System Builder Marathon, Sept. 2011: $1000 Enthusiast PC

[grody]

This mobo is just awful. Another commenter mentioned a z68 ud3 in this price range, which is only about 10x better. Unless the mobo is made of solid gold or something, micro shouldn't even be considered for a $1k build.

 

[cknobman]

Terrible component choices for a $1000 build.

Huge Fail!!!!

 

[TeraMedia]

I too would have liked to see the SSD used with Intel's RST technology. It isn't clear from the descriptions, but it appears as if some of the synth tests (e.g. PC Mark 7 "Starting Applications") are hitting the SSD rather than the HDD, which is going to unfairly skew the results in favor of the current build. At least if you used RST then the results of that test would be more representative of what real-world performance might be for that activity.

For RST, an article a while back mentioned that using the SSD in a write-through mode evoked only modest benefits because while reads were fast, writes were slow. But if we assume that there is an adequate backup strategy for this computer, and configure the caching so that data isn't copied, perhaps even better performance could be achieved than what your current configuration will allow. All of the useless clutter that comes with the O/S (unused drivers, languages, help files, etc.) would be stored on the WD, while the important stuff would get cached to the SSD - along with the most-used game programs and data[i/]. To me, that looks like an opportunity to make this better.

 

[thatspsychotic]

[citation][nom]a nanny mouse[/nom]Should show minimum FPS with benchmarks instead of a subjective opinion on micro-stuttering. [/citation]

Micro-stuttering is entirely quantifiable, not just subjective. It manifests itself as a phase offset between the two video card frame streams. At 60fps combined, the time between successive frames should be 16.6ms, regardless of which card they come from. We'll set this as a baseline metric of 0.

Micro-stuttering would look like this: a frame at 15ms, one at 18.3ms, one at 15ms, one at 18.3ms, etc. This difference from optimal, +/- 1.6 ms, divided by the optimal frame delay of 16.6, yields a metric of 1.6/16.6 = 0.1, or 10% micro-stuttering. These optimal and difference timings should be averaged over at least a 1-second period.

The generalized formula for this is as follows: microstutter metric = tdiff/(1/fps)

 

[halls]

I agree with thatspsychotic, in that the performance of a game at 2560x1600 is pretty irrelevant at this price range. As long as you're hitting 60 FPS in 1680x1050 or 1080P you're golden.

Another thought, are high levels of AA necessary at these price ranges as well?

Of course, that's not to suggest I don't love these articles with a burning passion. Keep it up guys; I am always intrigued by your lowest budget builds.

 

[nevertell]

I am usually on the nvidia side, since I use linux, but damn. The two 6850 draw A LOT less power.

 

[thatspsychotic]

Also, to touch on a comment about people's differing sensitivities to micro-stuttering, it should be pretty easy to write a java applet or something that can demonstrate micro-stuttering to varying degrees. It would display a looping video, and have adjustable frame rate and micro-stutter intensity (metric I defined above).

People could then determine their own micro-stutter sensitivity, and could then make informed decisions on whether to go multi-GPU. If a setup yields 10% microstutter at 60fps but my sensitivity threshold is only 20% at 60fps, then I won't notice the microstutter on that setup. If my sensitivity threshold is 5%, I'll want to avoid it. Pretty simple, really.

Of course, microstutter sensitivity will be dependent on frame rate, as it should be more noticeable at 30fps than at 60fps. The reverse should be true as well, and I'd expect microstutter of any degree to be unnoticeable to anyone above 120fps.

 

[TeraMedia]

@halls and thatspsychotic:
I suspect that scores for "unrealistic" settings such as 2560x1600 gaming scores are necessary for comparison purposes. And don't forget that such a resolution is close in total pixel count and GPU load to 3-way eyefinity (and NV's alternative) on 900x1600 (2700 x 1600) displays, which are comparatively inexpensive.

 

[jjb8675309]

it wasn't mid-range dual gpus that weren't recommended but specifically 6870 crossfire, the 460s seem to have much less pronounced micro-stutter to the point that it is not noticeable according to the article that toms posted, they recommend sli 560s just not crossfire 6870s

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]How is 64gb not big enough to use as a boot drive? I was running 2x30gb in raid0 but one of the drives died so Ive been stuck with 30gb for months now and havent run into any space issues. I install everything but games to it and still have 9gb free. I have 2 raid arrays of regular drives where I install my games and store my files..[/citation]

Exactly! Wife's system drive died last week and I replaced with an OCZ Solid3 (the price was right at $80 after rebate). The old drive was a Seagate 80GB of which she was using 41GB. All docs and other files go to the 500GB storage drive. After loading Windows, updates, office, and some other regularly used programs the total came to 25GB. Sure that will grow with time, but people don't realize they don't need a huge system drive. I am approaching 170GB on my system drive, but that is after 4 years of file buildup, and never uninstalling anything (500GB drive, so who cares?) I only use about 50-60GB of programs regularly, the rest is old games.

Also, even on an old system (C2D@2.7, 8600GTS passive cooling, 4GB DDR2 800) with no TRIM support, or other special features it makes a dramatic difference in speed. Programs like Sibelius that use to take nearly a minute to load, now only take 10 seconds. Outlook use to take 20sec, now loads nearly instantly. I would never consider anything but an SSD for a system drive again!

With that in mind, paying micro center the extra $10 for a 2 year 'don't ask don't tell' replacement policy really helps with the peace of mind. SSDs have a near 40% failure rate in 3 months regardless of brand.

 

[CaedenV]

In the real world you could get a lot more for your $1000, but this whole system builder challenge is partly go keep their overhead of parts down. Otherwise they would take their own advice and do a single powerful card instead of an xFire/SLI solution. Also, there are much cheaper, but solid, boards on the market, as well as cheaper but larger SSDs, and $5 DVD combo drives.

Not saying I wouldn't be absolutely stoked if I won it as it blows my system out of the water, but I personally would have spent more on the storage system and ram, and less on the mobo and case.

Also, Toms it would be really cool at the end of the year to see benches from all of your end of the year systems to see what kind of performance per price you get year after year. I bet you get a lot more bang for your buck now compared to when you started this a few years ago.

 

[Onus]

I think we all know to apply "fitness for purpose" judgements. The measurements taken using settings that may be unreasonable for a specific system are just so the systems can be compared, and to give a sense of scale. What is interesting is when something that should be fit for a given purpose isn't, or vice-versa (I still remember that build with the 4xHD4850s in it).

 

[Onus]

Oh, and a clarification. I had Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit on the SSD, and MS Office, and a handful of games; no swap, no media, nothing else, and only had a couple of GB left. CaedenV, you yourself say you've got 170GB on your system drive, so I think we need to discount any general remark about a 30GB boot drive being sufficient. I'm sure it is, in some (actually a few) cases, but not in the general case.

 

[buzznut]

[citation][nom]zero_[/nom]Why all the overpriced components? This is bad...Off the top of my head,1. There are a number of decent Z68 motherboards for around $130.2. Hyper 212+ costs $303. A Corsair 2x4GB 1600MHz CL9 kit costs $504. There are plenty of good 1TB drives for $555. Antec Earthwatts 650W costs around $60And don't give me any crap about price increases over the past month. All of these have remained the same for the past 2 months.[/citation]

I agree with all this. Samsung F3 1TB FTW, there's simply no reason to get anything else unless you need more capacity.

 

[cadder]

Now that you have an SSD, how long does it take to boot? You still aren't providing that measurement.

I can see where it might be a lack of testing equipment in your lab. I can help you with that- put one of these in your budget for next year:

http://www.amazon.com/ACCUSPLIT-Survivor-Stopwatch-Extra-Large-Display/dp/B0007ZGZUC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1316620466&sr=8-2

 

[buzznut]

I also don't get the SLI GTX 460s. Didn't they just run an article on microstuttering, where they advised people not to use slower cards for dual GPU setups? I'm confused..

 

[cadder]

[citation][nom]blackened144[/nom]How is 64gb not big enough to use as a boot drive?[/citation]

64GB gives you about 58GB usable space. Your SSD should be kept below 80% full so now you have 46GB of usable space. I have 2 laptops with almost nothing installed on them except a browser and a photo viewer. Both are well above 64GB in used space. I'm going to have to buy 120GB SSD's for them.

 

[LordConrad]

Nice setup for gamers, but for a more multipurpose machine, I would change the following:

Video Card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102945

Optical Drive:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136226

 

[LordConrad]

[citation][nom]LordConrad[/nom]Nice setup for gamers, but for a more multipurpose machine, I would change the following:Video Card:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814102945Optical Drive:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6827136226[/citation]
Or maybe this video card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127608

 

[dgingeri]

even at 4490, this thing is still much faster than my i7-920 at 4200.

 

[maxinexus]

Only 4 GB of ram for $50? That must be typo!!! Better power supply would be nice too.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Oh, and a clarification. I had Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit on the SSD, and MS Office, and a handful of games; no swap, no media, nothing else, and only had a couple of GB left. CaedenV, you yourself say you've got 170GB on your system drive, so I think we need to discount any general remark about a 30GB boot drive being sufficient. I'm sure it is, in some (actually a few) cases, but not in the general case.[/citation]
I would say in most cases, as a boot drive, though not a general purpose drive like I am using mine. If I were to offload games, and all the unsorted files on my desktop, and clean out my download folder, I could easily trim down to fit on a 60GB drive. 30 not so much, but a 60 is more than doable

 

[JeanLuc]

If your going with a Sandy Bridge build with low capacity SSD I would have got a lower end Z68 board to make full us of Intel's SRT which turns the SSD into a large cache for the main hard drive. That way you get a faster hard drive without the hassle of having to decide what apps and programmes get installed to the SSD and what goes to the HDD.

 

[of the way]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]...and a handful of games; no swap, no media, nothing else, and only had a couple of GB left...so I think we need to discount any general remark about a 30GB boot drive being sufficient. I'm sure it is, in some (actually a few) cases, but not in the general case.[/citation]

A boot drive is made for windows. Unless your 'couple of games' were the original Myst and Starcraft, they shouldn't be going on a 'boot drive'. If having an ssd purely as a boot drive isn't your cup of tea, then you're free to do whatever you want, but I would be plenty happy with 30GB.

I don't think you are qualified enough to say what is sufficient in the general case. Not that I am either, and Toms might not be either. It obviously isn't sufficient for you and a few other people here. It is sufficient for myself and a few other people here. That's about as far as we can take it.

 

[cobra5000]

I have to ask, how long do you think that top GPU card is going to last? Its overclocked up the wazoo and there's only 1/8" of space between the top and bottom cards. After several marathon gaming sessions? Im thinking, "do you smell smoke"?