Pre-AM2 Mid-Range Buyers' Guide, May 2006
by Jarred Walton on May 9, 2006 6:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Storage Recommendations
There hasn't been a lot of excitement in the area of computer storage lately - unless you follow the flame wars being waged online between the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD marketing departments? I've used quite a few hard drives over the past year, from every major manufacturer. Western Digital, Maxtor, Seagate, Hitachi, and Samsung all make reasonable hard drives, at least as far as performance is concerned. Without running benchmarks, I certainly can't tell the difference between any of the hard drives. A second area of performance is noise levels, and while most of the hard drive manufacturers are pretty close together, Maxtor drives are definitely among the loudest on the market. (A friend described them as "bongo drums" recently.) Older model drives can also be louder, so we would recommend sticking to the latest models if at all possible. Samsung and Seagate are the quietest drives, with Samsung having a slight lead, but depending on the rest of your computer it may not matter too much. Hard drive noise levels only become a factor if you have a relatively silent system. If you plan on having three or more case fans (counting the PSU), it's unlikely that you will notice hard drive noise. |
| Click to enlarge |
Hard Drive Recommendation: Western Digital SATA3.0Gbps 250GB 7200RPM 16MB Caviar SE16
Price: $95 shipped (OEM)
Since performance isn't the overriding concern, we're mostly left with looking at price perGB. It's also reasonable to state that most people don't need more than 250GB of hard drive space - and probably not even that much. The 250GB models continue to offer the best price perGB of storage, and for a couple dollars extra you can get 16MB of cache on certain models. Coming in at $.38 perGB, the Western Digital 250GB SE16 SATA2 gets our pick. I've purchased four of these drives in the last six months, and I haven't had any problems. (I haven't had problems with my Hitachi, Samsung, or Seagate drives either.) If you're looking for a bit more storage capacity, the Seagate 300GB 7200.9 and the Western Digital 320GB SE16 both have a similar cost perGB and also come with 16MB of cache. Seagate also carries a standard five-year warranty, but of course if you ever need to use the warranty you'll be really unhappy with the loss of your data. The best way to avoid data loss is to back up your hard drive, which brings us to our optical drive recommendation.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
DVDR Recommendation: NEC 3550A (OEM)
Price: $37 shipped (OEM)
With prices under $40, we once again reiterate the statement that there's no point in getting anything other than a DVD burner these days. If you've already got several DVD burners in other computers, you might want to go with a 16X DVD-ROM, but that's about the only case where we wouldn't spend the extra money. BenQ, Pioneer, LG, Plextor, and Lite On also make reasonable burners, but in terms of price/performance we would take the NEC 3550A. Plextor also has an 18X burner out, but with a price of $100 not to mention reported media incompatibilities, you should save your money for now.
| Hard Drive Alternatives | |
| Western Digital 3.0Gbps 320GB 7200RPM 16MB Caviar SE16 | 125 |
| Seagate 3.0Gbps 300GB 7200RPM 16MB Barracuda 7200.9 | 122 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
ZJB298 - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
K, so I'm a huge newb, but what's the point of getting or switching to X16 over X8 if there is no performance impact? Is there likely to be more of a performance impact for a gamer or a higher-end graphics card than for a normal user?Basically, is it worth it for me to go searching for another, more expensive motherboard with X16 slots over X8 slots?
JarredWalton - Saturday, May 20, 2006 - link
In my opinion, NO! Dual X16 is just a lot of marketing hype. The board that sport it might benchmark faster at times (by 5% or so), but 5% can be had through BIOS optimizations.Crassus - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Thanks for a new Buyer's Guide. I wondered when the next one would come for quite some time. It maybe not necessary to bring them as often as when they started, but right now I think they're spaced a wee bit too far apart.It's always a very helpful read and I use it not only as a recommendation of what to buy, but also as an indication of where the industry stands at this time, i.e. what the standard is for any given component. Keep up the good work and (maybe) update them a little more often again.
sabrewulf - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
"Plenty of people are still running old socket 478, 462, and 754 systems, and they're perfectly happy with the level of performance and they have. The latest and greatest computer games almost certainly wouldn't run on those older systems without drastically reducing the graphics quality"754 + PCI-E = perfectly capable of running with maximum eye-candy.
LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
And the percentage of Socket 754 mainboards with PCI-E is?Socket 754 performance is decent, but it's truly a dead-end. For hard-core gamers, I'd urge them to get out while they can sell their parts for reasonable cost, much like I'd have said to Socket 423 owners when the P4 switched to 478.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Notice the "OLD" socket 754 part? Obviously, newer 754 PCIe boards are okay. LOL I still do a ton of work on my 754 + 6800GT system, though.sabrewulf - Friday, May 12, 2006 - link
Sorry I guess I didn't notice that word. I'm mostly just speaking up for people like my brother who last year wanted to upgrade his graphics card, but already has a 2.4 ghz 754 chip and couldn't afford a new video card AND an equivalent 939 CPU at the same time, so he got a cheap solid 754 PCI-E board instead. Works great for him, and with AM2 right around the corner, it looks like an even smarter purchase since he can pretty much skip 939 altogether.LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
The thought of Socket AM2 didn't excite me, but not just because of the lack of performance. So I think this Upgrade Guide makes a lot of sense (well, at least if you don't need to do a mainboard upgrade at present time).Just the thought of having to completely reload Windows XP was enough to cause me (a month ago) to decide it was better to upgrade to 2GB of DDR and go from a Winchester 3000+ to an Athlon 64 X2 3800+, with no mainboard swap required. My MSI Neo 4 Platinum has been a good board. I plan on getting one year more at the very least out of it before I consider the new platform. I'm sure AM2 is the best option for anyone who still has an Athlon XP (unless they don't wish to save by not swapping out RAM) and that waiting for new Intel hardware is the best solution for anyone who currently has a Socket 478 system or earlier, but now that I have a system board I'm completely happy with, it's really hard to justify an upgrade that would require me to gut the OS...I no longer have that kind of time on a regular basis.
APKasten - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I find it really hard to believe that 1GB of PC3200, even at low latencies, is worth almost $200. I can get 2 GB at higher latency (4-4-4-7) for about $150! Is the performance boost really worth that much money for just 1 GB? I was always under the impression that more RAM was better than having extra low latency RAM.I took AnandTech's recommendation to get the OCZ EL 512MB (2x256MB) Kit (2.5-3-2-6?) a few years ago. I replaced that with a GeIL 1 GB (2x512MB) kit at 4-4-4-7 last year and I have since had much better performance from my system. That was the only thing I changed on my box. So I guess my real question is, wouldn't 2 GB at higher latencies be better than 1 GB at lower latencies, bang-for-buck-wise?
APKasten - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Holy crap. Nevermind...I just realized that it was a 2GB kit you were talking about in the article.Sorry. *rolls eyes*