System Buyer’s Guide: $1700 Performance Midrange
by Mike Jones and Jarred Walton on May 12, 2010 4:52 AM ESTIntel Performance Midrange System
Since the introduction of Intel’s i5-750 in Q3 09—delivering quad-core performance that tops the i7-920 for significantly less money—reviewers and builders alike have praised its performance, efficiency, flexibility and value. Even as Intel has rounded out their CPU lineup with various Clarkdale CPUs, the i5-750 remains a compelling processor that can serve as the base for a performance/value machine. Compared to our last Intel performance midrange system, enthusiasts can begin their builds with $100 or more of combined CPU and mobo savings in the piggy bank, or use it to beef up other components. Better performance for a substantially lower platform cost? That's music to the DIYer's ears. Here's the basic setup.
At $200, the i5-750 is a terrific bargain. As noted in our Lynnfield article from September 2009, the i5-750 brings quad-core performance that tops the i7-920 in most benchmarks to the significantly less expensive LGA-1156 platform. While the lack of Hyper-Threading costs the i5-750 some performance in well-threaded applications, its aggressive Turbo Modes—which enable the clock speed to rise to 3.2GHz whenever two or more cores are idle—makes it a processor that punches well above its weight in the majority of usage scenarios. The i5-750 is also a great overclocker, but requires overvolting to get anywhere near its full potential. If you’re buying the 750 with anything more than mild overclocking in mind, the retail cooler is not going to be sufficient.
The Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 is a feature-rich option for the builder who might want CrossFireX down the road and it comes at a midrange price. It's an excellent choice for an i5-750 system designed to maximize performance, flexibility, and value. Its feature set includes eight USB 2.0 ports with two more headers on the board, and two more USB 3.0 ports on the rear I/O panel. For hard drives, the board has six SATA 3Gbps ports and two more SATA 6Gbps ports. If you want to enable both USB3 and SATA6, the primary GPU slot will drop down to x8 speed, while the secondary x16 slot always runs at x4 bandwidth. For the price, however, it's a very good board and it has good overclocking abilities if you're interested.
Options for Intel 1156 motherboards abound, and we want to mention a few alternatives. First, if you prefer higher performance CrossFire (or you want the potential for SLI), look at the MSI P55-GD65. It provides GPUs dual x8 lanes as opposed to the x16/x4 combination on the P55A-UD3; you also get Firewire support. Though not without a blemish or two, it offers performance and features on par with more expensive offerings and exceptional power consumption characteristics. One major drawback with the MSI board is that tweaking memory timings is an all-or-nothing affair, so if you prefer to set most to "Auto" while only changing a few important items, look elsewhere. For non-CrossFire/SLI setups, the ASUS P7P55D-E LX also boasts USB3 and SATA6 support, with your primary GPU slot always running at x16. Not surprisingly, the P7P55D-E LX is another great overclocking board for this price range, just like most ASUS boards.
All of the boards we mentioned are P55 chipset offerings, which is preferable for overclocking and dual GPU configurations. However, if you don't need a lot of CPU cores and want to save money on your power bills, the H55 chipset boards and Clarkdale CPUs are certainly a great option. You can also get an H55 board and use a Lynnfield CPU as the boards do tend to cost a bit less. The BIOSTAR TH55XE, ASUS P7H55D-M EVO, and Gigabyte GA-H55M-USB3 are all worth a look. Paired with an Intel Core i3-540, they can shave ~5W to 60W off your system power consumption relative to the recommended i5-750 + P55 setup, and the total cost of the system will drop around $100.
On the other end of the spectrum, overclockers and users looking to potentially move to hex-core Intel chips down the road might want to think about X58 and socket 1366. With the Core i7-920, 3x2GB DDR3, and the least expensive X58 motherboard you're looking at a price increase of around $150 and performance that may not be noticeably better in most applications. Still, some will prefer going with the higher-end Bloomfield route.
A nice change since the days of DDR2 vs. DDR3, triple-channel vs. dual-channel memory is that all of the remaining components for our AMD and Intel platforms are the same. You can find additional information about the other parts and accessories on pages four and five. First, let's look at the AMD motherboard and CPU recommendations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
GullLars - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
So using your own estimation, the optimal load for a PSU is rougly 75%, lower means cooler and more silent but less efficient.The build in question has full load peak power draw roughly 350W from the wall socket. Idle likely under 100W.
750W: optimal efficiency at 750*0,75 = 562W, overshooting by 562/350=1,6x=60%
idle load: <100/750 = 13%, wastefull?
500W: optimal efficiency at 500*0,75 = 375W, overshooting by 375/350=1,06=6%, close to optimal.
idle load: <100/500 = 20%, less wastefull yet still cool at idle fan speed?
Exodite - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Actually it's even less than that as the rated wattage and load level refer to output wattage and load, not input wattage.JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
And despite all this discussion, we already mentioned the potential to downgrade the PSU on page 4:" Those looking to run a lower spec PSU with a single GPU will be fine with the little brother of our recommended PSU, the CORSAIR CMPSU-400CX 400W. Priced at $50 (with a $10 MIR), it should be more efficient when your system is idle while still providing enough juice for the 5850. If you are thinking about going the Clarkdale route and/or a less powerful GPU, then we'd definitely recommend the 400W PSU as a more sensible choice. Just don't try running SLI/CrossFire setups."
Jediron - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
Yes, and the 400watt is only just enough and leave hardly any room for future singlecard upgrades, or a few harddisks for a raid mode. Around 500watt would be optimal for this config and a single videocard.aftereview - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Normally power supply efficiency is rated at close to full load. This means running a power supply outside that range is actually less efficient.At a lower load although it will draw less power and generate less heat in an absolute sense, it will draw more power and generate more heat PER watt.
Now take a 750W and a 500W (similar design) both running at say 400W, generally the 500W will be more efficient, thus draw less and run cooler.
More is better is not necessarily true and too many people seem to forget that.
Your math is correct but the basis for your conclusions is not.
A power supply should be rated to cover the Peak power of the system with a continuous rating close to that of the system.
The power supply chosen for this article happens to have a 80plus rating at 20%, 50% and 80% load (mfg. spec.) which definitely make it suitable for the built. As some other people pointed out, a less expensive unit/lower power would work as well.
JarredWalton - Thursday, May 13, 2010 - link
Some of what you say is actually incorrect. At pretty much any load, a 750W PSU will be quieter than a 500W PSU, because it's not reaching the limits of its design. Also, at 400W load, the 750W will be in the range of maximum efficiency (using 53% of its rated output) while the 500W will be heating up more and running at lower efficiency (80% of maximum output). The 80Plus specs maximum efficiency at 50% load, and while the 500W will be more efficient at 100W loads, once you get to 350W the 750W will be more efficient (unless you're comparing a crappy 750W to a good 500W of course).Also note that at idle power draw of around 100W (give or take), the 500W at 80% efficiency would be using 125W; if the 750W is 70% efficient, it's using 142W. Bump power draw up to 400W and if the 500W is now 82% compared to 85% you're looking at 488W vs. 470W. Basically, you're trading lower power draw at idle for higher power draw at load. But you'll also have a noisier system at load with the 500W, as all PSUs pretty much start ramping fan speed quickly beyond 50% load.
So given the choice, I'd stick a 750W into an upper midrange system, simply because it runs quieter and leaves room to grow (i.e. a second GPU could be added). But, if you know you're never going to add a second GPU or heavily overclock I'd stick with a 500W (as recommended in the text).
Jediron - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
-This system eats aorund 300, not 400watt.-A good psu can cope with a littel heat
-at 300 watt, the 500watt also makes hardly more noise
Three invalid arguments in a row. Need i say more.
Jediron - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
I mean your arguments, not mine.Yours are flawed, based on 400watts at load.
Jediron - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
No, good psu ramping up around 60/70%. Besides, that's what a fan is for, spinning. Noise become nasty, around or above 80%. Below that, most good psu's stay very silent.Futhermore, often you will not even notice it while alot of people are a playing a game at that point and
you can imagine what makes the most noise....
GullLars - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Like my subject title saysI'm so upset now i find it physically challenging to sit still and type.
WHY ON EARTH do you not include an SSD in a $1500+ build in 2010??? But you include BluRay???
Sollution #1:
Remove Bluray, add random dvd burner (if needed) and an Intel x25-V for OS + core apps.
This will roughly double the PCmark vantage score of the machine, and make a serious increase in value.
Sollution #2:
Remove Bluray, downgrade from 5850OC to 5830 (or 5770 for "good enough" instead of best graphics), add random dvd burner (if needed) and an Intel x25-M G2 80GB for OS + apps. This give much greater value, as the 5830 can run all the same games at a slightly lower framerate for $100 less, possibly with a step down in resolution or particle/HDR/texture/AA/AF.
I will speculate the only reason this article got posted and not corrected in the editorial is because Anand is out of the country. I am seriously disappointed such an article was posted on Anandtech.