In Depth: Can a £300 gaming PC compare to a £3,000 one?

Benchmark results are all very well, but can you feel the numbers? When it comes to PC performance and especially gaming grunt, that's the key question.

Of course, everybody knows high-end PC components are piddle-poor value for money. You don't need us to tell you Intel's latest £800 six-core monster, the Core i7 3960X, isn't eight times as good as a £100 quad-core AMD Phenom II.

The same goes for every other component class. Whether it's graphics cards, motherboards or especially storage, your bang for buck plummets horribly at the top of the price scales. None of that, however, is the same as saying high-end clobber doesn't deliver any benefits for the cost.

There's little doubt extreme edition processors and the latest multi-billion transistor GPUs will spew out unholy benchmark numbers. The thing is, we're less sure how much impact that has on subjective gaming pleasure. Putting it another way, if we plonked you down in front of two PCs, one trimmed out with the finest kit known to man, one built down to a modest price point, and fired up your favourite games, would you actually be able to see or feel the difference?

So let's be clear about this. Our task this month isn't merely to prove that spending a shedload on the finest PC components isn't cost effective. It's to find out whether it makes the slightest difference to the way games look and feel.

To do that, we've built two very different systems, focussing on the three core components that influence performance. So that'll be the processor, graphics card and hard drive.

Our money-no-object rig weighs in at nearly £3,000 for those components alone. And our budget-oriented alternative? It's less than £300. Can a system costing just one tenth the price of another really deliver an indistinguishable gaming experience? Time to find out.

First up, let's lay out some ground rules for this intriguing contest. Critically, our main focus is gaming. That doesn't mean we'll be excluding overall system performance entirely. We'll chuck that into the mix for context. But it won't influence the overall result.

However, what will effect the outcome, and something we're contriving to be quite specific about, is the display. The first thing you'll have noticed is that we're not including it in the core set of components. The reasons for this are the frankly enormous array of possible PC monitors and the related issue of user preference.

For most gamers, if money was no object they'd probably run the most powerful possible PC. When it comes to screens, the choice isn't so obvious. Would you go for the largest possible display? Perhaps, but only if the system in question doesn't double as a multi-purpose desktop.

Then again, maybe it's maximum resolution you should be aiming for? In which case, you'll have to compromise on screen size, since the highest resolution monitors are not the largest.

With all that in mind, we've opted for a single control monitor. While there is a niche of gamers who demand the highest possible resolutions, it's debatable how much difference it makes to the visuals when you extend beyond 1080p Full HD.

Moreover, 1080p has become the de facto standard for many games. It's also a resolution that dominates regardless of screen size. The vast majority of PC monitors from 22- to 30-inch and beyond now sport a 1,920 x 1,080 pixel grid. The control screen we've gone for is a 24-inch example.

The make and model are not important. What does matter is that 1080p pixel grid. It puts a limit on the number of pixels any gaming PC is likely to have to pump out.

Immediately, that plays into the hands of the cheaper system. There's little doubt that life would be much harder for it at a resolution like 2,560 x 1,600. But our argument is that even at the high end and regardless of screen size, the most likely resolution for gaming is going to be 1,920 x 1,080. So, that's what we're sticking to.

Taking that logic and running with it a little further, we've removed another image-related stipulation. The two systems are not required to run at the same image quality settings in-game. If you think that tilts things even further in favour of the cheapo rig, you'd be absolutely right.

But we think our reasoning makes sense and that is this comparison isn't about the numbers. It's about the gaming experience - nothing more, nothing less. Our plan is to set the two systems up and put gamers in front of them in a blind comparison test.

So, what matters isn't making sure that the two systems are running exactly the same level of anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering or shader complexity. What matters is whether gamers can tell the difference. If dialling down the eye candy doesn't make a difference that's noticeable, then that's exactly what we'll do.

However, one thing you should be very clear about is that we won't be compromising the settings on the high-end rig. For each and every game we'll tune it to look as spectacular as physically possible. The challenge will be getting the low-end system right.

As ever, it's a question of playing off image quality and frame rates with the latter being particularly critical. Knock the anti-aliasing down from 8x to 4x and few, if anyone, will notice. Chop the frame rate in half and that's a different matter, especially if the result ever dips below 30 frames per second.

With all that in mind, it's clear that this entire experiment is heavy on the subjectivity. But that, frankly, is the whole point. Like we said, we all know how a benchmark fisticuffs would turn out. And it wouldn't be pretty. What we didn't know going in was exactly how the real world gaming experience compared.

So what are the hardware variables, how did we set the systems up and what games did we go for?

Component wise, our focus is on the three components that have the biggest influence on gaming performance: the processor, the graphics card and the hard drive. Obviously, there's a little more to it than that.

But beyond those three, not only do the performance implications drop off, the price delta shrinks enormously, too. Our reasoning was to allow roughly £100 each for the low end rig. We didn't put a price limit on the top-end monster, but in the end the average wasn't a millions away from a nicely symmetrical £1,000 per component.

With our systems specified, built and saddled up with a fresh copy of Windows 7, the next task was game title selection.

This is a subject ripe for hang-ups, so we elected to go with some very straightforward criteria. Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim made the cut because it's a super hot title, it looks great, it's fairly demanding and it ticks the large-levels and long-draw distance boxes.

Next up is Crysis 2. Okay, as a game to play it's pretty crappy. And its execution reeks of console-port compromises. But in many ways its graphical fidelity can be regarded as the benchmark. In parts it's absolutely stunning.

Our final candidate is DiRT 3. We wanted a driving game in the mix and there's no doubting DiRT 3 is a looker. Granted, this trio is hardly comprehensive. But obvious omissions such as, perhaps an MMORPG such as WOW don't tend to be hugely performance intensive. They're coded to support very broad user bases. So, while there will always be a few exceptions, we reckon our chosen trio gives a pretty decent picture of overall gaming performance.

Of course, choosing games is only half the solution. We next had to select image quality settings. From the outset we'd decided that running at 1080p native resolution was essential, so that bit was easy.

Configuring the high-end system was very straight forward, too. The system has performance to burn so it was simply a case of maxing everything out and then jumping in-game to make sure everything was running smoothly.

Like we said, we didn't want our budget rig getting an easy ride. It would have to compete with the very highest possible image quality settings currently available. Indeed, tuning up the cheapo machine was intriguing.

Going in, we'd expected that it would be a finely balanced process of playing off image quality settings and frame rates. One thing we were certain about was that smooth frame rates were essential. Any keen gamer is going to pick up on jerky, unresponsive performance.

Image quality, on the other hand, is a different matter. How many people, for instance, can tell the difference between 16 times anisotropic filter and eight times filtering? Likewise, for any given game, does knocking settings such as shader or shadow quality down make a big difference to perceived image quality?

We were in for a long haul. Or so we thought. It transpired, it was much easier for the simple reason that it handled the highest image quality settings much better than we expected. One reason for this is the undeniable influence that console games have on game engines. The Xbox 360 and PS3 are positively ancient but retain an iron grip over game development. That's lead to stagnation.

The bottom line is that we needed to do relatively little to get our affordable PC running smoothly. Mostly it was a case of dropping the anti-aliasing from 8x to 4x (though Crysis 2 doesn't actually offer proper AA, which is probably a big help) and tweaking just a handful of further settings. For the most part, both rigs ran with ultra settings across the board.

The final part of the puzzle is the actual blind comparison. The key here was to keep the identities of the systems and the components included completely concealed.

In fact, we didn't even want our testers knowing what an enormous gulf in hardware specification they were experiencing. Instead, all our testers knew was that they were comparing the gaming experience on two different systems.

We also wanted to get impressions of different aspects of gaming performance including in-game frame rates, graphical quality and game load and level load times. With that in mind, the test went something like this.

Both machines were up and running at the same time on the same desk and via the same 24-inch high quality 1080p monitor. Switching between the two was a matter of the few seconds required to move the DVI cable across, allowing an almost instant comparison.

Our first test involved playing each title from an identical pre-loaded and paused game state without observing level loads or desktop performance. We wanted an unbiased assessment of the in-game experience, something that can be coloured by sitting through a lengthy level load.

Our testers were allowed around ten minutes per title to jump back and forth between machines, as often as they liked. For this comparison we didn't make any specific demands, we simply asked the testers how they thought the two systems compared.

Next was a test starting from the desktop and involving loading, first, the main game interface and then a game level, after which further game play and general impressions were taken. as well as adding storage performance into the mix, we also asked our testers more specific questions regarding performance and image quality.

Which, if either, of the two systems had better graphics? Did one or the other deliver a noticeably smoother frame rate or superior response to mouse and keyboard inputs?

Finally, we allowed our testers a little time to try out basic PC usage to get a feel for desktop performance: firing up a few apps, surfing the web and watching some high definition video.

Among all this there's a commonly encountered and gaming-specific issue that isn't covered and that's installation. There's absolutely no question the high-end machine with its ultra-fast SSD storage was much quicker during the installations. Without a doubt, this is something our testers would have noticed.

All of the above, of course, concerns subjective experiences. When you get right down to it, that's all that actually matters in the real world. If it feels the same, who cares if it runs 10 times faster?

That said, we also ran a suite of benchmarks to provide context and to underline the significance or insignificance of the comparative numbers. If our testers couldn't feel the performance difference, we looked at whether that reflected in the numbers. Likewise, if the gap in system performance was big enough to be picked up subjectively, was that also reflected in the benchmark numbers?

So there you have it. Two systems. one for those with money to burn. Another for those on a tight budget. Tested by keen gamers and as you'll see, the results are frankly astonishing.

~ Original Source ~

In Depth: How overclocking went back to its roots

The next generation of hardware will come with more overclocking options than you can shake a big stick at

Overclocking has come a full circle. It started as a niche technical trick where shifting a jumper on the motherboard would let you run a processor's multiplier higher than it should.

This soon led to Intel and AMD screaming about phantom lost sales and releasing locked processors - which stopped no one.

Probably the darkest days of overclocking were in the Pentium 4 era where idiotic design decisions produced products that could barely be overclocked at all.

Today overclocking has gone back to its roots, with high-end products designed for overclocking and designs built upon processes that are ripe for extreme amounts of overclocking.

In fact, on the Intel platform it's almost reached the situation where you'd be mad not to overclock the processor, as even the basic models are happy to accommodate a large 20 per cent increase in stock speed. Even graphics card stock drivers come with an overclocking feature built into the standard releases.

Windows-based software overclocking tools make getting more speed from the processor, graphics card and RAM so easy that it's well worth taking thirty minutes to see how much more speed your system is capable of.

With the lower initial running temperatures of the latest processor it means you're able to get more out of your overclocking kit. Excellent coolers can be picked up for as little as £20 while standard water cooling system will set you back just £50. With Intel, Nvidia and AMD embracing overclocking let's take a look at what's new.

The base of all systems starts with the processor architecture, as we'd hope you already know, Intel and its Core iX architecture has been romping away from the rest of the field… or just AMD, in pretty much every metric.

AMD has become the sad-eyed puppy dog in the pound, which if you don't take home now will get a special injection from doctor Snoozy. Both the last-gen Lynnfield and even more so, the current Sandy Bridge architectures provide a design that overclocks very well. For Lynnfield, 4GHz has become the norm, while Sandy Bridge gets close to 5GHz.

But let's not overlook AMD, its processors have always been good value for money: for instance, the Phenom II BE with its off-the-wall three and six-core models offered air-cooled overclocking that could hit 4GHz. While its latest Bulldozer architecture is making reviewers scratch their heads over its performance, the low-power design provides overclocks into the mid-4GHz range, which certainly matches the Intel's offerings.

Interestingly at this point both AMD and Intel have introduced the same type of new voltage and power regulation systems, alongside the limited core 'turbo' modes for thread-limited acceleration. Tweaking these new voltages and modes is a new element to what had become a relatively tried-and-tested system of increasing the front side bus (FSB), tweaking the CPU voltage and repeating until cooked.

Intel has its Turbo Boost technology and AMD has Turbo Core, and both effectively provide a type of restricted automatic overclocking.

AMD knows how much power is required to complete every operation based on what's in-flight over each core, the processor can evaluate the total power output of the processor.

If the TDP allows it, the AMD Bulldozer has three P-states that it can switch to: base P2, intermediate P1 and higher P0. Having the extra two states is important, as P1 is available with all cores running, while P0 kicks in only with two or more idle cores.

This leads, for example, to the FX-8150 having a base 3.6GHz clock, a 3.9GHz Turbo Core and a 4.2GHz Max Turbo Core. Overclocking the FX-8150 in any way will require a core voltage increase. All the AMD FX processors come multiplier unlocked, so they can be directly overclocked that way easily enough. Up to around 4GHz, shifting the core voltage from the stock 1.332v to 1.38v will usually surface.

To move beyond this it will be necessary to disable the Turbo Core feature, along with Over Current Protection and Thermal Protection, and setting Load Line Calibration to high. This is also accompanied by steep increases in core voltage up to 1.5v, which also means a huge decrease in power efficiency, but facilitates speeds up to and beyond 4.5GHz. Whoop!

Of course, good overclocking is only possible with good cooling setup. While processor cooling hasn't changed that much it's simply gotten a whole lot more efficient.

Both Intel and AMD now push liquid-based cooling solutions for both their high-end processor options, not that they're required as such. The standard all-in-one liquid coolers, such as the Antec Kuhler H2O 620, will set you back around £50, considering some high-end air coolers can cost you that much this represents good value, as it will usually out perform them.

But you don't have to go and blow the bank to get good air-cooling. Both the Xigmatek Gaia or the Cooler Master Hyper TX3 EVO, come in at under £25 and provide efficient cooling.

If you're in the market for a cooler, we always recommend direct-contact heatpipes on the processor. The Titan Hati is an excellent option at £38 or for a bargain pick up the Xigmatek Loki for as little as £15.

Be aware that it's useless having the best cooler in the world unless it's correctly mounted with the right application of thermal paste.

A huge turn-off for many casual overclockers has been the random and awkward need to use the BIOS, and while third-party Windows tools had managed to help ease the problem they could never fully replace BIOS settings and repeated restarts became the height of tedium.

Initially, motherboard manufacturers provided overclocking tools, such as the wonderful MSI Afterburner tool. Nvidia did it early on as well, but ultimately it was AMD Overdrive and the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility that brought an official stamp of approval to the Windows overclocking game.

But just when you thought the BIOS had finally kicked the bucket like an 1980's film remake: it's back and badder than ever. The new EFI BIOS system enables a full GUI-style interface at the BIOS level. It has the ability to offer a more functional BIOS experience as well as a horribly over-engineered interface.

After a few teething troubles most manufacturers have managed to develop usable interfaces but you'd hope they could make them easier to navigate and enable scroll wheels. Besides that, a big boon is that the reboot speed is so much higher.

Memory is still open for overclocking but the state of play has changed as controllers are now onboard the processors. This has helped increase bandwidth so much over the speed of off-processor chipset-based memory controllers, which has meant overclocking memory returns far less in terms of overall system speed.

To take even more of the fun out it, the XMP memory standard effectively provides overclocked default timings for performance DIMMs. This means that by default, as long as the motherboard and memory both support XMP, as soon as you slap in your memory it'll run at its maximum speed with optimum timings without any tweaking.

That's not to say you can't overclock memory. It's easier than ever as most motherboards provide an independent memory bus clock setting, memory timings and memory voltage controls. As with the processor, once you start increasing the clock speed this extra burden on the memory can require increased voltages as power requirements go up.

The stock voltage with DDR3 is 1.5 volts. As guidance, the maximum JEDEC recommended voltage is 1.575 and modules should be able to handle 1.975 volts without permanent damage, though they don't have to function at this level. Most overclocking memory requires a 1.65 voltage and in reality there's no reason to go above 1.85 volts, while for general use 1.7 volts is a safe maximum.

On top of all of this is graphics card overclocking. For the last few years this has been made a doddle with overclocking tools included in official drivers. Once installed just a few clicks provides access to the main GPU, shader and memory clock speeds.

This is all besides fan control too and all of which together totals a complete system control from Windows - life has never been so easy.

~ Original Source ~