As awesome as a 30" Apple Cinema is, have you considered the prospects of using a much larger HDTV? I use a 65" HP MD6580n, and it's the best monitor I've ever owned bar none. It's ridiculously huge but the picture remains sharp at 1920 X 1080, especially with the wobulation tech which removes most if not all of the screen door effect you might have with a set this size.
I know that a big deal is being made about these awesome 30" monitors from Apple and now Dell, but HDTV technology has progressed to the point where in my mind there is no better choice for high-end gaming.
So my question to everyone is, is 2GB really worth the $100 upgrade compared to 1GB. Can you get decent memory to overclock with at 2GB? If I was planning to run a DFI LanParty Ultra-D board, would I really use the same 2GB memory Jarrod recommended for the HighEnd system for my overclocking purposes?
I guess the biggest thing that struck me from the article was that you could probably get away using an old ATA133 7200rpm Drive as long as you have 2GB of memory. Should I really sacrifice not upgrading my hard drive so that I can have 2GB of memory?
You can check out the following article. The gist is that you get better loading times with more ram, the article will show you the results from changing various ram amounts in a high-end setup.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ra...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ra... I apologize for linking to an outside site, but I don't think the content is available on Anandtech. Maybe you guys should think about (or point me to) your article on this topic.
Finally, you wanted to know "Is it worth it?" Only you can answer this question. My personal opinion is that it is, but you might be building a budget system and not have the budget for 2GB RAM. As Jarred points out: "You are not going to notice 60 fps vs. 63, but you are going to notice a 38 sec loading time vs 63" or something like that.
Ok, maybe I will clarify:
I am building a budget $800 system and want to know what will give me better performance.
Should I stay with 2 gigs of ram and not upgrade my old ATA 133 7200rpm 200GB drive or get 1 gig of ram and upgrade my hard drive to a new 3.0GB SATA 7200rpm 250GB.
Yeah, I've read that article too. But I mean, c'mon? With 2 gigs of ram, you don't notice any significant advantages in like 9 out of 10 tests with the only significant thing being load times/heavy multitasking. I don't know if I can justify $100 to load World of Warcraft 30 seconds sooner when I'm more concerned with FPS, video encoding, and large file transfers. IMO I think the the $100 could be spent on a HD or even better, a cooler mobo and/or case for the system.
Generally speaking, for games you want GPU speed first, and CPU speed second. RAM speed and quanitity as well as HDDs are distant fourth/fifth place finishes. Once you've got the others at a reasonable speed, though - where diminishing returns kicks in - then you should start looking at upgrading the RAM and then the HDD. That's my take, anyway.
If you're willing to overclock, there's no real reason to go any higher than the 165/170 Opty or the X2 3800+. I've got a 165 that OCs to around 2.5 GHz with the stock HSF. I'm going to try a few changes to the system to see if I can go further than 2.5 GHz, but there's really not that great of a need.
I've used RAID 0 and found it to largely be a waste of time and money. RAID 1 and 5 I can understand, but in terms of improving load times, running 2GB of RAM has done far more for me than running RAID 0. It's just a lot of hassle for negligible performance increases IMO.
I was pretty definite that the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 has better sound quality and bass than the z-5500. Now that AT recommended the Logitech even for the high-end system, I'm not so sure.
I really like my music and am in the market for a new 5.1 system. Should I go z-5500 or Klipsch ProMedia Ultra?
The Klipsch are also very good speakers - some would say better, others would just say they're different. When you start getting into high-end speakers, a lot of stuff becomes more subjective. I don't know if this still holds, but in the past, Klipsch was regarded as having great customer support. I can't say the same for Logitech, but then I've never personally used customer support for either one. I think the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 speakers go for about $350 new, so they're more expensive and they lack the digital decoder. They probably sound a bit better, though.
Well Klipsch had quality issues for a while with dead and fried amps. Then again Logitech's lower end models were pretty poor quality as well.
Either way both systems are likely close enough in quality that you won't notice the difference hooked up to the same soundcard. You would find a much greater difference by improving the soundcard over switching from one of those two speaker systems to the other.
Also, if you're so anal as to be able to detect a huge difference between the two you probably aren't going to be happy with either one and should instead get a real home theatre system and hook your soundcard to the receiver. Then you have no more limitations of a computer speaker system and can swap in and out your separates as you wish and really configure it all finely and use much better quality components.
There's no reason for the high-end case recommendation to be anything other than the Antec P-150, which is essentially the perfect case. If more room is needed (which would be the rare instance) the P-180 would be the alternative recommendation.
one were the crt left out due to shipping costs? I got my 75lbs 22" Philips shipped free simply by buying from a local (ground shipping was free, fedex 2 day was several hundred dollars so I can see why shipping costs on a decent size crt could be an issue) based estore. I just wondered as I have yet to see a lcd that comes close to a professional crt in color or crispness, and if your willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a videocard to play games why not three to five on the monitor?
the other question is I keep hearing about corsairs 3500 ll xms is it vaporware or did you guys simply miss this one or does it not live up to the hype? I did not see it on the price link or really any mention of it which leads me to wonder?
On the CRTs, there are no new CRTs being made with good specs. I've been over that ground in previous Guides. Basically, you can get a new 22" CRT that is worse than 4 year old models, or you can try to find a 4 year old model, or you can give in and upgrade to LCD. It's unfortunate, but profit margins are better on LCDs, consumers like them more ("oooo - it's THIN!"), and so all R&D is now focused on improving LCDs rather than on CRTs. I fought the CRT battle for a few years, and now that I've upgraded to LCD I just don't miss the CRT anymore. 24" WS and plenty of desk space - what's not to love? :)
I'm sticking with my dual 22'inch crt's, a few years old made them available for ~150 each shipped and I like the colors/refresh rate/resolutions better than any crt's I've seen around for twice that money.
And an 8 foot desk means never having to worry about space.
The performance of the CRT displays is decreasing even in the 17" world - monitors from three years ago had better refresh rates and resolution than what you can buy now. CRT world is dying :(
I was wondering about LCD size you guys.(that rhymes hehe) I currently have a 15" LCD on a laptop that has a 1024x768 resolution. Sometimes I find it that things are a bit too big especially in videos. I was going to buy a 17" LCD, but then a 19" was recommended here, and I was wondering if you 19" owners are bothered by, or you think that there is a lack of resolution for the huge size. I've seen a 17" and 19" side by side and the size improvement was so big, but I didn't get a chance to look closely, especially when playing video, so I don't know if 1280x1024 is all that bad on a 19". Thank you.
I would very much prefer a lower resolution on the 17" LCDs - that 1152 by something would be great. I somewhat find the 1280 by 1024 too small, and just perfect on the 19" displays.
never mind my post above I just read a recommendation for a 19" widescreen above and I am pleased now. However, I have a laptop with a widescreen too and there are still black bars on dvds and the top and bottom, but the bars are only like a quarter of an inch or so. I read some reviews for widescreen LCDs and it seems all of widescreen LCDs, at least computer LCDs are 16:10. What is the reason for that, because a very large part of widescreen, is watching widescreen movies in their native format and what's the point if there's still black bars on the screen? Is there a video-playing app that'll remove those bars or something? thank you. also, any comment on that viewsonic widescreen 19"? user reviews?
I'm not sure about the 16:10 ratio, but the reason you'll often keep seeing black bars watching movies is that there are several aspect ratios that are wider even than 16:9 which are commonly used (for movies). You should find it on the back of the DVD cover; there's 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 for example, and especially the latter is wider than 16:9 (which is ~1.78:1).
The thing that bugs me about all this is that they see fit to modify movies to 4:3 for some DVDs, VHS, and network/cable broadcast, but I've never seen a movie modified to fit 16:9, which to me seems the logical thing to do (at least as an option). When (finally) I buy HD equipment, I'm going to make sure that either the TV or the DVD player can zoom to make these wider-screen formats fit 16:9 (without destroying the aspect ratio, thankyouverymuch).
nope not at all, it says it's 16:10 on the Viewsonic Website. As I understand it, with the help from the fellows of AVSForum and Videohelp, it seems most dvds are encoded in 16:9 native. Now some DVDs, are encoded into aspect ratios such as those that you mentioned. The Matrix Series is a common DVD to test response times and dark scene performance, and that DVD is certainly not encoded in 1:85:1 or 2:35:1, and there still are black bars. 16:10 will therefore leave black bars on ANY DVD or HD Material unless there is some app from viewsonic that will stretch all video content. Stretching for this case will not look bad at all since it is such a small stretch. I find this whole thing to be VERY stupid because again, widescreen in the first place was largely from theatres being widescreen, so consumer display devices tried to copy that widescreen format, with movies following along.
Hm. I bought a few of them last month. I haven't had any serious problems, but then I don't really think too much about my optical drives anymore. I've got Imation 8X DVD+R discs that work fine when I need them.
Jarred - am I correct in assuming from your description of the Acer 19" panel that you guys have not actually laid eyes on it?
I'm trying to find out some more info on this, but the Acer web site doesn't seem to be all that helpful. While I can find several AL1914 models, I don't see an AL1914smd (the closest thing I see is the AL1914s-8). I can't gather from their descriptions or specifications whether these are 6 or 8 bit panels.
Great article otherwise, and I agree with your thoughts on SLI and getting a good monitor (although, for many non-office uses I'd personally rather stick with a good CRT, provided the desk space is available).
I'll take a decent LCD over a similar CRT for most tasks, but there's personal preference. 21/22" CRTs are just so HUGE (in depth), plus they weigh a ton. Anyway, I purchased three of the 1914smd from Newegg about 5 months ago, and they all worked well. I couldn't spot any dithering, but then my eyes aren't the greatest. (Irregular astigmatism = noncorrectable = sucky double vision.) I got them http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">at Newegg for $350, and the same displays are now under $300.
My one gripe with LCDs is the refresh rate. 60 Hz or 75 Hz means that you do see tearing in 3D games - unless you enable vsynch. A nice CRT with a 100 Hz refresh rate doesn't usually show that problem.
I put four systems with those in a dental office. If you want to do wall mounts, there are probably better choices, but they were primarily for the desk and a couple mounted on clamps so the patients could watch videos or whatever. :)
Great guide, as usual: still my key source for system upgrade/renovation.
I am based in Portugal and this model is not yet on the market. What would be your thoughts about these two Acer displays: AL1951AS and AL1951Cs? Acer is selling them as "gaming line"... whatever that means... price wise it's pretty much the same.
One other question: for working and gaming would you say that WS is worth the premium?
Why restrict the display choices to LCDs that can't handle 1600x1200 and then complain about Crossfire only being able to support 1600x1200@60Hz. If you're willing to and would prefer to use an LCD, then how can you justify complaining about a shortcoming of Crossfire that can't possibly bother you?
I'm not in favor of Crossfire or even opposed to LCDs (though I certainly prefer CRTs when mobility is not needed), but it would be nice to have some consistency.
As I suggested, Crossfire is a high-end option, and my high-end display choice is definitely going to want the new X1800 CF and not the X800 variant. I don't recommend SLI *or* Crossfire for a Mid-range system. I mean, $400-$500 gets you an X800 CF setup or a 6800GS SLI setup... or you can just get a single 7800GTX or X1800XT. Then you don't need to worry about CF/SLI profiles, improperly optimized games, etc. and you can always add a second card later if you change your mind.
THere is no way Microsoft or anyone else is going to force HDCP on us with Vista. Quick, name all the HDCP compliant displays out on the market. Um, there aren't any, at least outside of the HDTV world, right? MS knows that ALL of the market currently runs non-HDCP displays, so they would be completely insane to require everyone to buy a new monitor.
Wait a couple more weeks, and you can get the Dell 3007. 30" widescreen with specs comparable to the Apple 30" cinema display. No word on price yet, but I'm betting it will be quite a bit less than the Apple.
There's also the 2407FPW coming out soon. I imagine the 30" display will be firmly in the "Dream" category, but I'm curious to see where the 2407 gets priced. It should be a bit cheaper than the 2405 to manufacture, but with higher specs it could still end up costing significantly more.
I know you folks mean well, but cut the guy a little slack or else write your own guide.
I believe the purpose of this article and its predecessors is to offer suggestions for people who have difficulty choosing components.
As Jarred said, This guide is not written in stone. Rather, it is merely a template subject to the individual's discretion.
Honestly, these days it's easier to come up with a short list of motherboards I *wouldn't* buy rather than ones that stand out as exceptional - and that goes double for socket 939 boards. There are very few boards out there that I would absolutely avoid. I just cut off my "alternative" list at a few boards from each price range; there are plenty of others (including ASUS, MSI, EPoX, Abit, etc.) that will work well.
In keeping with the mid-range theme...why was the ASRock 939Dual not included??
It has most of the features of the low end Asus and DFI boards...at a reduced cost.
You can even run AGP and PCI-E cards together...not SLI however.
I consider the ASRock firmly in the "budget" category, given the $75 or so price. I will be sure to mention it in the next budget guide, but personally I don't worry about AGP support on any new Mid-Range system. But yes, it's a reasonable board for the cost.
To reiterate: those who know what they're doing can get the ASRock to work fine. However:
Memory issues with some products
BIOS support lacking
Mediocre quality control
Probably some other stuff....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustRatingReview.asp...">Newegg reviews indicate that about 15% of people seem to have issues. I would spend more for a bit nicer board (meaning nF4 Ultra or ATI Xpress 200 CF) on anything more than a budget build.
I can understand why you would call the Asrock a budget board.
Although I find it interesting that you would use the comments on Newegg as an indication that the Arock board has issues since the http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp...">Newegg comments about the DFI nforce ultra infinity doesn't make your choice look to good.
In fact if you where to go by Neweggs comments the Arsock looks much better since the DFI indicates that about 50% of people seem to have issues with it.
Yeah, the DFI comments are all over the place. I have to say that I haven't seen much in the way of problems with the DFI Infinity. Basically, I'm doing a bit of reading between the lines. The chief complaints I'm seeing on the Infinity amount to "it's not a LanParty". I guess after running several CPUs and RAM types from stock settings all the way up through massive overclocks, I have trouble thinking that it's as bad as the Newegg reviews are saying - well, some of them anyway.
Reading between the lines on the ASRock, the chief thing seems to be "OMG it has working AGP and PCIe!" Which is fine if you really have an AGP card that you like, but considering the best AGP cards can be equaled (usually) for around $200 now, it's not a huge issue. If I had a good system with an AGP card, I'd either live with it a while longer, or move it to a secondary role (or sell it) and get new components, you know? Six months ago, this board made a lot more sense; today, AGP is just 6 months older, while PCIe has two whole product lines you can't get on AGP.
Bleh. Let's just call it writer bias and be done with it. Like I always say, get what you like. My picks are merely some reasonable choices as I see it. :)
Of course, that board still has that "OMG this board will support the AM2 socket" with it as well that will keep it going until right into the first year of AM2 MBs.
Corrected - see note above. The RAM name was linked, and the last page had it right. You can't even find generic 2x1GB DDR for $150; sorry to get your hopes up. :(
On page 4, first paragraph:
"...doubling the cost of your RAM for $80-$125..." - "cost" probably should read "size" or "amount."
Regarding video cards, I believe a pair of 7800GTs would be a better recommandation than a single 7800GTX 512.
On the display side, there's a 19" widescreen 1440x900 LCD from Viewsonic for around $300, which I'd prefer over a standard 5:4 screen. The model # is VA1912w. Add a "b" for black.
I have issues with smaller widescreen displays. 1440x900 is an odd resolution, so outside of a few specific games and Windows desktop use, you end up with stretched content or you don't use all the screen. I've got my 2405 set to 1:1 stretch, so even at lower resolutions it still fills most of the screen, but running at native is obviously preferred.
I don't know about most games as I have only tried a couple on a widescreen (Half Life 2 and City of Heroes - both have built-in WS support), but I do believe that most newer games can be run in non-4:3 aspect ratios. I mean, even 1280x1024 isn't 4:3, and for some reason I just hate it =p
Regarding the 7800 GT SLI vs. 7800 GTX 512MB, while the SLI'ed cards are in general slightly faster, it's not usually by a large amount. I would rather have a single 512MB GTX than two GTs in a system. You can see http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2649...">various results in our X1800CF article, and issues like BF2, B&W2, DoD:S, etc. make me prefer single cards first. Of course, right now the GTX 512MB cards aren't in stock, so prices are messed up as well. I wouldn't actually recommend spending $600+ on a GPU to anyone but the wealthy gaming obsessed people. :)
Yeah, I was only looking at the fact that two GTs are "only" $600 as opposed to a GTX 512's $750. You're right to point out the SLI-specific issues and also the pricing issue due to the lack of supply. (when are you guys gonna start slamming nVidia about this like you guys do with ATI's paper launches? =p)
Not to sound like an old timer but i've seen that "high-end" monitor and it just pales compared to the top crt from NEC on fps games. Perhaps my eyes are too sensitive but i see definite ghosting on that acer lcd.
I agree, but the good CRT monitors you refer to are becoming increasingly difficult to find new. For instance NEC/Mitsubishi have ceased production of CRT monitors, though Iiyama apparently use the excellent Diamondtron tube in some of their models so they are still available for now. In another couple of years CRT monitors will probably have vanished altogether but fortunately LCD panels should be good enough by then to replace them.
Is it really worth recommending two seperate choices (the mid-range for $41 and the high-end for $43) when the difference is just two dollars? It would be easier to just recommend an optical drive, in this case the "high-end" $43 NEC.
Other than that minor quibble, a very good article which it is hard to find any real issues with.
This is more a matter of listing the most reasonable DVDRs. I don't really have a preference for brand, but some people might like one of the other more. The main thing is to grab whatever DVDR you can grab for a low cost - $40 to $50 is fine for me.
Yeah, I'm not sure how that $150 slipped in there. The price table on the last page had the correct price of $233, but page 4 was incorrect. It's fixed now.
Most of the article is pretty nice but I couldn't help but notice that your monitor suggestions don't mention HDCP. With HDCP likely to be an important part of Vista displaying HD content, it should definitely be a consideration. This is especially true in light of the fact that people tend to keep monitors around a long time.
It wasn't posted on accident. It went live for a few minutes, but due to Anand's just-posted 955EE article, this was pushed back until Monday. We try to stay away from posting two large articles on the same day, if you hadn't noticed. :)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
Back to Article
Reldan - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
As awesome as a 30" Apple Cinema is, have you considered the prospects of using a much larger HDTV? I use a 65" HP MD6580n, and it's the best monitor I've ever owned bar none. It's ridiculously huge but the picture remains sharp at 1920 X 1080, especially with the wobulation tech which removes most if not all of the screen door effect you might have with a set this size.I know that a big deal is being made about these awesome 30" monitors from Apple and now Dell, but HDTV technology has progressed to the point where in my mind there is no better choice for high-end gaming.
gman003 - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
So my question to everyone is, is 2GB really worth the $100 upgrade compared to 1GB. Can you get decent memory to overclock with at 2GB? If I was planning to run a DFI LanParty Ultra-D board, would I really use the same 2GB memory Jarrod recommended for the HighEnd system for my overclocking purposes?I guess the biggest thing that struck me from the article was that you could probably get away using an old ATA133 7200rpm Drive as long as you have 2GB of memory. Should I really sacrifice not upgrading my hard drive so that I can have 2GB of memory?
flamethrower - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
You can check out the following article. The gist is that you get better loading times with more ram, the article will show you the results from changing various ram amounts in a high-end setup.http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ra...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ra...
I apologize for linking to an outside site, but I don't think the content is available on Anandtech. Maybe you guys should think about (or point me to) your article on this topic.
Finally, you wanted to know "Is it worth it?" Only you can answer this question. My personal opinion is that it is, but you might be building a budget system and not have the budget for 2GB RAM. As Jarred points out: "You are not going to notice 60 fps vs. 63, but you are going to notice a 38 sec loading time vs 63" or something like that.
gman003 - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
Ok, maybe I will clarify:I am building a budget $800 system and want to know what will give me better performance.
Should I stay with 2 gigs of ram and not upgrade my old ATA 133 7200rpm 200GB drive or get 1 gig of ram and upgrade my hard drive to a new 3.0GB SATA 7200rpm 250GB.
Yeah, I've read that article too. But I mean, c'mon? With 2 gigs of ram, you don't notice any significant advantages in like 9 out of 10 tests with the only significant thing being load times/heavy multitasking. I don't know if I can justify $100 to load World of Warcraft 30 seconds sooner when I'm more concerned with FPS, video encoding, and large file transfers. IMO I think the the $100 could be spent on a HD or even better, a cooler mobo and/or case for the system.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Generally speaking, for games you want GPU speed first, and CPU speed second. RAM speed and quanitity as well as HDDs are distant fourth/fifth place finishes. Once you've got the others at a reasonable speed, though - where diminishing returns kicks in - then you should start looking at upgrading the RAM and then the HDD. That's my take, anyway.flamethrower - Sunday, January 8, 2006 - link
What do you guys think about an Opteron 165 or 170 instead of the X2 4200+? The 170 and the 4200+ are about the same price.JarredWalton - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
If you're willing to overclock, there's no real reason to go any higher than the 165/170 Opty or the X2 3800+. I've got a 165 that OCs to around 2.5 GHz with the stock HSF. I'm going to try a few changes to the system to see if I can go further than 2.5 GHz, but there's really not that great of a need.pg55555 - Thursday, January 5, 2006 - link
If you are looking for performance, I think RAID 0 is a valid alternative that is often forgoten in the guidesJarredWalton - Saturday, January 7, 2006 - link
I've used RAID 0 and found it to largely be a waste of time and money. RAID 1 and 5 I can understand, but in terms of improving load times, running 2GB of RAM has done far more for me than running RAID 0. It's just a lot of hassle for negligible performance increases IMO.archcommus - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I was pretty definite that the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 has better sound quality and bass than the z-5500. Now that AT recommended the Logitech even for the high-end system, I'm not so sure.I really like my music and am in the market for a new 5.1 system. Should I go z-5500 or Klipsch ProMedia Ultra?
archcommus - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Not just music, but DVDs and games, as well.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
The Klipsch are also very good speakers - some would say better, others would just say they're different. When you start getting into high-end speakers, a lot of stuff becomes more subjective. I don't know if this still holds, but in the past, Klipsch was regarded as having great customer support. I can't say the same for Logitech, but then I've never personally used customer support for either one. I think the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 speakers go for about $350 new, so they're more expensive and they lack the digital decoder. They probably sound a bit better, though.yacoub - Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - link
Well Klipsch had quality issues for a while with dead and fried amps. Then again Logitech's lower end models were pretty poor quality as well.Either way both systems are likely close enough in quality that you won't notice the difference hooked up to the same soundcard. You would find a much greater difference by improving the soundcard over switching from one of those two speaker systems to the other.
Also, if you're so anal as to be able to detect a huge difference between the two you probably aren't going to be happy with either one and should instead get a real home theatre system and hook your soundcard to the receiver. Then you have no more limitations of a computer speaker system and can swap in and out your separates as you wish and really configure it all finely and use much better quality components.
yacoub - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
There's no reason for the high-end case recommendation to be anything other than the Antec P-150, which is essentially the perfect case. If more room is needed (which would be the rare instance) the P-180 would be the alternative recommendation.jiulemoigt - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
one were the crt left out due to shipping costs? I got my 75lbs 22" Philips shipped free simply by buying from a local (ground shipping was free, fedex 2 day was several hundred dollars so I can see why shipping costs on a decent size crt could be an issue) based estore. I just wondered as I have yet to see a lcd that comes close to a professional crt in color or crispness, and if your willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a videocard to play games why not three to five on the monitor?the other question is I keep hearing about corsairs 3500 ll xms is it vaporware or did you guys simply miss this one or does it not live up to the hype? I did not see it on the price link or really any mention of it which leads me to wonder?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
On the CRTs, there are no new CRTs being made with good specs. I've been over that ground in previous Guides. Basically, you can get a new 22" CRT that is worse than 4 year old models, or you can try to find a 4 year old model, or you can give in and upgrade to LCD. It's unfortunate, but profit margins are better on LCDs, consumers like them more ("oooo - it's THIN!"), and so all R&D is now focused on improving LCDs rather than on CRTs. I fought the CRT battle for a few years, and now that I've upgraded to LCD I just don't miss the CRT anymore. 24" WS and plenty of desk space - what's not to love? :)Turin39789 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I'm sticking with my dual 22'inch crt's, a few years old made them available for ~150 each shipped and I like the colors/refresh rate/resolutions better than any crt's I've seen around for twice that money.And an 8 foot desk means never having to worry about space.
Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
The performance of the CRT displays is decreasing even in the 17" world - monitors from three years ago had better refresh rates and resolution than what you can buy now. CRT world is dying :(tjpark1111 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I was wondering about LCD size you guys.(that rhymes hehe) I currently have a 15" LCD on a laptop that has a 1024x768 resolution. Sometimes I find it that things are a bit too big especially in videos. I was going to buy a 17" LCD, but then a 19" was recommended here, and I was wondering if you 19" owners are bothered by, or you think that there is a lack of resolution for the huge size. I've seen a 17" and 19" side by side and the size improvement was so big, but I didn't get a chance to look closely, especially when playing video, so I don't know if 1280x1024 is all that bad on a 19". Thank you.Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I would very much prefer a lower resolution on the 17" LCDs - that 1152 by something would be great. I somewhat find the 1280 by 1024 too small, and just perfect on the 19" displays.tjpark1111 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
never mind my post above I just read a recommendation for a 19" widescreen above and I am pleased now. However, I have a laptop with a widescreen too and there are still black bars on dvds and the top and bottom, but the bars are only like a quarter of an inch or so. I read some reviews for widescreen LCDs and it seems all of widescreen LCDs, at least computer LCDs are 16:10. What is the reason for that, because a very large part of widescreen, is watching widescreen movies in their native format and what's the point if there's still black bars on the screen? Is there a video-playing app that'll remove those bars or something? thank you. also, any comment on that viewsonic widescreen 19"? user reviews?Anton74 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I'm not sure about the 16:10 ratio, but the reason you'll often keep seeing black bars watching movies is that there are several aspect ratios that are wider even than 16:9 which are commonly used (for movies). You should find it on the back of the DVD cover; there's 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 for example, and especially the latter is wider than 16:9 (which is ~1.78:1).The thing that bugs me about all this is that they see fit to modify movies to 4:3 for some DVDs, VHS, and network/cable broadcast, but I've never seen a movie modified to fit 16:9, which to me seems the logical thing to do (at least as an option). When (finally) I buy HD equipment, I'm going to make sure that either the TV or the DVD player can zoom to make these wider-screen formats fit 16:9 (without destroying the aspect ratio, thankyouverymuch).
tjpark1111 - Thursday, January 5, 2006 - link
nope not at all, it says it's 16:10 on the Viewsonic Website. As I understand it, with the help from the fellows of AVSForum and Videohelp, it seems most dvds are encoded in 16:9 native. Now some DVDs, are encoded into aspect ratios such as those that you mentioned. The Matrix Series is a common DVD to test response times and dark scene performance, and that DVD is certainly not encoded in 1:85:1 or 2:35:1, and there still are black bars. 16:10 will therefore leave black bars on ANY DVD or HD Material unless there is some app from viewsonic that will stretch all video content. Stretching for this case will not look bad at all since it is such a small stretch. I find this whole thing to be VERY stupid because again, widescreen in the first place was largely from theatres being widescreen, so consumer display devices tried to copy that widescreen format, with movies following along.dlerious - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
That Benq DQ60 has to be the worst burner out there right now. I'd put anything but that ine on the list.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Hm. I bought a few of them last month. I haven't had any serious problems, but then I don't really think too much about my optical drives anymore. I've got Imation 8X DVD+R discs that work fine when I need them.Anton74 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Jarred - am I correct in assuming from your description of the Acer 19" panel that you guys have not actually laid eyes on it?I'm trying to find out some more info on this, but the Acer web site doesn't seem to be all that helpful. While I can find several AL1914 models, I don't see an AL1914smd (the closest thing I see is the AL1914s-8). I can't gather from their descriptions or specifications whether these are 6 or 8 bit panels.
Great article otherwise, and I agree with your thoughts on SLI and getting a good monitor (although, for many non-office uses I'd personally rather stick with a good CRT, provided the desk space is available).
JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I'll take a decent LCD over a similar CRT for most tasks, but there's personal preference. 21/22" CRTs are just so HUGE (in depth), plus they weigh a ton. Anyway, I purchased three of the 1914smd from Newegg about 5 months ago, and they all worked well. I couldn't spot any dithering, but then my eyes aren't the greatest. (Irregular astigmatism = noncorrectable = sucky double vision.) I got them http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">at Newegg for $350, and the same displays are now under $300.My one gripe with LCDs is the refresh rate. 60 Hz or 75 Hz means that you do see tearing in 3D games - unless you enable vsynch. A nice CRT with a 100 Hz refresh rate doesn't usually show that problem.
Anton74 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Thanks much, this is useful info. I also saw the 1914smd on newegg, and was considering one of these among others (...for non-gaming office use :).JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I put four systems with those in a dental office. If you want to do wall mounts, there are probably better choices, but they were primarily for the desk and a couple mounted on clamps so the patients could watch videos or whatever. :)abravo01 - Monday, March 20, 2006 - link
Hi there.Great guide, as usual: still my key source for system upgrade/renovation.
I am based in Portugal and this model is not yet on the market. What would be your thoughts about these two Acer displays: AL1951AS and AL1951Cs? Acer is selling them as "gaming line"... whatever that means... price wise it's pretty much the same.
One other question: for working and gaming would you say that WS is worth the premium?
Thanks.
André.
Yawgm0th - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Why restrict the display choices to LCDs that can't handle 1600x1200 and then complain about Crossfire only being able to support 1600x1200@60Hz. If you're willing to and would prefer to use an LCD, then how can you justify complaining about a shortcoming of Crossfire that can't possibly bother you?I'm not in favor of Crossfire or even opposed to LCDs (though I certainly prefer CRTs when mobility is not needed), but it would be nice to have some consistency.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
As I suggested, Crossfire is a high-end option, and my high-end display choice is definitely going to want the new X1800 CF and not the X800 variant. I don't recommend SLI *or* Crossfire for a Mid-range system. I mean, $400-$500 gets you an X800 CF setup or a 6800GS SLI setup... or you can just get a single 7800GTX or X1800XT. Then you don't need to worry about CF/SLI profiles, improperly optimized games, etc. and you can always add a second card later if you change your mind.ImJacksAmygdala - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
If I'm going to spend >$300 on a new monitor I atleast want it to be future proof with HDCP...JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
THere is no way Microsoft or anyone else is going to force HDCP on us with Vista. Quick, name all the HDCP compliant displays out on the market. Um, there aren't any, at least outside of the HDTV world, right? MS knows that ALL of the market currently runs non-HDCP displays, so they would be completely insane to require everyone to buy a new monitor.DigitalFreak - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Wait a couple more weeks, and you can get the Dell 3007. 30" widescreen with specs comparable to the Apple 30" cinema display. No word on price yet, but I'm betting it will be quite a bit less than the Apple.JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
There's also the 2407FPW coming out soon. I imagine the 30" display will be firmly in the "Dream" category, but I'm curious to see where the 2407 gets priced. It should be a bit cheaper than the 2405 to manufacture, but with higher specs it could still end up costing significantly more.Pythias - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I know you folks mean well, but cut the guy a little slack or else write your own guide.I believe the purpose of this article and its predecessors is to offer suggestions for people who have difficulty choosing components.
As Jarred said, This guide is not written in stone. Rather, it is merely a template subject to the individual's discretion.
tomchae - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
these had the best feedback in newegg. are these good?-ABIT KN8 Ultra Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra ATX AMD Motherboard $99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
-ASUS A8N-SLI Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI ATX AMD Motherboard $122
http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp...
bob661 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I can definitely recommend the Asus board. Rock solid.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Honestly, these days it's easier to come up with a short list of motherboards I *wouldn't* buy rather than ones that stand out as exceptional - and that goes double for socket 939 boards. There are very few boards out there that I would absolutely avoid. I just cut off my "alternative" list at a few boards from each price range; there are plenty of others (including ASUS, MSI, EPoX, Abit, etc.) that will work well.Sceptor - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
In keeping with the mid-range theme...why was the ASRock 939Dual not included??It has most of the features of the low end Asus and DFI boards...at a reduced cost.
You can even run AGP and PCI-E cards together...not SLI however.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I consider the ASRock firmly in the "budget" category, given the $75 or so price. I will be sure to mention it in the next budget guide, but personally I don't worry about AGP support on any new Mid-Range system. But yes, it's a reasonable board for the cost.JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
To reiterate: those who know what they're doing can get the ASRock to work fine. However:Memory issues with some products
BIOS support lacking
Mediocre quality control
Probably some other stuff....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustRatingReview.asp...">Newegg reviews indicate that about 15% of people seem to have issues. I would spend more for a bit nicer board (meaning nF4 Ultra or ATI Xpress 200 CF) on anything more than a budget build.
justly - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I can understand why you would call the Asrock a budget board.Although I find it interesting that you would use the comments on Newegg as an indication that the Arock board has issues since the http://www.newegg.com/Product/CustratingReview.asp...">Newegg comments about the DFI nforce ultra infinity doesn't make your choice look to good.
In fact if you where to go by Neweggs comments the Arsock looks much better since the DFI indicates that about 50% of people seem to have issues with it.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Yeah, the DFI comments are all over the place. I have to say that I haven't seen much in the way of problems with the DFI Infinity. Basically, I'm doing a bit of reading between the lines. The chief complaints I'm seeing on the Infinity amount to "it's not a LanParty". I guess after running several CPUs and RAM types from stock settings all the way up through massive overclocks, I have trouble thinking that it's as bad as the Newegg reviews are saying - well, some of them anyway.Reading between the lines on the ASRock, the chief thing seems to be "OMG it has working AGP and PCIe!" Which is fine if you really have an AGP card that you like, but considering the best AGP cards can be equaled (usually) for around $200 now, it's not a huge issue. If I had a good system with an AGP card, I'd either live with it a while longer, or move it to a secondary role (or sell it) and get new components, you know? Six months ago, this board made a lot more sense; today, AGP is just 6 months older, while PCIe has two whole product lines you can't get on AGP.
Bleh. Let's just call it writer bias and be done with it. Like I always say, get what you like. My picks are merely some reasonable choices as I see it. :)
TowerShield - Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - link
Of course, that board still has that "OMG this board will support the AM2 socket" with it as well that will keep it going until right into the first year of AM2 MBs.Sceptor - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Presumably those who read this site will "know what they are doing"...Seeing as most readers here have grown up with computers. Just my 2 cents...Thanks for the replies..
Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Nobody wants "free" problems - and when I bought my mainboard long time ago, I looked in just one more place except anandtech.comOrSin - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Fix the ram price and put in another pair.I did the same thing looking for where i could find it for $150
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Corrected - see note above. The RAM name was linked, and the last page had it right. You can't even find generic 2x1GB DDR for $150; sorry to get your hopes up. :(Regs - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Right after christmas when everybody is broke.ViperV990 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
On page 4, first paragraph:"...doubling the cost of your RAM for $80-$125..." - "cost" probably should read "size" or "amount."
Regarding video cards, I believe a pair of 7800GTs would be a better recommandation than a single 7800GTX 512.
On the display side, there's a 19" widescreen 1440x900 LCD from Viewsonic for around $300, which I'd prefer over a standard 5:4 screen. The model # is VA1912w. Add a "b" for black.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I have issues with smaller widescreen displays. 1440x900 is an odd resolution, so outside of a few specific games and Windows desktop use, you end up with stretched content or you don't use all the screen. I've got my 2405 set to 1:1 stretch, so even at lower resolutions it still fills most of the screen, but running at native is obviously preferred.ViperV990 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I don't know about most games as I have only tried a couple on a widescreen (Half Life 2 and City of Heroes - both have built-in WS support), but I do believe that most newer games can be run in non-4:3 aspect ratios. I mean, even 1280x1024 isn't 4:3, and for some reason I just hate it =pJarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Regarding the 7800 GT SLI vs. 7800 GTX 512MB, while the SLI'ed cards are in general slightly faster, it's not usually by a large amount. I would rather have a single 512MB GTX than two GTs in a system. You can see http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2649...">various results in our X1800CF article, and issues like BF2, B&W2, DoD:S, etc. make me prefer single cards first. Of course, right now the GTX 512MB cards aren't in stock, so prices are messed up as well. I wouldn't actually recommend spending $600+ on a GPU to anyone but the wealthy gaming obsessed people. :)ViperV990 - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Yeah, I was only looking at the fact that two GTs are "only" $600 as opposed to a GTX 512's $750. You're right to point out the SLI-specific issues and also the pricing issue due to the lack of supply. (when are you guys gonna start slamming nVidia about this like you guys do with ATI's paper launches? =p)CrimsonDeath - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Not to sound like an old timer but i've seen that "high-end" monitor and it just pales compared to the top crt from NEC on fps games. Perhaps my eyes are too sensitive but i see definite ghosting on that acer lcd.PrinceGaz - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I agree, but the good CRT monitors you refer to are becoming increasingly difficult to find new. For instance NEC/Mitsubishi have ceased production of CRT monitors, though Iiyama apparently use the excellent Diamondtron tube in some of their models so they are still available for now. In another couple of years CRT monitors will probably have vanished altogether but fortunately LCD panels should be good enough by then to replace them.lexmark - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
good article. for that complete system, $1270 isnt to shabby.PrinceGaz - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Is it really worth recommending two seperate choices (the mid-range for $41 and the high-end for $43) when the difference is just two dollars? It would be easier to just recommend an optical drive, in this case the "high-end" $43 NEC.Other than that minor quibble, a very good article which it is hard to find any real issues with.
JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
This is more a matter of listing the most reasonable DVDRs. I don't really have a preference for brand, but some people might like one of the other more. The main thing is to grab whatever DVDR you can grab for a low cost - $40 to $50 is fine for me.Amol - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
I think you guys have a price error on that. As soon as I saw the $150 shipped, I searched everywhere for it, but only saw it for $250 shipped.JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Yeah, I'm not sure how that $150 slipped in there. The price table on the last page had the correct price of $233, but page 4 was incorrect. It's fixed now.thren - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
hey, i think the samsung 244t is another option as a high-end monitor and it should be in the article.thanks
RaynorWolfcastle - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
Most of the article is pretty nice but I couldn't help but notice that your monitor suggestions don't mention HDCP. With HDCP likely to be an important part of Vista displaying HD content, it should definitely be a consideration. This is especially true in light of the fact that people tend to keep monitors around a long time.MAME - Friday, December 30, 2005 - link
When will you guys stop posting articles too soon on accident?JarredWalton - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
It wasn't posted on accident. It went live for a few minutes, but due to Anand's just-posted 955EE article, this was pushed back until Monday. We try to stay away from posting two large articles on the same day, if you hadn't noticed. :)