Introducing the AVADirect Compact Gaming PC

It's easy to build a powerful desktop if you take a big, beefy enclosure like SilverStone's FT-02 or the Thermaltake Level 10 GT and just fill it with the highest performance parts on the market, overclock them, and call it a day—and certainly we've seen our share of those. Taking all of that raw performance and shrinking it into a MicroATX case can be a little more difficult, though, especially when you're dissipating a cumulative TDP of at least 730 watts. Yet when we saw that AVADirect had produced another compact but incredibly high performance gaming desktop, we had to take a look. Gulftown may be on its way to bed soon with the advent of Sandy Bridge-E, but let's see if we can't give it one last hurrah in the process.

While this custom build isn't super compact, it's certainly a fair sight smaller than many of the gaming systems we've reviewed. It sure doesn't feel smaller when you carry it, though, and that may have something to do with the configuration.

These days one of the big questions for boutiques, at least as far as I've heard, has really been this: "Gulftown or Sandy Bridge?" AnandTech readers are a fairly informed lot, so for them it's (almost) a no brainer: Sandy Bridge. So why is the AVADirect system we have in house Gulftown-based? The answer turns out to be a bit complicated.

I don't presume to speak for AVADirect or really any of the boutiques, but this is a question that I've fielded a couple of times, because it boils down to the two extra cores on Gulftown plus the X58's dual full 16x PCI Express 2.0 lanes. In print, both of these just look better to the average consumer than the "limitations" Sandy Bridge poses. You may be able to get an NF-200-equipped motherboard to at least checkbox the PCI Express limitation, but Sandy Bridge doesn't presently offer six executable cores. Even though virtually no games will take advantage of them (and in fact, generally speaking Sandy Bridge is the superior gaming CPU), it's still an important checkbox for the more-money-than-sense market.

As an aside, I do want to point out that while the Intel Core i7-2600K is preferable to the i7-990X in 90% of cases, there are the 10% of us that do video editing on our PCs. In those instances, the i7-990X's two additional cores can make a tremendous difference that Sandy Bridge needs a heavy overclock to make up.

For the rest of the system, I'll just say that I saw AVADirect sending a similar build out to other sites and had to bring the tiny monster in house for a review, if only to satisfy my own curiosity. In the process they gave me some options for how to configure it, and the only request I made was the CrossFired AMD Radeon HD 6990s. This is a configuration I just haven't had the opportunity to test yet, something I've rectified here.

Application and Futuremark Performance

Where the CPU is concerned, the AVADirect unit should be fairly predictable: any task that can leverage the extra two cores of the i7-990X is going to see a measurable lead, while tasks that lean on heavy IPC will give the i7-2600K-based systems the advantage. When we get into the graphics subsystem is where we'll begin to see some separation, and where our more interesting results will surface.

Systems pretty much fall in line where you'd expect them to, just as predicted. The CyberPower unit enjoys a slight lead due to a slightly higher overclock on the CPU than AVADirect's, but we're in the realm of 4.4GHz and 4.5GHz overclocks, where performance can begin to depend largely on just luck of the draw with the processor.

Things also start to spread out when we get to quad-GPU scaling. 3DMark06 is clearly CPU-limited (if you think a GeForce GTX 570 is faster than four Cayman cores, I have a bridge to sell you), but NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 590s seem to be handling quad scaling better than AMD's Radeons are. But hey, this is 3DMark, so let's look at actual gaming results, shall we?

Gaming Performance

We're dealing with four top end GPUs in the AVADirect Compact Gaming PC we have for review; nobody's buying this thing for Minesweeper. What I was personally interested in was getting AMD Radeon HD 6990 quad-CrossFire numbers in house, since I've already reviewed the GeForce GTX 590 on its own and in SLI. Both of these dual-GPU cards are rare as hen's teeth in the marketplace right now, and speaking with different boutiques and OEMs it seems to be an issue with supply.

A pair of Radeon HD 6990s is going to be complete overkill at 1080p just like the GTX 590s in SLI were, but this is where we ran into a real problem with AMD's kit. I've personally chided NVIDIA's multi-monitor solution as feeling grafted on, an "oh crap" addition to their graphics hardware to compete with AMD's EyeFinity. Unfortunately, with the Radeons AMD seems to be leaning too heavily on DisplayPort, because while NVIDIA's solution may feel like a last minute addition, it's a last minute addition that supports triple-DVI (and variations including HDMI). Theoretically AMD's solution should as well using included active Mini-DisplayPort-to-DVI/HDMI adaptors, except with our review unit, it doesn't. I tried multiple adaptors, multiple drivers, and multiple different monitor combinations, and I just couldn't get the card to see more than two screens. While it turned out that one of the Mini-DisplayPort ports on the HD 6990 we were testing wasn't functioning properly, I still wound up having to order a Mini-DisplayPort-to-DisplayPort cable to test the pair of HD 6990s in surround.

Part of the problem really does seem to stem from the overreliance on DisplayPort, but my biggest beef is actually the use of Mini-DisplayPort. Inexplicably the HD 6990 does not include Mini-DisplayPort to regular DisplayPort adaptors, and not only that, you're going to find those adaptors surprisingly rarefied. My past issues getting the quad-GPU GeForce GTX 590 SLI solution running in Surround are only repeated here with the HD 6990 quad-Fire solution. There's a reason boutiques aren't going out of their way to sell you surround gaming rigs from either vendor.

But let's start with performance at our standard 1080p resolution in both High and Ultra configurations first. Then we'll get to the triple-head results.

It's clear that even with a 4.4GHz Intel Core i7-990X the quad-GPU solution is CPU-limited in some of our tests. Also unusual but worth pointing out is the comparatively poor performance in Mafia II; 100+ fps is still very good, but even a pair of GeForce GTX 560 Ti cards in SLI beats the pair of HD 6990s despite multiple retests to confirm. Four GPUs for 1080p "High" is silly, though, so let's move on to our maxed out settings.

We still run into a few CPU-limited situations with 1080p and antialiasing in the mix, which really throws into relief just how grossly overkill any multi-GPU solution is for this common resolution, much less four GPUs. On my own desktop (gaming at 1920x1200) I've almost never experienced a situation where I felt like a single GeForce GTX 580 (or comparatively, a single Radeon HD 6970) just wasn't enough. So to fully tax the GPUs, we have three 1920x1200 LCDs in a triple-head configurations; now we'll see if we can separate the men from the boys....

Comparatively, AMD's quad-GPU support looks a bit shaky against NVIDIA's, but really this is academic anyhow. You'll notice how even our "slowest" solution, a pair of GTX 560 Ti's, is still able to consistently run above 30fps (though admittedly that does ignore the hiccups inherent to multi-GPU setups, e.g. micro-stutter, game profiles, updated drivers, etc.).

Honestly I have a hard time justifying any quad-GPU configuration. Power consumption isn't commensurate with the gaming experience they give you and in fact, the added complication is oftentimes just not worth it. Cooling four GPUs is also obtrusively loud unless you opt for a custom water-cooling rig, but either way it still feels like buying a Lamborghini to drive around suburbia. A pair of GTX 580s or a single 590—or a pair of 6970s or a single 6990—should really be as fast as any sensible gamer ought to be looking to go.

Build, Noise, Heat, and Power Consumption

When I requested the AVADirect Compact Gaming PC with the pair of AMD Radeon HD 6990s, I promised Misha (the AVADirect CEO) I wouldn't ding AVADirect for noise on this build.  It gets loud under load, sure, but what do you expect from four GPUs in a micro-ATX chassis? For what it's worth, the engineers really did the best they could with the build and it shows: for such a small case, the Compact Gaming PC is a remarkably clean and well thought out assembly. That's what I really want to see when I review these custom systems, that focus on detail and order that most of us home builders (or at least myself) may not spend as much time with.

AVADirect's assembly for the Compact Gaming PC is clean, orderly, and fairly intelligent. Processor cooling is channeled smartly by converting the rear exhaust into an intake, blowing air directly through the Prolimatech Megahalems which exhausts that air out of the top of the enclosure. Cabling is organized as best it can be given the sheer number of power leads required for the two Radeons. AVADirect opts to set the top front fan as an intake and the bottom as an exhaust. There's no side intake to feed the Radeons or even a good place to mod one in, so AVADirect seems to be making the best of a bad situation. For this build, a pair of single-GPU cards with blower style coolers would probably make a lot more sense, but it's impressive that this combination of parts at this level of performance even fits into an enclosure this small.

AVADirect further mitigates the cooling situation by placing rubber spacers between the two Radeons, allowing air to flow between the two cards. This is one area where NVIDIA's cooling solutions have consistently made more sense and I am still perplexed by AMD's stock cooling choices for the 6000 series: NVIDIA gears their coolers to still be reasonably functional in dual-GPU situations by recessing the shroud over the fan just enough to allow two cards bunched together to still get air. AMD's cooling shrouds for the 5000 series were at least contoured enough to allow air to get in, but the big boxy shrouds of the 6000 series seem like a real step backwards.

The temperature HWMonitor shows is only for the hottest 6990 core in the setup, but it's cause for alarm. AVADirect includes fan controllers in the build to allow you to fine tune cooling (by the way, check out the awesome thermals on the 990X, fantastic performance for such a small space!), but the 6990s just run too hot. It's no surprise AVADirect left the performance switches on the 6990 cards alone. The bottom 6990 really runs a lot better, but we're basically pushing the limits of what a machine this small can handle thermally here.

And finally, the other major drawback of going for Gulftown instead of Sandy Bridge: substantially higher power consumption. Idle consumption is particularly dire, while load consumption is at least better than a pair of GTX 590s in SLI. But you don't really spend this much money on a system because you're worried about a high power bill, do you? The GPU temperatures are a far greater concern, and outside of getting a different case and motherboard (which AVADirect will happily do sell you), this is a system that we would be hesitant to run long-term.

Conclusion: Great Engineering, Change the Configuration

While our last review of an AVADirect desktop was the Nano Gaming Cube, which seemed to be practically bursting at the seams with hardware, the Lian Li enclosure used for the Compact Gaming PC we have in house seems far better suited to the tasks at hand. AVADirect's engineers were able to put together a smart, clean design and rise to the challenge of cooling such a monstrous machine to the best of their ability.

As the end buyer you can benefit from that without having to make so many sacrifices, though. The smart consumer will make two major changes to the build: go for a substantially cheaper Sandy Bridge-based system with an overclocked i7-2600K, and at most get a pair of GeForce GTX 580s in SLI. While AVADirect is willing to back up a configuration like this with a three year warranty, why even tempt fate? Four GPUs is overkill. Our own testing has revealed that two GTX 580s are going to get the job done just fine on their own, even in 5760x1200 surround gaming.

We're also dealing with a system where price clearly isn't an issue: the build we have in house is a show pony, the kind of halo product that a consumer can look at and go "well if they can handle something that extravagant, imagine what they can do with a more modest build."

Honestly I don't have any major complaints that can be linked directly to AVADirect; none of the upgrade prices seemed particularly unreasonable, although the red Lian Li case is no longer offered (much to my chagrin). I do take issue with the buying experience in one area, though: too many options. AVADirect'll let you build just about any computer you want, but the overwhelming selection makes me long for the more direct configurations of War Factory or the vetted component choices of Puget Systems. If you know exactly what you want but you can't be bothered to build it yourself, AVADirect's choices are great, but for casual buyers there's not much point in listing 150+ different memory configurations.

With all that said, if you're looking for a good boutique build with fair prices and strong customer service (the hallmark of buying boutique), it's hard to go too wrong with AVADirect...just make sure you pick the right parts. And isn't that what customer service is there for?