November 2007 Budget Buyers' Guide
by Jonathan Maloney and Jarred Walton on November 8, 2007 4:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Intel Entry-level PC
Quite a bit has changed for Intel over the last 18 months; they were struggling against AMD's Athlon and early X2 range for much of 2005/2006, before annihilating much of the lead AMD had built up with the release of the Core architecture. After the Core 2 Duo release in July of last year, many were wondering when Intel would start to address the budget segment. The Allendale core has come down in price, but now we have the Pentium Dual-Core CPUs that use the Conroe-L design, giving Intel Core 2 chips from top to bottom. This is the first time Intel has begun to attack the entry-level area in both performance and value for money, an area where AMD has traditionally dominated. For roughly $650, you can pick up a very decent dual-core Intel system that fully washes away the performance nightmare that was the NetBurst Celeron range. At nearly $200 less than our last entry-level Intel system, this configuration will still give you the same performance, but lightens the load on the wallet tremendously.
As is usually the case with Intel systems, the processor and motherboard are the main differences in price from the AMD system, but this time, we see Intel narrowing the gap to less than $10. For $74.99, we get a lot of processor for our money - the Pentium E2140 is basically a cutback E6300 at 1.6GHz (half the shared L2 cache). For many budget users, the E2140 will provide more than enough processing power to satisfy their needs. Performance is roughly the same as the AMD 4000+ at stock speeds, but the edge in overclockability goes to the E2140. It's not unreasonable to double the CPU clock speed with an appropriate motherboard and a bit of aftermarket cooling.
Unlike the CPU, the motherboards for Intel systems have yet to drop to price parity. IGP offerings for Intel come from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, SiS, or VIA. Balancing performance, reliability, stability, and pricing, we're going with the class leading Gigabyte GA-73UM-S2H based around the GeForce 7150 IGP chipset that costs $50 more than the Foxconn board we used in the AMD system. In our eyes - even at the entry-level position - the motherboard is one area of a system where you simply cannot skimp on quality.
We chose the somewhat pricier GeForce 7150 over Intel's GMA X3100 (G33) and AMD's X1250 as not only is the performance of NVIDIA's latest IGP outstanding - leaving the GMA X3100 completely in its dust - but the price is also competitive with both the Intel and AMD offerings. The cheapest G33 motherboard is just $10 less than the GA-73UM-S2H, while the only Radeon X1250 IGP we could find is abit's Fatal1ty-branded F-190HD - for $106.99. As is the case, don't expect to be able to fire up Crysis while your boss isn't looking - even at 800x600, performance will bring a completely new understatement to the term "slide show". However, for general office use, HTPC, or some light gaming (think games from 2005 and earlier), this choice should still last a few years. Feature-wise, the GA-73UM-S2H also sports an HDMI output should you wish to connect the system to an HD projector or TV. The motherboard also has support for Intel processors featuring a 1333MHz Front Side Bus, and comes with a FireWire 1394a port and eSATA 3Gb/s for external SATA hard drives.
The rest of the components are identical to the AMD entry-level system, with the Intel configuration costing about $50 more than the AMD setup. We could shave that $50 off, but you'd be sacrificing quality for price, and that's not something we can recommend at this point. Biostar also has a GeForce 7150-based motherboard that sports their well-regarded TForce enthusiast sub-brand, and it's a reasonable alternative at the sub-$100 price point.
If we compare the two entry-level systems, it's tough to pick a winner. If you don't need much in the way of performance, you can safely save the $50 and get the AMD setup. The Intel system currently has a better motherboard (and IGP), so for those that need a bit more it's worth the additional money. For the typical entry-level PC right now, you can go either route and be happy.
Quite a bit has changed for Intel over the last 18 months; they were struggling against AMD's Athlon and early X2 range for much of 2005/2006, before annihilating much of the lead AMD had built up with the release of the Core architecture. After the Core 2 Duo release in July of last year, many were wondering when Intel would start to address the budget segment. The Allendale core has come down in price, but now we have the Pentium Dual-Core CPUs that use the Conroe-L design, giving Intel Core 2 chips from top to bottom. This is the first time Intel has begun to attack the entry-level area in both performance and value for money, an area where AMD has traditionally dominated. For roughly $650, you can pick up a very decent dual-core Intel system that fully washes away the performance nightmare that was the NetBurst Celeron range. At nearly $200 less than our last entry-level Intel system, this configuration will still give you the same performance, but lightens the load on the wallet tremendously.
| Intel Entry-level PC | |||
| Hardware | Component | Price | Rebates |
| Processor | Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2140 (1.6GHz 65W 1MB L2) |
$75 | - |
| Motherboard | Gigabyte GA-73UM-S2H NVIDIA GeForce 7150 HDMI mATX |
$99 | - |
| Memory | Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2-800 PC2-6400 | $90 | $40 |
| Hard Drive | Samsung Spinpoint P Series SP2504C 250GB 7200RPM SATA 3.0GB/s |
$63 | - |
| Optical Drive | Samsung 20X DVDRW/DL SH-S202G | $28 | - |
| Case | Athenatech A3602BB.400 mATX w/400W PSU | $35 | - |
| Display | Hanns-G HW-191DPB Black 19" 5ms Widescreen DVI (1440x900) |
$170 | - |
| Speakers | Logitech R-20 12W 2.1 | $19 | - |
| Input | Microsoft Optical Desktop 1000 Wireless | $26 | - |
| Operating System | Microsoft Vista Home Premium OEM | $112 | - |
| Bottom Line | $717 | $677 | |
 |
Unlike the CPU, the motherboards for Intel systems have yet to drop to price parity. IGP offerings for Intel come from Intel, NVIDIA, AMD, SiS, or VIA. Balancing performance, reliability, stability, and pricing, we're going with the class leading Gigabyte GA-73UM-S2H based around the GeForce 7150 IGP chipset that costs $50 more than the Foxconn board we used in the AMD system. In our eyes - even at the entry-level position - the motherboard is one area of a system where you simply cannot skimp on quality.
 |
 |
If we compare the two entry-level systems, it's tough to pick a winner. If you don't need much in the way of performance, you can safely save the $50 and get the AMD setup. The Intel system currently has a better motherboard (and IGP), so for those that need a bit more it's worth the additional money. For the typical entry-level PC right now, you can go either route and be happy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
63 Comments
View All Comments
jtr - Friday, February 1, 2008 - link
Jarred and Jonathan,These buyer's guides are very helpful, especially since you give your rationale and alternatives. I wonder if you could also recommend what you would buy with just $100 more (i.e., what's worth spending a little extra for). Also hoping the next budget buyer's guide is on the horizon--I'm planning on building another rig soon. Thanks, again.
Jason
owend - Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - link
I just completed my budget build on Nov 4th. Reading your article with many of the same components was reaffirming! Similar to the Intel builds mine was a Intel E2140, Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L, and 2GB of 4-4-4 memory with a $40 MIB (one of the “nearly every major manufacture[s]”). With my sensitive ears I did opt for the $50 passive heatsink from Thermalright and a Corsair power supply, both of which you mentioned. Even the Samsung 20xDVD was the same (but I spent 2.5x $ on a retail <weep>). The only real difference was I used a $60 passively cooled video card, but my focus was the ears and not gaming.I think your article was spot on. I labored for a month researching my build but could have waited another few days and just read your article instead. You present a great budget build from which each individual can tailor to their specific needs. Thanks.
JonathanMaloney - Friday, November 16, 2007 - link
Good to hear that - and thanks for the positive comments :)Cignal - Monday, November 12, 2007 - link
ntJarredWalton - Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - link
We just did a http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=312...">Midrange Guide a month ago, which is mostly current. You could change out the GPU, obviously, but otherwise the choices are pretty much the same.crazycarl - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
What exactly does the gigabyte have that the abit does not? Feature comparisons don't show any particular omission from one to the other, and I've heard the abit is a better overclocker, if more finnicky to get going. Can anyone clarify this for me?JarredWalton - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
Gigabyte has an extra x1 PCI-E slot. Other than that, the difference mainly is the "finickiness" you mention. The abit is a reasonable alternative and there is nothing inherently wrong with either board. Some people love abit, though, and others prefer some other brand.Polizei - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
After doing a little more research and pondering over the article, I did have a few questions if maybe the article writers could clear things up.1. Were these systems actually tested? Or is this just a conglomeration of parts that you have used in the past in various systems that all seemed to work well. OR, were some of the parts never even used before and just seemed like a good value for the money?
2. I ask the above questions mainly because I was concerned about the Case and Power Supply combos you chose. While those deals always seem tempting, like others, I have heard horror stories regarding the power supplies in these combos and have seen pretty much no reviews for any of the mentioned models. The same rang true with the micro-atx gigabyte board you used in your budget Intel system; I've heard of the AMD one and it has gotten great reviews, but I haven't heard much of anything for the intel one except for a few negetive comments about it's failure to compete with G33 chipset boards. So again I'm just curious if these parts were actually tested.
Again though I'd like to reiterate how appreciative I am that a review team finally stepped up and put together an article like this. I'm sure for the most part it is sound, and I agree with a lot of the part choices (not to mention they leave a lot of room to sub parts in here or their based on personal preference). Additionally, you guys respected various opinions by including both an AMD and Intel platform, while most reviewers would have said to forget about AMD even though they still offer a good value for the buck at certain price levels.
JarredWalton - Friday, November 9, 2007 - link
Gary has been working on testing the GB motherboard, and he was a major contributor in terms of the mobo recommendations. Most of the rest, brand isn't particularly important. So the motherboards are solid, according to Gary.For the case and PSU, that's always a huge concern for the elite people out there running midrange and high-end setups. We're talking budget rigs here, folks - though the gaming systems are of necessity closer to midrange than budget.
Are the PSUs in either case great? Not at all. Could the PSU fail at some point? Yup. Overclock a lot and you almost guarantee it will fail. That said, power supplies really aren't a critical factor on low-end systems. Sure, these are rated at 400W, and if we put that sort of load on these models they would almost certainly have problems. (I don't even want to think of seeing Christoph test some of these!) But let's call it a 65% efficiency PSU - reasonable given these are practically free. Power draw on systems like this is going to be around 150W-200W; if you really try, maybe you can get it up to 250W (without overclocking). 250W would mean that the PSU is actually delivering ~160W to the internal components, well within the capacity of even a crappy low-end unit.
I've had OCZ, Enermax, Antec, and various other brands fail on me - almost as often as the completely generic stuff fails. As someone above pointed out, I would be interested to see what sort of compromises people are willing to make to get a good quality $60 PSU into these systems. Or do we just forget about "budget gaming" and stick with midrange systems that cost $1250? We're already over the $1000 I would have liked (and $500 on the entry-level stuff).
Want to post alternatives? Think you can come up with something significantly better that no one will have issues with? Hey, I've built a lot of PCs for people over the years. Fact of the matter is, I still don't know how to get someone shooting for a $500 PC to actually buy a decent power supply! I usually tell them, "if the power supply fails - perhaps even WHEN it fails - you'll have to buy a new one." (Note: I don't run a shop, so this is just helping people out with building a system.)
Polizei - Monday, November 12, 2007 - link
Thank you, I'm glad you took the time to respond to my questions. I realize you guys are trying to put together a good low-budget guide so that people can enjoy big-time performance on a small dollar, and this is necessary in the marketplace.I disagree a great deal with some of your points however. First off, it's clearly apparent from what you said that you guys didn't actually build these budget rigs and test them for part compatibility. It sounds like you've tested many of them independently, but not together, so you're basically trusting paper specs in terms of whether or not the parts actually work together. While that can work most of the time, there's so many finicky parts out there (i.e. motherboards and ram modules not liking each other, videocards not being recognized properly) that if an article like this is going to be done, you should at least put a disclaimer that the rig was not tested as a whole.
Secondly, one of the issues you bring up about PSUs is a valid point; no matter what the company and the efficiency rating, a PSU can fail at random. I too have owned many PSUs over the year from big name companies and small no-name companies, and have had failures on both, but I'd like to say that the bigger names and supplies that review sites have ran through brutal torture tests are likely to hold up better. Do most of these cost more and make a budget rig difficult to fit in? Certainly, but there are still some that are slightly better than others for $50 or less. On top of that, you mention that these parts won't hit a full 400 watt, and while that's correct, I think the 8800 GT (even being a single slot, 104W TDP rated) will possibly up it a little higher then your estimations. Still, it should be more then enough, but if your going to stay cheap, might as well get a lower-wattage PSU from a bigger brand (i.e. a 360W PC Power and Cooling, or a 420W Thermaltake, or a 380W Antec) for a similar or slightly higher price.
Furthermore, the tone of your response (and maybe I'm misinterpreting this) is that a power supply or a power supply failing is unimportant in a budget rig. I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous notion if this is indeed what you meant. Just because someone doesn't have as much money to spend on a rig, it doesn't mean they have to worry about a much higher chance of failure with their hard-earned money. It's true you get what you pay for, but it's still important to look at quality issues, numbers of owners who have had failed units, etc etc as best you can.
Lastly, you mentioned to post something reasonable for the $$. I unfortunately am not a reviewer and also on a low budget, so I too did not have a chance to test this configuration, but this is just another possibility (again hasn't been tested so it's possibly just as good as yours)- (prices from newegg)
Samsung SATA 18x lightscribe DVDR burner|Coolermaster Elite 330 RC-330-KKN1-GP|Western Digital WD800JD SATA 3.0, 7,200rpm, 80GB| ASUS M2A-VM AM2 AMD 690G Micro-ATX|Coolermaster eXtreme RP-500-PCAR 500W|A-DATA 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 800 (PC2 6400)|AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ Brisbane 2.1GHz AM2 65W|Sapphire Radeon HD 2600XT 256MB
+ keyboard, speakers, mouse, $550-570. Add Vista, $650-670. (you could do this with intel as well - also you never mentioned if you guys or "Gary" tested that intel board, I was curious about that).
But anyways, I'm not trying to tear you guys or the article apart. I'm definitely a big fan of anandtech.com , I just wanted to see what all was put into the article because parts of it were vague, but you've been helpful in clearing some of it up.