System Builder Marathon: TH's $2000 Hand-Picked Build

[rohitbaran]

I am drooling at that awesome config!

 

[dgingeri]

three things we can note from this:

1. an unbalanced system is a waste of money. too much CPU or too much GPU without the other to handle it causes both to be wasted. Must match CPU and GPU performance levels.

2. 6 core performance has very few advantages. quad core will do just as well at the same clock rate for now. it will probably be a few years before we have more than just a couple apps using all 6 cores.

3. AMD has embarrassed themselves with their 6 core CPUs. They don't have any real advantage over even their quad core CPUs, and cost way too much. It's a last ditch attempt to stay in the attention of DIY computer builders. They should just stop making the high end consumer chips for now and concentrate all resources on getting the next generation out ASAP. I was a big AMD fan for a lot of years. I had nothing but AMD chips from my Socket A Athlon 800 to an Athlon 64 X2 6400+, but they have done all they can with this generation. they need to get moved on to the next generation before they go under from the weight of the past.

 

[triclops41]

newegg combo discount is brilliant. hope they continue to do that

 

[hellwig]

You SSD fanboys need to get a life. Sorry, but no amount of Tom's articles is going to make up for you wasting a couple hundred on an SSD drive instead of a better GPU/CPU.

Add boot-up times to the benchmarks? That's dumb. How many times a day do you boot your computer, once? I'm running Win 7 on a Athlon 64 x2 off a RAID5 running 4 Maxtor 200GB drives. Guess what, it boots in less than a minute. Even if you could boot up in 5 seconds off an SSD, how is that worth anything to the gamers that would be considering a $2000 PC (sure, with a $4000 PC, you'd have to buy SSDs, you wouldn't have anything else to spend your money on).

Face it, SSDs just are NOT practical for any setup involving a constrained budget. Gamers are not boot-time sensitive individuals. There's no real loss if Windows takes 30-more seconds to boot. There's no real loss if you have to wait an extra 30-seconds for your game to load. Gamer's are play-time sensitive. You need max FPS (frames per second) for max FPS (first person shooter) performance. Once your game data is loaded into memory, your harddrive doesn't even factor into the scenario.

SSD fanboys are like those people who say you shouldn't use CFLs because the initial current draw when you turn a CFL on is too high. Yes, CFLs have a spike when you first power them on, but this is only a momentary thing. The reduced power consumption while they are on easily makes up for that initial power draw. Its the same with SSD vs. HDD. SSD fanatics want you to focus on the 30-60 seconds extra it takes windows to boot or a game to load. They ignore the hours upon hours of game play, internet browsing, movie watching, etc... that DO NOT BENEFIT from an SSD in any way (and, with reduced capacities, are often hindered by SSDs, and usually involve buying a second HDD for storage anyway).

Buy all the SSDs you want, but Tom's Hardware already tested and abandoned SSDs in their system builder marathons because there just wasn't a performance increase to justify it. Yeah, they could add tests that are specifically designed to show an improvement with the SSD, but they could also add tests that show improvements with HDDS (i.e. I propose that Toms include a "writing 800GB of data to a single drive test". Every SSD out there would fail, does that make the test valid?)

 

[dgingeri]

I'm a big time fan of SSDs, but not for the reasons you specify.

1. I wouldn't use one as a boot drive. it's just not worth the headaches. I've had one as the boot/OS drive, and it just gave too many problems.

2. they're great for program drives. If you have specific programs that need to load fast, then put them on their own partition on an SSD and map that partition to an NTFS folder in the logical place you want it, such as under Program Files. they work beautifully for that.

3. make a specific partition separate from anything else and specify it for ReadyBoost. With Win7, you can use up to 32GB for ReadyBoost. It dropped my boot time from 1 minute 7 seconds to 21 seconds. when the SSD was the boot drive on an otherwise exact same system, the boot time was 19 seconds. using an SSD for ReadyBoost can help as much as having it for the boot/OS drive, but without the headaches.

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]I'm a big time fan of SSDs, but not for the reasons you specify.1. I wouldn't use one as a boot drive. it's just not worth the headaches. I've had one as the boot/OS drive, and it just gave too many problems.2. they're great for program drives. If you have specific programs that need to load fast, then put them on their own partition on an SSD and map that partition to an NTFS folder in the logical place you want it, such as under Program Files. they work beautifully for that.3. make a specific partition separate from anything else and specify it for ReadyBoost. With Win7, you can use up to 32GB for ReadyBoost. It dropped my boot time from 1 minute 7 seconds to 21 seconds. when the SSD was the boot drive on an otherwise exact same system, the boot time was 19 seconds. using an SSD for ReadyBoost can help as much as having it for the boot/OS drive, but without the headaches.[/citation]
Using it for your page file would probably give a performance boost as well.

 

[scook9]

SSDs have come down in price enough to make them ok to use (at least in my mind)

I have an 80GB Intel G2 SSD as the boot for my desktop, I got it for $160. Easily worth it for that price because it makes the computer experience that much nicer. They already are doing benches for NON gaming applications....these machines can do more than one thing you know...and sometimes it is nice for those other things to be fast too

 

[dylansaliba]

OK...you guys need to be testing with CS5 x64 for this. Get with the times. The GPU acceleration is freaking AWESOME! OK...get it done.

 

[foscooter]

Great article. Being waiting for something like this. I once asked the forums for a "Tom's Hardware Guide Recommended List" as this is pretty close. Also, the "best config" contest is a good idea, too.

Best thing is that you all were not afaid to admit failure in previous SBM, and "fixed" everthing in question, to give a "best-of" build, within a budget.

Although I am a "SSD fanboy," I understand the lack of it's inclusion. Give it a rest!

 

[JamesSneed]

The I7-930 is $595 bucks cheaper than the I7-970 on newegg. A majority of your benchmarks are not impacted by more cores.

How about a Lian Li PC-9F($139), I7-930($284), Prolimatech Megahalems CPU cooler($62), RAM - Patriot Viper II Sector 7 Edition 6GB DDR3 2000($167) , 2x GTX 470's ($600) and leave the rest the same with some extra money to spare.

The 930 should get a higher OC than the 6 core. Also this should be cooler running due a better CPU cooler, graphics cards exhausting out the rear of the case, and the PSU will draw air from outside the Lian Li PC-9F case.

 

[beekermartin]

Nice review. I am building a very similar system right now. I am a bit nervous about the power supply I choose. I bought an Antec 620 rated at 80% effeciency. If the power figures you posted are rated from the wall socket, 738 watts overclocked, then the PC is actually drawing @590 watts at 80% effeciency. It sounds like I am cutting it awfully close to that if I overclock as high as you did. I don't plan on overclocking the GTXs for now so I will probably be ok with the 620w PS but I do wish I would have gotten a 750w instead just for the extra headroom.

 

[coldmast]

[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Using it for your page file would probably give a performance boost as well.[/citation]
Is that sarcasm? page files destroy (age) SSD.
SSD is still at a premium price, I'm sure once the price comes down and the product matures we'll all be packing RAID-0 SSD.

 

[f-14]

well, tom's is getting there idk what possesed them to try 1400mhz, clocks don't even time properly, 2200/1600mhz memory should have been used in 2k triple channel system with a cpu like that. high end system in a small case with SLI needs all optimal venting measures used, i think we all learned that years ago. should have cut the hd down to the 500gb model and took the extra $ for 2 more fans, 1 for the cpu and another for the side panel for internal exhaust dual videocards, possibly even switch up the cpu fans to vent up and out just to help redirect gpu exhaust airflow out fast as possible as heat rises. also would have used the fan utility to start spinning up to 50 pct rpm at 30c and hitting 100pct at 70c, this is a performance system, not budget system. #1 thought on a performance system should always be about maximizing and what componenets would achieve that. axe the hard drive to 500 gb model since it's only sata2 and take the extra money for another fan and better memory 8-8-8-24 at 1.5v or less or this ocz 9-9-9-24 1600mhz 1.35v OCZ Platinum 6GB (3 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model OCZ3P1600C9ELV6GK. would like to see the performance system better thought out from a priority pure performance stance.

 

[sterimar]

I thought the major point of the SLI scaling article was that you don't need all the PCI express lanes of X58 to run a successful SLI configuration. In that sense, wouldn't it be better to go with an LGA1156 motherboard and CPU? Wouldn't that save some money without a significant loss in performance (while also improving power consumption)? And that money could be used for a better graphics setup or an SSD or more memory, etc. I don't know how much money would be saved this way (if any) and what would be the change in value per dollar, but I thought it was an interesting point to consider.

 

[Luay]

"overkill for anything under 2560x1600 (or triple-monitor Surround)"

Did you mean 1080P triple-monitor?

"UD3R became our top choice because it’s the only full-sized $200 model that we’ve successfully overclocked to high settings"

You haven't reviewed the equally priced Sabertooth X58, or have you, and you still choose the UD3R?

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]beekermartin[/nom]Nice review. I am building a very similar system right now. I am a bit nervous about the power supply I choose. I bought an Antec 620 rated at 80% effeciency. If the power figures you posted are rated from the wall socket, 738 watts overclocked, then the PC is actually drawing @590 watts at 80% effeciency. It sounds like I am cutting it awfully close to that if I overclock as high as you did. I don't plan on overclocking the GTXs for now so I will probably be ok with the 620w PS but I do wish I would have gotten a 750w instead just for the extra headroom.[/citation]It's actually 86% efficient, so 738W from the wall is 635W to the PC. And at 1.30V, it's not really a high overclock.[citation][nom]luay[/nom]"overkill for anything under 2560x1600 (or triple-monitor Surround)" Did you mean 1080P triple-monitor?[/citation]1280x1024x3 is about 4mp. 2560x1600x1 is about 4mp.[citation][nom]luay[/nom]"UD3R became our top choice because it’s the only full-sized $200 model that we’ve successfully overclocked to high settings"You haven't reviewed the equally priced Sabertooth X58, or have you, and you still choose the UD3R?[/citation]Sabertooth wasn't even a factor since it wasn't at Newegg during the last week of July or the first week of August.

 

[geok1ng]

The uncontested points:

SLI 460s are the sweetspot of value, power and performance, surpassing a 480 with easy.
The PSU chosen has a lot of value.
The cooler has a lot of value.

Now the problem points:
32nm CPUs from Intel demand lower voltage RAM for overcloking when handling triple channel, an issue discussed to exaustion over the hardware foruns. Not to mention the gigantic price premium. I tend to favor the i7 870 over the i7 930: a cheaper motherboard in exchange for higher base clocks and better OC potential, along with the easier-to-handle dual channel memory on LGA1156. Dont think the 2x8 PCIe will hurt the 460s enough to offset the higher CPU clocks since 460s are CPU limited at 1080p anyway.

 

[Guest]

Looking at putting together a very similar build (i7 950 in place of the 970) Would an ASRock X58 Extreme3 mobo work in this build in place of the Gigabyte X58A-UD3R? Sorry if some obvious noob reason not to

 

[coalminer071]

Aww not allowed for canadians

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]wolklung[/nom]Would an ASRock X58 Extreme3 mobo work in this build in place of the Gigabyte X58A-UD3R? Sorry if some obvious noob reason not to[/citation]Not for overclocking, Extreme3's voltage regulator can't support the high amperage. ASRock enabled overcurrent protection so the board no longer catches fire, now it simply shuts off. That's not conducive to chasing high clock speeds.

 

[scryer_360]

"Toms Hardware Edition Newegg Combo."

I

 

[scryer_360]

@cangelini:

This whole test is making me chin-scratch a little. Two GTX460s are able to almost universally belittle two GTX480s, provided a CPU boost?

I guess what I am asking is "What would this test of been like with the six core and two GTX480s?" How far can we stretch those legs? Just be interesting to find the edge is all. And somehow I am sure you have two GTX480s in the lab, ready to sit into that mobo.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]scryer_360[/nom]@cangelini:This whole test is making me chin-scratch a little. Two GTX460s are able to almost universally belittle two GTX480s, provided a CPU boost?I guess what I am asking is "What would this test of been like with the six core and two GTX480s?" How far can we stretch those legs? Just be interesting to find the edge is all. And somehow I am sure you have two GTX480s in the lab, ready to sit into that mobo.[/citation]Actually, no. But the site DID have FOUR GTX-480's in one place at one time, and tested 2-way, 3-way, and 4-way configurations using a Core i7-980X at 4.00 GHz You'll see that article in a week or so.

Also, the site has continuously found that the problem of CPU bottlenecking occurs even with Intel's highest-end processors, and even when overclocked, but only at low-to-medium resolutions. So running the same tests as you saw here doesn't ever really make sense when you have two GTX 480's. Thus, the new article focuses entirely on various Nvidia Surround resolutions.

 

[eddieroolz]

I'm amazed at what the alternative $2000 build can do in some games. Of course, the Intel CPU helps quite a bit. So while both $2000 systems are very nice, I think they are, in a way, a mismatch of two ways; alternate $2000 focuses too much on CPU and not (as) enough on GPU, whereas the original $2000 build focuses too much on the GPU and not enough on the CPU.

All in all, I'm glad that Tom's team is willing to explore just what went wrong!

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I'm amazed at what the alternative $2000 build can do in some games. Of course, the Intel CPU helps quite a bit. So while both $2000 systems are very nice, I think they are, in a way, a mismatch of two ways; alternate $2000 focuses too much on CPU and not (as) enough on GPU, whereas the original $2000 build focuses too much on the GPU and not enough on the CPU.All in all, I'm glad that Tom's team is willing to explore just what went wrong![/citation]I don't really think the new system has too little GPU:
1.)You can't do much better than a pair of GTX 460's with ANY CPU at the standard test resolutions, since every CPU will handicap more-powerful cards at 1080p and below.
2.) A four-core version at the same speed would probably be called a "well balanced" $1200 machine.
3.) A six-core CPU does not outperform a 4-core in games, so from a gaming perspective this is still a "well balanced" $1200 machine.

The extra money spent for a six-core CPU is really useful only for encoding and productivity applications. So, what this machine happens to be is a $2000 workhorse with gaming as a bonus feature.

If you want even more GPU power in games, you're going to need to span across multiple monitors to see that extra power. And yes, Tom's Hardware has a separate article coming soon to address that different market.