System Builder Marathon, Sept. '09: AMD System Value Compared

Status
Not open for further replies.

SpadeM

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2009
283
0
18,790
2
Out of the 3 of them, got to love the $1250 one. Especially since it has "quadfire" on-board. Don, u made at least one reader happy :).

On another note, this reminds me of the 3x260 vs 2x280 article you guys wrote a while back so i would like to see, if possible, another follow up article based on this concept of "the more the merrier"

Lastly, don't be shy in using more then 2 graphics cards in future system builder marathons since it's a nice change of air.
 

uruz

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2008
3
0
18,510
0
that 650 SBM would look great on my desk beside my aging computer... Btw does it run on diesel?
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
[citation][nom]SpadeM[/nom]Out of the 3 of them, got to love the $1250 one. Especially since it has "quadfire" on-board. Don, u made at least one reader happy . On another note, this reminds me of the 3x260 vs 2x280 article you guys wrote a while back so i would like to see, if possible, another follow up article based on this concept of "the more the merrier"Lastly, don't be shy in using more then 2 graphics cards in future system builder marathons since it's a nice change of air.[/citation]
Now I want to see a Pentium four paired with 4x 5870... I'm serius.
Though some of us are iffy about multiple cards. Heavily diminishing returns do come into effect with a multi-card setup.
 

liquidsnake718

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
1,379
0
19,310
5
Now can we get a comparison between these SBM Ati/AMD setups vs an updated Intel/Nvidia SBM setups. Instead of the previous April setups you guys compared these ATi/AMD computers it would be great if you could build updated systems with Nvidia cards in SLI with the new i5 and updated i7 chips. Perhaps still including the Qextreme chips if need be. It would be a true comparison to see which system would be the most worth it to buy for the price ranges.

Then it would be great to see a chart with all of these systems being compared. For instance seeing the 3x4890 $2,500 build vs an i7 3xGTx285 build for the same price! Pls try to include AA in crysis benches even though they might be low in 2560x1600, at least we will get an idea of how important the next gen cards will stack up and utilize the AA x4 and DX11. Thanks and nice work as these articles are interesting. You guys should make a magazine or supply articles to the likes of PC world for real bench testing and not general reviews.
 

Sharft6

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2006
146
0
18,680
0
I always thought more than 2 gfx cards was a waste of money but it seems to work ok for you guys despite the slugish cpus.

good marathon.
 

jj463rd

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2008
1,510
0
19,860
29
All of these builds look great to me.I am impressed by the ingenious way you folks have put these together it was very inventive.I liked the quadfire $1,250 system build as well.You have shocked us all here I think (well many of us) and done these builds in some unusual ways quite a surprise.
 

Sharft6

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2006
146
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]why the hell does every ioen call amd cpu's "sluggish" for f--ks sake theya re any thing butr sluggish , sure they arn't teh fastest player in teh field but shit they arn't sluggish you fanboy. if some oen could run a 40 in 3.1 seconds but stil gets beat by some one that can run it in 3.02 would you call the loser a slug ?? (for the record average athelete running time for a 40 meter dash is about 4.5 seconds)[/citation]

if anything i'm an amd fanboy - 5600+ and 4850 over here.

I didn't call them slugs i called them slugish. THG have shown i7s do better at gaming especially when u stack up the gfx.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
4
[citation][nom]08nwsula[/nom]So when will these things be given away?[/citation]

I'll be updating the link to the contest today sometime in all three stories, then having the news team post a news piece letting everyone know that the contest is ready! Good luck!!
 

WINTERLORD

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2008
1,689
3
19,815
14
iv always liked intel , however i think these AMD systems are really kool. definatly adds some new stuff to the site and that 2500 machine was a beauty with all the eye candy. it's neat to see the value you get leaving extra money for all them graphics cards for gaming. Also i was realy impressed with that AMD processor there starting to make a nice comeback, and there grpahics cards are lookin sweet.
 

dangerous_23

Distinguished
Aug 18, 2008
30
0
18,530
0
if i had $2500 i would definitely not buy an amd cpu! furthermore i wouldn't buy quad or triple crossfire if i had all the money in the world!
 

doron

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
553
0
19,010
24
Great rigs, they all look and perform extraordinary!

Yet there are parts worth 640$ more in the performance build compared to the others (ssd's and bd-re) which doesn't affect gaming performance, at least not in the way measured on the article - The ssd's probably do but you did not include loading times, minimum fps etc.

Also the liquid cooling value is rather questionable, given that it only added few mhz compared to the ~40$ (100$ less) rosewill fort120 hsf. Did you try switching fan direction / making push/pull config on the water cooling? I guess it'll cool the cpu somewhat better and still be quite enough to keep the system out of the red zone.

I know that's nitpicking and you didn't mind value in your 2500$ rig, and I really appreciate all the efforts and thoughts put into these systems, but that's still rather unfair since (gaming) performance/value was one of the criterias, when the 2500$ system would actually perform the same as a ~1800$ one.
 

doron

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2009
553
0
19,010
24
Forgot the ~80$ raid 1, also an unnecessary addition in the value chart. Well you get the point.

I didn't include the adapters / antec spotcool cuz that's roughly (and I'm being fair here) the same price as the dvd-rw's on the other systems.
 

batkerson

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2008
69
0
18,640
3
Although it would be WAY MORE DIFFICULT for Tom's, it would be interesting to set goals for certain games as to frame rates for certain settings and then see what the cheapest setup (cpu, graphics, memory, etc.)would be to achieve the various performance standards. This way, instead of being "open ended" where "faster is better", decide on acceptable frame rates then build to those frame rates. In this way the current battles of Intel vs. AMD and Nvidia vs. AMD/ATI would be better demonstrated, IMO.
 

awaken688

Distinguished
May 10, 2009
83
0
18,630
0
Great series of articles. Seems like the $800 range is really the sweeter spot when looking at the 650 and 1250 systems. Allows you to jump up to the PII X4 and step up the video cards a little bit as well. Would love to see a true "Max Value" build contest. A system that plays all] your test systems at 1680x1050 at chosen settings (maybe High without AA) minus Crysis of course and performs really well with productivity. I think a lot of us are in that category.
 

rambo117

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2008
1,157
0
19,290
4
[citation][nom]awaken688[/nom]Great series of articles. Seems like the $800 range is really the sweeter spot when looking at the 650 and 1250 systems. Allows you to jump up to the PII X4 and step up the video cards a little bit as well. Would love to see a true "Max Value" build contest. A system that plays all] your test systems at 1680x1050 at chosen settings (maybe High without AA) minus Crysis of course and performs really well with productivity. I think a lot of us are in that category.[/citation]
yah, $800 would probably be the best place between price/performance.

exceptional series, liked the AMD love =P
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
970
11
18,985
0
Seriously everyone whines and bitches about seeing AMD because they want Toms to be "fair" but in reality there isnt much reason to use AMD cpu's for a good comp build right now. Every one of these systems were held back by the cpu at one point or another during the benchmarking and its undeniable that the i'series from intel is the only way to go. Sure you can always throw out the price/value argument but when considering a x4/i5 there really isnt that big of price gap and when building a gaming rig you dont want to be overly miserly in the first place (if you have to be that penny pinching you shouldnt be building a gaming rig in the first place).

Now for graphics it AMD all the way. Better value, great performance (now all out superior performance), better sacaling, even work better with intel processors in most cases.

And you can call me a intel fanboy but its the farthest thing from the truth. I own tons of AMD stock (bought it in 07 when it was around $8 per share and have been hoping it will come back up). Im just a little disheartened that AMD has been out of the CPU game for so long. Phenom came around too late in the game and hasnt delivered the performance it should have. Come on AMD, release something great Ive been holding off on a new build for 3 years now cant wait too much longer!!!!!
 

masterasia

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
1,128
0
19,360
38
Very minimal gains when you spend more than $1250 for a PC. But I think that realistically, who's gonna spend $2500 on a PC right now and have it be an AMD build? Tom's did a good job comparing these AMD builds but I don't see much benefits by going from $1250 to $2500.
 
I liked this series of articles. It really looked at some different angles and made them interesting. Some of the people who are whinging now need to realize these builds are EXAMPLES, not RECOMMENDATIONS. You can do them, but whether or not you should depends on your circumstances. For myself, if I cannot comfortably afford an Intel i7 (on LGA1156) by January, I'll probably be quite happy with an AMD 955BE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS