Tom's Intl. $750 Cheap Computing Challenge

[pcfxer]

I don't get this article at all. This is more for fans of tomshardware rather than industry persons looking for information that is relevant to their needs. Cheap computing challenge with a budget more than the SBM which only began to show the joy of cheap computer building...?

Here's an idea. Each competitor loses 1pt/$1 spent on their computer. 10pts are awarded for winning a benchmark, be it, Office applications, Games or, power consumption. The final test would seek for stability, running a multitude of tests simultaneously - any failures from any test results in a loss of 50pts.

Negative points are allowed and the competitor with the most points wins...obviously. That should make things interesting. Competitors could show up with anything from a Sempron LE-1200 to a heavily OC'd Core i7 940 or, a single flash drive to a multiple disk RAID array.

Now that makes more sense...I think!

 

[V3NOM]

[citation][nom]pcfxer[/nom]I don't get this article at all. This is more for fans of tomshardware rather than industry persons looking for information that is relevant to their needs. Cheap computing challenge with a budget more than the SBM which only began to show the joy of cheap computer building...? Here's an idea. Each competitor loses 1pt/$1 spent on their computer. 10pts are awarded for winning a benchmark, be it, Office applications, Games or, power consumption. The final test would seek for stability, running a multitude of tests simultaneously - any failures from any test results in a loss of 50pts. Negative points are allowed and the competitor with the most points wins...obviously. That should make things interesting. Competitors could show up with anything from a Sempron LE-1200 to a heavily OC'd Core i7 940 or, a single flash drive to a multiple disk RAID array.Now that makes more sense...I think![/citation]
good idea except get more points for a win... unless they have a PC less than $10, they would lose many more points than they would gain.

great idea in theory though.

 

[Siffy]

[citation][nom]V3NOM[/nom]good idea except get more points for a win... unless they have a PC less than $10, they would lose many more points than they would gain.great idea in theory though.[/citation]
"And the winner is: The Nintendo Wii!" It could fail to run 20 tests and still end up with a final score of -1200 and beat the $1500 PC that finished with a -1300 score.

 

[pcfxer]

[citation][nom]Siffy[/nom]"And the winner is: The Nintendo Wii!" It could fail to run 20 tests and still end up with a final score of -1200 and beat the $1500 PC that finished with a -1300 score.[/citation]

Right, and the interpretation of that would be: The Wii provides consumers the best overall platform for the money. However, why not? I still think a "points" system is the best way to go and one that Tom's should seriously consider for these types of articles.

I didn't want to throw out too much of a realistic system that will always be up for debate. My point is to award all tiers of a true computer: performance (games, content creation, rendering, etc.), power consumption, reliability (what good is a system that is FAST and not reliable??

0.1pt/$1 should work with 10pts per win...maybe winnings could be awarded 10-5-1 or some sort, but it would make for a more interesting competition where some competitors focus on reliability and power consumption...and other obscure tests that Tom's could come up with whereas others end up with SIMILAR systems that ALL do the same thing. As much CPU/GPU as possible with a real disregard for anything else. It would suck to see everyone show up with dual core Intels and 4850s with only a small variation in hardware.

 

[nerrawg]

Interesting point pcfixer;
-however if such a point system were adapted and utilized it would have to reflect real world needs in order to truly reflect the "real world" value. I think what it would show very well is a value based on price vs. performance which is always interesting (however lower-mid priced systems tend to end on top). However when it comes to gaming and other applications this can often be a deceptive analysis. Take for example gaming: In a game where the maximum settings and resolution still yields over 60 fps with a given setup further increases in performance, for example from 100 fps to 150 fps are meaningless for the overall playability of the game. Hence the point system would have to be for example modified such as that each setup that scored over 60 fps did not gain any extra points over another system that had over 60 fps even though it might have a higher fps. This of course is not impossible to implement into the speculated point based system and it would give the reader a better perspective of the real world benefits of a given system over another. As for other system benchmarks such as decoding and encoding among others, increase in speed will generally always be important for the user and not be similar to the "overkill" that game performance is. Therefore gaming is probably the most important testing platform in which this point system would need to be modified as an fps between 30-60 is sought after in all games, where as lower fps result in unplayable games and higher results in "overkill". Other than this recalibration I think that your system represents an interesting and well thought preposition pcfixer!

 

[pcfxer]

I saw this issue when I thought about Siffy's comment, but the more I think about it, the more I see the potential.

Thanks for the comment nerrawg and I hope we get some feedback from Tom's!

 

[Siffy]

[citation][nom]pcfxer[/nom]Right, and the interpretation of that would be: The Wii provides consumers the best overall platform for the money. However, why not? I still think a "points" system is the best way to go and one that Tom's should seriously consider for these types of articles.[/citation]

I agree with the idea, just trying to make a point by example. Too much emphasis on cost and the cheaper system wins every time, too little and the enthusiast system wins every time. It could still work, and I think the best approach would be using "typical" component costs as the baselines and deducting or awarding points on a logarithmic scale. By typical, I think "what was the average price for all X sold last month?" would work well if the information was easily obtainable. Then the further you get away from the average the more it counts for or against you. nerrawg's diminishing returns idea would have to be included as well. For tests, averages for the systems' scores could be used, gaining incremental amounts of points for being above average in the pack and losing points for not keeping up.

 

[ETRacer]

Well all this debate is all and well but lets talk a little reality here people according to MS and their EULA you must purchase an operating system. This 180 dollar expense i did not see included in the price of the build. I know most of you may scoff at me for this little interjection but i am in the middle of building a system for a family member on a $750 budget, This system must include an OS monitor mouse keyboard speakers and a surge protector, while still playing Battlefield 2142 smoothly.

So lets be real, We know THG loves Core 2 processors, because they OC but most wouldn't OC that high for an every day rig. Plus you comparison is great if you are like most of us that may want to upgrade, but for the rest of the world $750 better consist of more then just the box.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]ETRacer[/nom]Well all this debate is all and well but lets talk a little reality here people according to MS and their EULA you must purchase an operating system. This 180 dollar expense i did not see included in the price of the build.[/citation]
Again, just like every SBM article this is another question that keeps coming up. The OS is not included because usually an OS is carried over from one rig to the next. Obviously you will need to purchase a new OS at some point, but many people still use XP, so why would the OS need to be included when many people aren't going to be buying a new one with every new rig? The same goes for mouse and keyboard, do you upgrade those with every rig too?

 

[rags_20]

I thought AMD recommended at least 450W for the 4850? After OCing the RAM, CPU and GPU, how will you have enough power even if its a quality PSU?

 

[ETRacer]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Again, just like every SBM article this is another question that keeps coming up. The OS is not included because usually an OS is carried over from one rig to the next. so why would the OS need to be included when many people aren't going to be buying a new one with every new rig? The same goes for mouse and keyboard, do you upgrade those with every rig too?[/citation]

Ahhh i guess you do see my point if we were talking about an upgrade then you would not need a tower or a DVD drive or even maybe a hard drive or PS? Woludnt you carry those over as well, I know I do. Yes you would in MOST cases.

This article is covering a new build of an entirely NEW rig. According to our buddies at MS unless you are tossing the old rig in the garbage heap and scrapping it out you MUST indeed purchase a new OS. You wouldn't want to get cought using the same old copy of XP on 2 completely different machines would you? I thought that was Illegal?

Devils advocate aside THG should at least mention the OS cost factor so users not as savvy who stumble upon this article aren't misled into believing their list is all that you need for a $750 computer.

Scoff if you like but it is achievable including the OS (Vista Home Premium 64) monitor (17" widescreen) mouse (logitech Mx 518) etc.
The total $757.84, and it would run very closely to what they have configured, If anyone is interested ill display the list, all parts avalavle from Newegg and Tiger today.

 

[Siffy]

[citation][nom]ETRacer[/nom]Scoff if you like but it is achievable including the OS (Vista Home Premium 64) monitor (17" widescreen) mouse (logitech Mx 518) etc.The total $757.84, and it would run very closely to what they have configured, If anyone is interested ill display the list, all parts avalavle from Newegg and Tiger today.[/citation]

And does that include shipping?

 

[Onus]

AMD recommends a 450W+ PSU for the 4850 because there are a lot of POS PSUs out there which are good for maybe 50%-60% of their labeled rating. I'd put in an Antec Earthwatts 380 long before attempting a "ChokeMax" 550W-labeled unit.

 

[wdmso]

These builds are good for those who like ideas on an easy system to throw together i priced this out on the Egg and added vista 64 no OS was in the price as well as shipping the total was 881.00 1 items price was way off
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro was shown 19 buck that's the AMD version? intel was 39.00 and no OS which added another 100 bucks i think 881.00
is bit to much when you can buy an core i7 at dell for 999.00 but to each there own

 

[marcproud]

As a regular reader of Tom's Hardware I appreciate the insightful articles and reviews but one thing has bothered me from the beginning especially as concerns this type of test - overclocking, and the inevitable emphasis on it. To the enthusiast who is likely to be spending thousands of dollars on their rig, maybe. But even I, as a graphic artist and musician, could not be bothered even if I felt confident of my abilities to overclock, which I don't. Further, though virtually everyone I know has at least one computer in their home, not one among the many dozens of family members, friends and clients has ever overclocked a system, nor would they know how, or even care to try. I suspect most would guess, were I to mention the word, that overclocking is some new term used to describe putting in a few extra hours at work. In tests and reviews on low power / low cost systems overclocking is simply not an issue that need come up. In fact it is detrimental to getting reasonable information and expectations about a possible system. To those of you who would flame me for my 'heretical' view, stating perhaps that readers of this online magazine are computer gurus by nature, don't bother. I, and several of my friends are in fact regular readers (and power users) but not one among us has, or likely ever will, tinker with a system beyond putting in a soundcard or extra RAM. Enough with the overclocking already. Other than that keep up the good work.

 

[scryer_360]

I agree with a lot of the sentiment here: a $750 PC and no Quad Core? Performance per watt is important, but with quad-threaded applications becoming more and more common, performance-per-watt will soon be or already is on at least a low-end quad core processor. Core i7 won't be as efficient as the best C2Q anytime soon I think (considering the system as a whole), but Phenom II is extremely efficient for the whole system.

I've priced out a $760 rig with newegg and tiger direct with a Phenom II, four gigs of RAM and a 4850. Granted when Team USA built this, all that was more expensive (if even available considering Phenom II's recent-ness). Still, it just seems too out of date.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]ETRacer[/nom]Ahhh i guess you do see my point if we were talking about an upgrade then you would not need a tower or a DVD drive or even maybe a hard drive or PS? Woludnt you carry those over as well, I know I do. Yes you would in MOST cases.[/citation]
Power supply you might not since it may not be powerful enough. Hard drive may be too small to be worth keeping (probably retired to another PC), and people sometimes buy new cases just for better cooling without changing anything else even. All of those components are fairly flexible and you can't really say most people who visit this site do this or that with them. You don't know how many people who visit here are enthusiasts, complete computer-illiterates, or just Joe Know-somethings. DVD drives you would generally keep for a long time, I agree. But given that they are <$25 it makes little difference whether you include them or not.
[citation][nom]ETRacer[/nom]This article is covering a new build of an entirely NEW rig. According to our buddies at MS unless you are tossing the old rig in the garbage heap and scrapping it out you MUST indeed purchase a new OS. You wouldn't want to get cought using the same old copy of XP on 2 completely different machines would you? I thought that was Illegal? [/citation]I don't know if EULAs are really legal documents. According to the NVIDIA EULA, they have the right to tell you to stop using the product if you break it, and if you continue to use it they can prosecute you. So I guess you can break the EULA once "legally" But of course, no website should condone breaking EULAs

I have not read M$'s EULA so I can't speak of it. However, I don't think you should have to throw out your old PC, just not use your OS on it as well as the new one.

[citation][nom]ETRacer[/nom]Devils advocate aside THG should at least mention the OS cost factor so users not as savvy who stumble upon this article aren't misled into believing their list is all that you need for a $750 computer.[/citation]
If they don't know they need to buy an OS they should get a Dell instead.

 

[jv_acabal]

This is just what I was waiting to see at Tom's Hardware. Many previous articles just focused on priceerformance. I also want to know if the best priceerformance build is also as efficient as it's stock matchup. (e.g. Will an E7300 clocked at 3.16GHz and stock voltage be as efficient, in terms of power consumption, as an E8500?)

 

[average joe]

Don't you use your old OS and sell your old parts? What's Ebay for. I have an XP professional Cd with no service packs from 2001. An Intel Rep gave it to me for free for going to a seminar.

I'm not currently using it.

I'm running Windows 7 beta and a Vista 64 Business I got from Microsoft for taking some classes.

 

[marraco]

[citation][nom]ETRacer[/nom]Well all this debate is all and well but lets talk a little reality here people according to MS and their EULA you must purchase an operating system. This 180 dollar expense i did not see included in the price of the build...[/citation]The OS will cost the same on any PC (except if you get an OEM), so its pointless to include it on an article whose important point is to squeeze the juice of your wallet based on smart choices.

 

[optimux]

Hi, I live in chile, here is another reality.
A systen with nearly same specs (diferent brand in case, PSU and RAM but similar specs) cost 634,092 pesos, 1 dolar = 625 pesos, then the cost is 1,014 dolars. much more than in USA, but the people here earn much less than people in USA, a typical budget system cost here 400.000 pesos or less, something like 600-650 USD, the same configuration in USA must cost 500 usd or less, maybe could you review a 500 usd system to know how is the computer world in the called third world



Alejandro Cisneros

 

[Caffeinecarl]

Why not use the GA-EP45-DS3R variant of the Gigabyte board? It adds firewire, RAID, and dual graphics options and 6 phase power switching (versus 4 phase with the DS3L) for pretty much the same price. I've been using that board for a little over 4 months, and I LOVE it!

 

[Caffeinecarl]

[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]The OS will cost the same on any PC (except if you get an OEM), so its pointless to include it on an article whose important point is to squeeze the juice of your wallet based on smart choices.[/citation]

And if you're smart, and your OS license is retail, you can move it to a different PC, provided you're not using it on the old one anymore.

 

[Guest]

I agree that 750 is a very nice price for a gaming pc.
People want to spend a little more than a desktop pc ($500), and the majority are not able to pay twice the amount ($1000) for a pc,that will cost $500 next year anyways.

What should be very nice is a test to see how much a pc can be underclocked, to preserve power.
I understood that in idle times, it is possible to undervolt a cpu; and it would be nice to see if there's any software capable of doing this.
I thought ATI Catalyst had the capability to over/underclock the graphics card.

I also prefer ATI over Nvidia; good choice!
Probably best price/performance and definitely best performance per watt!

I would have had a peek at the newest 4000 series cards, like 4600 and 4830 cards; to see if they not save some power.
I know the 4600 cards have the best power savings, and push out a reasonable performance.
Most gamers have monitors around 22" some have 2; so dual monitor and resolutions sub 1600 pixels matter here. High end 4800 cards (4870/4850/4870x2)generally shine in the 1900 resolutions, which is higher than any 22"LCD monitor can display anyways; so your choice of ATI 4850 is a very good one, but perhaps a 4600/4830 would have been better powerwise, and still provide acceptable framerates in games.

DDR2/800Mhz is also excellent memory! OC'ed it performs at 1200+Mhz levels, and undervolted it can run fine on 800Mhz stock speeds.

I wouldn't go for Corei7 neither, since the TDP of the Corei7 is 100plus watts, while faster dualcores perform better in games than slower quadcores of the same price!
Good choice there!

As far as disabling the fan, I'd do the same. I wouldn't, if I had 2xATI 4870X2 video cards inside; but seeing that the system has a decent power consumption, I might even think of disabling the second fan, and just rely on the fan of the powersupply and videocard to suck out the hot air out the case.
Open a slot under the videocard, so cool air enters in from underneath, cooling the soundcard, optional PCI board, and bottom of the graphics card; and open a slot on the front so cool air passes the hard drive and RAM.

It looks pretty much what 80% of gamers would invest in a pc these days. I think this article may not attract the industry and businesses, but I think the majority reading toms are either hardware fanatics, or gamers; not really IT's that need to buy a gaming pc for their company.

overall looks great; can't wait to see the results!
I also wished an intel core 2 duo setup like this could be benched against a similar priced AMD!
As for nvidia, I'm afraid they fall out of the boat performance/power wise.
The AMD spider and dragon platform VS this intel setup could show some interesting results!

I hope the guys of germany and Italy and other tom's researches will read this and give us a great spectacle!

In the benchmarks it'd be nice to see stockspeeds, since not all here are familiar or wanting to overclock their pc's.

I know testing under these situations takes a lot of time!
Thanks Toms for wanting to take up the challenge!

I know there's a lot of negative reviews, but if it wasn't an interesting setup, not many would mind to look or comment here!

I bet this setup has a larger audience than a $4000 setup, or a $300 setup.
About the only thing we miss from tomshardware is the benchmarking of mininotebooks and booksized desktop PC's in the range of sub $500 (probably atom powered designs).

A last thing perhaps, this is supposed to be a gaming computer; not used 24/7.
Generally you can calculate an average of 3-4hours per day, 300 days per year.
If you want to bench a desktop computer, 8hours per day, 230 days per year makes more sense for power consumption.

Again thanks!

 

[average joe]

It would be funny if one of the teams won by taking the exact same components and just managed a little higher overclock.