Last week, we brought you a preview of newcomer Origin PC's Genesis desktop and announced a system giveaway. Now it's time to investigate the system's actual performance as shipped. With a list price of $4999 as configured, this particular Genesis system is breathing some rarefied air indeed. Our expectations are similarly high; any company marketing a $5000 system has to demonstrate it's got all of its bases covered. We were happy with Origin's warranty terms and promise of lifetime support when we previewed the system; let's see if the company's hardware selection and system performance are commensurate with its lifetime support and personalized care... The Origin of Speed: Origin's Genesis Desktop Reviewed
The cable management is more or less the best I've seen and the PC as a whole is incredible!!!
Yes; as I expected looking over there website as well as there seeming attention to detail in there builds from what I could tell, as a boutique builder Origin is pretty much flawless. As compared to other boutique builders I actually thought there prices for components as well as there awesome support and as a whole package there on the very top of my list. I am somewhat confused though if this is the system for the contest or if these are just systems they build which is what I am thinking. The system for the contest from what I understood had a TWKR CPU. SO as I said I assume this is just a review of a product system. Either way there performance lines and outcomes are just beautiful, and because of this I can tell they are enthusiasts like most users on this forum.
I guess you get what you pay for with this setup, pure power and undeniable good service. The front page case has to be one of my favorite case artworks ever.
I agree rj there support seems to be phenomenal which is a very large consideration in buying one of these types of systems. Thethe tests. pricing is also very good compared to other boutique builders. One thing specifically is Alienware which is often included when looking at these types of systems in benchmarking. I don't really get that as Alienware is not Alienware any more, but Dells performance department. I would not therefore really classify them as the same type of OEM, and believe both there testing and attention to detail along with several other things invalidate them for the subject of this type of testing.
Very good looking system. That's some crazy wattage draw!
Crazy draw is almost an understatement... gaming for a few hours would be like running a hair dryer for a few hours! lol
I guess if you have $4,000 to drop on a PC though you have money for the power bill.
I wish I had that kind of money. :P
Very good looking system. That's some crazy wattage draw!
Don't think of it as a computer with a high draw, think of it as a space heater that kicks ass.
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
^lol... thats how i think of mine...
"Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window."
Z77 GIGABYTE G1.SNIPER
G.Skill Ripjaws X 16gb PC2133
Asus Blu-ray burner
Seasonic X650 PSU
Patriot Pyro 128gb SSD
Some very impressive numbers from the OriginPC. Though I would have liked to see it matched up against similarly configured system, with similar OS.
And as bad as the dual 5970's are in terms of power consumption, it runs a lot cooler and less noisier than the GTX 295.
The CyberPower Gamer Extreme 3000 still remains a decent system for its price point.
I'd like to see it up against the Voodoo's Omen Portends $7K Gaming Rig and the Maingear F1X series that just came out.
This config would kill Maingear's F1X 750:
Processor: Origin's Intel i7-920 (3.8GHz Factory OC) vs F1X's Intel Core i7 975 (OCed to 3.66GHz)
Memory: Origin's 6GB Corsair 1600MHz vs F1X's 12GB 1333 MHz
Video: Origin's 2xATI Radeon HD 5970 vs F1X's Dual AMD ATI Radeon HD 5870 in CrossFire
Power: Origins 1200 Watt vs F1X's 910 Watt
Both have 80 GB SSD's, Blu-Ray burners, etc, for a $159 cheaper.
Still, it is nice to see them compete, especially when they are coming out at the same time and have similar price points (maybe not the base F1X, you are right there, about $1k cheaper than the test rig origin set HH up with). Anyways, it is hard to beat when it posts performance like that AND comes with the sick paint jobs that Origin has been showing off.
I agree with gibbersome the memory bandwidth alone of the 1366 920 as well as the PCI-X bandwidth is basically +30% default versus an 1156 chipset system. Then both are overclocked which has a big draw on a low bandwidth system.
Wow, some crazy speed there. Crazy prices too, though, but it sounds like Origin would be a very, very good company to work with.
On a side note, why were some of the tests scaled down here? For example Crysis? Why not put everything on high, to see just what exactly it can do?
Plus, this monster comes with dual 5970's! No config that's been mentioned so far comes close to that.
Wow. The cable management is SICK. And I love the case design. Too many builders make tacky cases.
And the airflow in the case looks great as well, I counted 5 fans. Yeah, I love the neuron case exterior, just beautiful.
Yeah shawn that was one of the things I was talking about beautiful case paint and all. The interior build quality cable routing and all is flawless to.
yeah I have not even looked at any bench marks on two 5970's in crossfire. I know two 5850's in crossfire beat a single 5970, but 4 gpu's (not to mention the fastest on market until Nvidia gets there coming ones out maybe)/ I do wonder why they don't run two 5870 gpu's and some of that new reduced nm DDR5. Well maybe thats next wither way I would like to see a benchmarks of a pair against everything else.
I think the main reason they didn't release one with regular clocked dual 5870's is because the power and cost would have been too high. They're built from two underclocked 5870's, while the number of stream processors is same as that of two 5870's.
And like you mentioned, the 5970 was more than enough to snatch the title of the fastest single slot solution away from GTX 295. You can also overclock the card as long as you have the proper power and cooling system and maybe eke out another 10-15% in performance.
So this is the current 'Holy Grail' computer system? It's certainly beautiful to behold with that paint job. The cable routing is superb, but no different than the CyberPower PC that I won.
The 2 Dual GPU's make this beast the beast that it is, I think.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
80 GB SSD (should give a bit of a speed boost on OS stuff), an OC'd 920 rather than a 870 (tho I'm not sure the difference other than the 1366 vs 1156 slot since both are OC'd to 3.8 GHz). Otherwise you are right the main difference is the two monster video cards.
I think your processor is better at stock. But the i7 920's socket 1366 can be used for a six-core processor for those who are looking to upgrade later this year.
Yeah; very true. AMD is gonna do it to on an AM3 motherboard when the get around to it. I imagine it will probably be spring next year though as fast as they move lately.
Nobody's software truly takes advantage of four cores yet. I refer to gaming software here. Six cores is just gonna be bragging rights in the near term, and probably will be scary-expensive too. I wonder how long it will take for the majority of games to be modified or adapted to a six core environment. (it will not happen FAST folks) New games may go for it, but they will run well on four fast cores too. Nobody wants to sell a game that only the rich can play with their wazoo computers. The rich-boy segment can't support THEM.
I just realized that I forgot a word in this post that changed it considerably,....So, EDIT to add the word FAST.
Lol, I was just saying for people who love to have the most upgradability from their hardware. But you're right, six-cores will largely be pointless for the majority of people out there especially if Fermi takes more calculations off the CPU.
Umm. Quad-cores are useless in the long-term for half or more of the people who are going to end up buying them in the next 2-4 years. I'd be stunned--and this is after nine years of watching CPU development--if we're consistently making use of four superscalar, OOoE x86 cores four years from now (as opposed to potentially utilizing a higher number of very simple cores, ala the Playstation 3).
True, a higher clocked dual core would be better than a lower clocked quad-core for gaming. This is one reason I tried to dissuade some friends who jumped on the Q6600 bandwagon when it first came out.
yes this all goes back to the software. If the software developers don't make it usable whats the use. I would say software holds back computers more than any other field. The hardware is always getting better, but were still using to the largest percentage software that can benefit from dual cores at best as well as other software limitations.
Yeah; I and of course many if not most on here could build this. However; it is the detail they do there work in as well as the customization that they do, which is beyond what I would do. I could do something like this of course, but it is more difficult for a solo builder. The main point here is that through the detail I see, and the automatic support offered I would trust them That is the biggest factor for me in a PC purchase especially if I am not personally building it. I know I am committed to my PC being solid, and therefore performing as such. When if I buy one similar from Alienware even though it looks custom to a degree it is still cookie cutter if you get my drift. Therefore the attention to detail and every small point on these means I get a system as solid as I would make.
Joel H:Quad-cores are useless in the long-term for half or more of the people who are going to end up buying them in the next 2-4 years
They may be now for most games, but they seem to be making SOME games that can use three and four core already. In two to four years, Quads will be supported, heck maybe Six cores will be too by then.
In computer terms, 4 years is so old, it's already growin' hair on it.
Once businesses move from XP to Win 7 I think that software developers will move from single core/thread optimized code to writing software that uses the advantages that the multiple cores computers have now. I think the Windows Vista fiasco pretty much put the whole advancement of software development on hold for 3+ years.
Don't get me started on that Steaming Turd VISTA!
I agree. Microsoft's little 'Boo-Boo' reverberated around the world like a BB rattling around in a tin can.
However, Intel is getting involved with game development in a big way. They have resources for small game developers to use that help them write code that will work on and utilize Multi-Core CPU computers. They are very interested in Game development nowadays.
As a result, we may see some leaps and bounds in the near future.
You should be saying "WHAT CABLE?" lol I love the design on the case ;), its just awesome!
Article I found online:
"The Steam platform collects data about the type of computer hardware customers are using, which is then used to make programming decisions.
For example, over 80% of Steam gamers are using multi-core systems,
with almost 24% using quad-cores. This means that there is a large user base who would be able to take
advantage of multi-threaded gaming. Since most games take 2-3 years to
develop, spotting a trend early on can set developers on the right path early on, rather than having to patch it later."
It's one of those things, once quad-cores become standard we'll see more developers designing games to be optimized for them. Right now, the majority of the gaming consumers uses dual-cores and that's why most games minimum requirements need them. Same with DirectX 11. There have been 2 million DirectX 11 cards sold on the market and the developers are only just now starting to release games based on it.
Gaming software is limited by the hardware available to the majority of its target consumer. That's why we see a lag in the evolution of gaming development with respect to gaming hardware.
So if everyone upgrades it would be faster but not everyone has money :(
So if everyone upgrades it would be faster but not everyone has money :(
I know, it's interesting isn't it? By keeping prices (and the margin of profit) high, Intel is actually slowing down gaming progress. The Core i7 is a powerful chip, but because of its price isn't very prevalent. Subsequently many developers don't create content optimized for it. Better to set the recommended specs bar lower than risk alienating a large portion of your target audience. So by keeping the Core i7 prices high, Intel is helping their rivals AMD by allowing their chips to remain relevant/competitive despite the lower performance .
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms