Buyer's Guide - Mid-Range, January 2005
by Jarred Walton on January 21, 2005 11:09 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Memory Recommendations
With the three basic platforms from before, we end up with two memory options. At this point in time, we cannot see any reason to recommend less than 1 GB of RAM. All the platforms support dual-channel memory configurations, so we will be going with a 2x512MB setup. We still have a basic and an enthusiast RAM recommendation, but DDR2 gets left out.
Click to enlarge.
DDR RAM Recommendation:
Corsair Value Select Dual Pack, 2x512MB DDR PC-3200 CL2.5Price: $145 shipped
Options for a more value oriented approach to system memory are pretty good, with most of the major brands being represented. We've gone with a Corsair Value Select Dual Pack, which includes two "matched" DIMMs rated at PC-3200 with CL2.5 timings. Tweakers might be able to get a little more performance out of them by increasing the voltage and lowering the timings, but gains are generally small enough that it's not a big deal.
If you can't find Corsair RAM where you live/shop, there are plenty of other options that can generally be trusted to run reliably. Mushkin, Crucial, Kingston, and OCZ top our list, but most of the major brands should work fine. In the mid-range sector, we would definitely steer clear of the generic "Name Brand!" memory that you can often find at lower prices, as compatibility and stability is dubious at best. If you can afford a $1250 computer system, there's no need to try and save $25 on the memory. In fact, for most people, we would recommend going the other way and spending a bit more for even higher quality RAM, but you should still be fine with our basic recommendation. There are a lot of good options in the $200 price range, with 2-3-2 and even 2-2-2 timings being available.
Click to enlarge.
DDR RAM Alternative:
Patriot/PDP XBL Dual Channel Kit, 2x512MB DDR PC-3200 2-2-2-5Price: $224 shipped
For our performance DDR configuration, we chose some of the best performing RAM available for the platform - in this case, the Patriot PC-3200 RAM that uses Samsung TCCD chips. Truth be told, any of the DIMMs based on the Samsung TCCD chips will offer a lot of performance and overclocking headroom, but we prefer the models specified to run 2-2-2 timings at DDR400 over the versions that are binned for maximum clock speed - at least, for a non-overclocking configuration. This Patriot RAM was the cheapest 2-2-2 TCCD RAM that we could find, solidifying the recommendation. As with many other TCCD DIMMs, Patriot uses the BrainPower PCB, so there's little difference between this RAM and more expensive alternatives. If you want some other options, you can find all of the other Samsung TCCD modules that we've reviewed in green in our recent memory performance charts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
46 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Sunday, January 23, 2005 - link
35 - Damn. Foiled. :) I forget these things over time. Wasn't the original Raptor TCQ and the newer version has something like "TCQ-II" which was supposed to improve on standard TCQ somehow? Anyway, our NCQ article didn't really show a major benefit for desktop use, but I've fixed the error now. Thanks!REMF - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
"On the other hand, if improved performance is what you're after, the best two choices are either one of the 16MB cache Maxtor drives or the 74GB Western Digital Raptor [RTPE: WD740GD] with its 10,000 RPM design - both of these also offer NCQ, in case you were wondering."the Raptor offers Tagged Command Queuing, not Native Command Queuing.
JarredWalton - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
Regarding post #30 and the NEC 3520A, a reader sent me an email informing me that the 3520A uses a new chipset and thus the 3500A is *not* upgradeable to the 3520A via a BIOS flash. Barring any contradicting views, I'll stick with that.JarredWalton - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
31 - our RTPE doesn't currently differentiate between the ST3160023AS and the ST3160827AS, unfortunately. For example, the Newegg listing currently priced at $111.50 + $4.69 shipping is the appropriate NCQ model. In reality, the NCQ doesn't seem to be a big deal for non-server systems (just like RAID), but if it's only a few dollars more why not get it? That was my feeling. There are even a couple listings in the RTPE for the ST3160021AS. Basically, the RTPE bots match items according to size and features, but NCQ doesn't seem to be something they're aware of yet.kamaboko - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
you know the saying, "can't please all of the people all of the time". i think that applies here. in any case, i found this guide useful since i'm looking at a near total ground up rebuild--minus dvd burner, audigy 2zs, and monitor.beakerman - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
"With the added benefit of Native Command Queuing (NCQ), the Seagate drives continue to impress. The Seagate 160 GB SATA [RTPE: ST3160023AS]"According to Seagate, the ST3160023AS does not feature NCQ. I believe the drive you want is the ST3160827AS, which is actually a few $$ cheaper. Both drives are 160 GB SATA.
JarredWalton - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
26 - Sorry, I got the wrong "updated burn speeds" in there. The 3500A is indeed capable of 16X DVD+/-R recording. The difference is that the 3520A can do DVD+RW at 8X and DVD-RW at 6X, while the 3500A is stuck at 4X for both. There's a reasonable chance, of course, that a BIOS flash of the 3500A can turn it into the 3520A. I updated the text with this information.28 - The "alternative" was meant as a closer to high-end option. 50% more for the CPU for 10% more performance is a rather expensive upgrade. The jump to the 3800+ is even worse, coming in at 100% more than the 3500+ for a 9% performance increase. I've updated the text slightly to make this more clear. For overclockers, I definitely wouldn't bother with the added cost of the 3500+.
27 - I did mention the home theater aspect for the speakers (last part of the 5300e paragraph), but we're certainly not going to spec out an entire home audio setup, so there's not much to do other than mention it. Your comment ties into the next point:
29 - 2.1 speakers aren't much cheaper than the 5.1s, and you can always just leave the rear speakers disconnected. Still, you have a point that some people really don't want more speakers. In that case, I'm not sure why they would bother with anything more than 2.0 speakers, though. There *are* great 2.0 and 2.1 speakers out there, but then you're almost better off looking at the home audio equipment instead of PC speakers. I dunno... I suppose the Swans are always an option. Anywat, I modified the text to include 2.0/2.1 speakers and headphones as something to consider, along with home theater audio. I moved this into a separate paragraph to draw more attention to it.
Dranzerk - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
One suggestion for next buyers guide, I think all kinds system setups like 2.1 speaker systems, you should offer a 5.1 and 2.1 for each type instead of just 5.1.I know some personally don't like 5.1 sounding speakers, and prefer 2.1 speakers.
The logitech Z3 2.1 fit that bill perfectly, you can find them for under $50 also, and they get great reviews.
Pjotr - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
I think you are fooling buyers into a wrongful purchase when it comes to performance. In the AMD "Upgraded" PCIe Athlon 64 System you have gone from 3200+ for $215 to 3500+ for $334. The performance increase from 2.0 to 2.2 GHz is smaller than 10 %, in many applications like games it might even be close to 0.Instead of adding $119 for this 0-10 % performance gain, I think sticking with the 3200+ CPU and changing the graphics card from 6600GT to 6800GT (Leadtek A400) is a MUCH better choise, It will cost you £377 minus $190 = $187. If you want to come down close to the $119 difference don't get an SLI motherboard.
This graphics upgrade will make wonders in anything graphics related compared to a 10 % CPU clock speed upgrade that is seldom noticed in anything.
Caligynemania - Saturday, January 22, 2005 - link
Great article, just one comment. With your reccomendation of speakers and sound card as alternatives, you really should mention that a receiver/speaker combination would probably be most people's best bets. A good receiver will run slightly more than the sound cards you mentioned, but the selection for real speakers is infinitely better than computer speakers.