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
justly - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link
Jarred, Thanks for the responce, and I can certainly understand why you would dislike writing a budget guide.If what you say is true "In a single review with high-end components (which is how we generally handle reviews), a lot of motherboards work very well. When you start dropping down to cheaper RAM, however, it's amazing how frequently system instabilities seem to end up being caused by the motherboard choice." then maybe what is really bothering me is not so much your review but the way motherboard reviews are conducted.
One other thing (just thinking out loud here), how does VIA and SiS chipset affect memory compatibility on a A64 system when the memory controller is part of the CPU??? Do the motherboard manufactures pay more attention to the memory trace lines on Nforce based motherboards (even budget ones) than SiS or VIA based boards??? ... I really think I need an answer to these before I can fully believe you, no offence but I will remain skeptical about your comment to not use VIA or SiS (at least on a A64) untill these are answered.
Maybe you could make a recommendation on how motherboard reviews are conducted, that way Anandtech readers can be informed about these problems that are hidden from us by reviews that only use high-end components.
Thanks again for the reply.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link
Good point, PrinceGaz. Of course, my take is that the ability to run the "full" Aero Glass experience mode of Longhorn is essentially a requirement for most people. At the very least, a PC should be upgradeable to that level (with AGP/PCIe cards, not with PCI).18 - I don't actually recommend the FX 5200 as a card for any of the systems. I mentioned it only as the "fastest" PCI graphics card currently available. The 9550 might also be available in PCI version, in which case it would be something of a toss up, but I haven't heard of any ATI DX9 parts for PCI.
#17 - Of course you can get a cheaper system that what I listed. What you've specced out is pretty much the cheapest "modern" system that could be put together. I personally wouldn't recommend that sort of configuration to a friend (or anyone else) without some serious reservations. Basically, it would be a case of "you can get this if you want, but I will not be held responsible for any shortcomings." You basically hit the point of diminishing returns, where $5 to $10 saved ends up costing you 10% of your overall performance (i.e. going from a Sempron 2400+ to a Sempron 2200+), or else you lose certain features that I consider desirable (DVD+RW support).
It's a personal preference, really, so people can go either way. My feeling is that any *new* system should include at bare minimum the following:
512 MB of RAM
80GB Hard Drive w/8MB cache
Sempron 2400+/Celeron D 320
17" monitor
DVD+RW support
You certainly don't *need* any of those features for standard PC use, but I would definitely recommend spending the extra $50 or so to get them.
PrinceGaz - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link
Excellent article, I couldn't really fault any of the choices, and good explanations were given of why they were selected.One minor point worth mentioning maybe related to Longhorn's graphics requirements, specifically where you say that for 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".It will run fine on DX7 hardware in 'Classic' mode (similar to how Windows 2000 looks). Only the 'Aero' and 'Aero Glass' modes require DX9 hardware. Full details on the likely requirements for the three modes can be found here-
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/graph...
delldell - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link
Good article; however, the radeon 9550 graphics card is faster than the nvidia FX 5200 while also being cheaper :) At only $60 the 9550 clearly represents the best bang in the the low end video card market. Check out the review from techreport.comhttp://techreport.com/etc/2005q1/bestof2004/index....
ChineseDemocracyGNR - Monday, January 10, 2005 - link
I have a different idea of what a budget computer is.AMD budget:
AMD Sempron 2200+ Retail $54
ASRock K7S41 $49
Corsair Value Select 256MB DDR400 $41
Seagate 40GB 7200RPM 2MB PATA $56
LG 52X32X52 CD-RW Drive $29
same floppy, Case & PSU, Display, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse as your AMD Budget. $251
Total: $480
AMD Performance Budget:
AMD Sempron 2600+ Retail $86
ASRock K7Upgrade-880 $47
Corsair Value Select 2x256MB DDR400 $68
Gigabyte ATI Radeon 9550 128MB DDR 128-bit $71
Seagate 80 GB 7200 RPM 8MB SATA $69
LG 52X32X52 CD-RW Drive $29
same floppy, Case & PSU, Display, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse as your AMD Budget. $251
total = $621
Intel Budget:
Intel Celeron D 315 (2.26GHz) Retail $69
ASUS P4S800-MX $60
Corsair Value Select 256MB DDR400 $41
Seagate 40GB 7200RPM 2MB PATA $56
LG 52X32X52 CD-RW Drive $29
same floppy, Case & PSU, Display, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse as your AMD Budget. $251
Total: $506
Intel Performance Budget:
Intel Celeron D 325J (2.53GHz) Retail $89
ASRock 775V88 $58
Corsair Value Select 2x256MB DDR400 $68
Gigabyte ATI Radeon 9550 128MB DDR 128-bit $71
Seagate 80 GB 7200 RPM 8MB SATA $69
LG 52X32X52 CD-RW Drive $29
same floppy, Case & PSU, Display, Speakers, Keyboard and Mouse as your AMD Budget. $251
total = $635
qquizz - Sunday, January 9, 2005 - link
Just to clarify:Of course ddr400 memory can run at 333 speed. My point is that the memory must be run at 333 to be supported by the motherboard using onboard graphics. This is the case with all NF2 boards with onboard graphics that I've seen.
Jep4444 - Sunday, January 9, 2005 - link
its mainly old Via boards with issues(i mean original K8T800) and for the purpouse of this article an NF3 can be had cheaper than a K8T800pro on 754 so it is a justified move but to say Via chipsets have problems is just not rightWhen it comes to 939 boards, the K8T800Pros(specifically from Abit and Asus) have been the best boards out
erinlegault - Sunday, January 9, 2005 - link
The one thing I think was missing from the graphics section is overclocking options. Overclocking is a great way to gain extra performance from a product. Besides what ATI and others do to turn a Radeon 9600 into a Pro or XT is overclock it and provide adequate cooling and provide faster memory. Why should a user pay a company to overclock a product when they can do it themselves.I personally like Abit's options. They have a line of products based on the Radeon 9550, just an underclocked 9600. But, they have two products, the R9550-Guru and the R9550XTurbo-Guru, which supports their V-Guru overclocking utility. With adequate cooling these products could posibly be overclocked to the 600 MHz of the 9600XT. On the memory, side the Guru has 3.6ns memory that is comparable to the 3.3ns memory of Abit's 9600XT product and probably can't be overclocked much above the stock 400 MHz. But, the interesting part about the XTurbo-Guru is that the memory is 2.5ns and can be easily overclocked. And if you look at the product images, I think adequate cooling is already provided for overclocking.
qquizz - Sunday, January 9, 2005 - link
It should be noted that for the budget motherboard: http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?mode..."Supports DDR266/333 with internal graphic core, DDR266/333/400 with external add-on card."
In other words, if you wanna use ddr400, it is only supported if you use a discrete video card. If you use the onboard video, only ddr266/333 is supported.
JarredWalton - Sunday, January 9, 2005 - link
Justly - The memory compatibility issues with Nforce3 250 are pretty much confined to the EPoX boards as far as I've heard. All other NF3250 boards will run two DS DIMMs at DDR400. VIA chipsets in general still have some issues. The motherboard is such a critical component that I really don't like to cut any corners, even in the budget sector.In a single review with high-end components (which is how we generally handle reviews), a lot of motherboards work very well. When you start dropping down to cheaper RAM, however, it's amazing how frequently system instabilities seem to end up being caused by the motherboard choice.
Honestly, I dislike writing the budget guide selections, just because there are so many questionable parts. I always try to push customers to spend an extra $30 or so on the motherboard if nothing else. Maybe I'm just superstitious, but I've had several "cheap" systems fail after a year or so due to the motherboard.