http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/system-Bu ... 760-9.html

The $700 PC.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bui ... 03-11.html

The $1300 PC.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bui ... 497-9.html

The $2500 PC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison between the overclocked pcs:

$700 vs $1300: $600 nets in a performance increase of:
*40% @1680x1050 ($700PC 47fps vs $1300PC 66fps)
*36% @1980x1200 ($700PC 44fps vs $1300PC 60fps)

$700 vs $2500: $1800 nets in a performance increase of
*53% @ 1680x1050 ($700PC 47fps vs $2500PC 72fps)
*48% @ 1980x1200 ($700PC 44fps vs $2500PC 65fps)

$1300 vs $2500: $1200 nets in a performance increase of
*9% @ 1680x1050 ($1300PC 66fps vs $2500PC 72fps)
*8% @ 1980x1200 ($1300PC 60fps vs $2500PC 65fps)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting stuff:

*The E5300 in the $700PC which is a 2,60ghz cpu at stock speed was running at 3,8ghz for the test and achieved stability even at 3,9ghz. Massive!
*The I5 cpu in the $1300PC was undervolted to reduce heat. Eventually it was stable and cool enough at 3,6ghz.
*No SSDs in the systems, they cost too much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion of the Performance PC:

The $2500PC - Combining the cost savings of those two changes (the hdd-ssd-RAID5 and gpu5870-5970 changes - Peltz) would have let us step-up to an X58 platform, a large enough liquid-cooling system to push the processor well beyond 4.0 GHz, and a more expensive case that could hold that liquid-cooling system internally. Such a system would have added support for future upgrades, such as a second dual-GPU graphics card. But we were stuck with a CPU that created far more than the expected level of heat, a CPU cooler that provided far less than the expected level of cooling, and a graphics system that maxed out our motherboard.

Basically there was a lack of availability problem with this build.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My thoughts.

While the valua of these builds can always be questioned on the base of personal preference one should not forget that these are compiled with a fairly strict budget and thus achieve acceptable level of bang-per-buck.

I think that the real problem of these tests does not come from the hardware they use but rather that they never talk about the interaction between a human being and the PC. Without pointing out the sizes of monitors where difference between 16x10 and 19x12 becomes visible and what is considered past the point of reason in Frames Per Second, only those who spend time researching the data understand what they are really saying.


For instance:



This inevitably raises the question that if a game runs smooth @ 30fps (locked at maximum) and can deliver the same experience as if it were running @ 60fps why is it that we cant wait to shove our hard earned money down the throats of component manufacturers. Are we somehow better off?

I know that the pc i would build today is in a corridor of 40-60fps (because i believe that 61fps=unlimited fps) @ 16x10 (because i believe on screens up to 26" it is nearly impossible to see the difference between 19x12 and 16x10) @ Crysis (because its probably the most beatiful and most demanding engine available today.)

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/value-pc- ... 62-13.html
Here is the Best value conclusion on all the above mentioned builds.

Best Value Conclusion

People often discuss efficiency in terms of energy, but cost efficiency replaces performance per watt with performance per dollar. That calculation method is certain to provide a numeric value, but doesn’t indicate whether or not the product is suitable to any particular market. Thus, the following chart must be accompanied by a full examination of each system’s ultimate capabilities.

The cheapest PC normally wins any value comparison and is thus used as the baseline (100%) for comparing all others. However, its value win this month is rather small, at 3% over the $1,300 PC when both are used at their stock speeds. Yet, the cheapest system was also the one with the most factory-underclocked CPU, responding most aggressively to the overclocking efforts of its builder.

This is the point where questions about the adequacy of such a cheap system would normally center on a look at gaming capabilities. But Paul Henningsen surprised us by fitting two formerly high-end Radeon HD 4870 graphics cards and the enormous power supply needed to support these within the tight confines of his budget. The $700 system breezed through most games at a super-tough 2560x1600 pixel resolution, and was able to add advanced features at playable frame rates when dropping to a still-respectable 1920x1200 setting. Indeed, only the fussiest gamers need more.

Instead, we must look at our productivity suite to see that the $700 really is slower in daily use. All three systems were built as full-function performance systems rather than purpose-built gaming machines, and users who do real work on their systems will definitely be disappointed by the cheapest system’s Pentium E5300 processor, even when overclocked. It also comes up a little short in the area of storage for an all-purpose machine with 500GB of capacity, though a larger drive could be low-cost upgrade.

But the biggest strike against the $700 PC’s value win is that its inexpensive Radeon HD 4870 graphics cards are no longer available, and that the next model up adds $50 per card to the budget of anyone trying to replicate this system. An $835 actual price would have allowed the $1,300 PC to match it in today’s value charts.

The real winner today is Don Woligroski’s $1,300 machine. With an extra 140GB storage and an application-boosting Core i5-750, the majority of users should be quite pleased with its overall usefulness. Its Radeon HD 5850 graphics cards performed almost on-par with the Radeon HD 5870 cards used by the $2,500 machine, and it even beat the bigger system in a few benchmarks. Best of all, its excellent initial value is matched by energy efficiency that increases its value over a lifetime of operation.

Finally there’s the big loser of today’s comparison, the $2,500 build. When faced with the choice between SSD drives with inadequate capacity or high-capacity drives and no SSD, its builder picked the fastest-possible desktop hard drives as a compromise. But those drives are twice as large as most power users really need and, at three times the cost of slightly slower 1TB models, are both overkill and overpriced. This expense could have been put to better use in motherboard selection, as it appears the dual x8 pathways of its LGA 1156 platform are simply too weak to provide adequate bandwidth to such powerful graphics cards. Chosen for supposed overclocking superiority, its Core i7-860 processor was surprisingly inferior even to the $1,300 system's Core i5. Although, with no guarantees in overclocking, this may have been simply been "bad luck."

The $2,500 build wasn’t a total failure. Parts that continued to impress us with superb quality and excellent value include its Crucial DDR3-1333 memory, Lian-Li LanCool PC-K7B case, and Corsair CMPSU-850HX power supply. Combining these parts with an X58-based platform and an overclocked Core i7-920 processor could have allowed the Radeon HD 5870 graphics cards to approach their true performance potential. Yet this discussion is merely a distraction from today’s true winner, Don Woligroski’s $1,300 performance, efficiency, and value masterpiece.

Halo was made for consoles.

Maybe so but it still doesn't look stuttery at 30fps and that's all I care about. Can't the human eye only distinguish up to ~30 anyway? I do tend to stick to the 60fps being the max necessary though, anything more is just nice 'future proofing' (as much as is possible with pcs at least)

I thought the human eye could distinguish up to 60fps or so, with 30 being the minimal. Here's a link to wikipedia that states 60fps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate ... eye_see.3F

Realistically, it's whatever makes you happy. I play games that tend to have wildly varying frame rates, so even if it averages 60fps, it may dip down into the 20s if the action gets especially hectic...and that's unacceptable to me. So I basically want as high a frame rate as possible.

Don't worry, in the console dominated future where the majority of games are optimized for 30FPS, they will work just fine on your nuclear plant .

It is no secret that the high end PC market has somewhat thrived on piracy and as consoles are more profitable they will dominate the near future unless the games on PC experience somekind of revolution. Crysis, the one game that was heralded as the saviour of PC-kind turned out to be a trojan horse that pretty much paved the road to victory for the consoles. Even Crytek cant deny and overlook (they have stated this in many of their interviews) the higher profitability of the console market, the cryengine 3 is designed both the x360 and ps3 in mind.

Exactly my point. Why pay money to build a machine when the FPS drops to 12 in a large scene.

What Im trying to say is when your trying to build a computer and test its FPS, you shouldnt test it on a game that was designed for a console like Halo. Pointless. Might as well test the Sims or something meaningless.

Also about FPS. Your eye might not be able to see above 60fps but I know people who play competitively on the CAL(cyber athletic league). One guy who I work with plays counter strike. He uses 2 video cards and gets like 260fps. He claims a big difference when reaching over 100fps and feels he has the edge or the advantage. He feels he is able to spot people coming around corners and such better at higher FPS.

I have to agree with him. I play quake live and hit a max of 125 fps.

To me there seems to be a difference in responsiveness at higher frame rates. It may just be a perception thing, but that alone may make a difference. I'm looking forward to my next PC... 2 more months.

Hmmh seems far fetched, he would have to be playing on CRT screen or the 120hz LCD otherwise its limited by the lcds 60hz refresh rate, sure the counter can show more but the lcd would still just do what it does and not more. Even then its more likely to do with him playing the game for a long time and tends to expect people to come from certain places.

I remember playing RTCW on my CRT. Eventhough the crt could go as far as 2000x1500 on my 6800ultras, i ran it on 800x600. Sure the visuals were shot to shit but it acted as a sort of a small zoom mode. i could see people coming miles away. It was 100hz.

Anyway remember that $700 pc runs crysis not halo. In world of conflict its still limited by the CPU though. Check youtube where Crysis is run on AGP3850, 2gb ddr ram and a pentium4 at 1440x900, runs just fine.

I was watching some music videos i had on my pc. They were low res, slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes . When i watched it from a distance of roughly 70cm they look like shit on full screen but at 1,5meters the picture actually clears up somewhat on 20"lcd. I think this is how the consoles get away with lower frame rates.

Peltz you have one ass backwards way of thinking about upgrades.

Hey i analyze how i spend the dough. Im a rational man, i have to understand what i am paying for. The increased cost is justified by the more powerful hardware which is justified by the higher frame rates. What the hell does justify higher frame rates?