Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

CPU And Memory

System Builder Marathon, December 2010: $2000 PC
By

CPU: Intel Core i7-950

Intel’s Core i7-950 was priced only $10 higher than its i7-930, yet it carries a rated speed of 3.06 GHz compared to the cheaper processor’s 2.80 GHz. That sounds like a high-value upgrade to us!

Read Customer Reviews of Intel's Core i7-950


The base multiplier for the i7-950 jumps up to 23x (compared to the i7-930’s 21x multiplier), opening up a few more options when it comes to overclocking. And speaking of overclocking, the process of speed-binning—where a manufacturer determines which CPU runs best at higher speeds—means that we’re more likely to get a “good” overclock from this higher-rated part.

DRAM: Mushkin Essentials 998586

The best overclocking-value memory we’ve tested over the past two years have all used Micron’s D9KPT chips, but we’ve also found that these particular chips work slightly better without heat spreaders. That lead us to use Crucial’s bare modules (at least until the company raised its prices to the point where competing brands were far cheaper). So, imagine our surprise when we found this at Newegg:

Yes, Newegg was carrying the same Micron D9KPT chips, on the same Micron circuit boards, under a different brand, at a 40% lower price. Epic win, right? We placed our order pronto, and a few days later this is what we received:

Read Customer Reviews of Mushkin's 6 GB DDR3-1333 Kit


The part number on the chips corresponds to Hynix commodity-grade memory, parts that are so ordinary that the manufacturer didn’t even bother to put its brand on them. This is certain to put a crimp in our overclocking plans.

Not only are these far lower-grade than the parts we expected from Mushkin, but they’re organized completely differently, with twice the density. That means a module from the current part number 998586 set can’t even be mixed in multichannel mode with a module from the previous 998586 set, even though both carry the same part number. We realize that both versions of this model number are only guaranteed to be stable at the same 1.50 V, DDR3-1333 and lowly 9-9-9-24 timings, but shouldn’t cross-compatibility for modules of the same part number also be guaranteed? For shame Mushkin, for shame…

Display all 5 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    zanmatoer , 13 December 2010 16:04
    "The number of pixels in a 2560x1600 display is slightly higher than those of three 1280x1024 displays, so the new $2500 PC could be a good choice for Nvidia Surround gaming."

    I'm fairly certain that's supposed to be "...so the new $2000 PC could be..."

    Looking forward to Day 4!
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 13 December 2010 17:41
    Quote:
    AVG’s anomalous performance is almost legendary at this site. We’d like to credit the new system’s faster drives for the win, but the benchmark difference is too small to represent the drives’ enormous performance disparity.

    And yet it's still in the SBM?
  • 0 Hide
    tobensg , 15 December 2010 20:30
    Has anyone got £1500 to build a Performance PC at the moment?! IMO these marathon builds are a waste of time.
  • 0 Hide
    damian86 , 16 December 2010 03:08
    Normally those marathon pcs do not get my atraction, spending 2000 dollars in a machine with only 6gb of ram? there are better prices out there,you can make this machine more powerfull. not a long time ago THW had an article showing info about swapfile explaining that 8 gb or RAM makes a very stable machine.im just saying...
  • 0 Hide
    damian86 , 16 December 2010 03:15
    I would have installed 2x6870 radeons instead of these power hungry 470's...they re cheaper as well