Price/performance comparison between low, mid, and high-end systems (UPDATED)

[Arcmanov]

As usual, Tom's Hardware has written three good articles comparing the pricing and performance of three different systems.
They give a really good indication of what is available in each price segment, and its corresponding performance in benchmarks.
This is a very good guide for anyone interested in building a system right now.

System builder marathon day one.  (low-end)

System builder marathon day two.  (midrange)

System builder marathon day three.  (high-end)

Very good guide here.  Price vs performance of actual systems at a glance.
I guess that puts my current system smack dab in the mid-range category.


UPDATE!!!  Comparison of all three systems:  System builder marathon day four

[Crixx_Creww]

hmm they made a mistake in the tally for the midrange system, stated the e6600 had 2megs of cache instead of 4.


Yu know, its kinda scary to see that the e6600 is considered merely mid range..
a system built around an e6600 would be high range for us but to them its like meh ok since we on a budget we'll use an e6600...

scary scary


lol @ me almost chocking on my gum when i see the 3k price tag on the extreme system lol

suddenly mid range is looking like the best everrr

[Arcmanov]

Ent.  I thought mih rig 'bess up' in the high-end category.
From those articles, I realize that high-end is totally outta my reach.

[Saxito Pau]

yeah.... and they said they could go higher in cost still. then again, there IS the US$10,000 PC article they did some months ago. By now it must be devalue to about US$8000 already

[daniboy79]

i find similarity in the HSF used in the mid-range system and the Thermaltake i use in my AM2 & 775 rigs.... hmmmm even costs about the same too, lol

[Arcmanov]

See update in 1st post.
Direct comparison of all three systems included.

[Netizen1]

Did you see what happened when they put the 8800GTX in the low-end system... lawl


Hmmm, so even my Dual Core 939 system can be great with the right GPU in it (at high res.)

[Crixx_Creww]

did anyone else almost have a seizure trying to picture that 2560x1600 resolution???
who the f*(&*&* plays @ that resolution??

[Netizen1]

[Minor thread hijack] That being said, Crixx... what resolution do gamers use and what do they prefer (if they had the hardware)

I personally play @ 1024x768 but would love to play @ 1600 x 1200 with AA & AF on

[Berzerk]

1280x1024 with 4x AA is my resolution of choice.


Games look real 'bess' in that with a good frame rate.

[Saxito Pau]

Did you see what happened when they put the 8800GTX in the low-end system... lawl


Hmmm, so even my Dual Core 939 system can be great with the right GPU in it (at high res.)

So you see, Crixxy boy, even my "AMD thingy" can challenge the best with the right video card at the right resolution... *evil smirk*

And I am going to get that card!

[W1nTry]

Hmm that seems like overkill. I'd opt for the 8800GTS 640MB version honestly boy sax. True you'll get some more performance with the GTX, but ask yourself the RELEVANT questions first:

1. Do I play at 1600x1200 res and HIGHER?
2. Do I own a LCD/Monitor capable or displaying those res, and its 8ms or less?
3. Do I want to pay 100-150USD MORE to get 2 FPS faster?

Because your rig isn't as powerful as a Core 2 system, putting the GTX would not give you substantial enough gains over its GTS brethren to warrant to price difference. At such High res and with High AA and Ansio settings your system WILL be CPU bound. Worse yet if you're playing at 1280x1024... you're not gonna be able to even REMOTELY notice the difference between 200FPS and 250FPS. After your HD debacle, do you really wanna spend ALL that money???

[Netizen1]

would this monitor cut it then W1nTry?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009094&CMP=OTC-RSS

[Arcmanov]

Good GOD!!!

Suddenly my 19-inch LCD doesn't look so pretty.

Damn you Acer...

[W1nTry]

Seems decent, but always beware of strange aspect ratios... not all games support certain widescreen resolutions, so you end up with the game cutting off each side of the display effectively making your screen smaller, which is self defeating. That particular model should be fine though... but how about: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001096

[Arcmanov]

Well, the good thing about most current games (at least the ones I play) do support custom resolutions, e.g. 1440 x 900

[Saxito Pau]

Daniboy is the man to ask about that acer monitor.. he owns one. If only he'd play frigging GAMES on his PC


@ W1nTry. While I will get that card, it won't happen for several months yet, probably not till 2008! Simply can't aford US$550 for a video card!...Of course I'll need a faster CPU. If the Phenoms when they come out don't cut it I'll switch to C2D. My 19" CRT can handle 1600x1200.

True that the human eye can't discern the uber high FPS, but at least you have bragging rights in the benchies.

[Crixx_Creww]

1280 is great enuff for me

and whats even better about 1280 is that good ole crt will handle that with ease!!!
ic no need for a lcd monitor, even thought that 5ms looks great, meh

and oh 250 fps?? steupssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss absolute nonsense
thats just as ridiculous as 2450 res