System Builder Marathon Q3 2015: Value Comparison

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
 
I can appreciate the results of these specific systems in terms of performance but I'm seeing some serious flaws here. The 'gaming' build opted for an ssd which has little impact on gaming performance and settled for a lower end gpu while the amd mini build went with a gaming gpu and ditched the ssd? No wonder the amd mini system got best marks for performance/price in gaming. It would have been a much different story the other way around.

Unfortunately prices are volatile and some of the prices listed aren't accurate. The gtx 970 used in the amd mini build must have been having an incredible sale as it's still offering a rebate card and yet right now on newegg it's $325 ($305 with rebate) which alone blows the $800 budget. I was thinking the newegg links automatically updated to reflect current pricing via newegg's site but it doesn't appear to.

Similarly I don't recall the wd blue 1tb being close to $70, most times in pc partpicker it's around $48-52 and currently on newegg it's $53. If that gtx 970 were actually $250 it could've been added to the i3 gaming build but at it's actual price blows the budget. Then again it blows the amd mini pc budget based on current price anyway.
 
I like the idea of seeing what would happen if the current builds were "fixed." This will give useful information on the future-resistance of each build.
Otherwise, three machines at the same budget has provided some excellent data points. IMHO, this is the best SBM we have seen in a good while now. They're one of my favorite features of the site, and this quarter's series was exceptional.
Another idea would be to keep the same purposes (and budgets) for which these three PCs were built, but randomly assign each one to a different builder; same purpose, same budget, ok who wins?
 
I'd like to propose lowering the budget to $400 and aiming the "gaming" and "HTPC" builds to 1080p. Have a "pro" PC build to target pro and casual gaming workloads with a resoluion of 1440p.
 
How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
Click to expand...
In my estimation, (read: guess ;-) slap a Fury or a Fury X on the AMD mini PC and the "gaming" PC and you're pretty much done. That falls within the $900 - $1200 price range.

I guess the builders could also do a Crossfire or SLI experiment if they really wanted to test out wild ideas (or heck, just look around for a cheap 295X2 🙂
 
Randomly...but we each picked our own, it's not as if Eric was assigned the gaming build just because he's filling in for game-system-builder Paul :)

 
How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
Click to expand...
I like it! I'd like to see what would happen if the builder can spend whatever he wants. One thing I have never seen here is a build that is completely and totally overkill. That would be cool to see.
 
We started out with a completely overkill $4400 build the first time. No OS in the price either :) Everyone hated it.
 
We have had a few articles related to balancing builds. Don't go too high on one component or all of the others will bring it down. Yet almost every SBM throws that concept out. This time around, all of the builders had a concept for a balanced build but with budget limitations they went a different direction. I think the bigger issue is defining what is "best" for a build. A $400 PC would have a very different target than a $4000 PC. Gaming at 1080P is a different target than gaming at 1440P. Gaming at 4K is very different from compressing large files.

Instead of basing the SBM on budget and keep the same testing structure, I think a more defined goal should be stated first. Then develop a test suite that best measures that goal. Then let the builders loose to accomplish that goal. Only then will you be able to truly compare components, budgets and build strategies.
 
I agree with the others that say throw the budget out. Have a goal in mind and build the most cost effective machine you can while still being able to reach that goal. The price/performance metric will level the playing field in most cases, and those of us upgrading or looking to build a new machine will have the best information at our disposal. I believe that anyone with budget concerns will be able to swap parts based on your builds to lower a price when needed, then knowing the sacrifice they are making.
 
here's my Idea. let's do a classic "upgrade" window. you have to keep at least 75% of your parts and you all get...oh, we'll say $100 each to "update" or improve your system. you can "recover" the value of the replaced component by up to 65% of it's original value (replace $100 CPU; you get the $100 plus $65 for [$165] to spend on a replacement CPU)
you can replace multiple components, and the recovery values can be combined.

Sound Interesting? :)
 

Right, but now the three purposes are each shuffled to a different builder; can the new builder outdo the original, with the same budget? Or, what lessons were learned that can be applied?
As to future-resistance, Thomas, all you need is a bigger PSU and a stronger graphics card, although you could probably run a GTX960 on the one you have; IMHO your build is by far the most future-resistant. Given that Eric's is limited, by its purpose, to mini-ITX, it might be hard to overcome his thermal issues, and there are no better CPU options. A better cooler may help, and a SSD will boost Storage scores, but he's dead in the water otherwise. Chris, you might be hosed on value effect of upgrades. Do you upgrade to a GTX970? An i5? Yours was an excellent one-off, but seems like a complete rebuild would be needed to "improve" it.
This approach to the SBM was worthy of a repeat, possibly with an even tighter budget, like $700. I would like to see if, in addition to conventional benchmarks, some other measure of "fitness for purpose" could be added. In that context, I'd love to win any of these three machines. I'd probably give Eric's a SSD, and Chris needs a data drive, but I could turn any of them into a solid daily driver (Thomas, I'd likely leave yours as-is as a non-gamer, and run Necessary Things (a Market America business) on it.
 
I'm puzzled as to some of the decisions here.
-Aftermarket cooling on non-OC'd CPU's (or CPU's that can be OC'd with stock cooling)
-Optical drives when the majority of end users don't have optical media
-Platter drives instead of SSD's?

I see some overpaying as well. An OC lacking i3 + board over a G3258 + board for less money plus the ability to OC on stock cooling and get better performance in practically all tasks including SMP ones?

You save that $20 here and there and you put the money elsewhere in the build. Buy a better PSU, buy a bigger SSD, buy a better GPU or a nicer case. I know case opinions are in the eye of the beholder but good lord the ATX cases used are hideous.

I do like this SMB better because it's 3 builds at the same budget; the ones prior where there's 3 pricing tiers were somewhat of a joke.
 
I too like the "performance target" > price target. This allows you to reach a goal and show the reader how much that goal costs.

People always ask me, how much will it cost to build a PC that can do "this, this and this"... they rarely ask, "what can I get for 'this amount of money". When they do, they are almost always surprised with my response and end up spending more or less.

Most people dont even know how much they should spend.
 
I'd like to see a "console" pc comptetition with the objective set to build a pc that is consoled sized and priced similar to an Xbox One or Playstation 4.

I know there are the "steam" machines out there but it would be cool to see just how much performance you can get with shelf parts while keeping the price at console level.

Can we reach and easily beat a Xbox One/PS4 with less than $500?
 
Can we move certain items into a "level playing field" category? Quite a bit of stuff is already there. Monitor, mouse, and keyboard are all neglected but they certainly play a key role in a build. Buying a system designed for 4K requires a substantial monitor purchase. Swapping to a premium keyboard dramatically changes the computing experience but it cannot be benchmarked. To that point, the OS is quasi in that category now. It is level but it just so happens to be accounted for. Could the ODD be put in this category? Other things could be added like card readers or wifi dongles.

Develop this category. Put all equal components in it. Even put a price on it. But don't let it get in the way of the build or comparison.
 

I'd just like to clarify:
I meant that the "Gaming" PC will run games flat out with all options ticked at 1080p.
The "HTPC" will aim to do the same, just in a smaller and quieter form factor.
The "Pro" machine will run desktop and productivity apps at 1440p (or even 4K!) and if it can run minesweeper at 1440/4K, great.

Oh, and please include Visual Studio compiling a large C# or C++ application in your benchmarks. I've asked before a few times, but I'd just like to remind everyone of my request please. 🙂
 
I think a big compile would indeed be a good benchmark, but can it be inferred by looking at the existing CPU and Storage benchmarks? This might be a good look at synergy though, as RAM quantity and speed may also be a factor.
 
@Onus: hmmm... I think that having a greater IPC would be more beneficial than having more cores with a lower IPC since compiling can be an intensive task, even with compilations of different projects happening in parallel - within reason: I strongly suspect compiling 8 projects at once with a low IPC would be faster (depending on the projects) than compiling one project at a time on a single core. I think that, again, depending on the project type, storage speed would lay a large role for read heavy tasks like linking. RAM speed and latency? I give that one a solid meh. I don't think that it matters much.

Oh, and for the record, I vote for a C# project since that's what I use. C++ would be nice to stress IO during linking though.
 
I kind of like the "no budget - may the best value win" idea, but it needs some other restriction.

You may want to take the case out of the budget or at least the value analysis somehow, though, as it often seems the cases chosen are the (dirt) cheapest, ugliest cases available. Perhaps have all three builders agree to use the same case?

I'm going to guess that the resulting builds will be rehashes of the "Best [Component] for the Money" lists, however.
 
I like the idea of fixing these machines but would rather see a budget. I know over time I keep upgrading my existing machine to address limitations. How about a $500 budget to upgrade these $800 machines. I don't have an unlimited budget so this feels more realistic.
 
How about we throw out the budget limits next time and ask everybody to fix all the problems with their current build specs? We'd still need to compete for value, so the "no budget" part should still yield machines in the $900 to $1200 range, because once you go "too far" you start to loose the "price/performance" math.
Click to expand...
I think this is a great idea, providing each builder sticks to the essence of their design so the SFF AMD LAN gaming box can lose its compromises; the ProSumer gets its needed memory, SSD; and the Gamer gets to overclock better etc. Might I suggest that you keep the budget to 3 figures including OS as that extra $199 can go a very long way for each of these builds?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom