System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: $1,000 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.


Seriously?? I can argue you could do a lot worse with $1000 to spend. Trust me, I could do a LOT worse than that 😀. Maybe a 1000W psu, a tj11 case, a GTX650 graphics card, maybe a 2TB green drive for OS & storage....yeah, this system is even worse than what Don build

You need to realize that this is an all rounded build so it's not the worst in most if not all usage
 
Wow Don, you really took one for the team this time. Kudos to you, and the lessons of this unfortunately dismal build. I understand and appreciate your duplication of parts used before (e.g. the GPU) for comparison purposes.
Ok then...
A few months ago, and again now, the 120mm Xigmatek Gaia is only $20 on Newegg; no promo code required. It was back at $35 in the middle though, so maybe it wasn't cheap when you ordered.
I don't care at all for OCZ Sandfarce drives; they just aren't a risk I'm willing to take.
After reading the thread at http://forums.hardwaresecrets.com/not-so-tough/8805 and the other links to which it led, I would not touch a Corsair V2 Builder. Surely $70 would have bought something better.
With Rosewill cases coming with extra fans, and looking pretty good too, the HEC didn't seem like a good choice either, but at least it wasn't a monstrosity like the "toy" one SBM featured.
If I win this one, I will put the CPU on my Sabertooth under a Gaia just to see if this was a bad chip, or you got a bad OC for some other reason. A decent OC could have really changed the perception of this build's performance (though its power use certainly did suck {pun intended}).
This build, like some of the past ones, argues for a single "do-over" per build, in which one unexpectedly poorly performing part is replaced for another. Whether cooler or mobo, the OC on this one was unexplicably poor.
 
So you guys decided to put street tires on a drag car, huh?

That Xigmatek had no place in this review, NONE. You should have sacrificed the SSD for a better cooling solution. Why did you guys even THINK it was ok to go on with that cooling for a 125W CPU and expect it to OC fine?

I actually stopped reading right there, because the OC would be a joke. And a very bad one.

Cheers!
 
I for one, am glad you guys used the FX-8350. People can now see what $1000 can get you with AMD and they can see what type of performance they will (or better yet, won't) get by not going with Intel.

The thing to understand was that they were trying to compare a $1000 AMD rig to a $1000 Intel rig while only swapping the Motherboard & CPU. They tried to keep the other components the same for benchmarks.
 

Dude, the XFX 550W has more amps on the 12V rail than the Corsair CX600.

Also, I belive those readings are at the wall socket (it usually is in Tom's reviews). The wattage rating of a PSU is for what is delivered to the components, so whatever the PSU wastes should be subtracted.
 
There were a couple of charts that returned results I did not expect. One was the SiSoftware Sandra Whetstone vs. Dhrystone scores, which showed the FX-8350 completely outclassing the i5-3570K for FP calc, but getting bested by the O/C 3570K for integer calc. Given the module design of the FX with the shared FP unit, I would have expected the opposite.

The other was Skyrim at 2560x1600 O/C. The fact that the FX out-paced the i5 at the highest resolution but not at any lower resolutions - even when the FX CPU appears to be a bottleneck at lower resolutions - indicates that some other factor is enabling the current O/C build to outperform the August O/C build. Could this be GPU memory O/C, or could it be something like the PCIe BW and latency differences between the two architectures?
 
I'm not sure if it was your choice of cooler or a dud CPU but something went horribly wrong with that OC. I have a an 8320 under a 212+ in a GA-990FXA-UD3. All I had to do was up the multi to 22x and tighten up the LLC and it was stable in IBT while topping out at 53C. I eventually had to bump the voltage a notch because it would BSOD after 24+ hours of Folding@Home but I haven't touched it since and it happily folds 24/7 at 40-45C.

I could probably push it higher with more voltage but since it runs balls out 24/7 I don't want to add stress that could potentially lead to an early death.
 
[citation][nom]Sakkura[/nom]Dude, the XFX 550W has more amps on the 12V rail than the Corsair CX600.Also, I belive those readings are at the wall socket (it usually is in Tom's reviews). The wattage rating of a PSU is for what is delivered to the components, so whatever the PSU wastes should be subtracted.[/citation]

1. The Corsair CX600 has 46A on the +12V rail. The XFX PRO550 has 44.
2. They have the same base price, yet the Corsair has a $10 larger mail-in rebate.

Thus, stop babbling nonsense; I'm sure it's time to claim Corsair makes terrible products.
 

1. No. It has 40A on the 12V rail. The XFX PRO550 has 44. I wrote this earlier on. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.corsair.com/en/media/cms/manual/49-000036_rev_AA_CXv2Manual.pdf

2. If you take mail-in rebates into account, the price stated is wrong. Also, there is a bigger mail-in rebate on the XFX PRO550 at NCIX, taking it down to $54. The extra $4 are well worth it for the extra power and arguably higher quality (it's a Seasonic). At the $70 price listed, there are plenty of better options.
http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=59615&vpn=P1550SXXB9&manufacture=XFX&promoid=1257

Corsair doesn't make terrible products. In fact they don't make any products at all. The CX PSUs are acceptable if you're on a tight budget, but you need to keep their optimistic wattage ratings in mind (which is unusual for Corsair PSUs). They're rated at a low temperature as well.
 
[citation][nom]foolishone[/nom]...I'm sure it's time to claim Corsair makes terrible products.[/citation]
Corsair doesn't make PSUs. The good ones they sell are made by Seasonic. The V2 Builder is not one of these good ones, and is made by CWT (link in my previous post above for why it's not good). It isn't overrated, but it may not hold up, especially under stress.
 
Their own spec is incorrect, those are the numbers for the V1.

The V2 has the following: +3.3V@25A, +5V@25A, +12V@46A, -12V@0.8A, +5VSB@3.0A

The XFX is $5 more than the CX600 on newegg after rebates right now? What am I missing? The CX600 has hit $30 on sale before, so if you were looking at an old deal, it's still not as cheap.

They're both Bronze certified, so excessive lost can't be blamed for consumption differences.

And yes Onus, almost all companies sell rebranded PSUs. Why compete when you can't provide a superior product without spending excessive amounts to get into a product line?
 

Their own spec is wrong? The heck is this... :heink:
 


Regardless, I'm not going to put a 550W PSU in a machine that pulls 500 at the socket.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to cut it closer in your builds, go to town.
 
[citation][nom]Sakkura[/nom]Their own spec is wrong? The heck is this...[/citation]

It's actually very common :/ Very few companies use a model that has designers also writing specs, it's too inefficient. There are plenty of disconnects when tech writers know very little about the product being designed or the field in general.
 
I'd rather see the best you can buy for $1000 instead of trying to kill two birds with one stone and giving an FX 8 series vs the i5 a direct comparison article as they should. They could look at most of the chips in the series and compare file conversion times and give game benchmarks. This is like when they posted a car review, neat but I'd rather see them go in a different direction.
 
And you could go to Microcenter and pick up a i5 3570k processor for less then $169.99. Add in a $100 MB and you ahve a system that would beat the AMD processor.
 
[citation][nom]Teramedia[/nom] The other was Skyrim at 2560x1600 O/C. The fact that the FX out-paced the i5 at the highest resolution but not at any lower resolutions - even when the FX CPU appears to be a bottleneck at lower resolutions - indicates that some other factor is enabling the current O/C build to outperform the August O/C build. Could this be GPU memory O/C, or could it be something like the PCIe BW and latency differences between the two architectures?[/citation]
There are two other factors to consider, in play each quarterly comparison: 1) Skyrim receives frequent Steam updates; in fact the game version has changed every single quarter, 2) Use of the most current graphics driver. (Or possibly I missed that Don kept them constant for this comparison) If updated, this certainly could impact 25x16. The lower resolutions would be masked by system limitations.
 

Think of it this way then: If the XFX PSU is a 550W, the CX600 is a 530W PSU. This is definitely not about cutting it closer.
 
[citation][nom]dscudella[/nom]The thing to understand was that they were trying to compare a $1000 AMD rig to a $1000 Intel rig while only swapping the Motherboard & CPU. They tried to keep the other components the same for benchmarks.[/citation]
Bingo! Someone who clearly read the introduction. :)
 
I don't see the point behind this system build. It's very pointless to see a build that's actually quite worse than the previous system builds made even before some months ago.
I'm happy for your happiness -> " and was happy to see that the company at least had a viable alternative to Intel's Core i5-3570K on its hands."
BUT the review is so the opposite of that. There's really no reason to remind us over and over again, that AMD can't compete with intel AT ALL in the Desktop CPU market.
 
@paul: Thank you for the investigative part choices. I know you'll probably end up being the one buying the round of beers for worst-value build, but for us it was worth it. Just knowing that an FX is even in the same zipcode of performance and value as Core i5 is helpful. And it also creates hope that perhaps AMD won't die just yet.
 
1. HDD... Seagate Barracudas 1TB SATAIII 64MB cache ~ $70 -This saves about $30
2. CPU... FX-8320 -Saves ~$40
3. RAM... CORSAIR XMS3 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) is $36 -Saves another $14
4. GPU... 7970 has the same price as the card you used but it's better and this time the unit you got was crap...
5. CPU Cooler... COOLER MASTER Hyper 212 Plus is $10 more but better for this CPU
6. PSU... XIGMATEK XCP-A600 600W ATX12V Ver2.3 -Sales for $50 and saves $20 (or other PSU for more money whatever I've stripped down $74 so far)

Well I think you've pretty much f*cked up this build...

noob2222 "I wonder if the stock AMD copper heatsink wouldn't have been better. the 8150 was capable of hitting 4.4 ghz on the stock cooler, this pile of junk only allowed 4.3 on the 8350? lol Definately $24 thrown away." I don't even wonder, I'm sure the boxed heatsink is better (maybe louder but better cooler).

Like americanbrian said "this site has become so pro Intel that they can't even put together an AMD system when they try".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom