We double the budget of yesterday's low-cost PC's and build the best possible PC we can for under $2000.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] index.html

I know three categories keeps it nice and clean, but there really need to be four:

1) low (average around $500, maybe $600)
2) mid (average from $1200 to $1500)
3) high (average maybe a little over $2000)
4) no limit; best parts you care to buy

$2000 just seems really high for mid-range if you're thinking in terms of the average consumer.

I agree; $2000 is NOT a mid-range system. When I think midrange, I think $1200-$1500. I like this catagory for a mid-range system because it's arguably close to the cost of purchasing a console and a good HDTV. In my position, I'm looking to replace my three-four year old computer (socket 939 and AGP video card mobo so I need to do a complete rebuild) and I'm torn between spending $1200-$1500 (this includes monitor, something THG doesn't include and should) to either rebuild my computer or get a console and good HDTV. In my mind, a gamer considering a mid-range computer is also the type of person who might consider the console and HDTV gaming solution. Someone willing to spend $2000 on a new computer (without the monitor which will need to be $400-$500 at least to justify the $2000 tower) is not thinking this is "mid-range"; that is an enthusiest's build. Mid-range is someone who wants a solid-performing gaming system but doesn't quite qualify as hardcore gamer.

I don't think the CPU selected is optimal. The editors are spending an additional 240 dollars for 266MGHZ WTF?? The 240 dollars would have been better spent on two additional 500GB hard drive and put the three 500gig drives in a Raid5 array, a much better use of the money. That would provide an effective 1TB of storage and data protection of up to 1 drive failure, much better than an extra 266mghz.

Their budgets were talked a lot about in the previous "low range" article's thread and I think/hope they're going to do things very differently next time - $2,000 before a monitor and OS is definately NOT midrange! I strongly think appropriate sized/resolution monitors should be included. I can live w/o the OS being included.

I'd rather the article be delayed a little so that the proper parts could be gathered, ie the SLI 9600's. And they talk about spending twice as much on the Q6700 for such a minor gain....and then go ahead and use it anyway...lol? Frustrating to read/comprehend O_o

You know what? You're absolutely right.

Our SBM focus this time around was trying to fit in the most powerful hardware up to a certain price point; instead of strictly picking the greatest components regardless of price, we picked the most powerful components we could fit in the budget.

We went with the Q6700 because we had space in the budget, but really a Q6600 is a better value choice. We mentioned that in the article, but the feedback we've been getting is that our readers would prefer us to have selected value over price point.


What I can say is that the editors are taking the feedback into account so we can change it to suit our readers' expectation next time around. In the interim, keep in mind this SBM might not fit your expectation unless you're aware our goal was fitting the most powerful hardware you can under $2000.

We hear you and appreciate your feedback. By the sounds of it, you folks will find the next SBM much more satisfying!

This got me upset.

I think it was quite an odd choice as you can buy the new yorkfield q9300 2.5 GHZ for about $300usd. Or maybe even the Q9450 2.66GHZ for $399usd. It seems to me that if you can get a newer core cpu with the same clock for cheaper you should do so.

indeed, the q6700 was a bad choice for the budget... for those extra dollars you could have bought a better case (if needed) and a better CPU cooler: Tuniq Tower as example.

I don't think I have a midrange gaming system cause seriously. I've spent 1400 US on parts. to put this together.

Q6600 G0 stepping, @ 3,2 ghz 400FSB 1:1 ratio
2 gigs Corsair XMS2DHX DDR2 800mhz 5-5-5-12 1,9v
EVGA GF 8800GTS 512 OC'd and silent @ 720 core and 2000 mem.
Raptor 150 gb 10.000rpm
sata2 Samsung spintpoint T166 500gb.
Thermaltake armor case
OCZ GameXsteam 700Watt PS.
Abit IP35 Pro "Off limits" mobo.

Is that considered midrange? i thought it was high-end pretty much. It's a good bang for the buck. Except for some parts. But why not OC the q6600 a little more instead of using the Q6700.

I hope this helps a bit, I love your articles. But sometimes they are just plain confusing. Maybe it's also difference of tastes.

notice: you could also have put 2 raptors in raid 0 for that cost.
notice2: don't spare out on a cpu cooler, with that case a Tuniq will easily fit in.
notice3: haven't heard much from that mobo, but it seems a good choice.

Any chance we could get a comparison with the last marathons systems and a check of how much it would cost to upgrade them to simular performance?

I understand the point of the Q6700. Next time I thing they should call a Mid cost system at $1500 a high end at $2600 and a really high end at $3500+. Great choice on the RAM, PSU, Case, and motherboard (Although I would prefer a Gigabyte EX38-DS4 ~$206). All the mentioned are solid choices. The CPU cooler is not to my liking, would have preferred a good Zalman or a Thermaltake (ie. Zalman CPNS 9x00). The Raptor seems kind of useless giving the fact that 7200.11 HDDs are only few milliseconds slower in most things, and has better value per GB and price vs performance. radium69 has a good system listed above.

Here is how I see it, for what it's worth:

forgetting price at all... if you place all available procs on a chart based on performance (dual sockets included), the Q6600 is not at the top. It is at a higher point of the middle, sure... but not in the top bracket.

Same goes for the gts, while there are less positions on that chart than for CPUs the same is true, it is still bested by a gtx, gx2 and many dual/tri/quad card setups. Still high-middle but not the top. The rest of the components have less of an impact but the same holds true there.

You cannot base a performance range on price and vice-versa. It is either performance bracketing or price and ranked on the same. If you consider that their brackets for low/mid/high were (I assume here) based on performance first, then it all becomes clear IMO.

If you are basing it on price and put the same scale at work with all possible price points of a computer system in scope then you find that instead of the upper-middle yours is now very much in the lower brackets of the range.

This is not a reflection on you or your parts choices but rather the cold reality that the top end stuff is expensive. Always has been. Most of us have a level that we build to and it usually is in the mid-range area even though it may be "high-end" performance to us. My last build was 2 years ago and cost me $1500 (no monitor or peripherals in that) and I had to admit that it was not the "true" high-end even though my wallet said it was.Sucks sometimes, but that is what enthusiasts must deal with on any hobby... lack o' cash.

It’s obvious that most of Tom’s readers are “Savvy” and we normally enjoy his articles but I find myself going straight to the conclusion these days. It’s not the writing itself, it’s what there making the writers write about, example: “Stepping on 3year old chips”.
I don’t want this to come off wrong because I do enjoy the web sight.

Signed,

A concerned reader

One thing that gives the writers/editors a disadvantage is that they need to actually build/test the box.

In a Perfect world, you would have used some GTS SLI cards for less money as noted, but you did not physically have them handy.

As posters, we have the luxury of hand selecting nearly any component on the the internet.