Weekly Buyer's Guide: Entry Level System - August 2004
by Anand Shimpi & Larry Barber on August 9, 2004 12:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Memory
Recommendation: 1 X 256MB Crucial PC3200 (DDR400)Price: $47 shipped
Choosing the right type of memory for an entry level system usually isn't too difficult nowadays. PC2100 speeds and CAS 2.5 latencies are common measurements of performance for memory modules, and are virtually the only two important performance-related factors when deciding to purchase memory, besides the actual size of your memory module, of course. But if you can't spend a lot of money, performance should be the last thing on your mind when choosing memory on a budget. Price and reliability, in that order, should be your only real considerations. Anyway, we've come back to recommending Crucial modules for entry level systems. Because their price and performance are so nearly identical to Kingston ValueRAM modules, we decided between the two based on warranty and customer support. In that scenario, Crucial wins out quite easily. Buying direct from Crucial is very easy; you will rarely encounter problems in processing an order. Tech/Customer service reps are knowledgeable, patient, and very quick to answer your questions, which is especially impressive considering that they answer many of the same questions everyday. It also helps that the (native) language spoken by Crucial support is English and that they are generally wary of North American culture (which, believe it or not, can be very helpful in expediting shipping).
Alternative: 1 X 256MB OCZ PC3200 EL (Enhanced Latency) CAS2.0 module
Price: $64 shipped
OCZ's DDR module prices have stayed virtually the same, more or less, over the last month. We've talked about OCZ's troubled past and history in detail before, but thankfully, those issues have been resolved and OCZ has been able to bring great memory to market 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 $17 more than Crucial, which 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 Crucial modules (which helps reduce load times actually, similar to how RAID 0 can reduce load times). 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 Kingston's line of PC3200 modules as well. Their ValueRAM line should be given a close look.
Video
Recommendation: 64MB ATI Radeon 9200SEPrice: $40 shipped
Just like last month, our recommendation this week is the Radeon 9200SE.. Though this time, it's the version direct from ATI instead of Sapphire. 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. Text quality is an absolute necessity for an entry level system, as you will likely be reading emails, working in programs like Excel and Word, and reading online material on a regular basis. At $40, it's hard to find a better video card with the said feature set.
Something we mentioned in our previous Entry Level Buyer's Guide that bares repeating here is the generally accepted area of concern surrounding the reliability of ATI drivers. While driver stability was a major issue in the days of the Radeon 8500 and certainly before then, ATI's current Catalyst brand of drivers are delivering excellent stability for each and every segment of computer users (entry level, mid-range, high end, etc.). We've been able to verify this fact through countless hours of testing by many different AnandTech editors for years now. Any issues that you may be hearing about ATI cards are probably relatively minor and shouldn't be thought of as necessarily negative when compared to video cards from the likes of NVIDIA. Bottom line - don't be at all afraid to delve into Radeon territory.
Alternative: 64MB Sapphire Radeon 9200
Price: $54 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). If you're at all interested in some semi-serious gaming, you should definitely be considering this card for your entry level system instead of the 9200SE. 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 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. Either card will be able to perform significantly more smoothly at those higher than 800x600 resolutions. Slightly better mid-range cards, like the 9600XT and 5700 Ultra, are also good, but more money than you might want to spend for the corresponding increase over the 9600 Pro and 5600 Ultra.
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
30 Comments
View All Comments
leigh6 - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Without reading Anandtech's Entry level thread I built an entry level system for my sister in law. Her needs were exactly what you had in your initial description of the build. Coincidentally I used most of your components you recommended. So some comments.1. The Seagate Hardrive was PERFECT. Quiet, fairly inexpensive, plenty of storage wtih 80g and with a now 5 year warranty a no brainer.
2. Radeon 9200se. PERFECT. Absolutely needs nothing better. It does the job and more.
3. Processor was the 2500 Barton . (Would have used the 2000 but had an extra retail 2500 laying around). Either one would have been fine and I do not think there would be a noticable difference for what she and her 3 kids need. WOULD stay with the 2000 for budget reasons and not use this for an upgrade.
4. Case. I though my choice was a no brainer.
Antec slk 2600 with a 300W PS. Not the prettiest case. But for the same price as your model ($65.00) I thought was a much better choice.
5. Ram. Happen to use 512 Kingston Value Ram DDR 3200. (With many rebates available on this product the final price comes to around $75.00) direct from Kingston.
6. Motherboard. I wish I had read this before the build. But I did get lucky. The motherboard I am using has been rock solid. But the next build will be with you're recomendation.
Now a suggestion for the overall concept of your article.
30 percent of the price of the system is the monitor. I believe that the keyboard, mouse, speakers and MONITOR should be left out of you base price. I think adding the monitor to the final base price of the system unintentionally makes the price look like it is a little too high to be a budget system and running closer to the low end of "Mid Range". So the base price would be $372.00 and NO ONE would agrue the merits. Then seperately discuss the peripherals with prices and then add them WITH Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, and Speakers. (Most have these already before there build).
Just my thoughts, Leigh
gherald - Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - link
Here we go again, same as last month...The reason to use a 9200SE rather than an onboard nforce2 is text quality. People who build entry level systems care about this sort of thing, and for this a cheap ATI is clearly better than an onboard nforce unless you happen to use Linux, for which ATI drivers suck :(
To #2 and whoever else mentions Doom 3 or a better 3D video card: congratulations on COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT of "entry level," now get lost.
As for the case, #4 is a good case in point (bad pun) but we've been through this before. None of us understand what Evan/Anand have against Antec, but they are clearly a better case choice in *every* respect *including* price, and that's pretty much been the consensus for as long as these guides have been around.
512mb is allways a good idea, even if you're just running xp + wordpad + browser... it can be used for other things like DISK CACHE. There's simply no reason to build a system with only 256mb nowdays unless you are a total bum or live in some third world country and thus cannot afford a decent setup.
As for dual channel, I wouldn't worry about it. My preference for entrys has always been a single stick of 512mb since I feel that will be more useful 2-3 years from now when it comes time to disassemble this system and spread the components around to other ones, but that's just me. If 2x256mb works for you then so be it, just be sure you get a motherboard that supports dual channel well, such as the NF7/AN7 from Abit.
cosmotic - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Sorry, I thought all nf2s had dual channel... And I've never used a video card (intigrated or otherwise) that could not handle high resolution, although I rarely use integrated video cards.maybe theres hould be an extreme value system, value, best bang-for-buck, overclock, and super high end system buyers guide.
VIAN - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
sorry bout thatVIAN - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I am completely fine with a Web Surfing system having 256MB of RAM, without integrated graphics, it's probably already too much. LOL.You don't need 512MB for Web Surfing. 512MB is what's recommended today for gaming at least, in early 2003, it was 256MB the least. Why would Web Surfers need more than that.
Unless you're setting up some kind of CHEAPO server, there would be no reason for more than 256MB.
Cocophone - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
#13The machine I'm upgrading from is a 1gHz Celeron with 128 ram with Windows 2000.
I use it as a media server and web stuff and it swaps out the memory far to often. There is nothing worst than swapping out to the hard drive.
For me 512 MB of ram was worth the extra cost. Like #14 says upgrading to 512 ram is more noticable than going from 3 to 2.5 latency.
Degrador - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Ok, a few things here...We've been saying in these comments for about the last 5 entry articles that 512MB is a far better option than 256MB with low latency, so even if the recommended isn't 512MB, at least make the alternative more ram instead. Lower latency is never going to give a noticeable improvement to an entry user - it bearly gives a noticeable improvement at any stage.
Also, the nforce 2 integrated video is a much better option than buying a 9200SE. The only reason a 9200SE might be more preferable is if you'd think about swapping over the motherboard at some other stage. However an entry purchaser is likely not to do that, at the very least, not for quite some time. This'll likely be when PCI Express has taken over, and even if it isn't, swapping over a motherboard would likely mean practically new everything for an entry user.
#13
While practically nothing requires 512MB RAM, it can also be said that practically nothing requires more than a pentium 1 processor, but having an athlon xp / 512MB of ram is certainly going to be a better option. Especially for future usage. And while the price is the most important factor, every entry level purchaser wants to keep their system for a long time. So simply recommending the cheapest components would make for a useless article - the underlying purpose behind these articles is to give people an indication of what they should buy. And as most people have been saying, everyone wanting to keep their computer for more than a year should seriously be considering at least 512MB of memory.
PotatoMAN - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
I really think that for an entry level system it is hard to fight for 512 mbytes of RAM over 256 - Win XP pro runs OK on 128 let alone 256 - so why spend more for performance on an entry level system? Granted, we want the user to use the computer for ~1.5 years w/out the hassle of upgrading/tampering with the machine, but the major focus of the article is price. To my knowledge, I can't recall any programs that REQUIRE 512 of RAM other than games.PrinceGaz - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
#9- I see you went for 512MB for your bargain system, a very wise choice.Given the intention of the article is to recommend something which you can: "keep this entry level system for quite a long time without modification (read: at least 1.5 years)", after it recommended a stick of cheap 256MB Crucial RAM for the memory, why was the alternative not a cheap 512MB stick, instead of a lower latency 256MB stick? 512MB instead of 256MB is the biggest performance improvement you could make to that system if its going to be running Windows XP. If people building it are expected to run Windows 98SE or a Linux variant, you should clearly state that at the start of the article. Windows 98SE is very much on its last legs already though, so its not a very good recommendation.
Apart from the memory issue, a good selection of components.
VIAN - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
#5Dual channel is less reliable and adds price. You would have to buy a mobo capable of Dual channel add 30 bucks for that and then two sticks of RAM, try finding 128MB sticks, hah, another 40 bucks. Not worth the performance increase.
I agree, though, that if you are going all out on a "Web Surfing System", an integrated card might have been just as good and cheaper. You want price and speed is the last, so why wouldn't you go integrated.
#8
You make a very good arguement against integrated, but the monitor's optimal resolution is most likely 1024x768, so it wouldn't make a difference.