Build, Heat, and Power Consumption

A good boutique build really does start at the enclosure. While the NZXT cases most commonly used by boutiques aren't necessarily terrible, there's still something left to be desired when better options are available. Corsair as a brand seems to be picking up popularity with boutiques, though, and while it's probably a bit more expensive for all involved, their cases are generally a step up.

Boutique builds are usually very clean, but a case like the Carbide 500R can make it that much easier to both build and service the system. Unfortunately the beefy Asetek radiator winds up mucking things up a bit; while it gets the job done (which you'll see in a bit), it also effectively blocks the end user from two empty RAM slots, making building up the system more difficult.

V3 does a decent job of keeping cable clutter to a minimum too, but by employing a non-modular power supply they're forced to stash the excess cables under the drive trays. The TX750 V2 is an excellent power supply, but a modular 80 Plus Gold unit might have been a nice touch (though it would've driven the cost up).

Finally, I do like the nice bit of branding that V3 does with the enclosure. The V3 logos on the front and the sides help to give the system more identity and make it feel a bit like less of an off-the-shelf assembly of hardware.

As it turns out, though, cooling isn't much of an issue for the Avenger, despite the high core voltage. We already knew the GTX 680 was an efficient piece of kit, but the i7-3820 is actually fairly frugal as well in terms of both heat and power. The Avenger remains relatively quiet even under load, making it an excellent choice for a workstation.

Idle Power Consumption

Load Power Consumption

I'll admit I was concerned about power consumption with the Avenger. The MSI motherboard employed doesn't allow for setting an offset voltage, but the i7-3820 seems to be idling just fine. Load consumption is excellent as well given the high overclock on the processor. It's not the most frugal system in the world, but V3's build isn't aggressively sucking power out of the wall under stress either.

Gaming Performance Conclusion: Odd Expectations
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • StruckXx - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

    Yeah, for a vendor they are way overcharging. I buy my computers from, and their prices are much more reasonable. I compared them with V3, and the price is nearly $300 cheaper and they are offering free liquid cooling and a better motherboard.
  • Sunrise089 - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    According to the introduction this PC is supposed to avoid "paying out the nose for a system that left the price-performance curve eating the dust in its speedy wake" and that has been "designed to be as balanced a build as possible."

    You conclude though that "the Avenger is the top-of-the-line, 'I have too much money' model, while the Convoy is the more aggressive workhorse. Ivy Bridge and Z77 (when the line is updated with them) are going to give you more bang for your buck anyhow."

    So which is it? We all know this isn't "as balanced of a build as possible," so please don't include such language if you don't think it's true. Just because a manufacturer offers some talking points to make your job easier doesn't mean you have to fall for them.

    There's no shame in just opening the article by telling us that "the Avenger is another high-end boutique PC that tries to offer enough to justify it's considerable price" or something similar. It would be a lot more honest...
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    "What we have in house today is a system they believe has been designed to be as balanced a build as possible."

    Saying that V3 is claiming this is a "balanced" system is all that the intro states; that's their supposed goal and listing that goal and then evaluating how well they succeed at achieving it is perfectly reasonable. And in the conclusion as well as elsewhere, Dustin points out several ways in which the system isn't particularly balanced. I don't see any "parroting of talking points" here. If that's all Dustin were doing, the review would be a lot more favorable.
  • ImSpartacus - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    Yeah, I agree. I had different expectations after reading that intro. If I hadn't read that intro, I think I might've been able to judge it differently.

    When I think "bang-for-buck" in the boutique realm, I imagine a machine with a cheap stock quad core CPU, a bitchin single GPU, a moderate amount of RAM and an adequate storage solution.

    This machine only checks one of those boxes.
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    Same here. The description V3 gave is something I'd put on a $1000-1500 DIY/$1200-1800 boutique system.
  • Tunnah - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    The CPU isn't any more expensive than the none-E part so it was a good choice, you have a stronger CPU and also the better chipset, you've not ended up paying much extra for it.
  • cknobman - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    I would never pick a build with a SSD setup like that.

    Then to make it worse their overclock is terrible (not speed but the voltage increase they used to get it).
  • Voldenuit - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    "What we have in house today is a system they believe has been designed to be as balanced a build as possible. "

    Balanced? A sensible *gaming* build would have been a Core i5 (or even an i3!) and a GeForce 670 tops. And replace those RAIDed 60 GB Sandforce drives with a single 128 GB Samsung 830, Plextor M3 or Corsair Performance Pro.
  • kyuu - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    Yeah, I have to agree with other posters: this is not a "balanced" build. The Sandy Bridge-E by itself pretty much precludes that designation. And you certainly are paying out the nose for a system that "left the price-performance curve eating the dust in its speedy wake."

    Although I disagree with other posters in that I think the case looks good.
  • sjankis630 - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 - link

    Can someone tell me why they put together a top level system and used Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit? Isn't there a limit on the ram that Windows 7 Home Premium can accept?
    I thought it was 16GB. Knowing an enthusiast will likely want to upgrade, why not use Windows Professional with a 192GB limit?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now