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
jonp - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Just to note, Asus P5LD2, PCB version 2.01G, BIOS version 1207 supports the Core 2 Duo (Conroe) processors!http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx">http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx
jiulemoigt - Saturday, May 13, 2006 - link
I really have wonder somedays if reviewers even understand their target audience anymore. My favorite statement in the entire article "CRTs pretty much target the budget market exclusively these days", this has to have been in ignorence, I can understand they weigh too much and take up too much space, but if your suggesting that displays which have higher resolutions and refresh rates being cheaper makes them budget market, I'd love to be the guy that sells you hardware. Most LCD are inferior exspecailly at the prices you talking about, at four hundred dollars you can get a professional crt which will display at 2048x1536 at 75Hz or 1920x1200 at 85Hz.So instead of recomending a cheap LCD with questionible quality you might want to point out those CRT displays you personaly dislike as an option for people on a budget to get the best options possible as not everyone can afford the nice LCDs likeone that cost more than the whole system price.
As to the DVI standard the standard is not the problem the hardware is dell's 30 LCD could probably handle the bandwidth, most CRTs can handle more but most LCD
can not even hit 1920x1200 at 60Hz and those that do rarely hit the 75Hz DVI standard.
JarredWalton - Sunday, May 14, 2006 - link
As one example, let's check out Newegg.http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Subm...">Here are the 20 inch or larger CRTs
Both models (yes, there are exactly 2 models currently carried by Newegg) have a maximum resolution of 1600x1200, and the maximum refresh rate at that resolution of 75 Hz. Both are invar shadow mask tubes, which means they are targeting a budget rather than quality. Aperture grille monitors were always better, in my opinion, and they certainly cost more to make.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Subm...">What about 19 inch CRTs?
The seven options there aren't any better than what was listed above. One of those displays might actually have an aperture grille tube, but I doubt it. In the past, I used to recommend the NEC FE991SB, which does indeed have an aperture grille tube. I bought one about 18 months ago for $250. That model is no longer available (unless you can get a refurbished display or you find one that has been sitting on the shelf for a couple years), and the newer FE992SB is once again an invar shadow mask tube.
I have stated this on several occasions in the past, but CRTs are pretty much at a dead and now. If anyone is trying to make newer, better models, I don't know who they are. When I say CRTs are a budget option, what I mean is that you can't get new CRTs that are as good as the top models from three or four years ago. They represent one of the few components in computers that has actually gotten worse in the past two years. It's not that they can't manufacture better displays, but they feel that the market has moved to LCDs, and so any CRTs that they make are looking to cut costs more than anything else.
I'm sure you can go out and find refurbished displays that are still very good, provided you want to deal with the large size. However, our buyer's guides make a point of recommending hardware that you can easily purchase, and we have never listed used/refurbished products. That's not to say he used to/refurbished is bad, but availability is very sketchy. I hope that explains my statement that CRTs are budget options these days.
Regards,
Jarred Walton
Hardware Editor
AnandTech.com
johnsonx - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
and I thought I was the only one who tossed that in at the end of a list; I even work it into casual converstation, how about you?
Powered by AMD - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
QUOTE:"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, but if you don't play games you probably won't care about or notice the "missing" performance"
I disagree. With my X800 XT and my Athlon XP 2300Mhz (real frequency), I can play everything at 1024x768, Im missing better resolutions and maybe AA in some titles, but no more than that. I dont "drastically" reduce visual quality, and I play smooth. When I start to see a Mayor change about smoothness, I ll buy a new PC. Meanwhile, Im done.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I'm thinking specifically about F.E.A.R. and Oblivion. Running at anything less than 1280x1024 qualifies as a pretty major cut in graphical quality, at least in my opinion. Note that I'm not talking about all games here, just the "latest and greatest" -- meaning the most graphically intense. (And no, I don't think graphics makes a game much better. I think I will put that portion" to make that clear.)Belldandy - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Good ideas presented. A HTPC guide with respects to HDCP, or at least something about DRM ie DVI-HDCP or some workaround where HD content can be displayed at native resolution at 1080p would be good. Also Home theater reciever audio hookup (with quality recommendations) would be helpful. Also case selection, noise, heat are potential problems that break a HT setup.chinna - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
We really need one good guide for HTPC soon. There are lot of people interested in building quite HTPCs now-a-days. Hooked to 32/37 LCD these are wonderful. But hardly find any good articles about it. There were few on tomshardware, but those were really a joke.I would like to see a good article on how to put together a nice HTPC system with reasonable budget, preferably with HD TV Tuner( not a gamers PC) and proper remote.
toyota - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
whats the point in having a monitor that the 7600gt is going to struggle with? good luck playing any modern games at the native resolution. i think if your are interested in gaming on this level of computer you should stick with a 19 inch lcd. of course you could always spend a little more and get the 7900gt or x1800xt.MNOB07 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I like the guide a lot, but I agree. I would not recommend the 7600GT for a system costing ~$1500, instead I would go for the 7900GT. On the other hand the 7600GT won't be a bad choice if your going to be an early adopter of the best DX10 card when it comes out anyway and are trying to save money.