Midrange Buyer's Guide - September 2006
by Jarred Walton on September 26, 2006 8:25 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Display Selections
You have already seen our Display selections for the various system configurations, but we haven't discussed the details. There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is that we would encourage people to buy a better display if at all possible. Many people are more than happy with a 19" LCD, but with their fixed resolutions LCDs are not quite as flexible as CRTs. If you want more pixel real estate, generally that means you need to purchase a larger LCD. Prices do begin to increase rapidly with increased display sizes, but LCD prices have also dropped quite significantly during the past year or two. Here's a brief selection of several LCDs we would recommend, and we will briefly discuss each one.
There are quite a few options at around a $200 price point. We could choose to go with a 19" standard aspect ratio LCD with an 8ms response time for slightly less than $200, or for about the same price you can upgrade to a 19" widescreen display with an advertised 5ms response time. Which is "better" is going to be based somewhat on individual opinion, but widescreen displays are becoming increasingly popular, and with video content continuing to move into the high-definition realm most of us at AnandTech prefer the format. The Acer AL1916WAbd is the first of several Acer LCDs in our list, mostly because they offer extremely competitive prices with very good overall performance and quality. BenQ, ViewSonic, Dell, Samsung, and others are reasonable alternatives if you can find them for a lower price or if you feel they have some extra feature(s) that you would like. For overall value, the Acer 19" widescreen display gets our pick.
The next step up in terms of price is a standard aspect ratio 19" LCD, again from Acer, only instead of a 5ms response time it features a 2ms response time. Some people have more issues with slow pixel response times and others, but the 2ms LCDs are among the fastest displays currently on the market and few people should notice any pixel smearing. The total amount of pixels is actually slightly more on the 19" standard aspect ratio display compared to the 19" widescreen display, and games are generally far better at supporting 1280x1024 resolution as opposed to 1440x900. Many games can now be configured to work properly with widescreen resolutions, but not everyone wants to go through the effort.
Sticking with Acer once more, we have a 20" standard aspect ratio display. For a long time, 20" LCDs had a native resolution of 1600x1200. Recently, several manufacturers have begun releasing 20" displays with a native resolution of 1400x1050. The pixel response time is up to 8ms, but for a slight increase in screen resolution some people will be willing to spend the extra $30.
Moving to 20" widescreen displays, the least expensive model we could find is the BenQ FP202W 8ms LCD. The native resolution is now 1680x1050, which means you can display 1280x1024 content without any vertical compression -- something that is not possible with the 1440x900 display. Gaming support is still going to require a bit of effort depending on the title, but after you've played some games at 1680x1050 resolution you may find it difficult to return to standard aspect ratio gaming. Last year, displays similar to this BenQ (like the Dell 2005FPW) would typically cost close to $500, although they were periodically on sale for less money. With the price now down to $300, it is becoming increasingly easy to recommend 20" widescreen displays as a great all-around solution.
Recently, however, Acer released their 22" widescreen display with the same 1680x1050 native resolution. Small increases in display sizes have often come with a price premium, but for once that is not the case. Some people might not like the slightly larger pixel size of the 22" Acer display, while those with less than stellar eyesight will likely disagree. If you like to play games but you don't have a top-end graphics configuration, the larger display size while maintaining the same resolution might also be preferable. 24" LCDs may look great, but a lot of GPUs are going to struggle to run games at the native resolution of 1920x1200, and the Acer 22" LCD strikes a nice middle ground. For this reason, it gets our upgrade recommendation.
The final option we list is a 20.1" standard aspect ratio LCD from Samsung. Compared to the 20" Acer LCD mentioned above, you get the reverse of what we just talked about with the 22" widescreen display. This time you get a higher resolution in roughly the same screen size, which means smaller pixels. Whether that's good or bad will again very by individual, but unfortunately you do have to pay more for the Samsung LCD, although there is currently a $60 mail in rebate available. Considering that similar displays cost well over $600 a year ago, the current price is very attractive, although we would still give the edge to the Acer 22" widescreen display.
The final option that we haven't bothered to list outright is to upgrade to a 23/24" display. With a price that's roughly double the cost of the Acer 22" LCD, it is anything but a cheap upgrade. Such large displays are definitely nice to use, and they have the added benefit of being able to display native 1080i/1080p video content without any stretching/squishing. They are definitely a high-end option still, and with the way display prices have been dropping today's $700 LCDs may end up costing under $300 in another year or two. At least, we can hope that will be the case. In the meantime, the 19"-22" is definitely the sweet spot in terms of price/performance. Don't be afraid to spend a bit more to increase the quality of your display however, as you will likely be staring at it far more than any other part of the computer.
Conclusion
Hopefully you have enjoyed this abbreviated look at the current midrange price segment. Since most of our readers seem to skip directly to the final component lists anyway, we thought this might be a better way of presenting our recommendations. We do understand that there's still a lot of room for variation in component selections, and by no means are these configurations the only ones we would currently recommend. Spending more or less money on any individual component is almost always justifiable depending on the intended use. A lot of people can't even dream of filling up a 250 Gigabyte hard drive, for example, but dropping to anything smaller usually results in purchasing an older model and you don't save more than $20. The motherboard, memory, and graphics card selections are all areas where there are many good alternatives that we didn't have the time to list, but we do feel confident in our recommendations and believe that the majority of users will be more than happy with the performance offered.
We'll be back with another buyer's guide in a couple weeks, and next time we will take a look at the high-end segment which we haven't specifically covered in quite a while. If you are looking for other alternatives, you can also check out our recently expanded system reviews section, where you can get someone else to do the assembly and testing for you so you can concentrate on the important stuff like actually using the computer.
You have already seen our Display selections for the various system configurations, but we haven't discussed the details. There are a few reasons for this, not the least of which is that we would encourage people to buy a better display if at all possible. Many people are more than happy with a 19" LCD, but with their fixed resolutions LCDs are not quite as flexible as CRTs. If you want more pixel real estate, generally that means you need to purchase a larger LCD. Prices do begin to increase rapidly with increased display sizes, but LCD prices have also dropped quite significantly during the past year or two. Here's a brief selection of several LCDs we would recommend, and we will briefly discuss each one.
| LCD Summary | ||
| 19" Widescreen 16:10 | Acer AL1916WAbd 19" 5ms 1440x900 | $202.00 |
| 19" Standard 4:3 | Acer AL1916Fbd 19" 2ms 1280x1024 | $229.00 |
| 20" Standard 4:3 | Acer AL2017BMD 20" 8ms 1400x1050 | $253.00 |
| 20" Widescreen 16:10 | BenQ FP202W 20.1" 8ms 1680x1050 | $304.00 |
| 22" Widescreen 16:10 | Acer AL2216Wbd 22" 5ms 1680x1050 | $341.00 |
| 20.1" Standard 4:3 | Samsung 204B-BK 20.1" 5ms 1600x1200 $60 Mail-in Rebate Available |
$366.00 |
 |
The next step up in terms of price is a standard aspect ratio 19" LCD, again from Acer, only instead of a 5ms response time it features a 2ms response time. Some people have more issues with slow pixel response times and others, but the 2ms LCDs are among the fastest displays currently on the market and few people should notice any pixel smearing. The total amount of pixels is actually slightly more on the 19" standard aspect ratio display compared to the 19" widescreen display, and games are generally far better at supporting 1280x1024 resolution as opposed to 1440x900. Many games can now be configured to work properly with widescreen resolutions, but not everyone wants to go through the effort.
Sticking with Acer once more, we have a 20" standard aspect ratio display. For a long time, 20" LCDs had a native resolution of 1600x1200. Recently, several manufacturers have begun releasing 20" displays with a native resolution of 1400x1050. The pixel response time is up to 8ms, but for a slight increase in screen resolution some people will be willing to spend the extra $30.
Moving to 20" widescreen displays, the least expensive model we could find is the BenQ FP202W 8ms LCD. The native resolution is now 1680x1050, which means you can display 1280x1024 content without any vertical compression -- something that is not possible with the 1440x900 display. Gaming support is still going to require a bit of effort depending on the title, but after you've played some games at 1680x1050 resolution you may find it difficult to return to standard aspect ratio gaming. Last year, displays similar to this BenQ (like the Dell 2005FPW) would typically cost close to $500, although they were periodically on sale for less money. With the price now down to $300, it is becoming increasingly easy to recommend 20" widescreen displays as a great all-around solution.
 |
The final option we list is a 20.1" standard aspect ratio LCD from Samsung. Compared to the 20" Acer LCD mentioned above, you get the reverse of what we just talked about with the 22" widescreen display. This time you get a higher resolution in roughly the same screen size, which means smaller pixels. Whether that's good or bad will again very by individual, but unfortunately you do have to pay more for the Samsung LCD, although there is currently a $60 mail in rebate available. Considering that similar displays cost well over $600 a year ago, the current price is very attractive, although we would still give the edge to the Acer 22" widescreen display.
The final option that we haven't bothered to list outright is to upgrade to a 23/24" display. With a price that's roughly double the cost of the Acer 22" LCD, it is anything but a cheap upgrade. Such large displays are definitely nice to use, and they have the added benefit of being able to display native 1080i/1080p video content without any stretching/squishing. They are definitely a high-end option still, and with the way display prices have been dropping today's $700 LCDs may end up costing under $300 in another year or two. At least, we can hope that will be the case. In the meantime, the 19"-22" is definitely the sweet spot in terms of price/performance. Don't be afraid to spend a bit more to increase the quality of your display however, as you will likely be staring at it far more than any other part of the computer.
Conclusion
Hopefully you have enjoyed this abbreviated look at the current midrange price segment. Since most of our readers seem to skip directly to the final component lists anyway, we thought this might be a better way of presenting our recommendations. We do understand that there's still a lot of room for variation in component selections, and by no means are these configurations the only ones we would currently recommend. Spending more or less money on any individual component is almost always justifiable depending on the intended use. A lot of people can't even dream of filling up a 250 Gigabyte hard drive, for example, but dropping to anything smaller usually results in purchasing an older model and you don't save more than $20. The motherboard, memory, and graphics card selections are all areas where there are many good alternatives that we didn't have the time to list, but we do feel confident in our recommendations and believe that the majority of users will be more than happy with the performance offered.
We'll be back with another buyer's guide in a couple weeks, and next time we will take a look at the high-end segment which we haven't specifically covered in quite a while. If you are looking for other alternatives, you can also check out our recently expanded system reviews section, where you can get someone else to do the assembly and testing for you so you can concentrate on the important stuff like actually using the computer.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
thart - Friday, October 13, 2006 - link
1. The DDR-2 Memory has gone up in price and now costs considerably more than standard DDR. DDR-2 adds absolutely zero in performance to any AMD system. Therefore the best value by a considerable margin remains Socket 939 and standard DDR.2. This Mad Rush to Dual Core is insane. There is practically zero difference in everyday performance. Almost no applications yet exist to really take advantage of it. A 1.8 GHz Athlon-64 3000 Single Core costs $55 for the retail box. The least expensive 2.0 GHz Athlon-64 3800 Dual Core costs $164.00 for the retail box. The actual difference in performance of these two is very small and certainly not worth 3 times as much!
3. The nVidia 6150 chipset based Micro Boards are the best I have ever seen. They include Gig Net, Firewire, SATA II 3.0, Raid, S Video Out, Dual Monitor support, splendid 7.1 Audio, and the best on-board Video anyone has ever seen. How one can possibly justify twice as much for the full size MOBO - plus another $100, or more, for a decent Video Card, is hard for me to understand.
4. The Rosewill Towers and Power Supplies cost a fraction of what Anand recommends. The Rosewill PS'es are just fine and the towers are the easiest to work in and have more bays than any of the ones they recommend, or that I have ever used before.
5. The NEC DVD Writers are great if you run only Doze. But they DO NOT work on any Linux system. Recently purchased a Retail Box NEC and received no cable(s) whatsoever, no DVD Software Decoder - just NERO 7 OEM. The Retail Box Lite-On DVD Writers with Lite-Scribe are better choices, I think.
6. Few folks need the Media Center OS. Only advantage I see is if you do install and use a Radio/TV Tuner/Capture card - which almost no one does. Not a thing wrong with plain old $89 Doze XP Home OEM for 99% of users. Nothing in the PRO Version that I need here either.
Sure wish someone would explain to me why I should spend well over 3 times as much for a Dual Core Socket AM2 than the more than adequate Socket 939 Single Core choices?
MadBadger - Sunday, October 8, 2006 - link
Hi,Just wanted to thank you folks at Anandtech for the guide. Perfect timing and extremely useful. I do have some questions though. I'm planning on building my first computer and I was hoping you could give me some advice. This is what I'm looking to get out of my next system and the tentative system that I put together:
1) Usage – Other than office-type tasks I’ll be using it for photo editing (hobby) and gaming (occasionally). I like all types of games (fps to rpg) as long as they’re entertaining. I probably won’t be gaming all that much, but when I do game I like to be able to enjoy most of what it has to offer. I’m tired of the slide shows.
2) Upgradeability – I’m looking for a system that’s fairly future proof (good for at least 2-4 years).
3) Reliability – The most important trait for me. The last thing that I want to deal with is an unstable system.
System build:
Processor Core 2 Duo E6400 (775 - 2.13 GHz 2048K)
$220.00
Motherboard Intel 975x D975XBXLKR
$227.00
Memory ???
Video Card Sapphire Radeon X1900GT 256MB
$195.99
Sound Card X-fi XtremeMusic
$120.00
Hard Drive Seagate 3.0Gbps 320GB 7200RPM 16MB Barracuda 7200.10
$95.00
Optical Drive NEC ND-3550A 16X DVD+/-RW
$28.99
Display Samsung 971P 19-inch LCD Monitor
$329.99
Case APEVIA (ASPIRE) X-CRUISER-BK Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
$59.99
Power Supply OCZ GameXStream OCZ700GXSSLI ATX12V 700W Power Supply 100 - 240 V
$124.99
Bottom Line $1,401.95 - shipping - memory
Since I’m looking for stability and reliability, I don’t plan on doing much, if any, overclocking.
With that in mind, do you think it’s worth $60 to upgrade the video card to an XT?
I’ve also been debating upgrading the processor to an E6600. Honestly though, that’s probably more than I really need.
Also, I’m clueless as to what type of memory I should get. I’m looking for the cheapest memory that’s stable and reliable (preferably with a good warranty). Any recommendations?
Any general advice for someone about to build their first computer?
Cheers and hope you can help!
p.s. I know that your mobo round up is coming later next week, but I'm such an impatient person. Given what I'm looking for, do you recommend a different mobo?
khenderson - Monday, October 9, 2006 - link
Jarred, as a follow up to MadBagder, let me nuiance the memory question a bit. (You've already helped me once on this thread regarding the PSU.) I'm following your guide and planning to upgrade to something like the x1900XT. I'm not interested in headroom for future upgrades and I'm aiming at moderate overclocking (2.9-3.2) using only the stock intel fan. Anyway, it sounds like MadBadger and I are going for very similiar systems.Reviewing some overclocking basics, if my FSB is overclocked to 400 and I'm using DDR-800, and I'm using base timings, then I'm not really overclocking the memory at all. Correct? In that case can't I just go with the cheapest (name brand) DDR-800? Also, keeping my hardware in mind, it is correct to assume that the performance increase from 5-5-5 to 4-4-4 isn't very sigificant? I ask because I'm trying to determine if it's worth OCing the memory or paying a little more for beter timings.
Further up the thead you recommend OCZ-667 over OCZ-800 because the 800 is considered a poor overclocker. (BTW, thanks for the voltage tips) If I'm looking to run the memory at no more 800 max (FSB400X2), then does this change your recommendation in any way? Along those lines, is the OCZ-667 known to be pretty stable overclocked to 800? I'll probably upgrade in 2-3 years and I really don't want to worry about the ram burning out in a pc case with stock cooling. That said, newegg is running a sale on OCZ right now. Unless there's some surprise recomendation worth waiting for in the next guide, I think I'm ready to buy. $25 isn't a huge difference. Which way would you lean?
OCZ GOLD 2GB 667 (4-4-4-12) - $195 (shipped, after rebates)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
OCZ GOLD 2GB 800 (5-5-5-12) - $220 (shipped, after rebates)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
(S.O.E. sticks are similiarly priced but I'm assuming the Gold heatspreader is superior)
One thing I like about your guide is that you've done a good job giving us a good bang-for-buck recommendation. Sure you could break guides up into several categories as some have suggested, but when the overclocking is straight forward and offers a significant increase in performance, I think it's prudent to include it. Considering there haven't been a lot of other guides recently, this well rounded guide hit the spot very well.
Ken
PS: I think you've got a small typo on Page 5 regarding E6400 speed "The base clock speed is now 2.16 GHz with an 8X multiplier." Should be 2.13.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - link
I don't know if either of you saw my latest high-end buyers guide that was published a couple days ago, but if you take some of the information in that guide combined with this guide, and then throw in some of the information from Wesley Fink's memory reviews, that might help out a bit with trying to figure out what to purchase. That said, let me address a few points.First, the prices on the E6600 have dropped quite a bit in the last month or so, finally putting it at a price that you can reasonably consider for an upgrade. The larger L2 cache can improve performance by anywhere from 5-15%, depending on the application you're running. It also comes with a higher clock speed, so you end up with a CPU that's anywhere from 18-30% faster, even without overclocking. The CPU also costs about 50% more ($100 more), but it's still a reasonable option.
In terms of motherboards, MadBadger indicates he's considering the Intel BadAxe motherboard. It's not a terrible motherboard, but honestly I would get the ASUS P5W DH over any other 975X motherboard, and the fact that it has the same price as the Intel BadAxe makes it a no-brainer. Even if you don't plan on overclocking, the ASUS motherboard is much better in my book.
Figuring out which memory to get is very difficult right now. It is true that you can use a one-to-one ratio and overclock pretty far, although with an E6300 or E6400 even a 400 MHz front side bus is likely going to limit your CPU overclock. (One more reason to get the E6600.) For tasks like image editing, definitely get 2 GB of memory. Beyond that, timings don't make a huge difference, as the court to architecture seems to do a good job of mitigating any impact of memory performance. The only thing to note is that DDR2-800 memory that is rated at CL4 will very often overclock to DDR2-1000, whereas the CL5 memory usually won't get past DDR2-900 (if that).
The http://labs.anandtech.com/alllinks.php?pfilter=197...">OCZ PC-6400 2x1024MB EL Gold is not the most compatible memory around -- some motherboards will simply refuse to POST with it -- but it shouldn't have any problems in the ASUS P5W DH, and with the current price + rebate it's probably your best bet right now in terms of value+performance. Part of the reason I didn't recommend it in this midrange guide is because it has more problems running with P965 motherboards than it does with 975X motherboards (as far as I'm aware).
Finally, in regards to graphics cards, ATI should be launching their Radeon X1950 Pro towards the end of this month. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4472">DailyTech has some details, and it looks set to offer better price/performance than the X1900 XT 256MB. It's not faster in all cases, and in fact it's often slower, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does better in CrossFire performance. Besides, it uses less power and it's a single slot design, and it will probably continue to be in production for longer than the X1900 class GPUs (which are probably all going to start shifting to X1950 cards I would bet).
If you aren't averse to getting something other than ATI hardware -- recognizing that if you're using an Intel 975X or P965 chipset and are ever going to consider dual graphics cards, then you will want stick with ATI for now -- the new release of the NVIDIA 7900 GTO is a great value. A little bit of overclocking and you may be able to match 7900 GTX performance, for about two thirds the cost. I think right now that ATI has superior hardware available, but NVIDIA still has the better drivers and dual graphics card solution (RV570 addresses the second shortcoming, however).
Hopefully that covers all of the questions you two had. If not, you can always e-mail me back -- I don't tend to pay much attention to my articles' comment sections after a couple weeks. :-)
MadBadger - Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - link
Hi Jarred, thanks for the reply! Lots of useful information. I have some more questions for you though. Hopefully you give this article another look sometime today, but I'll drop it in your mailbox as well.First of all, thanks again for the info, it cleared up a lot of the uncertainty that I had. In particular, I think I'm doing ok with the whole memory situation. Let me run it by you though, and please correct me whenever I’m incorrect.
This is my understanding of the issues with Conroe chips and the choice of memory:
Basically, all Intel chips are "quad pumped". What this means is that data is transmitted 4 times for each clock cycle. When the Conroe chips say that their FSB = 1066 Mhz, that's an effective rate. The actual rate of the FSB = 1066 Mhz/4 = 266 Mhz.
The case is similar with memory. DDR memory stands for “Double Data Rate” memory. This basically means that DDR memory is “double pumped”. In this case, data is transmitted 2 times for each clock cycle. Therefore, when DDR memory is operating at 800 Mhz, that is the effective rate. The actual rate of the DDR memory = 800 Mhz/2 = 400 Mhz.
Furthermore, for performance purposes, the Conroe chips seem to operate well (optimally?) when the FSB is synchronized with the memory speed (i.e. a 1:1 FSB:Memory ratio). So, if you want a 1:1 ratio, then the actual speed of your FSB = 266 Mhz, needs to equal the actual speed of your Memory = 266 Mhz. Using a 1:1 ratio:
FSB Speed x CPU Multiplier = CPU Speed
Using this equation, we can calculate the CPU Multiplier for each Conroe chip since we know the native FSB Speed of each chip = 266 Mhz (266.5 really, but approx. 266) and each individual CPU Speed. For example, with the e6400, which has a native CPU Speed of 2130 Mhz, the CPU Multiplier = CPU Speed / FSB Speed => 2130 Mhz/266 Mhz = 8. So, the multipliers for the Conroe chips are as follows:
e6300 = 7
e6400 = 8
e6600 = 9
e6700 = 10
e6800 = 11
The multiplier is basically how many times faster the CPU is set to operate over the FSB (e.g. the e6300 is set to operate 7 times faster than the FSB, the e6400 8 times etc.)
With this information, we can determine potential bottlenecks of the system. For example, in khenderson’s case where he wants to overclock the actual FSB Speed to 400 Mhz, using a CPU Multiplier of 8 (for the e6400), the theoretical max CPU Speed is 400 Mhz x b8=3.2Ghz. With the same FSB Speed, the theoretical max CPU Speed for the e6600 = 400 Mhz x 9 = 3.6 Ghz (which is why you suggest evaluating an upgrade to an e6600, since it looks like the FSB will be the limiting factor for max CPU Speed. I remember reading an article that mentioned motherboard instability around 495 Mhz FSB for an ASUS board [P5B Deluxe?])
If he wants to push his system past 3.2 Ghz he either needs to increase the FSB Speed or he needs to increase the CPU Multiplier. However, in this case, the actual FSB Speed (400 Mhz) = the actual Max Memory Speed (800 Mhz / 2). Therefore, unless he can up the CPU multiplier, he will need to overclock his memory speed. So, unless you want to push your system past this theoretical limit without increasing the CPU multiplier (or being able to increase the CPU multiplier), you don’t need to purchase RAM that is good for overclocking.
Since there are so many different motherboards, sticks of memory, and processors, the sheer number of potential combinations is tremendous. This makes choosing the right type of RAM, mobo and processor so important. Certain combinations just work better than others.
…Right?
Apologies for the super in depth explanation, I just want to make sure that my train of thought is correct.
Assuming that what I wrote is correct, just out of curiosity, which variables alter the voltage of the system (and therefore the temperature)?
Ok, moving on to my other questions (I hope you’re not banging your head against your monitor yet!)
About the motherboard, how reliable is ASUS and how good is their support? I don’t know anyone else that’s in to computers, so all I have to base my opinion on are sites like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">Newegg">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82... where people post their experiences with the products. From what I’ve gathered, it just seems like the http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp...">Intel board">http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp... is reliable, stable and has good support. It seems to just “work”. For me, those are the most important deciding factors for a motherboard purchase.
I realize that user reviews aren’t always the best gauge for determining a product’s usefulness, but typically when there are enough reviews, you can get a general sense for “the real picture”.
My last question has to do with timing and pricing. I was hoping you could give me your point of view on my current plans for building this system. First of all, here’s my new build:
Processor Core 2 Duo E6600 (775 - 2.4 GHz 2048K)
$315.00
Motherboard Intel 975x D975XBXLKR *possibly ASUS P5W DH*
$227.00
Memory CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit [Ordered]
$230.00
Video Card Sapphire Radeon X1900XT 256MB *possibly 1950 pro*
$230 (?) or $250
Primary HDD Western Digital Raptor WD740ADFD 74GB 10,000 RPM
$150.00
Secondary HDD Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD5000YS 500GB 7200 RP
$170.00
Optical Drive NEC ND-3550A 16X DVD+/-RW
$28.99
Case Silver Ultra Aluminus case [Ordered]
$40.00
Power Supply OCZ GameXStream OCZ700GXSSLI ATX12V 700W Power Supply 100 - 240 V [Ordered]
$105.00
Total = $1516
Biggest changes are losing the sound card and display (decided to keep using my trusty GDM – 400 PS) and diverting those funds towards better storage and a better CPU.
I plan on using the Raptor as the primary drive (for speedier day-to-day performance) and the RE2 for storage.
A question about the RE2. I know that it’s meant for a RAID setup, and because of the TLER (time-limited error recovery) feature of the drive, WD doesn’t recommend it to be used as a single drive (due to an increased potential for data corruption). But, I read a review that stated that WD told them TLER can be disabled. Do you know if this true? If so, is there any other reason not to get it? The price per GB is $0.34 and the performance results that I’ve seen have been pretty impressive. It’s also quiet as a cat.
The last question is of the “your best guess” variety. I read that Bad Axe 2 is due out soon, most likely at the same time as Kentfield. Currently, it’s rumored that this will happen in mid November. If I waited until then, how much do you think I could save on the CPU, Motherboard (if I decide to go with the Bad Axe 1), and the GPU (do you think this will drop within that time frame)?
Wow, crapload of questions, and way longer than I planned, apologies. Hopefully you're still awake and able to help me out. :) I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!
khenderson - Friday, September 29, 2006 - link
Thanks Mr.Walton for this guide as it's just the kind of thing I've been waiting for.I'm planning to follow the recommendations pretty closely aiming at an OC range of 2.9 - 3.2. I'm a gamer, so as suggested I'll probably look to step the 1900GT to a X1900XT 256MB or something around there, prices permitting. Beyond that I want to use the stock fan, have no intention of running SLI, and I'm not interested in leaving room for future upgrades. Finally I'm planning to use an off-board sound card and two hard drives. All this considered, might a 550watt PSU be overkill? I ask in part because I'm interested in Antec's P-150 case that comes with only a 430watt PSU. On the other hand I think the specs on the 1900XT call for a 450watt PSU even for non-SLI use. I don't care about case cosmetics, but I don't want any cooling worries when OCed to around 3 Ghz and of course quieter is better. I'm assuming I'll need the memory speed & quality recommended by the guide, but I was hoping to save a little cash on the case/PSU and put that towards a better graphics card. Any advice appreciated.
Antec P-150 Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
JarredWalton - Sunday, October 1, 2006 - link
The Antec cases are good, but not so much their PSUs. Even the best Antec PSUs today seem to be inferior to many other similarly priced brands - popularity has led to lower quality apparently. Two years ago, I wouldn't have hesitated to recommend Antec PSUs; today, I'd go with a similar wattage Fotron Source, Enermax, Seasonic, OCZ, etc.Seasonic is widely regarded as one of the best PSUs, with their 330W generally being better than something like and Antec 450W. They are also very quiet, and efficiency is as high as 85% (compared to 70-75% on many competing brands)... but they're no cheaper than the 550W FSP I listed. :|
I picked up a Sunbeam NUUO 550W a while back and it's still running strong (with SLI even!), and they're a bit less than the FSP I listed. You could most likely drop to a 450W decent quality model and be fine.
jonp - Monday, October 2, 2006 - link
The question of power supplies is interesting and so is the answer. Back in http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=275...">Pre-AM2 Mid-Range Buyers' Buide, May 2006 you had very warm words for the Enermax ELT400AWT 400 watt. It lists on Newegg now for $79.99 while the Fotron FSP550 is $112.99. If 550 watts isn't a requirement, would you still recommend the ELT400AWT? Although the Seasonic S12-330 is $59.00 at Newegg so maybe the additional 70 watts aren't worth the additional $20.99 in cost -- or do I have the wrong Seasonic unit? With memory prices rising so rapidly, one has to look at saving expenses in all of the other components without making too many sacrifices in performance, quality, reliability etc. I like the price, and your comments on quietness and efficiency of the Seasonic unit...JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 3, 2006 - link
There are other places to shop besides Newegg! ;)http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?p=PS-FS550GC">$88 plus shipping
I would at least consider the Seasonic S12 330W over the Enermax 400W. Unfortunately, the next step up on Seasonic S12 is the $77 380W. Almost $20 more for an extra 50W - as bad as CPU scaling! Somewhat interesting that 500W to 550W is only $10 more, though both are too expensive. Then again...
http://www.3gplaza.com/estore/control/Computer3G/p...">S12 430W for $81 is a good deal - I'd say that's the equal of the 500W PSUs for sure, maybe even the FSP 550W (but without SLI support).
khenderson - Monday, October 2, 2006 - link
Thank you, that clears things up for me on the PSUs. As for the P-150 I was able to find it sold without the PSU, under the name SOLO with a new paint job. They did some good sound dampening with this case, but compared to the Soprano you suggest it lacks fans in size and number so I'm leaning toward the P-180 although I heard it's a bit noisey. (I wanted more sound damping than the Soprano and I don't like the top mounted interfaces, otherwise the fan layout and basic design seem ideal). Anyway, my last question is, as a general rule do you think I'll need at least 3 fans to provide enough cooling to match the hardware and OCing recommended in your article?Thanks for the advice. Looking forward to future articles by you.
Ken
Antec Solo case (P-150 w/face lift)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
Antec P-180 Case
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...