System Builder Marathon, Q4 2012: System Value Compared

[tirvon]

[citation][nom]frozentundra123456[/nom]The value comparison is totally bogus to conclude that AMD is a good value. First, they conveniently disregard power comsumption, and they dont test a midrange system with an i5 3570k that could be built for very close to the 1000.00 price range as well. Unless you heavily use the multithreaded apps that the 8350 is best at, the i5 is still the better overall processor.[/citation]
[citation][nom]mousseng[/nom]Never in the article did they say that the 8350 was better than the i5 in any way, or that "AMD is a good value." They said that, of the three computers they built this quarter, the one that housed the 8350 (which has other parts in it, by the way), was the best value with regards to performance per dollar. Not only that, but last quarter they built a 3570k-based system that was very similar. Both of these computers were compared in the $1k build article, and it was concluded that the previous build was superior.Please read the whole thing carefully and understand the context of these articles before you come moaning about how they did it wrong.[/citation]

Dito that. I find these articles to be entertaining and informative for the sole fact that they take currently available parts and give you a fairly broad view of how they perform at different price points, using common-sense builds, and even sometimes comparing similar builds to compete with previous builds. No need to criticize, especially when you haven't read thouroughly.

On a side note: with monitor prices trending downwards as new technologies are released, and multi-monitor setups becoming more pervasive, I would love to see the 5760x1080 resolution included in the mid and high end comparisons. It would show how these single and double graphics card solutions perform under higher strain, and help alleviate complaints about 'rates >120fps are pointless'. It would also allow those of us that have these setups to compare how our setups compare/hold-up against future builds.

 

[zakaron]

[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]Hmmm. I wonder what will happen if you put the FX8350 into the $2000 machine?[/citation]
My guess is that it won't power on, considering the $2000 build motherboard uses an LGA 1155 socket...

*ducks behind wall*

 

[dscudella]

It's a squeeze, but with a bit more corner cutting, I think you might be able to get it under $300...

PCPartPicker part list

CPU: AMD A10-5800K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($119.99 @ Amazon) *Could swap this for an A8-5600k, save $20
Motherboard: ASRock FM2A75M-DGS Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($60.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Smart Tracer 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($54.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Silverstone PS08B (Black) MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($34.90 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: SeaSonic 350W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($45.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $334.83

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks

CPU: AMD A10-5800K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($119.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A55M-E33 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Smart Tracer 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($17.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Scorpio Blue 250GB 2.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive ($44.88 @ NCIX US)
Case: Silverstone PS08B (Black) MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($34.90 @ Amazon)
Power Supply: Antec 450W ATX12V Power Supply ($31.64 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Lite-On iHAS124-04 DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $316.38

You forgot the optical drive. Have to be fair. $316 is the lowest I could get it without involving a Microcenter.

So for a little more than a $250 Xbox 360 250gb you can check email, browse the full web, watch live streams and youtube in HD, burn CD's & DVD's, play games at a higher frame rate, edit pics & videos, record gameplay (with software, no need for a $100+ capture card) & be able to upgrade.

 

[Guest]

So 1 frame rendered with Blender took only 11 minutes on the very efficient 500$ PC
Well,consider that there are 7200 seconds in a regular 120 minutes film or video
Which means around....9 years rendering time with that PC
on the other hand the very expensive 2000$ PC will take only around 3 years of rendering

 

[mousseng]

FYI-my calcs were based on $0.12 kWh

Power consumption is an important metric to include when doing these tests - but I agree that they shouldn't be included in the value section, because not everyone has the same energy rates. A common rate in the US (and I believe the UK, as well) is $0.12/kWh. Some folks, like me, are fortunate enough to have even lower rates - it's about $0.086/kWh where I live. Others are not quite so lucky - in Denmark, for example, it's about $0.34/kWh, and that adds up very quickly. By your calculations, the difference in a year's use in Denmark would be $21.62, making the i5 the better value.

The point here is whether or not power consumption matters to you largely depends on where you live (or more specifically, how much electricity costs where you live). I'd like to believe that the people at Tom's are capable enough to make that judgement themselves, and interpret the results of the SBM accordingly - and as such, it's not necessary or even really a good idea to weigh that in the value summaries.

You forgot the optical drive. Have to be fair. $316 is the lowest I could get it without involving a Microcenter. So for a little more than a $250 Xbox 360 250gb you can check email, browse the full web, watch live streams and youtube in HD, burn CD's & DVD's, play games at a higher frame rate & be able to upgrade.

Knock it down to an A8-5600K, and it looks like you have a winner. I was trying really hard to not compromise on the storage situation, but honestly I'd bet a 5400RPM drive would still feel snappier than a console.

 

[drinvis]

In the photoshop cs6 tests conducted in this testhow is it that with OpenCL it takes much longer than the CPU?Same question also arises in the "1000$ System builder marathon" evaluation
Or are the tests for OpenCL was done with different sample?

 

[bjaminnyc]

[citation][nom]mousseng[/nom]Power consumption is an important metric to include when doing these tests - but I agree that they shouldn't be included in the value section, because not everyone has the same energy rates. A common rate in the US (and I believe the UK, as well) is $0.12/kWh. Some folks, like me, are fortunate enough to have even lower rates - it's about $0.086/kWh where I live. Others are not quite so lucky - in Denmark, for example, it's about $0.34/kWh, and that adds up very quickly. [/citation]

I agree it would incomplete or irresponsible reporting not to include the consumption metric for comparison.

My kWh rate is $0.24 in Manhattan and I'm sure it will be going up, thanks a lot Sandy. Regardless, power consumption will not be a consideration for my next build other than working within the capacity of my power supply.

 

[Guest]

I believe that these price points are too low for a workstation
Some people are also working with their computers not just game
I prefer to work from home,much more comfortable
So I made a 15000$ machine on Newegg containing:
CPU:2*Core I7-3960x
MB:EVGA Classified SR-X with 12 memory banks DDR3 and 2 processor slots
Memory:2*64 Gb kit
SSD:1 TB
HD:3*4TB WD
Power:1500 W Silverstone(the best)
Case:Silverstone Temjin full tower
Monitors:2*30 inch
Video : AMD 7990
Keyboard and mouse:Razer
Blu-ray burners:2*Asus
Sound Card:Asus Xonar Essence 7+1 channels
Flash:128 GB Corsair
That's a pretty good machine for my needs

 

[J_E_D_70]

I still wouldn't play a 64-man map in BF3 with the $500 rig. Nice build but not on ultra.

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]pchisholm[/nom] Are we really suggesting that they would have thrown $1000 at a solution that would not give them a 3770K upgrade option later on if they felt like it?Also, this comparison deliberately factored out power consumption, which was rather convenient for AMD. [/citation]

put down what ever drugs you are using.

lets see you upgrade that 1155 when 2014 rolls in, it's a dead platform set to expire then by intel.

the power consumption has never been factored in, it's just there for the tree huggers who think it makes a difference. seriously if you're worried about power consumption do your computing with an abacus made from clay.

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]Eu[/nom]I believe that these price points are too low for a workstationSome people are also working with their computers not just gameI prefer to work from home,much more comfortableSo I made a 15000$ machine on Newegg containing:CPU:2*Core I7-3960xMB:EVGA Classified SR-X with 12 memory banks DDR3 and 2 processor slotsMemory:2*64 Gb kitSSD:1 TBHD:3*4TB WDPower:1500 W Silverstone(the best)Case:Silverstone Temjin full towerMonitors:2*30 inchVideo : AMD 7990Keyboard and mouse:RazerBlu-ray burners:2*AsusSound Card:Asus Xonar Essence 7+1 channelsFlash:128 GB CorsairThat's a pretty good machine for my needs[/citation]

nice, what are you doing with that under utilized rig? running a tv station? compiling the special effects for transformers 6? cuz it's going to take that long to render it all if you start now with that thing.

 

[lp231]

IMHO, all of these SBM machines have unattractive specs.

$500: Great GPU, but what's with the dual core? I know some will say games don't even use quad cores, but if one was to pick dual or quad, I bet majority will go with the quad. If quad core is out due to budget, then at least use a Core i3. It's a dual core with HT, at least this will make it look like a "quad" core.

$1000: What's with the puny SSD? After installing Windows, drivers, and updates, is there even any space left for games? Why not lower the notch of the graphic card and then use that to get a 120GB SSD. Well if that ain't going to happen, the Seagate Momentus XT hybrid drive sounds like a better choice. A combination of SSD and HDD all in one package.

$2000: At this budget the best thing to do is to get 2 graphic cards...
How many out there with this type of budget is actually going to get 2 graphic cards?
Why not just a single HD7970 and use the others for something else, like a larger SSD or go with SB-E with X79 instead of using 1155 and Z77.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]IMHO, all of these SBM machines have unattractive specs.$500: Great GPU, but what's with the dual core? I know some will say games don't even use quad cores, but if one was to pick dual or quad, I bet majority will go with the quad. If quad core is out due to budget, then at least use a Core i3. It's a dual core with HT, at least this will make it look like a "quad" core.$1000: What's with the puny SSD? After installing Windows, drivers, and updates, is there even any space left for games? Why not lower the notch of the graphic card and then use that to get a 120GB SSD. Well if that ain't going to happen, the Seagate Momentus XT hybrid drive sounds like a better choice. A combination of SSD and HDD all in one package.$2000: At this budget the best thing to do is to get 2 graphic cards...How many out there with this type of budget is actually going to get 2 graphic cards? Why not just a single HD7970 and use the others for something else, like a larger SSD or go with SB-E with X79 instead of using 1155 and Z77.[/citation]It's been done. Seriously, look up the previous System Builder Marathon. The point of these machines is really to win the competition (or at least come close) without making any large compromises to untested parts (the $2000 PC's storage drive, etc).

 

[JBB-SaDo]

A lot of complaints about,what could have been better put into each build. I, however would be more then happy with any one of these builds....for gaming and so I could use my less then adequate rig as more a general purpose, studying,and or for the family.

 

[grokem]

As always, I enjoy these series. Here are some thoughts for the next time I hope you will consider.

Drop the "Storage Drive" option. This drive can by definition have no effect on any of the tests and is very dependent on how the system ends up being used and what other machines and external storage are already owned by the buyer. For the same reason you don't list the cost of a keyboard, mouse, monitor, OS, chair, desk and caffeine; the storage drive is completely out of scope for the build. Including this option only hurts the higher end builds that feel they have to include one without seeing any return on the money in the benchmarks. I'm building a $1600+ build that will not include any local bulk storage for example so higher end builds are not required to have bulk storage by any means.

Drop the optical drive for the same reason as the storage drive. This is a legacy drive and will only become less common in 2013. Unlike all the other rightfully excluded optional equipment listed above, there is even less to talk about for optical drives. If you're the kind of person that develops a nervous twitch unless you include an optical drive in your build on the off chance you might use it you're either going to pick the $20 DVD/CD-R or the $80 Blue-Ray. What possible editorial value can be gained from discussing the $1-$2 trade-off between models? The biggest impact it serves is to again to put the high-end build at a $60 performance advantage since the drive isn't used in any of the comparison benchmarks.

It would also be nice to see some case options. Other than ease of building and thermal performance, cases are very much personal taste so I get why this is hard if not impossible. To make it worse, going with an mATX or mITX often costs more while making all the objective benchmarks worse.

Finally, as others have stated the $500, $100, $2000 progression makes a lot of mathematical sense. However, it doesn't always match up with the market over the long term and results in compromised builds that almost no one would actually build. I think for the last several builds the $2000 machine is in a very awkward price range. It isn't enough money to do a dual graphics rig justice but is too much for a high-end single graphics card rig. You should think about splitting it into a $1500 and $2500 build. You could instead think about relaxing your budget targets and allow a percentage overage. I think the negative feedback you took for the last round of builds where the budget was a bit more flexible caused you to become too rigid on hitting the budget targets.

 

[bjaminnyc]

[citation][nom]Eu[/nom]I believe that these price points are too low for a workstationSome people are also working with their computers not just gameI prefer to work from home,much more comfortableSo I made a 15000$ machine on Newegg containing:CPU:2*Core I7-3960xMB:EVGA Classified SR-X with 12 memory banks DDR3 and 2 processor slotsMemory:2*64 Gb kitSSD:1 TBHD:3*4TB WDPower:1500 W Silverstone(the best)Case:Silverstone Temjin full towerMonitors:2*30 inchVideo : AMD 7990Keyboard and mouse:RazerBlu-ray burners:2*AsusSound Card:Asus Xonar Essence 7+1 channelsFlash:128 GB CorsairThat's a pretty good machine for my needs[/citation]

Wow killer build buddy. The SMB builders would never build a computer that powerful, due to the benchmark suite they use. I actually don't know of a single benchmark capable of measuring your computers performance. The biggest problems with the Tom's test test suite is they require the computer to boot.

You could probably boot with one of those "unsupported" processors in the SRX-X but not two, they are lacking QPI which the E5's have. Maybe you're insinuating you bought a backup 3960 because of the massive processing jobs you're doing at home and can't afford any downtime.

If you're going to lie about a build, and criticize the SM builders choices, you should make sure the parts you've listed actually work together.

 

[youssef 2010]

This is only the second time that the %1000 build takes the value win. The previous $1000 build was absolutely phenomenal for being able to include the mighty 7970. Also, kudos to the current $1000 machine builder for having the courage to try An AMD CPU. Although I wouldn't do that again in their current CPU generation. I hope their next generation is better in power consumption or performance.

I really respect AMD and it really hurts me seeing them struggle like this against Intel. But I can't do anything about it except buy Intel.

 

[Guest]

If trial and error have shown that the "best value" when building a PC is at $800, why do these articles consistently have budgets of $500 and $1000? Where is the $800 build?

 

[Onus]

Mutus has a point. It would be interesting to see two of your builders duke it out with $800 builds; do $800, $800 instead of $500 and $1000. Strict budget, of course, no more than 1% over.
The danger there though, is the winner could be determined by who wins the overclocking lottery even if the other has the arguably better build. I still think it would be interesting.

 

[lunyone]

I would like to see (like I've said in the past) a $500, $750, & $1k-1,250 builds.

* $500 Build is gaming on a budget.
* $750 Build would have same parts as budget build except maybe upgrade Storage (SSD cache drive or just a bigger SSD 256 gb ~$160-180 & drop 320 gb mechanical HD), Upgrade CPU (maybe up to i5/i7 or better AMD CPU), maybe if room a better CPU HSF.
* $1k-1,250 Build would upgrade just about every part and stick with a single GPU solution, which most people would use this option (plus you save on PSU & Mobo requirements). You could buy an SLI/Xfire based mobo, if you like, so you could have the option later.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]halls[/nom]I disagree with that, because even if 120+fps isn't useful today, those extra frames represent some overhead that will be useful in the future as games get more difficult to render.[/citation]

That's what higher resolution and/or otherwise higher detail benchmarks are for.[citation]

[nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]More surprising is that it took nearly 7 years to do so. Goes to show how powerful the 360 and PS3 really were at the time they were released. The PS3's 7 core CPU is still pretty good--heck, even 6 core processors aren't mainstream yet.[/citation]

PS3 has a single core CPU with eight SPEs (one of which is disabled) and SMT for the single core IIRC. That's not even remotely the same as being a seven-core CPU. Furthermore, you could build a $500 computer that beats the consoles even several years ago, so it did not take that long at all. Also, many modern dual-core CPUs are better than the PS3's Cell CPU.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]frozentundra123456[/nom]The value comparison is totally bogus to conclude that AMD is a good value. First, they conveniently disregard power comsumption, and they dont test a midrange system with an i5 3570k that could be built for very close to the 1000.00 price range as well. Unless you heavily use the multithreaded apps that the 8350 is best at, the i5 is still the better overall processor.[/citation]

They have tested $1000 i5 builds for several SBMs, including one or two with the i5-3570K, so that claim of yours is BS or as you say, "bogus". There is no possible way to include power consumption in the value comparison with any level of accuracy because the amount of money spent on power varies by huge margins, well in excess of several hundred percent, even in different parts of the USA. Regardless, that tidbit was covered and explained, especially since it wasn't counted in previous SBMs either. Including it now would not only be impossible to do accurately, but also have no purpose other than to punish AMD just because of some Intel fanboys who seem to be angry purely because Tom's said that without power consumption figured in, AMD most certainly can offer good performance for the price. That's not even necessarily saying a good value, so I fail to see any reasoning in your point.

Furthermore, I'd even argue that with power consumption in mind, AMD is still a good value. They aren't the best in the way that the CPU was used, but you don't need to be the best to be good. That's undoubtedly at least part of why we have different words to distinguish between the good and the best.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Eu[/nom]I believe that these price points are too low for a workstationSome people are also working with their computers not just gameI prefer to work from home,much more comfortableSo I made a 15000$ machine on Newegg containing:CPU:2*Core I7-3960xMB:EVGA Classified SR-X with 12 memory banks DDR3 and 2 processor slotsMemory:2*64 Gb kitSSD:1 TBHD:3*4TB WDPower:1500 W Silverstone(the best)Case:Silverstone Temjin full towerMonitors:2*30 inchVideo : AMD 7990Keyboard and mouse:RazerBlu-ray burners:2*AsusSound Card:Asus Xonar Essence 7+1 channelsFlash:128 GB CorsairThat's a pretty good machine for my needs[/citation]

It probably won't even boot. i7s don't work in multi-CPU systems because they don't have enough QPI interfaces.

 

[Onus]

They concluded that, compared to the two other SBM machines in this cycle, the AMD build was a good value. No comparison to past SBM builds, or to any i5 build, was stated or implied.
That does not mean I agree with the value conclusion; in fact I don't. The bang/buck coming out of the $500 machine was impressive. Reviewing the gaming benchmarks ONLY (because the $500 PC was designed to be a gamer), the $1K machine did not get double the FPS for double the money; not even close in some cases (e.g. Skyrim). While it more than doubled the Productivity performance (i.e. took less than half the time), I don't consider those results relevant; as I said earlier you cannot judge a PC's performance without knowing why it was built.

 

[Guest]

What about the micro-stuttering that has been widely reported in 7970 CF configurations?