Part 1: Building A Balanced Gaming PC
Table of contents
- 1. Balanced Platform Series Introduction
- 2. Graphics Cards
- 3. Processors
- 4. Motherboards
- 5. Memory, Hard Drive, Power Supply, Coolers
- 6. Pricing, Methodology, And A Sample Chart
- 7. Test System Configuration And Benchmarks
- 8. Benchmark Results: Crysis
Are you disappointed? Are you frustrated? Are you wondering why your PC won’t game? Before you make a rash decision, resulting in a wrongful upgrade or a new system purchase, you need to know exactly what it means to build a balanced gaming platform. Welcome to one of our most ambitious projects ever; this is Part 1 of a multi-part series aimed at educating PC users on what it means to seek balance in their configuration.
Balance is what is often lacking in standard off-the-shelf PCs. Even the configurations flaunting fast processors, lots of memory, and ample storage space typically still don’t have sufficient graphics muscle to get things done in today’s demanding 3D games. It (balance) is also what’s lacking when gamers buy the hottest new graphics card, only to discover that their aging system and slow CPU prevent it from delivering the expected level of performance you often see in our own graphics evaluations.
Of course, we realize that the Tom's Hardware audience is far from your average PC user. Perhaps you’re an enthusiast who already knows his or her stuff. After all, you’ve done your research. You thrive on the latest hardware reviews and have long been building your own machines, allotting the proper potions of budget to the components that will best suit the system's intended purpose.
Well, we encourage you to read on and form your own conclusions, as there will be plenty of data to scour, tested and presented in a way you likely have never seen before.
In this series, we combine various levels of graphics cards and processors to determine which offers the best balance in a number of different games. Rather than turn down graphic settings to reach playability, we keep them cranked as high as possible in order to determine exactly how much hardware muscle you need to enjoy these games as the developers intended them to be seen. Keeping the same level of eye candy, we’ll also test various resolutions, simulating the experience of several different monitor sizes, too (right up to 30").
As you might imagine, testing numerous graphic cards paired with numerous processors in numerous games very quickly turns into a massive data set. In order to cover the broadest range of hardware and still keep the project manageable, we chose a handful of CPUs from Intel and AMD, and several graphics cards from both ATI and Nvidia. Too large a project to be wrapped into a single story, it will be split up into a multi-part series, and potentially even an ongoing saga covering newly released hardware, drivers, and games.
There are three main goals for this series:
First, we want to simply present the raw data, gleaned by pairing various CPUs and GPUs. Typical graphics card reviews try to eliminate system-oriented limitations by using a high-end CPU. We've heard many of you complain about this, and are addressing it here. Typical CPU reviews often use a high-end graphics processor and/or lowered detail levels to eliminate GPU-oriented bottlenecks. Reasons for that should be obvious, but here in this series, we’ll have the opportunity to see how the hardware you own today performs versus faster or slower setups. Second, we aim to recommend a minimum level of hardware for each game and at each resolution. This is where theory turns into pragmatism and the story becomes a buyer's guide. Third, we'll show you exactly where the best balance between your CPU and GPU truly resides, with as little “bottlenecking” as possible.
In Part 1, we’ll look at how six different graphics cards perform when paired with four Intel CPUs, two dual-core models and two quad-core chips. Part 2 will continue the series with a look at three AMD Phenom II processors paired with the same graphics cards. We concentrate on stock performance in this edition and the next, but will later turn our attention toward overclocking. Additionally, we'll dedicate two stories to exploring the benefits and scaling of graphics horsepower with ATI CrossFire and Nvidia's SLI technology. As mentioned, along the way we'll try to add new products to the mix, taking into account the recent ATI Radeon HD 5800-series and Intel Core i5 launches.
Before we move onto today’s data, let’s take a closer look at the hardware we’ll use in this series.
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Latest Build Your Own News
Latest Build Your Own reviews
- 23/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: System Value Compared
- 21/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $600 Gaming PC
- 20/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $1200 Enthusiast PC
- 19/12 – System Builder Marathon, Dec. 2011: $2400 Performance PC
- 14/12 – Power Supply 101: A Reference Of Specifications
Time to post our balanced PCs?
Q6600 @3.2GHz
4GB ram @approx 920MHz
4870 @790MHz 1GHz
I reckon this is relatively balanced. Only thing stopping me from hitting full detail on games at 1680 is the graphics card. High details with AA will do for now. 5870 next?
The settings here are too ambitious - I imagine it's perfectley possible to build a balanced gaming PC around an e6300.
E6850 @ 3.5Ghz
2GB OCZ SLI @ 1066Mhz
BFG 680i SLI (hot NB!!)
2 x BFG 8800GTX OC2 in SLI
850w Enermax Galaxy psu
well this dashes my hopes of getting a 4850. Have to move a few steps higher
Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz
8gb Geil DDR800
150gb WD Raptor
2x 1TB Samsung
2x Radeon 5850 crossfire
850W Enermax
Athlon II X4 620 (stock)
2gb DDR2 800MHZ Hynix
160GB Samsung SATA2
PowerColor HD4890 (stock)
Coolermaster 500W Extreme Power
Works brilliantly, taking into account though that my monitor is a 17" LCD @1280x1024
On the whole, very nice article. It's something that I haven't come across before and it should help people to save a few bob (the whole point of a balanced system) and get the best bang for buck when upgrading (everyone that reads these reviews main concern
.
well this dashes my hopes of getting a 4850. Have to move a few steps higher
Keep in mind that these tests were done at 4X AA, (pretty much) max settings through out. The HD 4850 is still a good card with good price/ performance. Perhaps it's just a case of AA killing this card?
I appreciated this article, because it's a first step towards presenting data that gives expected performance in games. Virtually all performance reviews of hardware is done on a comparison basis, to tell people which of the cards tested performs the best at a given set of tests.
I don't think this point is stressed enough in the online hardware review community. It's very easy to look at a bar graph and see 35 fps and think to one's self "POS card", without stopping to check what the whole test setup was, or what the review is actually looking to highlight.
Aha, nice article, though the highlight has to be the picture on the first page. Not only would I love all those graphics cards, imagine having all those games AND LEGALLY!
Very pertinent article! It's quite helpful in getting a general overview for today's gaming requirements. Thanks for gathering all this data.
I'm looking forward to the next installment, regarding AMD systems and the new 5000 series GPUs.
I have an E6850 @ 3Ghz, 4GB ram, 1x DVD Rom, 1x HDD..
I'm looking at getting either the HD4890 or the new 5850, BUT I only have a 400w power supply. I see the E8400+HD4890 combination draws a max consumption of about 250w. Will my 400w be ok? Really dont want to fork out for a new power supply...
Wow, I'm really astonished by this article. I have an E8200 and a 1680*1050 panel, there are some surprising results for me. First off, the 4850 I was thinking of upgrading to would still leave my system entirely GPU limited. Thanks for the warning! Secondly a 4890 would actually perform significantly better in my system than a GTX 295 that costs over twice as much!
Why is it that the GTX 295 responds so badly to a lack of CPU?
@slurpppy:
a dual GPU card requires alot more work from the processor jsut to get it rendering, so in a CPU limited rig they are often a bad choice.
and @blitonguy: i would not recomend running a 4890 with a 400w PSU. when i have a 650w to power my 4890, and would say a 550 should really be the lowest you should go.
Good article. I can't believe how many times I have warned my friend about balance with his 3x Geforce 280 SLi. That being said, I am significantly GPU limited (Intel 920 O/C and Geforce 260). Although my computer is not solely a gaming rig.
5850 people..THAT'S the GC to have
E6750 2,66Ghz @ 3,5Ghz aircooled on stockvoltage
P5N-E SLI motherboard
GTX 260 V.2 (stock speed)
8Gb HyperX DDR2 PC8500 @ 4,4,4,12 timings, 1:1 with cpu
Patriot Warp2 32Gb SSD system drive + Western Digital Caviar SE 500Gb
Creative Xtreme Gaming Soundcard
Samsung S.M. 23" 16:9 monitor running 1920x1080
Chill Innovation 540W PSU
Runs everything great atm. I'm a sucker for AA, AF and vertical sync. so I'll upgrade when I can't play new games with at least 4xAA and 8xAF.
Next thing on my wishlist is a Q9550 and probably a XFX-motherboard.
I have a C2D E6300 (stock 1.86 Ghz) - OC'd to 3.2 Ghz
Sapphire Radeon HD4850 512 Mb OC'd approx 10 % GPU and memory
2 Gb DDR2 800 OCZ Gold
I run a 19 inch LG LCD Monitor, native res is 1280 x 1024. This setup provides me a really nice balance. I only use AA in older titles, but I run almost everything on at least High detail levels, and I can run everything I've ever asked my system to run, and do not have frame rate issues. I have no issues with Far Cry 2, GRID, Oblivion, Frontlines, HL2, Doom 3, COD 4 etc... Crysis is the one title I need to turn down.
The issue here is of course balance. I'm not sure why Toms is using Ultra Quality settings on a review about balance. Surely quality settings have to come into the balance equation too. If you are on a budget, and can't afford the best of everything, then a slightly lower image quality would be a price you would be willing to pay.
btw, I'm sure the Pentium E6300 is not the same as a C2D E6300, as the Pentium badged chip runs at 2.8, and mine at 1.86 stock ?? Is that right ?
Here's my balanced rig
Core i7 920 3.35GHz
6gb DDR3 1600MHz
2x500GB RAID 0
GTX260 216sp
All on Foxconn Renessaince board
I think balance will depend on budget
Ok some comments about PSU, if your going to buy expensive mobo, cpu, gfx cards and run it on anything around 400-500w make sure its very good quality one like Tagan, Thermaltake, OCZ, and others in above rigs, do not use a cheapo PSU no matter how much the wattage is, it will work but I guarantee it will go bang and take one of those expensive parts with it, thats if it dont catch fire....like the Qtec PSU do.
I run this rig with a Tagan 480w 5-6 years old
AMD x2 5600 @2.9GHz energy efficient
HIS ATi 3870HD @800MHz
4GB OCZ Reaper PC8500
2x 750GB Samsung HD's
Samsung 22in monitor
It will play anything I throw at it with ease, you dont have to spend a fortune just to play a game, keep your buget reasonable and youll enjoy it so much more.
This is why I love Toms Hardware. You guys review the obvious things such as the new HD5870 like every other site. But the thing that makes you stand out is that you guys also make articles such as this one.
I'm still having a dual core (E8400 @ 3.6GHz) with quite the demanding SLI setup (2x 8800GT) and have been wondering what the best upgrade will be for my computer. This gives me a lot of insight and I'm eagerly awaiting the follow up overclocking article.
where are the amd provessers