440, Z87 mboard ( for the SLI/XFire capability, ) 8GB 1866 CL 9 RAM, 256 SSD, 1TB HDD, 750W Seasonic PSU, and Windforce 290 for ~$950. Such a build would lose in the productivity benchmarks due to no CPU OC, but the gaming performance would be nearly identical. You could cut the cost even more if you didn't care about future SLI/XFire support and dropped to an H87 mboard and 550W PSU.

PS. Many considered SSDs to be too small if budget requires to select SSD or HDD for the only storage component. People mention movies and music... Are they all paid for? Just wondering

I would guess most people have accumulated music over a long time. Even if you're not ripping in lossless formats, it's not difficult to get 30GB or more. Most of my media library is 256 - 320-bit, and I've still got over 40GB. I'm sure a lot of people have more than I do, too

So 35GB Windows install, 10GB productivity & other apps, 50GB media, and 5GB random documents means 100GB already used right there. Most games now take ~10GB with quite a few going 20GB or more. A 128GB SSD isn't much space for all that. I think most casual users could get by with a 256GB drive, but it's still nice to have that extra storage.

 

[Outlander_04]

That is the ugliest computer case I have seen for a looooooong time .

 

[Adroid]

I'm a gamer. Computers are fast to play games.

Well, at least you're being honest about it, and I can respect that. Just realize that your recommendations come from a very narrow view of computing: multiplayer first-person action games. If someone comes to you wanting to do very similar things, that's useful advice. However it doesn't always apply to people looking for a much broader range of computing activities.

If your primary goal is just gaming framerates, it'd be better to save the CPU OCing money ( K series CPU, cooler, Z mboard, ) and drop that into the GPU. The few frames you may lose going down to 3.2 GHz will be more than made up with $90+ extra in the GPU. Further, why NOT drop to a 280X or 770? Yes, you may lose a few frames in the benchmarks, but will the final experience be any less smooth when you're still able to run 60 fps in the vast majority of games?

No. I play mostly online games including MOBA, MMO, RTS, and some FPS. Overall, the best build is an overclocked i5 and the best GPU you can buy. I would say the SSD benefits MMO the best to reduce loading times, but MOBA, MMO, and RTS and FPS all require you to wait for the rest of the teams to begin. It does make a difference having more than 60 FPS in games. Minimum FPS is specifically very important.

I don't really know what you define as enthusiast, nor do I understand what you are trying to prove. If you are doing general computing and web browsing, light windows applications, etc then I can see how an SSD would benefit you more than a better GPU. There is no argument here. But there is also little reason to spend 1000$ on a computer unless you are playing games or running demanding graphic intensive applications. You can take the 400$ from the GPU and buy a big SSD and a 100$ GPU. I don't understand why you continue to push the SSD arguement in a forum where it doesn't benefit price/performance.

As I have already said - taking money form the GPU here would put a huge hit on performance. This is a price/performance comparison. This isn't a "we recommend you buy this" article. It's intended to try to show "bang for the buck". Dropping GPU tier for SSD would be an overall loss in measured performance of the specific categories measured. Why is so hard for you to recognize that?

 

[RedJaron]

No. I play mostly online games including MOBA, MMO, RTS, and some FPS. Overall, the best build is an overclocked i5 and the best GPU you can buy. I would say the SSD benefits MMO the best to reduce loading times, but MOBA, MMO, and RTS and FPS all require you to wait for the rest of the teams to begin. It does make a difference having more than 60 FPS in games. Minimum FPS is specifically very important.

You're right, other multi-player games with lobbies and limited player numbers would behave similar to FPS games in the sense of loading fast and waiting for other players to do so. I didn't mention things like RTS or MOBAs because they tend to have much lower hardware requirements. If you're playing BF4 at comfortable speeds, then far more often than not you'll be silky smooth in things like SC2, LoL, HoN, and DoTA. Those latter games are also very CPU bound ( and typically poorly threaded, ) with relatively low graphic requirements. Once you meet that requirement, you're not going to see meaningful framerate increases unless you do something drastic with your CPU. So I'm not sure why you're bringing up MOBAs, MMOs, and RTS to say "the best GPU you can buy" is so important when those games don't lean on the GPUs that much.

I don't really know what you define as enthusiast, nor do I understand what you are trying to prove. If you are doing general computing and web browsing, light windows applications, etc then I can see how an SSD would benefit you more than a better GPU. There is no argument here. But there is also little reason to spend 1000$ on a computer unless you are playing games or running demanding graphic intensive applications. You can take the 400$ from the GPU and buy a big SSD and a 100$ GPU. I don't understand why you continue to push the SSD arguement in a forum where it doesn't benefit price/performance.

It's a fair question of my definition of enthusiast. I call that someone who stays current on tech and computing hardware, someone who has higher than average performance needs and desires, and runs software much more demanding than the casual computing scenario you outlined above. Now that's fairly broad and open. It's intended to be since computer junkies come in many different flavors. Certainly some dedicated gamers are tech junkies and enthusiasts, but not all of them are. Certainly not all enthusiasts are gamers. If you want a geometry comparison, all squares are parallelograms, but not all parallelograms are squares. I'm not saying my definition is end all/be all, but I find it overlaps enough with many others' definition of the same that I don't get many arguments about it.

Now, your $1000 system statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the DIY computer tinkerers out there and their diverse demands and computing needs. I can think of many reasons to spend $1000 on a system, and not many of them are based on games. Let's think about the comp-sci student who needs a computer that can keep up with his homework of constantly compiling big projects. He's gonna want lots of CPU cores, lots of RAM, and a fast disk doesn't hurt either. GPU may not be that important to him. How about the video editor that still needs lots of CPU cores, even more RAM, and a metric tonne of storage space to hold her files? The GPU may be relevant too if she wants some CUDA or OpenCL acceleration. What about the engineer who needs VM support? Running multiple VMs chews up RAM fast and having a huge SSD to store them on means you can start them up in seconds as opposed to minutes.

Those are some more specific uses, but it's very common to run into someone who wants something in the middle. Something that can handle the odd tinkering in Visual Studio, the now-and-then doodles in Photoshop and Illustrator, editing videos from family gatherings, and also some demanding games. It's the machine that may not completely excel at any one task, but it can handle a large variety of needs without having any large weakness. THAT is what I call a generic enthusiast's computer.

I continue to push the SSD issue because people like you push the concept that the only worthwhile computer metric is fps.

As I have already said - taking money form the GPU here would put a huge hit on performance. This is a price/performance comparison. This isn't a "we recommend you buy this" article. It's intended to try to show "bang for the buck". Dropping GPU tier for SSD would be an overall loss in measured performance of the specific categories measured. Why is so hard for you to recognize that?

A huge hit in performance? Why do you act like I'm suggesting cutting the GPU in half? Dropping from a 290 to a 280X is not going to cripple gaming. Some of the more demanding games like Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 would take a small hit, but you wouldn't even notice except at the highest possible detail settings. Games like StarCraft, WoW, and LoL wouldn't be affected in the slightest. The productivity scores would stay the same, or even go up a bit with a SSD. The synthetics stay the same too, except the storage score would skyrocket and the 3D section would drop a little. Most importantly, the user experience would be much improved.

Yes, this is a performance/price comparison. And yes, dropping the GPU a bit for the SSD would have a small impact in the more strenuous gaming tests while providing a boost to other scores. I've never said otherwise. I think losing a little gaming speed that the very top-end in exchange for more speed in nearly every other task is a good trade-off. Why is it so hard for you to understand that "performance" includes a LOT more than just gaming framerates?

 

[Adroid]

The point of my gaming statement is what's best Overall for a gaming build. Online gaming is the largest gaming sector. Both FPS such as the Call of Duty / Battlefield line, and MOBA / MMO line are the biggest money makers for developers. Both FPS and modern MMOs required a good GPU.

You still haven't proven what applications require more than an SSD and a 100$ GPU outside of gaming. You define "someone who stays current on tech" as an enthusiast, but that doesn't mean they need a 280x or anything close to that. If "they" like throwing money away as you see fit, fine.

When I roam the Tom's components forums, troubleshooting excluded the #1 question is "How does this computer build look for gaming" and "Will this computer play games at max settings"... I dare say that the vast majority of DIY builders are building gaming machines here. There are exceptions to the rule, but as for majority rule, they are gamers who would benefit most from a better GPU than a lesser one.

So my 1000$ statement stands. I have been building gaming machines for over 10 years. As I have said before - if you aren't gaming, there is only a very small niche market of design professionals and similar that would benefit from anything beyond an SSD, i7, and 100$ GPU.

Therefore, if the majority of DIYs were to follow your ineffective, disengaged assertions, they would indefinitely experience a performance loss (relative to the specific targeted application performance on this specific article). You can always take this 1000$ build and add a SSD (or even reduce the GPU and add an SSD). No one is trying to say you shouldn't.

 

[Isaiah4110]

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.

...
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.

I like the idea of a frame cap or some other limiter to more focus the intent of a build. Perhaps a cap around 75 fps and that above that you don't get any extra points. But if a system can maintain a minimum of 35 fps on a triple display it starts getting points for that. So a build that can hit 90 fps at single screen but struggles hitting 30fps on triple screen doesn't get any additional performance points since that extra power can be considered going to waste since it's not appreciated. However a system that hits 100+ single screen, but also 40 fps triple screen, shows a more diverse gaming proficiency. ( Hopefully that made sense to others. )

I would like to see a scoring scheme like that. I know some people just want to see max framerates, and those numbers have their place. But from the actual user experience, that excess speed doesn't make any difference the vast majority of the time.

I think they have kind of done something to draw out the value differences along those lines when they added an extra "high end gaming performance/value" at the end of the relevant articles. I can see the easiest way to handle something like this is by making two tweaks:

1. Put a frame rate cap on gaming benchmarks.
2. Fully separate the 1920x1080 and below gaming benchmark results from those above 1920x1080 in the value graphics (which they kind of do already).

This would really serve to highlight the lack of added gaming value in spending beyond a certain point at 1920x1080 and below, but it would also leave plenty of room to highlight how much you need to spend (and in what areas) to game capably at higher resolutions and on multi-monitor setups.

 

[Isaiah4110]

Adroid, I have never once seen a single person say "I have 3 monitors that each cost $150+ and I'm on a strict $1000 budget to build a computer that can game on these monitors at 5760x1080". Neither have I seen an individual say "I have a $300 monitor with a 120Hz refresh rate and I'm on a strict $1000 budget to game on this monitor at max settings".

The vast majority of people say "I want to build a new [gaming] PC and I'm on a strict $1000 budget" will also say "I'm gaming on a single 1920x1080 monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate". What is your gaming resolution and refresh rate? You already point out that you are completely happy with your GTX 770, yet you are advocating everyone else needs an R9 290 or better?

Main Point:
The difference between a GTX 770 or R9 280X and an R9-290 or GTX 780 is not significantly measurable playing at 1920x1080 with a 60Hz refresh rate in the vast majority of games. Therefore any ~$1000 build should be able to fit a 1 TB HDD, 250 GB HDD, and still sufficient GPU (770 or 280X) without too much difficulty at this price point. This is why many people will state that a build at this level should include a solid state drive.


That said, if for some reason you are on a ~$1000 budget and are already set up with a higher refresh rate/resolution single monitor or a multi-monitor setup and if you also want to play graphically intensive (usually FPS and single player RPG) games at max settings then yes, omitting the SSD and pumping that extra money into a better GPU is likely worth it. MOBA, MMO, and RTS games do not benefit from the GPU upgrade as even a GTX 760 will absolutely max out the vast majority of them.

 

[Onus]

I have asked for some kind of FPS cap, or diminishing value of FPS over 60 for some time (keeping in mind that MINIMUM FPS may better define how smooth a game plays).
Sometimes it seems that in order to be a "true enthusiast," one must insist on UltraMaxOhWOW! settings on all games, getting 60+FPS. When I look at benchmarks, there's a huge difference in FPS between the highest settings with all eye candy maxed, and nearly maxed settings with a little of the auxiliary quality settings turned down a little. A $500 (or $400, or even $300) card is simply not required to play modern games on good, enjoyable settings.

 

[de5_Roy]

I have asked for some kind of FPS cap, or diminishing value of FPS over 60 for some time (keeping in mind that MINIMUM FPS may better define how smooth a game plays).
Sometimes it seems that in order to be a "true enthusiast," one must insist on UltraMaxOhWOW! settings on all games, getting 60+FPS.

i am not a true enthusiast, but i'd never give up higher fps (both min. and avg.) once experienced (just like some guys won't go back to mech. storage as primary, after using ssd (but performance gfx cards came first!)). higher fps, low lag - the more of those the better. if you have more fps beyond you can preceive, you can (choose to) raise gfx quality to use the additional headroom. if you have noticeably low fps at high/ultra, drop a level or two or disable higher gfx settings for better fps (gfx quality vs fps tradeoff). this is why an fps cap isn't necessary.

moreover, gfx performance will need upgrading if you want to maintain a minimum playable fps and gfx quality. when newer games demand more performance (and they will), gfx quality will need toning down or disabling for smooth fps, to the point the gfx card will need upgrading.

if you have both smooth fps and maximum gfx quality, then you have an ideal setup - which is a rarity if you cover all pc games. and, that ideal setup is impossible to achieve under $950, which cleeve still ended up exceeding.

When I look at benchmarks, there's a huge difference in FPS between the highest settings with all eye candy maxed, and nearly maxed settings with a little of the auxiliary quality settings turned down a little. A $500 (or $400, or even $300) card is simply not required to play modern games on good, enjoyable settings.

yes. you can pick up a pitcairn or even bonaire based card and play most games at smooth fps at 1080p. however, a cheaper gpu will run out performance and/or headroom much faster than a higher performing one as newer games demand more performance.

it all comes down to what kind of trade off(s) you make to achieve your goal. there's no wrong tradeoff according to your personal preferences, budget and goal.

edit: actually memory came first iirc... oh well..

 

[Adroid]

Isaiah, I'm not trying to tell anyone to buy anything. My only point, and I believe the main point of contention here, is that in my opinion the editors were successful creating a high value price/performance build, without the need for a SSD. In short, reducing the GPU would negatively affect measured performance of the specific benchmarks in this article. I'm not saying to buy a 290, I'm saying that the PC would bench/perform lower with a lesser GPU.

It's interesting that you don't appear to be a PC gamer judging from your signature, and yet you are offering some fairly strong recommendations between gaming cards as a self-proclaimed expert? The biggest part of the equation you are missing is that minimum frame rates at the highest resolutions is where you will find the biggest differentiation between cards. THAT is exclusively where you notice the largest margin between a 250$ card and a 700$ card. Sure, the 250$ card will handle single player at high/ultra resolutions, but in a 60v60 man pvp condition the 700$ (assuming proportionate CPU power) card will hold minimum frame rates much higher at max res. The SSD isn't going to help you in that scenario.

You seem to be interested in my build, or recommendations I might make for a DIY builder. If so, feel free to shoot me a PM and I'm happy to help or discuss. But to be clear I am not interesting in taking advice from any "expert" finger-pointers. For the record I'm not against SSDs, in fact I own one, but depending on budget and purpose, I may or may not recommend one.

 

[cbfelterbush]

I am saddened by this wretched build. What Enthusiast PC, Toms you and the Market have forgotten what a PC "Enthusiast" truly is. It is like the Term Audiophile, you don't throw it around unless you are backing it up with real hardware and true to life usage experiences.

PC Enthusiast is someone without a budget, looking for the most insane performance possible to accelerate their render or gaming. These people often upgrade even every 6-Months. I have been running Idaho's largest Boutique PC Building Center and have sold many PCs over the $10K mark. These people are Enthusiast, looking to run a 100GB Ram Disk, with 28GB System Memory, Dual Titan Z or Titan TI or 295x2. Revo 350 or the like PCI-E SSD. 1200w+ PSU. RAW performance, not interested in price.

Toms should be providing a cutting edge PC build when it does an Enthusiast build, not a watered down, budget oriented, mid level gaming PC. You already have that in your Mid/High end build. Just my input, there are still Enthusiast Builders out there. Your tired old Build isn't putting out more juice than my two year old PC, and as an Enthusiast build it should. -Cole

 

[Isaiah4110]

Isaiah, I'm not trying to tell anyone to buy anything. My only point, and I believe the main point of contention here, is that in my opinion the editors were successful creating a high value price/performance build, without the need for a SSD. In short, reducing the GPU would negatively affect measured performance of the specific benchmarks in this article. I'm not saying to buy a 290, I'm saying that the PC would bench/perform lower with a lesser GPU.

This point is absolutely true. In the current format/structure of the SBM, dropping from a 290 to a 280X with an SSD would show an overall performance decrease (and therefore value decrease) in the weighted benchmarks. I don't think anyone has denied this fact. What others are contending is that, in a real world scenario, getting the lesser GPU and adding an SSD would provide greater user perceived performance (and therefore value) than sticking with the higher end video card.

It's interesting that you don't appear to be a PC gamer judging from your signature, and yet you are offering some fairly strong recommendations between gaming cards as a self-proclaimed expert?

Lol! The assumptions people make based on outdated forum signatures. I'm not sure where you are getting that I'm a "self-proclaimed" expert at anything, but for you to 'assume' anything... Well you've heard what happens when you assume right?

The biggest part of the equation you are missing is that minimum frame rates at the highest resolutions is where you will find the biggest differentiation between cards. THAT is exclusively where you notice the largest margin between a 250$ card and a 700$ card. Sure, the 250$ card will handle single player at high/ultra resolutions, but in a 60v60 man pvp condition the 700$ (assuming proportionate CPU power) card will hold minimum frame rates much higher at max res. The SSD isn't going to help you in that scenario.

Of course minimum frame rates are highly important. Averaging 60 FPS while spiking downward repeatedly into the 20 FPS range does not give a good experience. At the same time, as has already been pointed out repeatedly and yet still not acknowledged by you, most users on a mainstream monitor will not get receive any performance boosts from going above 60 FPS. Their monitors simply cannot display higher since they are locked in at 60Hz refresh rates. Again, the individual spending $700 on a GPU is highly likely to have the money to also spend $700 on a high end multi-monitor setup, whereas the individual spending $250-400 on a GPU is much more likely to have a single monitor in the $100-200 range (which is then likely capped at 60Hz). You can take a mainstream monitor with a 60Hz refresh rate and hook it up to a top of the line system with a 295x2 and might get some crazy FRAPS numbers, but you still won't get more than 60 FPS output to the monitor. That's why V-Sync was initially created.

So yes, a more expensive GPU can hold higher minimum frame rates at higher max resolutions in higher detail settings, but max resolution and refresh rate settings are limited by budget just as much as the rest of your PC hardware.

You seem to be interested in my build, or recommendations I might make for a DIY builder. If so, feel free to shoot me a PM and I'm happy to help or discuss. But to be clear I am not interesting in taking advice from any "expert" finger-pointers. For the record I'm not against SSDs, in fact I own one, but depending on budget and purpose, I may or may not recommend one.

I really could care less about your build. You pointed out that you game quite happily with a GTX 770 and I used that as a backdrop to make a point. I also pointed out the common knowledge (which is supported by various benchmarks) that the majority of game styles you claim to play do not typocally benefit from a top of the line GPU over an upper-mid range GPU.

 

[Adroid]

Not sure if you have a point Isaiah? It appears you agree with my main point, as it pertains to this article. This isn't a "real world" scenario per se (it's a price/performance comparison). No one from Tom's that I have seen is twisting any arms forcing people to buy this system and/or preventing them from changing components to build their own.

As for the the rest of your comments, you are getting pretty far off topic here. If you have a superior build, great. In my opinion the article is a success the way it was done without any outside "expert" advice or permission.

 

[RedJaron]

Both FPS and modern MMOs required a good GPU.

Um, no, not really. Let's look at some minimum specs for games, shall we? ( Recommended GPU, if listed, is displayed in parentheses. )

• 
  WoW - 6800 / X1600 ( 8800 GT / 4830 )
  Guild Wars 2 - 7800 / X1800
  Rift - 5900 / X300 ( GTS 250 )
  LotRO - Any 128MB IGP ( Any DX9 discrete w/ 512MB )
  TOR - 7800 / X1800
  ESO - 8800 / 2600 ( 560 Ti / 6950 )
  
  Watch Dogs - 460 / 5850 ( GTX 600 / HD 7000 )
  BF4 - 8800 GT / 3870 ( 660 / 7870 )
  CoD Ghosts - 450 / 5870 ( 760 w/ 4GB )
  CoD AW - 630 / 6670 ( 560 Ti / 6870 )
  Crysis 3 - 450 / 5770 ( 560 / 5870 )

Hmm, looks like the trend here is that the MMO's recommended GPUs are at or below the minimum GPU for most FPS games. So, no, MMOs don't require near the GPU muscle that FPS games do. Only Elder Scrolls Online has a graphical requirement even close, and even that is on the low side when compared to Watch Dogs and others.

You still haven't proven what applications require more than an SSD and a 100$ GPU outside of gaming. You define "someone who stays current on tech" as an enthusiast, but that doesn't mean they need a 280x or anything close to that. If "they" like throwing money away as you see fit, fine.

Well, that's because I never claimed anything like that in the first place. However I can think of a few cases where it would be helpful. Say someone wants some GPU acceleration in some 3D design or other professional content applications. If they can't afford a full Quadro or FirePro card, dropping a couple hundred on a gaming card isn't a bad way to go. Now a dedicated professional will probably never do this, but the hobbyist or new grad student that dabbles in games definitely might.

No my definition of "enthusiast" does not specify they all need a 280X class of card. Neither does it specify that they never need or want one.

When I roam the Tom's components forums, troubleshooting excluded the #1 question is "How does this computer build look for gaming" and "Will this computer play games at max settings"... I dare say that the vast majority of DIY builders are building gaming machines here. There are exceptions to the rule, but as for majority rule, they are gamers who would benefit most from a better GPU than a lesser one.

Yes, I too see quite a few such help request threads, and I've participated in many of them. The gamer saying they have $XXXX for a system to max out [insert upcoming title] is quite common. That's great, but those are people asking specifically about gaming performance only. I'm talking about building a more balanced system with a smoother user experience all around. Also, those threads are started by people who don't know near as much about hardware in the first place. It's usually something like "My friend/cousin/brother said to get these parts, but I don't really know much about this. tell me what you think I should get.

The knowledgeable enthusiast typically doesn't make such threads because they've already studied out their own needs and wants and don't need others to make recommendations for them. If they do create such a thread, more likely than not they include their proposed part list, along with their reasons of why each piece was chosen, and invite discussion to see if they've overlooked anything and why, if at all, anything should be changed. Those threads tend to be a much more philosophical discussion rather than "That CPU won't fit in that mboard," or "that PSU isn't nearly strong enough to run that GPU."

So my 1000$ statement stands. I have been building gaming machines for over 10 years. As I have said before - if you aren't gaming, there is only a very small niche market of design professionals and similar that would benefit from anything beyond an SSD, i7, and 100$ GPU.

Bully for you. I've been doing it for 20 years. So what? Why are you treating it as though professional designers and gamers are mutually exclusive? I know I haven't suggested anything close to that. What I have said repeatedly is there are many people between those extremes who want good performance in a variety of computing disciplines out of a single machine. You've said repeatedly that you would recommend the bigger GPU at the expense of a SSD or other parts 99%, and I'm saying to blindly do that is a mistake and short-sighted.

Therefore, if the majority of DIYs were to follow your ineffective, disengaged assertions, they would indefinitely experience a performance loss (relative to the specific targeted application performance on this specific article). You can always take this 1000$ build and add a SSD (or even reduce the GPU and add an SSD). No one is trying to say you shouldn't.

Actually, you are saying I shouldn't. You're saying the SSD doesn't impact the system performance in any meaningful way. I do find it very amusing that you want to call my recommendations ineffective and out-of-touch. I'll be sure to pass on your poorly veiled insult to all the people who took my suggested build lists and tell them their computers are woefully under-powered.

This entire time I've only tried to relate one main point that you've pretty much refused to acknowledge: there's so much more to "enthusiast" and high-level computing than just gaming. This build was labeled "mainstream enthusiast," not "upper-end gaming." If you want to stay cloistered in your gaming-centric world, by all means do so. But you only make yourself look like a fool when you argue that gaming and benchmark scores trump other real-world applications.

PC Enthusiast is someone without a budget, looking for the most insane performance possible to accelerate their render or gaming. These people often upgrade even every 6-Months. I have been running Idaho's largest Boutique PC Building Center and have sold many PCs over the $10K mark. These people are Enthusiast, looking to run a 100GB Ram Disk, with 28GB System Memory, Dual Titan Z or Titan TI or 295x2. Revo 350 or the like PCI-E SSD. 1200w+ PSU. RAW performance, not interested in price.

Riiiiight, because you can only be considered an enthusiast if you spend more money on RAM than you would on this entire system. That's like saying you're not a car enthusiast unless you own a Veyron, Lambo Veneno, and/or Ferrari Enzo

 

[Adroid]

Haha you "win" Jaron. Tired of reading your long-winded arguments that don't go anywhere. I have said repeatedly, if it isn't obvious in itself, that this article is a price/performance comparison and reducing the GPU would impact performance of the measured benchmarks. That's the bottom line.

If you think you have a better build, or if you would recommend a lesser GPU and SSD, that's your prerogative. In fact that is the route I went for my personal build, but that's irrelevant to this article. I think SSDs should be left out entirely for the system builder articles, because they increase cost and don't improve measured performance. 99/100 readers understand the benefit of a SSD, and depending on what their primary PC use is, many of them are willing to buy one. SSD is not a "core" part of a gaming machine. I own probably 100+ (had a steam account since 1997) games, and a total of 2 games are on my 256GB SSD (ones that in my opinion are worth installing on it). For me it's unnecessary, and a luxury item. If I was on a tight budget, the SSD would be the first piece to go.

 

[Isaiah4110]

Not sure if you have a point Isaiah? It appears you agree with my main point, as it pertains to this article. This isn't a "real world" scenario per se (it's a price/performance comparison). No one from Tom's that I have seen is twisting any arms forcing people to buy this system and/or preventing them from changing components to build their own.

As for the the rest of your comments, you are getting pretty far off topic here. If you have a superior build, great. In my opinion the article is a success the way it was done without any outside "expert" advice or permission.

I thought it was a little more obvious than that, but hey, I can spell it out for you. My main point is to clarify/support what others have also already said:
While maximizing graphics muscle at the expense of tangible real world PC performance helps to gain ground in the value charts of the SBM, that vast majority of builders/users at this price point would greatly benefit from using this build as a starting point then dropping the GPU to a GTX 770 or R9 280X and adding a 250 GB SSD.

 

[Crashman]

Not sure if you have a point Isaiah? It appears you agree with my main point, as it pertains to this article. This isn't a "real world" scenario per se (it's a price/performance comparison). No one from Tom's that I have seen is twisting any arms forcing people to buy this system and/or preventing them from changing components to build their own.

As for the the rest of your comments, you are getting pretty far off topic here. If you have a superior build, great. In my opinion the article is a success the way it was done without any outside "expert" advice or permission.

I thought it was a little more obvious than that, but hey, I can spell it out for you. My main point is to clarify/support what others have also already said:
While maximizing graphics muscle at the expense of tangible real world PC performance helps to gain ground in the value charts of the SBM, that vast majority of builders/users at this price point would greatly benefit from using this build as a starting point then dropping the GPU to a GTX 770 or R9 280X and adding a 250 GB SSD.

Hey, my charts were divided 40/40/20 for games/apps/storage in Day 4

 

[Isaiah4110]

Spoiler

Not sure if you have a point Isaiah? It appears you agree with my main point, as it pertains to this article. This isn't a "real world" scenario per se (it's a price/performance comparison). No one from Tom's that I have seen is twisting any arms forcing people to buy this system and/or preventing them from changing components to build their own.

As for the the rest of your comments, you are getting pretty far off topic here. If you have a superior build, great. In my opinion the article is a success the way it was done without any outside "expert" advice or permission.

I thought it was a little more obvious than that, but hey, I can spell it out for you. My main point is to clarify/support what others have also already said:
While maximizing graphics muscle at the expense of tangible real world PC performance helps to gain ground in the value charts of the SBM, that vast majority of builders/users at this price point would greatly benefit from using this build as a starting point then dropping the GPU to a GTX 770 or R9 280X and adding a 250 GB SSD.

Hey, my charts were divided 40/40/20 for games/apps/storage in Day 4

That they were! I actually think that is a pretty good weighting percentage, I just don't know how well it measures the benefits of an SSD.

That said, I still view this ~$1100-1200 build as a very viable build, I simply would recommend (as with every build used as a baseline) tweaks be made for most users.


Hey, on the subject of that final article, I noticed a couple oddities. What's with the storage rating losing a percentage point in each of the OC'ed lower price point machines? And I thought it was a pretty surprising efficiency win for the $1600 machine! I usually expect to see efficiency take a hit in the upper tier.

 

[Crashman]

Spoiler

Not sure if you have a point Isaiah? It appears you agree with my main point, as it pertains to this article. This isn't a "real world" scenario per se (it's a price/performance comparison). No one from Tom's that I have seen is twisting any arms forcing people to buy this system and/or preventing them from changing components to build their own.

As for the the rest of your comments, you are getting pretty far off topic here. If you have a superior build, great. In my opinion the article is a success the way it was done without any outside "expert" advice or permission.

I thought it was a little more obvious than that, but hey, I can spell it out for you. My main point is to clarify/support what others have also already said:
While maximizing graphics muscle at the expense of tangible real world PC performance helps to gain ground in the value charts of the SBM, that vast majority of builders/users at this price point would greatly benefit from using this build as a starting point then dropping the GPU to a GTX 770 or R9 280X and adding a 250 GB SSD.

Hey, my charts were divided 40/40/20 for games/apps/storage in Day 4

That they were! I actually think that is a pretty good weighting percentage, I just don't know how well it measures the benefits of an SSD.

That said, I still view this ~$1100-1200 build as a very viable build, I simply would recommend (as with every build used as a baseline) tweaks be made for most users.


Hey, on the subject of that final article, I noticed a couple oddities. What's with the storage rating losing a percentage point in each of the OC'ed lower price point machines? And I thought it was a pretty surprising efficiency win for the $1600 machine! I usually expect to see efficiency take a hit in the upper tier.

1% can be luck of the draw, maybe benchmark again and again to get a higher score? Anyway, I think the $600 machine's overall performance was too low to secure it an efficiency victory.

 

[lightcloud]

Worth getting this. Nice and reasonable build.