Vigor Gaming Force Recon QXN
Posted 04/26/07 at 02:15:39PM | by  

David Murphy


Welcome to another edition of Maximum PC Theater. For our main attraction this evening, we’re featuring a play by Vigor Gaming entitled Force Recon QXN. There’s a scene in act 1 in which the computer utterly fails to run in any useful capacity… it brings tears to our eyes. Be sure you don’t miss it.

Or, rather, do miss the Force Recon QXN. As has become an unfortunate tradition at Maximum PC, we again find ourselves with a system that looks sweet on paper but utterly fails the quality assurance part of the benchmarking process. In layman’s terms, it does not work. It fails to boot consistently. It fails benchmark runs.

We blame overly aggressive overclocking for this electronic disaster. Like those who came before it, Vigor cranked an Intel QX6700 quad-core processor from the stock speed of 2.66GHz to a mighty 3.46GHz. But we certainly don’t blame the company for doing so; in today’s extreme-computing (and non-multicore-supported) environment, a stock-clocked quad-core processor simply can’t hold up to dual-core clock speeds.


See that wiring job? Now that’s quality work. At least your new footrest will look great.

If only Vigor had spent as much time testing the machine as it put into its appearance, we might have had an actual working computer. This system is loaded with more tweaks than any of the similarly configured quad-core machines we’ve reviewed, so we were a bit surprised to see lower frame rates in all of our gaming tests (when they ran). Our quad-champion Maingear F131 (reviewed in our January 2007 issue) destroyed the poor Force Recon by almost 15fps in FEAR and 20fps in Quake 4.

Application testing painfully highlighted the Force Recon’s stability problems, particularly our standard video encoding test, in which we use Nero Recode to transform a DVD-quality rip of Terminator 2 into an H.264-based video iPod file. It’s as if the Force Recon took one look at the project and decided to head out for a smoke break. The process took nearly 40 minutes to complete, almost double the 22-minute score the Maingear laid down.

We were beginning to wonder if we should just take this sick machine out back and shoot it, but the Force Recon didn’t even make it out the door. The machine officially died during our Premiere encoding test. No blue screen, just random restarts.

When SYSmark caused the same problems, we set all the components back to stock clock speeds, but the system got progressively worse. After Force Recon started to reboot spontaneously, we gave Vigor a call, and the company sent us a recovery-disc image.

Said recovery disk ended up destroying what was left of the system. Windows barely made it to the loading screen before blue-screening.

The final nail in the Force Recon’s coffin is that it actually ran slower than all of the other nonworking systems we’ve tested, at least in the benchmarks we got to run. That’s certainly not something to be proud of.

The case itself is quite pretty, but good luck lifting the thing. ’Tis a wee bit heavy.

Vigor Gaming
www.vigorgaming.com
IGNIGNOKT

The case looks great, the front panel looks great, even the little lit-up feet look great.

BOSTON

Even when it “works,” it’s worse than any other quad-core rig we’ve tested.


SPECS
  Force Recon QXN
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (OC’d to 3.46GHz)
MOBO Asus P5N32-E-SLI Nvidia nForce 680i SLI
RAM 2GB Corsair DDR2 OC’d to 933MHz (two 1GB sticks)
LAN Dual Gigabit LAN (Nvidia)
HARD DRIVES Two 150GB WD Raptors in RAID-0, one 500GB WD (7,200rpm)
OPTICAL NEC 16X dual-layer DVDRW/ 24x CDRW)
VIDEOCARD Two GeForce 8800 GTXs in SLI (576MHz core/900MHz RAM)
SOUNDCARD Creative X-Fi XtremeMusic Platinum
CASE Vigor Force
BENCHMARKS
  Force Recon QXN
SYSmark2004 SE WNR
Premiere Pro 2.0 WNR
Photoshop CS2 153 sec
Recode H.264 2,338 sec
FEAR 1.07 133 fps
Quake 4 175.8 fps
Our current desktop test bed is a Windows XP SP2 machine, using a dual-core 2.6GHz Athlon 64 FX-60, 2GB of Corsair DDR400 RAM on an Asus A8N32-SLI motherboard, two GeForce 7900 GTX videocards in SLI mode, a Western Digital 4000KD hard drive, a Sound Blaster X-Fi soundcard, and a PC Power and Cooling Turbo Cool 850 PSU.
View / Add Comment(s)


-ADVERTISEMENT-
RELATED CATEGORIES
RELATED ARTICLES
Polywell Poly 939N4-SLI

Polywell Computers specializes in reasonably priced custom PC configurations, so we requested the fastest PC the company could muster with the latest parts.

Maingear F131 Don't get us wrong, we're always excited to get a new desktop rig into the lab but just how much excitement is this juggernaut worth?
ABS Ultimate X8 III ABS drops their Ultimate X8 III onto our laps, but does it withstand our tests?
Where is Your God Now? How do you *really* clean your keyboard? Associate Editor Dave Murphy tests a variety of techniques, all thanks to one stray beverage...
Fingers-On: Hitachi's 7K1000 Terabyte Hard Drive A... a what-a-byte? Dave Murphy takes a quick look at Hitachi's new terabyte hard drive. Unlike an AT-AT, it's speed isn't hampered by its massive size.
Maximum PC's Fifth Annual Softy Awards 10 Kick Ass free applications win our highest praise—and a shiny, shiny statue

Comments

login or register to post comments
Thats a real shame, I spent
Submitted by soggy on Thu, 2007-04-26 18:54.

Thats a real shame, I spent a lot of time trying to find one of those cases and it's painful to see a company fill one with so many wonderful parts and then destroy it in the name of marketing specs.

If you guys don't want it I'm sure I could use the case and maybe scavenge a few parts :D

ASUS A8N-SLI deluxe
AMD 64 3500+ @ 2.42 Ghz
2X512 Corsair XMS platnum RAM
eVGA 7900GT N560 @ 553/1568
250GB SATA

You guys should really use
Submitted by Nuxes on Fri, 2007-04-27 06:31.

You guys should really use the entire 10 point scale. This is one of the worst products in recent memory, and yet you give it a 3. 3 would be a good score to give a machine that works well *when* it runs, but this thing is an all-around piece of crap.

o_o A three isn't enough? A
Submitted by TheMurph on Fri, 2007-04-27 12:49.

o_o

A three isn't enough? A three?

As far as I'm concerned, the review scale breaks down as follows: a "1" means the product exploded upon us turning it on, severely hurting someone in the process. a "2" signifies that the horrible product actually achieved some semblance of working, but made somebody bleed in doing so. A "3" is equal to a "I didn't hurt myself, but this thing is a POS."

A three is exactly the kind of score to give to a machine that "works well when it runs" -- the entire point is that, for some large amount of time, the machine is not running. As Gordon might say, once you get below four or five, it's all negligible -- you'd have to be pretty dumb to buy a product that poor.

.Dave



- Advertisement -