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

[osse]

Good article, sadly the benches dosnt show the full diffrence between the riggs. SSD disk does help a lot to reduce framedrops, same does 8 gb of memory, so at least the min framrates are needed to get a good pic of the diffrenses, and well i guss this rigs was built b4 5870 arrived, becouse a high end gamingrig at that price shell contain 2 off them, then fit the other peaces accordinginly.

And i do hope that Toms will do an review with PHII vs i5/i7 with 2 5870 in both rigs, am courious what that will tell us.

 

[osse]

But good builds all of them, presuming they was built before 5xxx graphic cards arrived.

 

[jjpmann]

My only concern with the value charts is with gaming resolution. If I was comparing a top end gaming machine I would not use the two lower resolutions to compare my average values. Say you are planning to game @ 1920x1200 very high details. The performance charts would look more like this, give or take some points since I grabbed the data from the charts and could be some errors.

Setting Res PC Total Perc
Very High 1920x1200 2500 OC 458 199%
Very High 1920x1200 2500 PC 825 359%
Very High 1920x1200 1250 OC 403 175%
Very High 1920x1200 1250 PC 371 161%
Very High 1920x1200 650 OC 256 111%
Very High 1920x1200 650 PC 230 100%

Maybe in the future you could show the gaming performance by resolution.

 

[sublifer]

I love these systems, especially the 2500. I've been itching to see SSDs in action... it was a bit disappointing to not see it compared to any of the May machines. Can't wait to enter the contest.

 

[sojrner]

[citation][nom]batkerson[/nom]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.[/citation]

cool ideea.

One of the things that most ppl forget is that "real world" results are what we are really all about. It is all fine and dandy if an i7 is X times faster than phenomII in bungholio marks and has 20 frames more on a game... If I take both to a LAN and can stomp on a n00b at 60 frames from either on my synced LCD then I don't notice a diff and both are identical to me.

This is not saying one is not "better" than the other, just that in practice they are the same for me. (Assuming they both can hit that 60 frames synced on my LCD, depending on what res I need) Synthetic tests are good to measure raw performance (and simple FPS results are still synthetic even on a legit game) but that "real" perception is where you "see" what your $ has bought you. In that way, the top two systems here would blend in w/ any intel system with the same graphics.

...but I digress... Good article. lol.

 

[youssef 2010]

Can anyone please tell me how the performance per dollar chart was made? I am a bit lost in the calculation

 

[Onus]

Exactly, sojrner. The visible difference, if any, is what counts. There's no need to spend the money if you won't see a difference.

 

[bounty]

[citation][nom]awaken688[/nom] 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]

Like that idea, except MAX value @ 1680x1050 with Ultra settings + aa/af and automatic fail (score = 0) under 30fps average. (ok, maybe lower settings for crysis)

 

[bounty]

Also on a MAX value contest, maybe for each fail you get a 50$ penalty.

 

[sschrupp]

If someone wanted to build a great system I suppose one could take the $2500 system as designed and adjust the price down

by replacing the SSDs, water cooling, RAID1 1TB drives, blue-ray, power supply, spot cooling, and 3rd video card replacing

them with more modest hardware. I imagine the gaming benches wouldn't be much lower, yet the value factor would be a LOT

higher.

Although maybe that 3rd video card would still be required which would also require a beefy power supply still. I guess

I'm not entirely sold yet on the performance gains of more than 2 video cards. Even so, getting rid of all the other

questionable fluff (although cool fluff!) could be an excellent compromise.

I really would also be interested in seeing the new i5 in a setup going against these. I'm sure that'll come soon enough,

though.

Also I'd love to see a few performance numbers from the $1250 and $2500 systems minus a video card or two. Depending on

those numbers I could finally be swayed to the idea of multi-GPU systems. Spending an extra couple hundred dollars for a

couple more FPS just doesn't sit well with me.

Regardless, thanks a ton for these articles!

 

[Guest]

i would of liked to see a dx11 board in the most expensive system. hopefully they will put one into the next build.

 

[eyemaster]

The only thing the 1250$ system needs is a pair of SSD's like the 2500$ pc if you want it to be a good gaming machine as well as boot up really fast. The winner shouldn't have any trouble buying them and adding it to it.

I'm a bit concerned with the OC. If the computers come to the "winners" with the OC settings preset, is it possible that if they have higher ambient air temperatures, their pc's will have problems and might lock up? If they are at the limit (where they were built) of stability, it's possible a 1-3 degree of ambient air temperature puts them over the top...

 

[maniac5999]

I think that for gaming today an all AMD build at about $800 is definately the sweet Spot. Here's what I'd do:

AMD Phenom II X3 720 $119 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103649
The X4 945 is better but current games get almost no benefit from a 4th core

Gigabyte AM3 Mobo $80 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128392
It might be worth it to go for a Mobo with 2 PCIe x16 slots for a possible crossfire setup later on

4GB DDR3 1333 Ram $73: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148262

ATi 5870 $380: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102856

500GB HDD $57: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136073
it might be better to go for 1TB of storage at an extra $25

Case, PSU and DVD drive will probably be $100-150



There we go , an ultimate AMD gaming rig for $800-900 depending on your options, And it can probably beat an i7 920 with a pair of GTX260s in most games.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

4x4850s would require a 1000watt PSU at full load. I call bs on this article...

 

[Bluescreendeath]

[citation][nom]youssef 2010[/nom]Can anyone please tell me how the performance per dollar chart was made? I am a bit lost in the calculation[/citation]
[citation][nom]sojrner[/nom]cool ideea.One of the things that most ppl forget is that "real world" results are what we are really all about. It is all fine and dandy if an i7 is X times faster than phenomII in bungholio marks and has 20 frames more on a game... If I take both to a LAN and can stomp on a n00b at 60 frames from either on my synced LCD then I don't notice a diff and both are identical to me.This is not saying one is not "better" than the other, just that in practice they are the same for me. [/citation]

Remember that an i7 + 1366 mobo has dropped in price enough to match a high end Phenom 2 setup. An i7 has the processor advantage, motherboard advantage, and ability to do Sli and Crossfire.

At this time, the i7 stomps the Phenom2 at the same price point.

 

[jj463rd]

I like these exotic and esoteric builds how about sometime in the future include a portable phase change (cryogenic) machine in a build.
Perhaps a $5,000 SBM machine.Or would that be too crazy.

 

[orion76]

I have had problems with my sli setup and I am concerned the frame rate benchmarks don't show real world playability of games. How stable are these 3 and 4 card configurations in the real world? I've seriously considered sticking to single card / single processor solutions.

 

[Guest]

Why wouldn't the low budget crowd buy a 30" monitor? The Hanns G 27.5" has been around $350 for six months, and as low as 275 during that stretch.

Isn't better to get a huge monitor with the 650 build instead of spending an extra 600 bux and staying with a 22"?

 

[sojrner]

[citation][nom]BlueScreenDeath[/nom]Remember that an i7 + 1366 mobo has dropped in price enough to match a high end Phenom 2 setup. An i7 has the processor advantage, motherboard advantage, and ability to do Sli and Crossfire. At this time, the i7 stomps the Phenom2 at the same price point.[/citation]
You are totally missing the point I made. I'm saying that in "real world" usage you won't notice a difference on games between either blue or green. Thus, your fanboi posturing is moot.

I do however remember reading in the 1250 system about the motherboard advantage... but, correct me if I'm wrong here... wasn't that advantage for the msi board used? Not a fan statement, just pointing out another fallacy in your argument.

 

[coconutboy]

Love these SBM articles. No matter what PCs I have at the time, I love to see what's possible within a given budget. Helps when friends ask me for recommendations. [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.[/citation] These (excellent) SBM articles are great demonstrations/comparisons of what you could purchase for your money, but in the real world, users (read: enthusiasts who read this site) often carry over some components from their previous computers like the monitor, hdd or case, thus lowering costs. I think most of us love these articles to show us what we could purchase while we also calculate in our heads what we actually will buy instead.

I've been pricing two new gaming machines for myself and my lady so I'm quite familiar with what I can get right now for my money. For a gaming machine, I think $800-1000 is the sweet spot but that assumes a person is going to game at 1900x1200 or less and will also use their existing monitor. For gamers wanting strong framerates while playing at 2560x1600, $1000 is a small budget and something closer to $1,500 is more realistic.

[citation][nom]liquidsnake718[/nom]Now can we get a comparison between these SBM Ati/AMD setups vs an updated Intel/Nvidia SBM setups... For instance seeing the 3x4890 $2,500 build vs an i7 3xGTx285 build for the same price![/citation] Lately, there have been several articles around the hardware community proving beyond a doubt that for some odd reason, Nvidia video cards are performing better on AMD systems than on Intel, meanwhile ATI vids are performing better on Intel instead of their own AMD cpus. It's very bizarre because there is NO way AMD/ATI can be happy with this as it diminishes the value of their own brand of cpus.

Also, your idea of comparing 3x GTX285 vs 3x Radeon 4890 isn't much of a comparison. Looking at Newegg prices, the Nvidia setup would cost a minimum (with rebates and no tax etc) of $900 on up to $1200 versus an those 3 Radeons that would lose on performance, but only cost $500 (again, w/ rebates) up to ~$700.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]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.[/citation]

That's always the problem with putting one of these parts lists together: Every builder wants to put ALL the money into CPU and graphics to maximize benchmarks and WIN the comparison, but readers often need more hard drive capacity and better overall features. Those requests are accomodated by taking away from CPU and Graphics budgets.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]inmyrav[/nom]Why wouldn't the low budget crowd buy a 30" monitor? The Hanns G 27.5" has been around $350 for six months, and as low as 275 during that stretch. Isn't better to get a huge monitor with the 650 build instead of spending an extra 600 bux and staying with a 22"?[/citation]

You can't compare a 27.5" display to a 30" since one has 1920x1200 resolution and the other 2560x1600. You'll pay around 3x as much for the 30"

 

[coconutboy]

Aye, too many people do not understand that jumping up to gaming at 2560x1600, unless you're cheap and buy suspect parts, requires a lot more cash. Better GPUs to get decent image quality and good framerates, a more powerful PSU to support the vid card(s), and of course the monitor cost. Plus that Hann's 27" monitor is fine for gaming, but not that great for people who do professional work and it has shown to be less than reliable for many users (a lot of the comments on newegg show failures after the first year). If all you do is game/surf/youtube then maybe that Hann 27" is worth the risk because it's so inexpensive and huge, but most people tend to use just 1 or 2 monitors and that 27" takes up a lot of space. I'd rather have a 24" with good parts and build-quality.

I also agree with Crashman/jtt283, the SBM articles focus on benchmarks but each individual's real-world use isn't the same. In my case, I really wanted to put an SSD into my new computer, but just couldn't justify the cost when there's barely room in my budget for new much-needed RAID backup drives. I'd need at least a 120GB SSD model for my system drive and right now they're just too pricey for my tastes so I'm sticking w/ my striped SATA raid array. Hopefully by next summer prices will drop enough I can fit an SSD into my budget.


[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]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. [/citation]

The focus of this SBM comparison was gaming systems, and because of that I think you're wrong about AMD. Currently, I'm building two new (mildly oc'd) systems for me and my lady to game on, I'll be using an i7 920 and she'll be sporting an i7 860. Since we weren't in a rush, we've had time to research these systems for about 6 months and were mainly waiting to see how things turned out w/ the P55 chipsets. Now that I've been able to compare p55 and x58 versus AMD I can safely say that for the same cost, AMD's gaming performance is absolutely equal to Intel's i7 offerings. The main reason we're going Intel are twofold:

1) We'll use our gamer boxes for video encoding and one as an HTPC for the living room. Intel is better at encoding and the i7 860 is a very cool chip for a (quiet) HTPC. We considered an i5 750, but I didn't wanna give up the performance and HT.

2) Price. We live in LA and can drive to a Microcenter. It's a bit of a drive, but we'll save $140 (plus tax) on the two Intel cpus versus buying them at Newegg, Mwave etc. If we couldn't get the i7 920 for $200 and the 860 for $230, then an AMD 955 BE is only $190 from several nearby retailers as well as newegg and would almost for sure have been our cpu of choice, even if we didn't overclock. For gaming at 1900x1200, the Phenom 940/955 and 945 are an outstanding value and will keep from hitting CPU bottlenecks just as well as the i7 920 that I'll be overclocking.

If we didn't have the ability to buy our two Intel i7 cpus for the (relatively) bargain price of ~$468 out the door, then two Phenom X4 955s for ~$415 was going to be pretty impossible to beat, at least for my money. YMMV

[citation][nom]maniac5999[/nom]I think that for gaming today an all AMD build at about $800 is definately the sweet Spot. Here's what I'd do:AMD Phenom II X3 720 $119 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103649The X4 945 is better but current games get almost no benefit from a 4th core[/citation]
True that most games don't need more than two cores, but a few do use 3 or even 4 cores and if you're building a new system right now, depending on how frequently you upgrade, it might be wise to go for 4 cores. Unless I planned on upgrading my cpu sometime between now and, say, summer or at worst Xmas of 2010, I'd go for the Phenom 940/955. That said, the X3 720 is an excellent cpu for ~$120.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]orion76[/nom]I have had problems with my sli setup and I am concerned the frame rate benchmarks don't show real world playability of games. How stable are these 3 and 4 card configurations in the real world? I've seriously considered sticking to single card / single processor solutions.[/citation]

I can say that I played with the QuadFire $1250 machine and I didn't experience any problems playing a few levels through our benchmark games and even a couple more.

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]Crashman[/nom]...readers often need more hard drive capacity and better overall features. Those requests are accomodated by taking away from CPU and Graphics budgets.[/citation]

No argument from me on that one.