Pre-AM2 Mid-Range Buyers' Guide, May 2006
by Jarred Walton on May 9, 2006 6:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
System Summaries
Amazingly, we're actually under the $1500 budget with both systems this time. Some of you might argue that $1500 is still too much for a midrange system, but considering that you get everything other than the software and applications, we think that's a pretty reasonable cost. Drop the keyboard, mouse, display, and speakers and you're down to $1000, but of course you need to add in $90-$150 for Windows XP. All told, you may not get the same level of service that you get with a prebuilt OEM system, but the quality of components and performance offered will almost certainly be higher - much higher should you choose to go the overclocking route. Here are the system summaries, but if you're looking for additional options remember to check out the individual component pages where we have listed some alternatives.| AMD Mid-Range System | ||
| Hardware | Component | Price |
| Processor | Athlon 64 X2 3800+ 2x512K 2.0GHz (939) - Retail | 297 |
| Motherboard | DFI nForce4 SLI Infinity | 115 |
| Memory | Patriot PC-3200 2x1024MB EPLL (2-3-2-5-1T) | 190 |
| Video Card | EVGA GeForce 7600GT CO 256MB (580/1500) | 184 |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital SATA3.0Gbps 250GB 7200RPM 16MB Caviar SE16 | 95 |
| Optical Drive | NEC 3550A (OEM) | 37 |
| Case | COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-UW | 61 |
| Power Supply | ENERMAX Liberty ELT400AWT ATX12V 400W | 86 |
| Display | BenQ 20 inch 8ms Widescreen LCD FP202W | 325 |
| Speakers | Logitech X-530 5.1 70W Speakers | 62 |
| Keyboard and Mouse | Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 B2L-00047 | 32 |
| Bottom Line | 1484 | |
| Intel Mid-Range System | ||
| Hardware | Component | Price |
| Processor | Pentium D 930 2x2MB 3.0GHz (775) - Retail | 212 |
| Motherboard | ASUS 945P P5LD2 Deluxe | 151 |
| Memory | G.Skill PC-5300 2x1024MB Extreme LA (4-4-4-12) | 148 |
| Video Card | EVGA GeForce 7600GT CO 256MB (580/1500) | 184 |
| Hard Drive | Western Digital SATA3.0Gbps 250GB 7200RPM 16MB Caviar SE16 | 95 |
| Optical Drive | NEC 3550A (OEM) | 37 |
| Case | COOLER MASTER Centurion 5 CAC-T05-UW | 61 |
| Power Supply | ENERMAX Liberty ELT400AWT ATX12V 400W | 86 |
| Display | BenQ 20 inch 8ms Widescreen LCD FP202W | 325 |
| Speakers | Logitech X-530 5.1 70W Speakers | 62 |
| Keyboard and Mouse | Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 B2L-00047 | 32 |
| Bottom Line | 1393 | |
If you're looking for a system that can do just about anything well, both of these qualify. Without any extra tweaking, the AMD system will usually be faster, but the Intel system certainly isn't bad. If you're looking for more performance from the Intel side of things, you might want to try the Core Duo + AOpen + Overclocking route, or else wait for Core Duo 2 to launch. Both systems as configured currently lock you into an "outdated" platform, but we don't generally recommend building systems for upgradeability. You end up spending more money for the potential to upgrade, and when the time comes to finally upgrade you often find that it's better to simply build a new system and sell off your old one.
As always, comments and questions are welcome - either via email or in the comments section. There is no such thing as a "one-size-fits-all" computer, so naturally it is possible to tweak the component choices in order to improve performance in the areas that you need it most. Upgrading the graphics card and downgrading the CPU, for example, is something to consider for gamers. I would still rather just spend the money on a faster GPU and go a bit over budget, however, because I really like my dual core systems.
If you're looking for something significantly cheaper, our next Buyers' Guide will be covering the budget sector, followed by a high-end Buyers' Guide once AMD AM2 platforms have begun shipping. We may also look at doing an HTPC Buyers' Guide in the future - let us know if you're interested in that one.
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*