Puget Response to Maximum PC

[PCC-Jon]

In a recent holiday issue of Maximum PC Magazine, a Puget Custom Computers machine was written up in review. I responded to this review, which you can read at:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/max_pc.php

Post your discussion here!

[wargasm]

Im a little confused as to how your tests varied so much from Maximum PC's results. While MaxPC is a reputable source of benchmarks and reviews, I think your results may be suspect. Could you please clarify your process and methods used?

[PCC-Jon]

There is no variation in test results that I know of. We ran the same tests and got the same results. The only difference is in the comparisons and the iterpretation of the results. In fact, I don't think Maximum PC even provided raw scores...they just gave "comparison scores" to their zero point configuration, which was a FX55 6800 Ultra SLI machine.

So the difference: Maximum PC compared our system to a FX55 6800 Ultra SLI machine and said we were slow at office tasks, but that we kept up in gaming. In our tests, we compared to 6 other machines that run 7800GTX video cards (ie, setting the video card as a constant), and looked at how changing the processor affected the performance, and found that Pentium M came out on top, followed by FX57 and 4800+ dual core.

[wargasm]

"With its single 7800 GTX videocard, the Puget system couldn’t compete with the big boys in our game benchmarks." This is the line that mostly caught my attention after reading your benchmarks and information. Your results seem to show the PentM clearly beating out the game heavy performing FX-57.

In the least I have to say it is a very interesting read, I had just never thought of the PentM core as a gaming use processor (perhaps im just a bit behind on the times). I wish I still had the ability to run these processors side by side in a like enviorment.

One question, to what degree of advantage do you think the Raptor HD and the DDR2 memory played?

[PCC-Jon]

Right, they say "with a single 7800GTX"...ie, in that statement they are comparing to SLI 7800's. We're holding the video card constant in our comparisons so that we're looking at the difference the CPU makes.

I think we'd need to run more comparisons to answer your quetion about RAM and hard drive. We used benchmarks that included a Raptor as much as possible in our comparisons, but a few systems didn't have that. My feeling is the hard drive wouldn't play much role. It would make the levels load faster, but not gameplay. Memory would probably play a bigger role, but I haven't run any comparisons on that. Can't easily build a FX57 with PC2-5400 memory :)

[wargasm]

Always great to see knowledgeable staff willing to discuss thier products with thier consumers. Best of luck to your staff and your company, a great example of how business should be done :).

[jimlickster]

How do you explain the $4700 Price tag though. This Machine would cost MAX $2500 Anywhere else.

[PCC-Jon]

I'd love to see a link to a system like this for $2500 :)

Here is a breakdown of the pricing:
http://www.pugetsystems.com/saveconfig.php?id=20783

Keep in mind that we built it when the CPU and vdieo card had just come out, so pricing has certainly dropped since then...just not to $2500. Our price today on a system like this would be more in the $4000 range.

I doubt anyone would be interested in this exact system though -- this system was a demonstration of a passive radiator and a demonstration of how well a Pentium M does in gaming. It will be more common for us to see this liquid cooling system applied to a higher performance setup, and to see the Pentium M applied in lower end gaming systems (HTPCs, SFF PCs, etc).

[Chumly]

I had a long drawn out post, but I'd like to just add my opinion on PC's. Choose the right processor for applications, then choose the right video card(s) for gaming. A cheaper 650 would have done better in apps, and that saved $400 would allow a pair of 7800GT's. Then you'd have better benches in both apps and games over the reviewed system. Afterall, You can watercool any proc and run silently.

For $4700, the customer should just get more than a "demonstration" or experiment, hence the review ding. Even at the lower $4K estimate, I'd ask for more than an M, a single card, and 62Gigs of space.

[One4yu2c]

Even at the lower $4K estimate, I'd ask for more than an M, a single card, and 62Gigs of space.

And onboard audio.

I doubt anyone would be interested in this exact system though -- this system was a demonstration of a passive radiator and a demonstration of how well a Pentium M does in gaming.

If you're open to constructive criticism, the above comment really sums this up. What you pieced together would make for a good article (such as found on GamePC minus the passive radiator aspect), but when submitted for review to a magazine where the readers are looking for buying advice, it's going to fall short in key areas - partly because of the platform chose, partly because of questionable complimenting components. It's not about classifying more capable systems as "cookie cutter," but it's realizing that there are better options to work with that a wealthy gamer would be interested. The technology behind the Pentium M is great, but it's limited by it's chipset/platform as well as becoming increasingly dated with dual-core rolling into the scene.

In the end, I thought the conclusion was very fair:It’s a high-performance quiet PC that allows the Pentium M to flex its gaming muscle. If your first concern is quiet operation, and you want something with a little get-up-and-go, then get up and go get this system. Otherwise, grab a system based on a full-throttle processor.

[PCC-Richard]

I think the confusion developed when it was suggested that we try something different and unique, so we did. But you're absolutely correct in saying that MaximumPC magazine is just about customers looking for systems to buy.

By the very nature of that premise, MaximumPC magazine wants to compare similar systems, targetted at their aduience. There's not anything wrong with that. I just think there was a little disconnect between what we thought they'd think was a neat system, and what they were really looking for.

To be honest, I don't think the "submit a system for review" method is really good at showcasing the kind of customization we do. By definition, a submitted system is static, and looked at individually. We offer dynamic customizability, which gives the control to the consumers. For example, MaximumPC magazine wrote that they were dissapointed by the small size of a single Raptor Hard drive. While it's true that some people would prefer more space, others wouldn't. It's a valid complaint that our submitted system had small storage space, but it's not really a "real-life" problem any customer would encounter, since they'd just select a larger hard drive to begin with.

So, in our defense, I think a lot of the reasons our score was knocked down were fairly legit conceptual problems, but nothing that any customer would actually ever encounter.

Next time we know!
:thumbsup