Puget Systems Deluge Mini: The Art of Custom
by Dustin Sklavos on April 5, 2011 4:15 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
- Intel
- Sandy Bridge
- GTX560
- Puget Systems
- NVIDIA
Conclusion: Worthy of Enthusiast Attention
One of the overarching issues that we run into in reviewing boutique desktop machines is understanding that many of you in our audience prefer to roll your own. It's at that juncture that we have to figure out what each boutique brings to the table that you just can't do on your own. I built my own tower, and the cabling may be kind of a mess behind the motherboard tray but ultimately it gets the job done well enough that I would have a hard time really justifying paying someone else to put the system together.
There's definitely a price to pay, as the components and OS add up to around $1600 if purchased online. Factor in the assembly and overclock and we're still several hundred dollars short of the final sticker price. While it's certainly possible to do all of the work and assembly yourself, as a one-stop enthusiast PC setup there's a lot of custom options to consider.
Puget Systems brings more to the table than any one of us can really achieve. I've had the privilege of looking at the extensive reliability testing they do on the components they use in their builds, and the fact is that very few of us have thermal imaging hardware required to get a really good idea of where the hot spots in our builds are. And then while I'm sure many of you own a dremel and wouldn't have any problem modding your cases, I don't. The Deluge Mini is a custom build of the highest order.
I hate to keep dragging Origin's Genesis out here because it's really an excellent machine, but the Deluge Mini is $300 less for near-equivalent performance in gaming, a smaller form factor, a more finely tuned overclock, and much better acoustics. Origin will give you the 
overclock for free and they'll even do a pretty good job compared to some of the other boutiques, but Puget will spend more time and they'll build your machine with parts they've chosen expressly for their reliability. With that price difference you can grab an i7-2600K and an SSD and bring the Deluge Mini into complete performance parity with the Genesis.
When I was testing and photographing the Deluge Mini I was consistently of the opinion that as an enthusiast first and reviewer second, no, I couldn't do a better job than Puget Systems did with this build. Spending over two bills is still steep for buying a desktop computer, especially given how fast these things are obsoleted, but if you want something powerful, reliable, cool, and quiet, it's awfully hard to beat the Deluge Mini. For that it deserves our Bronze Editor's Choice award.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
Spazweasel - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
Did I miss something? I don't see acoustics charts...ShortyZ - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
Indeed. Let's also disconnect the added side fan, block off the hole and compare heat and noise to demonstrate the benefits.grant2 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
"That puts their comparatively meager 1-year standard parts warranty into perspective:"Actually: no, it doesn't, not at all. If they really were so confident of their design, they'd offer a longer warranty
"Puget performs extensive reliability testing of hardware on the market and collects massive amounts of data (some of which I've actually been privied to see.)"
Mediocre warranty + showing SOME of their test data to a reviewer is a "privilege"?? Wow you're snowed, Dustin.
METALMORPHASIS - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
You want a better bang,build your own.HangFire - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Yes, for a better bang for your buck, build your own.When your co worker who doesn't want to fiddle with their system, or want you fiddling with it, but asks for a recommendation on a "really nice" computer, I tell them Puget Sound.
pandemonium - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Nothing about that case interests me except the actual case itself. I do like the way it efficiently lays out parts inside the mini tower along with the full height intake vent. Plus it looks like it should be a docking station for 7 of 9. Of course, if she came with it I'd have no arguments what-so-ever. ;)Meaker10 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
You should run 3dmark 11 and both vantage and 11 should be run in xtreme mode.Meaker10 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
I own a P180 mini and knew there was a lack of airflow to the GFX cards without the use of thermal imaging products LOL.I solved it by creating an intake from the bottom middle of the case where there is a filter.
JPForums - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
While I believe 3DMarks results to be far less relevant than game frame rates, there is a way to make them far more relevant that what is posted here. It should be obvious. When you are comparing setups capable of driving high graphical settings on multi-monitor configurations, there is no way you won't end up CPU limited on a single low resolution monitor.
I see two 1024x768 resolution tests, one 1280x768, and one unmarked which I'll optimistically place at 1280x768 (given that 3DMarks 05 and 06 are very similar to begin with). I also see that the 3DMarks Vantage test is entry level. One would naturally assume that the highest end cards would be most able to differentiate themselves with the highest end tests.
I don't see earlier 3DMarks test as being relevant due to lack of coherency with modern games. Later 3DMarks test are irrelevant in this case due to the fact that were run at resolutions that you never run your game test at.
My suggestion is to use 3DMarks 11 and perhaps Vantage and apply the same rules you use when checking out games. In this article, you ran everything at 1920x1080 and varied some graphics settings at the high end. It looks like you also saw the multi-monitor 5760x1200 as relevant. It would seem to me that the the most relevant resolution to run 3DMarks at (in this article) would be 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Then, as with the games, vary the settings at the high end. Finally, if you are so inclined (and if the test allows) check out multi-monitor resolutions or higher single monitor resolutions.
In other articles that display gaming performance at lower resolutions, it may be worth checking out those resolutions as well. However, keep in mind the capability of the systems you review when deciding on a single resolution.
HangFire - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
The purpose of these benchmarks is to make most video cards appear obsolete and use obscure features of newer video cards that may or may not appear in games for 3-5 years. In an era of 1080p constrained console game ports, expecting video benchmarks to be relevant is a stretch.Everyone can appreciate a 24-26 inch monitor over a smaller one, and the industry standardizing on 1920x1080 makes such monitors affordable as well. However dual monitors of higher resolution are much more than twice as expensive, and any dual monitor seems an extravagant waste of money when most games do not make good use of them. So, it appears we have arrived at a plateau in video resolutions for a while, where the highest end video cards simply are not necessary, and the benchmarks that drive them, irrelevant.