| The Fast-Enough Budget Computer: Built and Tested |  |
| Articles - Featured Guides | ||||||
| Written by David Ramsey | ||||||
| Thursday, 24 March 2011 | ||||||
Page 1 of 4
The Fast Enough Computer: Built and TestedRecently, I wrote an op-ed piece here titled "The Fast Enough Computer". I argued that for gamers, low- to mid-range components provided the most bang for the buck and could readily play most modern games. The metric I used was "30 frames per second at 1680x1050". In this follow-up, I build a system based on the components I thought would be adequate and test the result with several modern games. I noted that frame rates in excess of 30fps were generally imperceptible, and that frame rates in excess of 60fps were wasted because most monitors don't refresh the screen any faster. Well, those assertions were not left unchallenged! If you read the comments on that article, you'll see that while some agreed with me, there were also those who claimed that my hardware suggestions were far too modest for serious gaming, and that they could indeed discern a visual difference between 60 and 120fps.
It's folks like those who keep companies producing things like Radeon 6990 video cards. And they should feel completely free to keep on buying them, because my recommendations aren't for everyone: they're for those who either have a limited budget (not everyone can afford an NVIDIA GTX580) or just want to get the most bang for their buck. Well, that first article was all theoretical; this article is all about empericism. Let's see how my Fast Enough Computer actually performs with real games. The GoalJust to be clear: I'm not trying to build the ultimate gaming box; rather, my goal is to build a gaming system that will play most modern games at an average frame rate of 30fps or higher at a resolution of 1680x1050 pixels for the least amount of money. A secondary goal is that the system should be easily upgradeable to increase its performance so that it can last at least a few years without requiring major expenditures. The SystemThis is actually a less-than-optimal time to design such a system: Intel may have some lower-end Sandy Bridge parts coming out, and AMD's forthcoming "Bulldozer" processors may change everything. But I can only build with what you can actually buy right now. I'm going with AMD despite their CPU horsepower disadvantage relative to Intel for three main reasons:
So here are the main components of the system:
AMD's Black Edition Phenom II X2 processors are both inexpensive and highly overclockable; in fact, when the 560 Black Edition was introduced, AMD touted its relevance to "extreme overclockers" (i.e. the liquid-nitrogen guys) who could push things as far as they wanted and only risk smoking a relatively inexpensive processor! The Radeon 6850 is a solid mid-range video card that offers performance that equals or exceeds the NVIDIA GTX460 cards in most games at a slightly lower price, and also offers the option of triple-monitor Eyefinity gaming. Benchmark Reviews has done enough tests to prove that expensive, high-speed and low-latency memory has a minimal (if any) effect on your gaming experience, so I used generic DDR3-1333, and the optical and hard drives were whatever I had laying around. The motherboard was an ASUS Crosshair III Formula, but any 790FX or 890FX motherboard would work. GX-series motherboard would provide the same base performance but have only 22 PCI-E lanes, which severely limits your upgrade potential since they're unsuitable for multiple video card setups. The Fast Enough Computer runs Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, with AMD's Catalyst Software Suite 11.2 and the latest game profiles available as of the time of this test. So let's get to it...
|
||||||
Comments
Honestly though, I can't believe you wanted 3.4GHz x2 more than 3.0-3.2GHz x4. You even brought up in your review that the AMDs max out around ~4GHz! All their iterations with .1GHz stepping are pretty redundant once you get close enough to start nearing that barrier while overclocking.
Hmm... Actually I'm starting to like the gambler aspect of your original cpu choice. Ha!
Athlon II x2's are much rarer to unlock because a good portion of them are 'true' dual cores and there is nothing to unlock. Every once in a while though some people still get quads that have been disabled to create an x2.
Athlon II x3's also have a good unlock rate because they are all quads with a disabled 4th core.
1. It?s cheaper, and this article is all about building cheap!
2. The extra cores do add extra performance, and I think that would be most visible in the Crysis test.
On top of that there are a couple of
...
On top of that there are a couple of sub $50 quality PSUs that will handle this rig just as well, shaving quite a bit off the total cost.
As for the system settings for the evaluation I think adding a second graphics card is way off topic. It would be much more interesting to see if the 6850 really is the cheapest option at the chosen resolution. A comparison to a slightly cheaper GTX 550Ti and a considerably cheaper 5770 would show if you got the right pick. (I think the cheaper cards are sufficient for 1680x1050.)
The evaluation method with looking at average framerates in benchmarks really doesn?t cut it at this level. The only useful method is to actually play the games and see what graphic quality settings can be used to provide the best experience with each system.
The 5770 is a nice card, but the 6850 is significantly faster, and even it was marginal in Crysis Warhead. Of course, everyone will have their own balance of price and performance.
I disagree, sort of. It all boils down to the definition of "later". Buying a second 6850 two years from now will probably provide less of a performance raise than buying a same cost latest generation card at that time.
Even if I had the option last summer I didn't spend USD 250 on a second GeForce7800GT to improve my graphics, but went for a USD 200 HD5770 instead.
Secondly one can argue that ability to upgrade isn't a defined part of the objective, but rather simply getting sufficient performance right now at the least possible starting cost.
Still, it's my personal opinion that adding a second graphics card is rarely the most cost effective upgrade path, unless it's done in a very short time span. (Then the extra card should really be added to the system cost. Not buying it directly is simply a form of credit.)
With the HD6790 hitting the shelves in a week I expect 5770 to become a rarity in a few months, so buying myself a second card once the single card becomes insufficient (in a year or so) might become problematic unless I go for a used card.
My main complain about using CF in the test though is that it doesn't show the single 6850 to be the ultimate option for the initial build.
1.) The GeForce 7800GT is a 4 or 5 year old card, not a 2 year old card so your 2-year comparison is invalid.
2.) Just last summer I added an HD 4870 1GB to the one I already had. It only cost me $100 from newegg. With the 2 HD 4870s underfoot, I now have performance in HD 5870 territory because 2 separate HD 4870s are more powerful than a single HD 4870x2.
There was approximately a 2 year gap between GPU purchases. Do you honestly think that I could have gotten a better deal than $100 to completely catch up? I don't think so and believe me, I don't care about DX11 AT ALL at this point because it's still a rarity. Most games are still DX10 and most (if not all) online games are still DX9. The horsepower of these cards means that I CAN play Crysis Warhead at 1920x1080 at max settings (full AA, full AF) and have a buttery-smooth experience all the way through. ATi just keeps making CrossfireX better so the results with the HD 6xxx series should be even better than mine.
The 2-year limit is my arbitrary minimum expected usage span of a graphics solution before upgrading. In this case I felt no need to upgrade the graphics until considerably later because, as you note, DX9 kept up as the ultimate technical requirement. In the end I just needed a faster card, with some added features that I will be able to make use of once I also upgrade the OS.
"2. ... Do you honestly think that I could have gotten a better deal than $100 to completely catch up? I don't think so and believe me, I don't care about DX11 AT ALL ..."
Just as I was lucky in the development of games not needing any upgrade at all you're lucky that DX11 hasn't caught on as fast as DX9 did over DX8.1. The two reasons being that many gamers stick to Windows XP and consoles don't support DX10/11.
I, for one, don't expect this sluggish development to last.
"... the results with the HD 6xxx series should be even better than mine."
With the 7000-series expected to hit the shelves in time for X-mas I wonder how long one can wait before finding 6850 at reasonable prices out of stock.
I think my main point is that if you need to upgrade the graphics soon you either picked a too slow card to start with or there's a new feature around that isn't supported by the card you have. If you need to upgrade later it's a bit of a gamble whether a second similar card is a good option or not.
Result(1): Minimum= 28 FPS Average= 36 FPS Max= 61 FPS
and there yee go
Me, I'd be stuck with the $800 because I my computer is ancient with IDE and AGP :P
You could have used the Phenom II 840 for a little less money and gotten the same results at least plus been using a quad core.
The crossfire upgrade is a solid option but your test proves a point hat people overlook, only some games get a true benefit from multi-card video. Moving up to a bigger single card can cost nearly the same and will give across the board increases.
With that in mind the budget for the system could be further reduced by using a single card GPU and using an 870 based board. The performance is the same and the cost is lower.
Finally on the PSU, you can buy solid units for under $100 like the Antec Green series.
Overall a solid article with a premise that has been true for some time, luxury parts are not needed for a great gaming experience.
Shouldn t it have a fast enought for the other side of the fence too ?
I couldn t care much because i m way above minimum.
But in the matter of justice, this sounds like a payed article, propaganda for one brand, a one sided eye, what happened to the other eye ?
But then you wake up, and realize that writers here at Benchmark Reviews are not paid at all, and write these articles for the love of their hobby and for the benefit of our readership. Well, that is, everyone except for ignorant helmet-wearing trolls like you who make us wish we had never spent the time to help give you an edge over the marketing hype.
Crawl back into the cave you came out of somewhere in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
Like Olin said, we do this for the fun of it, and none of us give a rat's sss about whether the Green Team or the Red team has the faster product this month. We just report what we find....
One thing I'd like to throw out there is that I have a perfectly good Nvidia 9800 GTX+ card from BFG (too bad they're gone). Understanding the GPU is considered a bottleneck to the entire gaming experience, would this card still be considered sufficient or should I just pony up the cash and make the move to the Radeon as suggested in the article?
Cheers!
Not the ideal situation but I can live with low-med until finances are better.
That little system ran just about every game I owned at the time in 1080p. Even with Crysis being the decisive heavyweight, it managed to crank an average of 40FPS in Crysis with my minimums being @27FPS. V-SYNC limited my highs to 60FPS. I don't know if my getting such better frame rates was an issue of the extra core, overclocking the mainboard to get the CPU up to 3.4 GHz, the way my XFX card handled it, or (most likely) some combination of them all.
Crossfire ran no problem with that motherboard, and it's taken a Bulldozer chip without issues. The system worked out so well that I had even built some similar builds for some friends who wanted budget builds at the time.
Your build idea certainly had merit, as proven by us both, but I think you overly focused on the Black Edition's unlocked multiplier and should have focused on cores. You could have bought an Athlon II X4 at the same prices you paid for the Black Edition Phenom II X2.