Weekly Buyer's Guide: Entry Level System - June 2004
by Evan Lieb on June 9, 2004 12:02 PM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Memory
Recommendation: 1 X 256MB Kingston PC3200 (DDR400) ValueRAM modulePrice: $50 shipped
Kingston ValueRAM modules have decreased in price, about $2 or so, since the last time we took a look at them, and $5 in the last 7 weeks. This is a somewhat positive fluctuation in price, as DDR prices have been slowly on the rise these past few months. Knowing this, it's clear that the time to buy DDR modules is now, if you're going to be purchasing DDR modules at all. Do not wait unless you aren't in a hurry to build your entry level system, as we don't foresee any major increase in DDR memory for quite some time (though that is obviously quite difficult to predict).
We also feel it's necessary to note that we're not recommending PC2100 for our entry level system here today for a reason. That reason is directly related to the recent upward fluctuation of DDR prices; PC2100 and PC3200 modules are priced almost exactly the same. Therefore, it would be pointless to purchase anything but a PC3200 module (in the 256MB variety) right now, as it offers 66.67MHz (133.33MHz DDR) more speed and only 0.5 higher latency (CAS 3.0 instead of 2.5) with this particular Kingston KVR400X64C3A/256 module.
Alternative: 1 X 256MB OCZ PC3200 EL (Enhanced Latency) CAS2.0 module
Price: $65 shipped
OCZ's DDR modules have also dipped in price since we looked at them last month. We've talked about OCZ's troubled past and history in detail before, but thankfully, those issues have been resolved from all indications and OCZ is able to bring great memory to market, and has been doing so for over a year now. With that said, OCZ has had tremendous success with their EL series of modules for a reason: a great price/performance ratio. At only $15 more than the Kingston ValueRAM that we recommended today, you get lower CAS timings (CAS 2-2-3 1T) with OCZ EL modules instead of high CAS timings (CAS 3-3-3 4T) with the Kingston ValueRAM modules. Lower CAS timings along with the EL series' overclocking capability translates into better performance for a great price.
With that all said, be sure to check out Crucial's line of PC3200 modules as well, as they are rightfully known as one of the most reliable and highest quality memory makers on the planet.
Video
Recommendation: 64MB Sapphire Radeon 9200SEPrice: $43 shipped
Just like last month, our recommendation this week is the Radeon 9200SE instead of the regular 9200. While the 64-bit memory interface of the 9200SE (SE indicates the halved memory interface) cripples gaming performance considerably compared to 128-bit video cards, it's still an acceptable card for the light to occasional gamer, and of course, more than necessary for non-gamers. 2D IQ quality will live up to business users' needs as well as the regular Joe Shmoe's needs; that is, crisp text and excellent clarity in general. At $43, it's hard to find a better video card with the said feature set.
Also, we feel that a major point of concern, which we have failed to address adequately in previous Buyer's Guides, is ATI's spotty record for reliable drivers in the past. While this was certainly a major issue in the days of the Radeon 8500 and certainly before then, these days, ATI's Catalyst brand of drivers are delivering excellent stability for each segment of users (entry level, mid-range, high end, etc.). We've been able to verify this fact personally here in AnandTech's own labs. In fact, I, myself, run a 9200SE-powered rig 24/7. It's a very basic, but very reliable box, an SFF (Small Form Factor) box in fact, and I run quite a wide range of tasks on this system. It won't set graphical performance records, but it's not meant to anyway.
Alternative: 64MB Sapphire Radeon 9200
Price: $52 shipped
The Radeon 9200 is the AGP8X version of the Radeon 9000. This is the non-crippled, 128 bit memory interface version of the 9200SE. Vendors may or may not make this information about memory interface differences clear when advertising their 9200 video cards, so be sure to check. Gaming performance is considerably better with this Radeon 9200 than the Radeon 9200SE, and 2D IQ is identical, if not better in some cases, depending on whether or not you choose to pick a higher quality version of ATI's Radeon 9200 (from Gigabyte, for example). You should definitely be considering this card for your entry level system instead of the 9200SE, if you're at all interested in some semi-serious gaming. As far as the onboard video memory size is concerned, 64MB should be more than enough for the majority of video games out there, and certainly enough for entry level users. There are 128MB versions of this card available, but it's completely unnecessary to upgrade to them when looking at the higher price differential.
If you're at all interested in gaming performance at 1024x768 resolutions and up, we highly suggest something more powerful than Radeon 9200, like a Radeon 9600 Pro or GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, for example. Either card will be able to perform significantly more smoothly at those higher than 800x600 resolutions.
Listed below is part of our RealTime pricing engine, which lists the lowest prices available on ATI video cards from many different reputable vendors:
If you cannot find the lowest prices on the products that we've recommended on this page, it's because we don't list some of them in our RealTime pricing engine. Until we do, we suggest that you do an independent search online at the various vendors' web sites. Just pick and choose where you want to buy your products by looking for a vendor located under the "Vendor" heading.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Duker - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link
Better card for a few more $$$.http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
Duker - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link
Why don't you recommend a 128 bit 128 meg GeForce FX5200 for $63.00? Far Cry would laugh at that 64 Meg 64 bit ATI 9200SE and Doom 3 is closing fast. I don't think ATI is a good choice for this system and I use ATI in 3 out of 4 of my personal machines. Is ATI paying you?http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
White Widow - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link
Ditto on the support for the 80GB drive. If a company is really going to buy 1000 PC's, then they could probably negotiate some volume pricing anyway.As for overall system pricing, I think the budget system should be kept as close to $500 as possible. If you are building an internet/MS Office machine for someone, that $500 price point stands out.
I also agree that the Overclocking System (is there still an Overclocking System Guide??) should NOT be the most expensive, but rather the most bang-for-the-buck. I see such a system pricing out toward the top end of a Mid-Range system.
Finally, AT has GOT to fix the Price Guide. I'm not ure how it is coded, but most sections of the Buyers Guide discuss two compnents, but onlylist prices for one. How hard can it be to list prices for both CPU's and Motherboards together?
Apologiliac - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
CC had a sale for a 120 GB WD 7200rpm for $60!nastyemu25 - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
i'm starting to hate that casekristof007 - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
Is it jst me or there is no overclocking system anymore ?TrogdorJW - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
Two major issues that continue to plague the low-end system. First is that hard drive recommendation. If a large corporation is buying a bunch of computers, $10 times 1000 is going to be noticeable. For anyone else, you might as well just go with the 80GB drive and be done with it. Volume levels of the WD drives leave something to be desired, though.The other issue is the RAM. You increase the CPU and motherboard costs $40 in the alternative recommendations, mostly for people that want decent gaming performance. You increase the graphics $9, again mostly for low-end gamers. You increase the RAM costs $15, but the difference between CAS 2.5 and CAS2.0 RAM with a low-end system sporting 256 MB of RAM is going to be virtually non-existent. How about something more useful like bumping the price up $37 and recommending a 512 MB Mushkin DIMM like this one: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc... Anyone trying even moderate gaming under Windows XP is going to start encountering severe problems with the more recent games running on 256 MB of RAM.
Finally, that Foxconn case is just fugly. If you're going to recommend that people buy the extra $20 Sparkle power supply for a total of $61 on the case, there are a lot of other options. $72 for the Antec SLK2650-BQE is one option that would only add $11, and you get an Antec 350W PSU instead of a generic 300W PSU. http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?desc...
Since you didn't provide this, let's put it in the comments (and I'll throw in my RAM and case suggestions):
Alternative Low-to-midrange System:
Athlon XP 2500+ CPU: $80
Abit NF7-S: $86
512 MB PC3200 Mushkin: $87
Radeon 9200: $52
17" NEC Monitor: $166
Antec SLK2650-BQE w/ 350W: $72
WD 800JB 80GB hard drive: $67
Lite-On CD-RW/DVD combo: $48
Creative Speakers: $20
Integrated audio and network: $0
--------------------------------
Total for slightly more expensive - but overall better performing - Low/Mid system: $678
That took me all of 10 minutes to put those prices together, including finding my alternative RAM and case information. For office use, there's no real need for the alternative, but for low-end gaming, the extra $140 would go a long way toward making the system perform better.
gherald - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
#1 I have to agree $10 more for the WD800JB is definately a better deal.The article suggests that "Pushing SATA into the low end mainstream is very important for the development of that technology" so the alternative HD should be the WD800JD or perhaps this equivalent Hitachi:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc...
Of course, you'd need the NF7 motherboard for that.
#6: The reason is 2D graphics quality; Radeons are much better than onboard Geforces. At work half the stations I administer have Geforce 4 MX's directly on the northbridge and the other half have either a radeon 9x00 or ATI Rage pro 128 card. The differences in quality are clearly noticeable.
As for prices, #4 is right on the money though I would suggest these approximate price ranges:
Entry-level: $600 +/- $100
Mid-range: $1100 +/- $200
High-end: $2000 +/- $500
#9 your high end limit is way to high. I'd call more than $2500-3000 an 'uber' system.
#11 the absolute low limit for high-end is clearly $1500; below is most assuredly in upper-mid-range territory. Also, you are misssing the point of overclocking. Yes many high-end and "luxury" systems (as you call them) can be effectively overclocked, but this does not define an "Overclocking System" per se.
In my opinion an Overclocking System should be roughly 5 to 15% more expensive than a mid-range one, because they'll need a few quality components like a better PSU, quality motherboard, excellent HSF and PC3500+ memory but their goal is often to get the most bang for the buck. This attitude is clearly exemplified these days by the Mobile Barton / NF7r2 crowd.
Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
Suprised to see those Prescott prices:2.4E at $123- $35 below 2.4c. making it a low to mid level system chip
2.8E 533FSB - ~$30 higher than 2.8E 800MHz FSB or 2.8c - crazy, must be the enthusiast/upgrader/o'clocker's P4 of choice.
the 3.0 and 3.2 are about the same (but with the 533 P4E ahead in price in the 3.0 rank again!). The 3.4E is still $60 ahead of the 3.4c (why? beyond yields, I dont know) and the EEs are'nt coming down in price unfortunately.
MDE - Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - link
You mention that the NF7-S is a.k.a. the AN7, that's not really true, they're different boards, there's a reason Abit didn't name the AN7 the NF7-S 3.0.