Buyer's Guide - Mid-Range, October 2004
by Jarred Walton on October 21, 2004 11:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Memory Recommendations
While many might disagree with this assessment, we are going to increase the RAM recommendation for our Mid-Range Guide to 1 GB, regardless of what type of work you use it for. The truth is that a lot of users do not need more than 512 MB of RAM, but as long as we're being truthful, few people really need something faster than the systems in our Entry Level Guide. If you're willing to spend more money for the added performance and "future-proofing" of faster processors and other components, it doesn't make a lot of sense to skimp on the RAM. This also allows us to avoid recommending 256 MB DIMMs, which we feel are now only an option for the value-minded consumer.As we mentioned in our past Guides, performance does not differ a whole lot between the various manufacturers, and reliability is generally good with any of the major brands. We recommend spending a few dollars extra to get a reputable brand instead of settling for generic RAM. Should any of your DIMMs fail, it is easier to get the advertised "lifetime warranty" honored. Whom do we consider reputable? Well, any of the major brands that we have reviewed in our past RAM articles should be safe: Corsair, Crucial, GEIL, Kingston, Mushkin, OCZ, Samsung and several others. Those should all work well, so on whichever you can get the best price is a good choice.
Our RAM recommendation is going to be split into a Value and a Performance choice. The Value RAM will have higher latencies, but the difference in speed is typically less than 5%. For those willing to spend a little more, the Performance option is there. Those who are interested in getting into the world of overclocking are advised to spend more money on their RAM, as it is often the limiting factor. It is worth mentioning, however, that the cost of high-end RAM can often be more than the cost of the next faster processor, and a faster processor will usually provide more tangible benefits. Reliability is rather difficult to determine, but on the whole, we see fewer problems with expensive RAM than with value RAM. Then again, most hardware failures tend to come from other sources than the RAM; for instance, flaky power supplies and/or motherboards. Keeping your system free from dust will go a long way towards avoiding component failure in our experience.
Value DDR Recommendation: 2x512MB Mushkin PC3200 2.5-4-4
Price: $150 Shipped
We have never had any serious problems with Mushkin RAM, and at $150, the cost of 1 GB of RAM is very reasonable. In fact, users who routinely work on extremely large files in Photoshop might even decide to simply max out their memory system with 4x512 MB DIMMs. Most people don't need that much RAM, but if you do, you already know it. Gamers and software developers should be content with 2x512MB for the next year at least, and the option to add more RAM is always there if you need it.
We do not feel that 1GB DIMMs are really an option yet, since even the cheapest non-generic DIMMs cost over $200. However, anyone interested in trying to reach the advertised 4GB maximum of current systems might take a look at OCZ's 1GB DIMMs. That's not even a remotely mid-range configuration, though - it's more of a moderate server setup. At some point in time, we will actually see a shift to 64-bit OSes running 4GB or more of RAM, but that day is probably at least a couple years off for most users.
Performance DDR Alternative: 2x512MB OCZ EL 2-3-2-6 1T
Price: $224 Shipped
Those looking to gain a bit in performance and lower their memory latency should look at the 2-3-2 RAM options that are out there. While 2-2-2 RAM might be fractionally faster, it costs a bit more. OCZ has impressed us with the quality and reliability of their RAM in the past couple years - for a company that was once considered a "generic" brand, that's saying a lot! The heat spreaders are not really necessary, but they do make your RAM look attractive for those who have windowed cases.
Should you want to go for something a little faster, or perhaps you might want some RAM that could be overclocked at some point in the future, then we recommend Crucial Ballistix PC3200 RAM. Capable of 2-2-2 1T timings up to 220 MHz or so, and with the option to go even higher with relaxed timings, Crucial Ballistix is a great choice for high-end RAM.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
Avalon - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link
For the s754 system, to clarify. Sorry. Wish these posts could be edited :)Avalon - Friday, October 22, 2004 - link
If you wanted to cut an additional ~$50, switch out that MSI K8N Neo Platinum and throw in an Epox 8KDA3J. It's only $73 on newegg, shipped, which is within a dollar or two of the Chaintech VNF-250, but has loads more features. After all, you guys gave the 8KDA3+ an editor's choice award, so why not recommend the "value" board in a mid range rig? It's an option to ponder over.dragonballgtz - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
A $200 CPU would go better with a 9800Pro IMHO for gamers.JarredWalton - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
ksherman, that's basically what I went with, but outside of gaming there is no real need for a fast graphics card. $200 for a graphics card that many people do not want/need is difficult to justify. Rather than create more confusion with talk of gaming alternatives, we are going to look at putting together a Gaming Guide in the near future.The Mid-Range PC is such a broad segment that it is virtually impossible to cover all options without writing a 20,000 word article. This one is already long enough, and that was after I removed the gaming options. Here's the basics, though:
If you want a moderate gaming card for AGP, about the only reasonable choice right now is a 9800 Pro. The 6800/6800GT are too expensive for most people, I think. PCI Express has the 6600GT which tends to be faster than the 9800 Pro by about 10 to 20%. As games are GPU limited in most cases, AMD fans will probably either want to wait for PCI Express motherboards and get a 6600GT, or else bite the bullet and spend $360+ on a 6800GT. Ouch. :)
Beenthere - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
Nice guide. Lotta work !!!I think the biggest issue for most folks looking to build a new PC or even to upgrade within a budget, is prioritizing. As you can see from the comments above, gamers always want a top-of-the-line Video card even when this takes a big bite outta the budget. To do that you gotta cut cost some place else and that may compromise the total system performance.
Seems to me that an easy means to quantify and qualify the real options for an individual system would be by listing the hardware categories as you've done on a spreadsheet then plug in the hardware and prices accordingly. I think some folks would be surprised to see how their total system price climbs way beyond their original budget when you add $50. here and there to get the "best" of a particular component or to step up to the next level of component.
As you pointed out, sometimes like with memory, buying the lowest latency modules may cost more than moving up 200 MHz in CPU speed, so the CPU may be a better choice. Your guide and recommendations give PC builders a great head start on getting the most bang-for-their-buck.
Thanks for the effort!
ksherman - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
also, I think that a good description for a mid range system should be a system with a good amount of power (hence the processor choice) with out the price premium. I like mid-ranges because they offer the power i need with the versitility to do anything I will need to do for a while down the road.ksherman - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
It is kinda weird that you recommend such a low-end card for a mid-range system... to me (as everyone else has stated) the 6600 and 9800's should be in the midrange systems. 9600 and similar should be put into low-end systems... in regards to the x300, you state that it is good for those not into gaming so much as other "basic computing tasks", I think that something like that belongs in the low-end systems category.JarredWalton - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
I have made a few minor corrections, and I also added a $1000 AMD 754 system to the summary page, for those that might feel $1250 is too much. :)#3: Corrected, thanks. MB, GB... sometimes my fingers have a mind of their own.
#7: RAID 1 hardware controllers should not incur any noticeable performance penalty, as they simply tell both hard drives to write the same data. Better RAID 1 controllers will actually have improved read performance, as they can pull data from two sources. I have not done any extensive testing of this, however, and would guess that most integrated RAID controllers lack that feature. If anyone knows for sure, speak up.
#12: I didn't put much of an emphasis on gaming, as I hope to cover that more in an upcoming Gaming Guide. We'll see if that gets a green light - it's been a while since we covered that topic in depth, I think, although the Doom 3 craze touched on it.
#15: Stay tuned. That's all I will say for now. The Pioneer is still a good choice, though.
#16: Is that typo corrected now? If not, which page are you seeing that on, since I checked both the Display and Summary pages for the error.
Thanks!
Desslok - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
That monitor costs as much as the whole system would?NEC/Mitsubishi FE991SB-BK 19" 1274?????
deathwalker - Thursday, October 21, 2004 - link
Great article...I am a little surprised at the Optical Drive choice of the NEC 3500A @ $73, reason being is that you just reviewed the Pioneer 108 and called it the best drive reviewed to date and its only $78.