Why? Just use their 'research' and save a few hunderd bucks. I priced out one of their systems vs newegg, and the difference in price was ~400+ bucks. The only thing missing was their water cooling system. Which is worth what? a 100 bucks max.
for 300 bucks, you can get a very decent size ssd a
For $2,200.00 there's no reason not to have at least small SSD in conjunction with the 1TB WD Caviar Black. I really like the system overall though, and that case is sexy.
That was my initial thought as well. I understand there is a premium for them building it, so $100-200 over cost seems reasonable. I'm curious as to how much the liquid cooling adds to the cost. I would likely do away with one of the GPUs and liquid cooling to get it a bit cheaper.
I love this case. For 3 years my desktop was in a Mini P180. It can house 2 full length graphics cards easily with the bottom cage removed and even can fit 3x 1.120mm radiators if you want to watercool (I did it :D)
Hmm, the review says "one of the quietest gaming desktops we've ever tested", "noise is virtually a non-issue", and "major victory" on "both better thermals on the CPU and much better acoustics".
I'm trying to find the "just ruined" in here.
When I build a quiet system I avoid side fans, because it is difficult to keep the side panel from becoming a sounding board and amplifying the noise of the fan mounted on it, and also because the left panel is highly likely to be in line of site of the user's ear.
However just being difficult doesn't mean it can't be done, and it appears Puget Sound has done it, and did it well.
I have to agree that the side fan is adding "noise", but visual noise, not auditory noise. They can keep the fan itself there, internally mounted, but do away with the ugly fan grill and have a honeycomb or some other pattern of holes for the air to flow through. It provides the same amount of air flow without having a distracting and cheap looking grille mounted to the outside of the otherwise smooth visual line of the case.
I agree, if the fan substantially helps temps I'm all for including it, but a black honeycomb/mesh grille mounted from the inside would look a lot less cheesy.
Also, isn't this essentially the same watercooling system you complained about in the Origin system? Any idea why it is so much quieter here? And is it only the overclock resulting in the large differences in power consumption?
For the lazy enthusiast, you could just order the base system (with an SSD if you want it - reinstalling Windows after the fact is kind of a pain) and then add in the 2nd card for SLI later, do the OC yourself, and get a big drive for storage on your own to save some coin and avoid the markups. You'd still pay a decent premium, but at least you'd know it worked when it got to your door.
"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.
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.
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. ;)
Given the way 3DMark's results can skew towards being CPU-limited by Sandy Bridge we're becoming increasingly less enamored with it. Independently as a reviewer I can tell you exactly how these configurations should be ordered in terms of gaming performance, and out of all four of these tests the only one that looks the closest to correct is 3DMark03. That flies in the face of "newer is better"; what do you guys think? Are these still useful or is there some change that should be made?
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.
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.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
Back to Article
Velotop - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
I may have to think twice about building my own. Plenty of research time saved with something like this one.michal1980 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Why? Just use their 'research' and save a few hunderd bucks. I priced out one of their systems vs newegg, and the difference in price was ~400+ bucks. The only thing missing was their water cooling system. Which is worth what? a 100 bucks max.for 300 bucks, you can get a very decent size ssd a
RaistlinZ - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
For $2,200.00 there's no reason not to have at least small SSD in conjunction with the 1TB WD Caviar Black. I really like the system overall though, and that case is sexy.bplewis24 - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
That was my initial thought as well. I understand there is a premium for them building it, so $100-200 over cost seems reasonable. I'm curious as to how much the liquid cooling adds to the cost. I would likely do away with one of the GPUs and liquid cooling to get it a bit cheaper.scook9 - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
I love this case. For 3 years my desktop was in a Mini P180. It can house 2 full length graphics cards easily with the bottom cage removed and even can fit 3x 1.120mm radiators if you want to watercool (I did it :D)This post has all the pictures of the various incarnations I crammed into that case
http://forum.notebookreview.com/notebook-cosmetic-...
jigglywiggly - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
They just ruined the case by adding that fan on the side, the case is so quiet otherwise... sound dampening materials etc.HangFire - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Hmm, the review says "one of the quietest gaming desktops we've ever tested", "noise is virtually a non-issue", and "major victory" on "both better thermals on the CPU and much better acoustics".I'm trying to find the "just ruined" in here.
When I build a quiet system I avoid side fans, because it is difficult to keep the side panel from becoming a sounding board and amplifying the noise of the fan mounted on it, and also because the left panel is highly likely to be in line of site of the user's ear.
However just being difficult doesn't mean it can't be done, and it appears Puget Sound has done it, and did it well.
sully213 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
I have to agree that the side fan is adding "noise", but visual noise, not auditory noise. They can keep the fan itself there, internally mounted, but do away with the ugly fan grill and have a honeycomb or some other pattern of holes for the air to flow through. It provides the same amount of air flow without having a distracting and cheap looking grille mounted to the outside of the otherwise smooth visual line of the case.strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
I agree, if the fan substantially helps temps I'm all for including it, but a black honeycomb/mesh grille mounted from the inside would look a lot less cheesy.Also, isn't this essentially the same watercooling system you complained about in the Origin system? Any idea why it is so much quieter here? And is it only the overclock resulting in the large differences in power consumption?
A5 - Tuesday, April 5, 2011 - link
For the lazy enthusiast, you could just order the base system (with an SSD if you want it - reinstalling Windows after the fact is kind of a pain) and then add in the 2nd card for SLI later, do the OC yourself, and get a big drive for storage on your own to save some coin and avoid the markups. You'd still pay a decent premium, but at least you'd know it worked when it got to your door.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.
SilthDraeth - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
I was going to make a post but it is apparently spam.doobydoo - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Only when you do it :-)EBH - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
Another 1000$ system that only uses:Audio
Realtek ALC892 HD Audio
Speaker, mic, line-in, and surround jacks for 7.1 sound
Optical out
/facepalm
strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 6, 2011 - link
I'm sure they offer external sound cards for the 0.0001% of the population who might notice a differenceRev1 - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - link
Is there much of a difference between a X58 sli and a P67? Meaning x16 x16 vrs. x16 x8 in terms of performance?