Buyer's Guide - Entry Level, January 2005
by Jarred Walton on January 9, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Video Cards
Since we have selected budget motherboards that include integrated graphics on the socket A and socket 478 platforms, an add-in graphics card is not required for them. If you want to add a graphics card to such a system, that's easy enough to do, but in that case, you're better off getting a motherboard without integrated graphics. An add-in graphics card is pretty much a requirement for running most recent computer games, and other tasks like video capture will also benefit from having a discrete graphics card. In the past, we have heard some requests for a budget system that doesn't bother with a graphics card, and so that's what we have in this Guide. We still prefer getting motherboards without integrated graphics, but most, if not all, of us also tend to play computer games now and then, so we're biased. Having used and supported various systems with integrated graphics in other environments, we feel pretty safe in saying that the majority of budget computer users will do fine with such a setup.As far as the card selection that we present here, we're going to push the boundaries of "budget" a little higher than normal, on the assumption that if you're not going with the integrated graphics recommendation, you probably want a little more from your graphics card. The GeForce 4 MX440 and Radeon 9200SE are still the cheapest "reasonable" graphics cards, but they're only moderately faster than the integrated solutions. You should be able to find one of those models for $40 to $50 if you want to really cut costs, but buying even a budget Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 system and then pairing it with crippled graphics is a questionable decision. We're not looking at truly capable gaming solutions here, but they should be able to run any current game at reduced detail settings without difficulty. If you would like more information on gaming graphics cards in particular, we recommend checking out our recent Gaming Guide.
Click to enlarge.
AGP Graphics Recommendation: Sapphire Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB DDR 128-bit, 400/600 GPU/RAM clock (bulk/OEM)
Price: $105 shipped
For moderate 3D graphics performance, the Radeon 9600 Pro offers the best bang for the buck. We have selected a Sapphire OEM model here, but really most of the cards perform at about the same level, and when you're on a budget, such concerns as noise levels and overclocking potential take a back seat to price. If you can find a 9600 Pro card for less (or about the same price), then you should be safe buying it. Be careful that you get a standard version and not an "Advantage" or other similarly named model, as there are cards with reduced GPU and RAM clock speeds on the market that share the "9600 Pro" name. The normal clocks for the 9600 Pro are 400 MHz for the core and 600 MHz DDR for the RAM. We have seen 400/400 models with the Pro name, but when you consider that the standard 9600 has a 325/400 clock and can be had for about $30 less money, the semi-Pro models are not a good bargain.
Going up in performance from the Pro is the 9600 XT, which is $30 more typically. With a 500 MHz core clock and the same 600 MHz RAM clock, however, we don't feel that it's worth the additional cost. The 9600 Pro should be more than adequate, and if it's not, you're probably better off spending closer to $200 or more rather than settling for the roughly 20% performance increase that the 9600 XT offers. We have chosen to go with a bulk/OEM model, as the additional programs that ship with a 9600 Pro are not usually worth the added cost, but if you feel differently, you can find retail versions starting at $10 to $15 more.
Click to enlarge.
PCIe Graphics Recommendation: Albatron GeForce 6600 128 MB DDR 128-bit, 300/550 GPU/RAM clock (retail)
Price: $122 shipped
When we move to the PCI Express side of the equation, things change a bit. The absolute cheapest PCI Express graphics cards come in at about $70, and they are basically the equivalent of the Radeon 9600 SE. For those who don't know, the SE usually means that the part has a 64-bit memory interface (typically a bad thing where 3D performance is concerned), and despite the difference in numbers, the X300 and X600 are more or less the same chip with the only difference being the clock speeds. (Technically, the X300 uses the RV370 core and a 110 nm process while the X600 uses the RV380 core and a 130 nm process, but in terms of performance and features, we are not aware of any major architectural differences.) The X300SE and X300 correlate to the AGP 9600 SE and 9600 while the X600 Pro and X600 XT correlate to the AGP 9600 Pro and 9600 XT. Hopefully, if any of you were confused on that subject, we've managed to clear things up a bit.
All that talk of ATI parts may have led you to believe that we were selecting an ATI-base card, but that's not actually the case. The X600 Pro costs about $110 and is the PCIe equivalent of the 9600 Pro. That would make the two platforms equal in graphics performance, but there is a better option for PCI Express. When you look at the superior feature set and performance of the NVIDIA 6600 parts, we feel that they are worth the small bump in price. They include 8 pixel pipelines instead of only 4, which more than makes up for their 300 MHz clock speed. (The X600 Pro would basically need to run at 600 MHz to match the 6600 core's 300 MHz.) Add to that the Shader Model 3.0 support and we feel that the $10 price hike is more than worth the cost. The RAM performance is actually slightly lower, but so long as you don't enable antialiasing or run at really high resolutions in games, you should be fine. There are also 6600 cards that have a 64-bit memory bus, and you should definitely avoid these as they only save about $10 and offer half the memory performance of the full 6600 cards.
None of our graphics card recommendations here are what we would actually call "fast", but they offer reasonable performance for just about any task. Remember also that with the next version of Windows (codenamed Longhorn), 3D graphics support will actually be required in order to run it properly. Specifically, the word is that Pixel Shader 2.0 support will be required. That means that neither of the integrated graphics solutions will be able to run properly, but when you consider that Longhorn is probably two years off, we wouldn't lose any sleep over that fact. The two cards that we've listed here should meet the minimum requirements for Windows Longhorn, and by the time it actually ships, you will probably be able to buy much faster cards for less money. Just remember that if you don't get a decent graphics card now, you will have to buy something in a couple of years. This is why we insist that any newly purchased computer system now include an option to upgrade the graphics at the very least, so no matter how tempting an OEM system might look, if it doesn't have an AGP or PCIe slot, we would stay away from it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, January 21, 2005 - link
Next Guide is due out "soon" - like this weekend probably.As for PATA vs. SATA, the performance difference is negligible. The cables are a different story. PATA (also called IDE/EIDE) uses 40 pin connectors and 80 pin cables. SATA gets by with a cable that's about 1/4 as large, and the connector is only about 1 cm wide instead of 5 cm or so. Rounded IDE cables help, but the IDE connector is still rather a pain in the butt.
Also, SATA is point-to-point, which means there are no worries about master/slave settings. Each SATA device is on its own channel. The theoretical performance of SATA is higher than PATA, but in practice all current hard drives are limited by the hard drive's sustained transfer rate.
Fauno - Thursday, January 20, 2005 - link
Dumb question: what´s the difference for SATA and PATA?Tkx for all.
Fauno - Thursday, January 20, 2005 - link
Mr. Jarred, thank you for the great newsletter!I would like to see an improved, i mean, something
better than the Budget and Performance scenarios.
How long may i have to wait for your next guide?
I´m anxious because i´m in hurry to make a brand new computer.
Thank you vey much.
micronot - Monday, January 17, 2005 - link
Show me the Benhchmarks ---I have no complaints about the selections, but it would have been nice to also see how these systems compare on a few benchmarks. This would help show a price to performance ratio.
erinlegault - Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - link
How do think nForce motherboards have instability at default settings?I know VIA has been very reliable since their Apollo Pro 133 chipset, I have owned several. But, to say Nvidia nForce chipsets are unstable is unfounded. The various flavors of nForce 2, 3 and now 4 are the probably the best chipsets ever made.
I have no opinion about the initial nForce chipset, I personally never give first timers a chance. This is probably the chipset you call unstable, but what company does not produce a first generation product that isn't perfect.
bob661 - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
I don't recommend Nforce boards to non-enthusiasts because of instability or just plain quirkiness (sp?). I figure a geek wouldn't mind troubleshooting and tinkering but I don't assume that for newbies or general users. VIA has always treated me kindly and I don't have people coming back to me after I build them a computer complaining about quirks. I remember when VIA was the quirky, problem-ridden chipset but I haven't seen that for at least 5 years. We use computers with that chipset at work as CAD workstations (29 machines) and there's no instability.Live - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
If the 6600 is an option in PCIe why not as AGP it is available in both?woodchuk - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
Have to agree on the VIA and SIS chipsets, not only because they tend to lose sound drivers and such occasionally, but the nVidia solutions seem bulletproof.Also, the Semprons I've built recently are very disappointing in anything that likes a lot of cache, either Tbird or Barton equivelents are faster.
justly - Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - link
Thanks again, although I really wasn't expecting a responce to my last post.I understand the reluctance tward integrated video, but to be fair there are two reasons for building a budget system one is obviously because you cant afford the alternitive, and the other is because you know you dont need the alternitive. If someone is simply trying to make a performance system fit a tight budget then I would expect them to have problems simply because that is not the correct way to make a performance system. Is this the type of person that you are making a budget guide for? if so then I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the budget guide.
I'm NOT intentionally trying to argue with you, it just irritates me that the impression I (and I think others may also) get from the article is that Nforce is not just the chipset of choice but that it seems to be the only chipset that is acceptable, and now I see you say "a less expensive chipset isn't necessarily inferior". That was the point I was trying to make.
A lot of what you say makes sense, but a few things don't (at least to me), one being that you assume cheaper capacitors, resistors, fabrication facilities, etc (along with cheaper chipsets and less features) are used to make a budget board, but unless the Nvidia chipset is cheaper or the board has less features then the only way a Nvidia motherboard can compete in price is to use as cheep or cheeper parts or fabrication facilities yet you still claim it is more stable/compatible, how can this be? ok maybe it is the BIOS, I guess I just have a hard time believing that every non-Nvidia moterboards out there has problems with their BIOS.
My experiances are a little different than yours. I have had very little or no problems with SiS or ALi drivers in the past (VIA is a different story). When the K6-2/III was popular I had both ALi and VIA based motherboards and I would say without a doubt that I liked the ALi better. On the Athlon platform I can also say without a doubt that I liked the SiS better than the VIA. While I personally haven't owned a Nvidia chipset I do know of more than one person that had problems with them (and they where not budget builds either, in fact they where top of the line in most cases).
Having a bias is normal everyone has them, I just think with a following as large as what Anandtech has you should try to hide that bias a little better. Maybe it is time you try a SiS or ALi/ULi chipset again, you might be pleasantly surprised. Then again maybe you know yoou need more than SiS or ULi can give you in that case continue on with your "self-perpetuating bias. :p" just kidding, have a nice day and thanks for the insight regarding your recommendation.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link
Let me go back to an earlier statement, just to make sure we're all on the same page. I said the following on page 2: "There are boards that use the VIA K8M800 chipset with its S3 UniChrome Pro graphics, and there are also boards that include the SiS Mirage graphics. Performance and reliability of either one are questionable in our opinion." Just to make this clear, the "questionable" aspect is specifically in regards to the integrated graphics - lowest common denominator graphics almost always cause me grief. Some will only support 24-bit color, which is not 100% compatible with all applications, forcing you to use 16-bit mode at times. Others simply perform very poorly even in 2D applications, and then there's the supported refresh rates which may end up being 60 Hz at any resolution above 1280x1024.Okay, now back to the topic at hand....
Memory compatibility issues can come from a variety of areas. For example, even with an Intel 865PE chipset, you're not going to see identical performance or compatibility across all motherboards. It probably has a lot to do with the BIOS, not to mention some other items like quality and location of capacitors, resistors, etc.
THG did a memory comparison maybe six months back where they tested about 10 to 15 different brands of RAM on 10 to 15 different motherboards. I don't recall the specifics, other than the ASUS K8V SE Deluxe was the most compatible motherboard (working with all the RAM types used) and that the Corsair RAM was the most compatible RAM.
As I'm not a BIOS programmer or motherboard manufacturer, I can't say for sure what causes the issues that some boards experience, but I can hazzard a guess. Let's assume you're trying to make a budget board that will sell for $25 less than other motherboards. The first step is usually to go with a cheaper chipset, i.e. SiS or ALi or VIA as opposed to Intel or NVIDIA. (I don't know how expensive NV chipsets are, but I know that Intel is regarded as the most expensive out there.) Now, a less expensive chipset isn't necessarily inferior, but I have a feeling a lot of motherboards that use cheaper chipsets also use cheaper capacitors, resistors, fabrication facilities, etc.
I would guess that this is why the ASUS A8V Deluxe and the Abit AV8 are still very good boards even with the VIA K8T800 Pro chipset. They also cost nearly as much as competing NVIDIA boards. As with all things, compromises are made to reach any price point. If most motherboards with a certain chipset sell for $85+ and a new board comes out that only costs $70, you can be almost sure that either features or quality were cut - possibly both. Long-term reliability of cheap motherboards has never been good for me, although I'm sure others have had okay experiences.
Beyond that, I don't have any real concerns with the VIA A64 motherboards. SiS and ALi/ULi are a different matter, although I freely admit that I have avoided using motherboards with those chipsets for years. Finding comprehensive chipset drivers for NVIDIA, Intel, and VIA motherboards is generally a simple matter; not so with SiS and ALi (in my experience). Drivers always end up mattering, and the easier it is to get all the drivers installed, the better.
In the end, it's a Catch-22 situation: I don't trust SiS and ALi/ULi based motherboards as much as NVIDIA and Intel based motherboards due to some bad experiences. The only thing that would really convince me that they no longer have problems would be extended use of such a motherboard over a two year period. However, when I look at the prices and it's only $10 more for a board that I already trust, why take a chance?
I'm only one person, with limited access to hardware (even if I have more access than most people, I can't just get anything I want). No one has perfect knowledge of how specific boards will work over a 4 year period, so we end up guessing based off of previous knowledge. My previous knowledge says that SiS and ALi boards are more likely to have issues over an extended period of time, but what I really know is that *previous* SiS and ALi boards had a lot of problems. Yup, it's a self-perpetuating bias. :p