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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
it make more sense just to get the 7900gt now or get a 19inch lcd. no point in waiting a year for Vista to utilise a DX10 card. thats a long time suffer.
Not everyone plays a lot of games, and I basically mention that the 7600/X1600 are what I consider the minimum for a current system. They should be able to run Windows Vista without any trouble, and even play some games. For $50 more, getting the GT with the much higher clock speeds was a reasonable upgrade. If you're serious about gaming, of course you can get a better GPU. I tried to make that clear by stating it at least two or three times. For non-gaming purposes, I like to have as big of a monitor as I can possibly get. Using stuff like Photoshop in widescreen mode is really nice, since all of the tool windows can fit on the sides while I edit regular aspect ratio images in the middle.
It is only 769.95 shipped at the moment. Plus it has height adjustment (not sure how many care about that). I will be getting one this summer, unless the 2407 is the same price. Hopefully the 2407 makes the 2405 go even lower on price.
I'd have to say that the LanParty is probably a better choice since I have a NF4 SLI Infinity and the support that DFI provides for it isn't very good considering its been so long since its release they still cannot fix the temperature sensor to display properly in Windows.
I am a little confused why AnandTech keeps saying AM2 will not bring a significant increase in performance over S939. AMD _clearly_ stated the change to AM2 is due to DDR2 adoption and unification of high, middle and low-end processors on the same socket, and it is expected to run on NF4 until NF5xx is released. But, if you want to buy an AM2 mobo, wait a couple of monts after release! Childhood ilnesses are inevitable both for AM2 and NF5xx.
while i agree that the WD250KS is a great value for performance, there is something that i think buyers should know about that drive. it runs hot.
i don't know why, but that drive runs on average 18C higher then my WD 74GB Raptor that's 2 slots away from it. i have a good case in the P180, and i have good airflow. 3xPanaflow 120x38, and 1 Nexus 120x25 in the fan slot behind the HD in the bottom enclosures. it's just odd that Speedfan constantly shows that drive between 48-55C depending on use while my Raptor is around 32-38C.
True, mine runs hot as well. When my computer is idle, its hotter than both my CPU and videocard. It's usually in the mid 40's while my 80gb WD was in the mid 30's. I thought there was something wrong with it at first, but if you're having the same temps then maybe its meant to be like that.
"It also sports two X16 slots (with X8 bandwidth in SLI mode)" - The board runs both slots at 8x bandwidth all the time, not just when in sli mode. AFAIK it doesn't have any performance impact, but I spent a long time looking for the setting to change my board to x16/x1
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm talking about availability at launch. In a few months, the selection should be quite good. At launch, it will be FAR fewer in terms of options than socket 939. That's pretty much a given. Cost is the big question, of couse, and I don't know what AM2 chip or mobo cost is going to be just yet.
I figured if you can get your hands on AM2 cpus, you can probably find at least one board to put it in from the same shop/channel.
I guess first motherboard makers to market could own the market so they may be falling over themselves to get them out on time. Early launch times like this are premium prices thus one of the most profitable times to be selling boards.
Obviously there are loads of 939 boards but older ones are less desirable now.
Yes, I'd be interested in the HTPC guides. As the home is moving more integrated This would be an asset. May I suggest silence, HDCP support, optical media and media server be options explored for the hardware options. Thank you.
I'd love to read an Anandtech HTPC guide as well. Hey, I'd settle for just a HTPC case roundup. I know there are other sites that have similar information, but none of them seem to be updated frequently enough for my liking. A solid, professional AT review would be great.
Thanks for putting up an update to your buyer's guides. I always read these with interest to get other people's insights into what they think are the most useful criteria for selecting the best components to get the job done at a good price.
For me, trying to sort through whose LCD monitors really offer the most in a given price range, such as the $290 to $300 range, continues to be one of the most frustrating areas of selecting components. The fact that manufacturers of LCDs seem to have no compunction about making up whatever technical specifications they think will best help them sell their products is maddening. Perhaps someone will eventually nail them with a class-action lawsuit similar to the one that got everyone to specify the difference between CRT tube sizes and viewable sizes.
Anyway, with regard to your recommendations, I'm skeptical that any of these LCDs, except the 24 inch Acer, are actually true 16.7 million color LCDs. As you said, it's easy to get to hung up on one specification, but all these LCDs, with the exception of the Acer AL2416W, appear to be using TN based panels. This means that in addition to them most likely really only being 6-bit + 2-bit with dithering panels, they suffer from the narrowed viewing angles that is the TN panel's other main weakness. Fortunately, while most manufacturers seem to have little problem with declaring all their LCDs to be 16.7 million color monitors, many continue to still be a little more honest about the viewing angles (though even these are often fudged, as well). The viewing angles on the monitors you listed are what seem to give away the true nature of these displays. They are relatively narrow, and they show smaller angles for the vertical compared to their horizontal angles, which as far as I know is very charecteristic of TN panels.
Anyway, my only point is that the more information you can dig up and provide us about what's what with LCD panels the better. This continues to be one area of computer hardware where facts and reviews are skant and hard to find.
That BenQ FP202W 20" really is a TN panel. Some say it is a full 8-bit panel (16.7M) instead of a 6-bit panel (16.2M). I don't really know for sure. If it is indeed 8-bits, then I don't think I would hesitate to recommend it (for that price with rebate), even with the slightly restrictive viewing angles.
That said, I would recommend people spend a little bit more and get the Viewsonic VX2025WM. It is a full 8-bit P-MVA panel from AU Optronics and offers the best of both worlds (response time, viewing angles, and colour depth). It can be had for just under $350. It has the height adjustment too.
The BenQ web site always lists the correct number of colors a monitor supports. In this case the web site lists 16.7 million colors, so its an 8-bit display. Its also a TN panel, so viewing angle will not be as good as an MVA panel.
My experience with BenQ's is that it takes some fiddling to get the colors right, but they are very nice after that. They are not so good out-of-the-box.
Well, you might be right, but I remain skeptical about the BenQ FP202W being a 16.7 million color monitor. It seems like it would be big news if someone was successfully manufacturing TN panels with that many true colors.
www.flatpanels.dk seems to think that this monitor is using a Chungwa panel (CPT CLAA201WA01) and that this panel is also found in the Acer AL2017. Acer lists their panel as supporting 16.2 million colors, typical for how 6-bit plus dithering panels are described.
Again, this just seems to emphasize how hard it is to get factual information that you can rely on when it comes to LCD monitors.
I've got the 19" 2ms and the 20" 8ms both setup right now, and I couldn't tell you (with my eyes) whether they're 6-bit or 8-bit. I need better eyes, I guess (which is actually true). I've edited the display text slightly if you want to check it out.
I look forward to those. With so much of the cost of a system potentially going into these monitors, not to mention their expected useful lifespan, more LCD monitor reviews will definitely be welcome.
The trick will be how to go about getting those facts and then figuring out what they really mean. I know that ranslating numbers into users' experiences is easier said than done.
I'm sure that one of the reasons that there aren't very many in depth reviews of LCDs available is because this is such a difficult piece of hardware to get a good, analytic handle on.
There is a review out there that compared the BenQ against a few other LCDs inlcuding the ViewSonic 20" widescreen, and the ViewSonic was deemed the better LCD.
I can't quite understand the recommendation of a 400W Eneremax power supply. There are more powerful modular power supplies in the same price range, with some being cheaper, even the ones from reputable brand names. There are even better PSUs in the same price range without modular cabling. A modular PSU is hardly a necessity for a mid-range computer, but a good power supply is. Enermax makes some great PSUs, but I wouldn't want to try using a 400W in a system like this, especially when there are good 500W power supplies in the same price range.
Even though it's only rated at 400W overall (yes, wattage is not the best indicator of overall output), it can do 30A on the +12V output alone (360W divided by 12V), which is a good amount for a non-SLI configuration. Even two 7600GTs wouldn't be enough to push this power supply past it's limits. I think it is a good all-around choice.
I've got a system very similar to this, only with a 7800 GTX, an overclocked X2 3800+, and two 250GB hard drives... all running off a Thermaltake 410W PSU. Maximum power draw hits about 315W - and that's not even counting for PSU efficiency (i.e. that's measuring at the outlet).
I mentioned several alternative PSUs that people can consider. Why do I like modular units? Sleeved cables, reduced cable clutter, and for an extra $15 I'm willing to go that route. Opinions vary, naturally - this guide is basically my opinion, after all.
Difficult to make comparisons of "same price" netburst cpu, because Intel roadmap will make FURTHER REDUCTIONS in price of 930,940,950 after Core Duo 2 launches through November.
950 probably isn't going to compete with the new chips on total performance, but may not be that bad in bang for buck in comparison.
Rough estimate, and it could be more or less depending on benchmarks. Core Duo T2300 costs a bit more than Pentium D 930. Looking at *stock* performance, AutoGK encoding for example should be around 55 FPS for the 930, while the T2400 get 44 FPS. Even with a 25% boost in performance, the Core Duo 2 $210 CPU is probably going to about equal PD 930.
The flipped side is that some benches (games especially) will be more than 35%. PD 920 at 2.8 GHz maxes out at 63 FPS in BF2, roughly. (Doesn't matter about resolution - 800x600 still gets ~63 FPS.) Gary got 83 FPS with T2400 at stock, and 112 at 2.8 GHz. If CD2 gives another 25%... we're looking at maybe 104 FPS for a 1.83 GHz Core Duo 2. Assuming such a chip costs $210, it's got a 65% performance advantage. :)
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
56 Comments
Back to Article
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.toyota - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
it make more sense just to get the 7900gt now or get a 19inch lcd. no point in waiting a year for Vista to utilise a DX10 card. thats a long time suffer.gersson - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Makes perfect sense to me.JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Not everyone plays a lot of games, and I basically mention that the 7600/X1600 are what I consider the minimum for a current system. They should be able to run Windows Vista without any trouble, and even play some games. For $50 more, getting the GT with the much higher clock speeds was a reasonable upgrade. If you're serious about gaming, of course you can get a better GPU. I tried to make that clear by stating it at least two or three times. For non-gaming purposes, I like to have as big of a monitor as I can possibly get. Using stuff like Photoshop in widescreen mode is really nice, since all of the tool windows can fit on the sides while I edit regular aspect ratio images in the middle.Iscabis - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
It is not actually a couple hundred more.It is only 769.95 shipped at the moment. Plus it has height adjustment (not sure how many care about that). I will be getting one this summer, unless the 2407 is the same price. Hopefully the 2407 makes the 2405 go even lower on price.
Iscabis - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Sorry my mistake. That site deceived and advertised free shipping. It is still 782 shipped from a different site though.neutralizer - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I'd have to say that the LanParty is probably a better choice since I have a NF4 SLI Infinity and the support that DFI provides for it isn't very good considering its been so long since its release they still cannot fix the temperature sensor to display properly in Windows.cozappz - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I am a little confused why AnandTech keeps saying AM2 will not bring a significant increase in performance over S939. AMD _clearly_ stated the change to AM2 is due to DDR2 adoption and unification of high, middle and low-end processors on the same socket, and it is expected to run on NF4 until NF5xx is released. But, if you want to buy an AM2 mobo, wait a couple of monts after release! Childhood ilnesses are inevitable both for AM2 and NF5xx.One43637 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
while i agree that the WD250KS is a great value for performance, there is something that i think buyers should know about that drive. it runs hot.i don't know why, but that drive runs on average 18C higher then my WD 74GB Raptor that's 2 slots away from it. i have a good case in the P180, and i have good airflow. 3xPanaflow 120x38, and 1 Nexus 120x25 in the fan slot behind the HD in the bottom enclosures. it's just odd that Speedfan constantly shows that drive between 48-55C depending on use while my Raptor is around 32-38C.
SonicIce - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
True, mine runs hot as well. When my computer is idle, its hotter than both my CPU and videocard. It's usually in the mid 40's while my 80gb WD was in the mid 30's. I thought there was something wrong with it at first, but if you're having the same temps then maybe its meant to be like that.BigLan - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
"It also sports two X16 slots (with X8 bandwidth in SLI mode)" - The board runs both slots at 8x bandwidth all the time, not just when in sli mode. AFAIK it doesn't have any performance impact, but I spent a long time looking for the setting to change my board to x16/x1ZJB298 - 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*
APKasten - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Or you could just get this low latency G-Skill RAM that's on sale over at Newegg.com for $45 less. ;)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Well, I mentioned the $55 MIR on the RAM. If you don't want to deal with MIRs, I suggested several alternatives. :) The G.Skill should work, yes.SexyK - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Shouldn't that be Core 2 Duo?peternelson - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
"choice of components is also going to be limited - mostly in the motherboard area"So, you expect a limited number of AM2 motherboards? Well there is a choice of several ATI and NVIDIA chips.
As for motherboard manufacturers with AM2 products, I know of (at least): ABIT, Asrock, Asus, Biostar, DFI, ECS, Epox, Foxconn, Gigabyte, MSI.
Many of these have several different boards, not just one, but I will not post all the model numbers for brevity.
I'm just saying I don't think choice of boards will be a big problem there are SLI/non-SLI etc. Single or dual lan etc.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I'm talking about availability at launch. In a few months, the selection should be quite good. At launch, it will be FAR fewer in terms of options than socket 939. That's pretty much a given. Cost is the big question, of couse, and I don't know what AM2 chip or mobo cost is going to be just yet.peternelson - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Ah yes, that is somewhat down to distribution.
I figured if you can get your hands on AM2 cpus, you can probably find at least one board to put it in from the same shop/channel.
I guess first motherboard makers to market could own the market so they may be falling over themselves to get them out on time. Early launch times like this are premium prices thus one of the most profitable times to be selling boards.
Obviously there are loads of 939 boards but older ones are less desirable now.
For AM2 all will have up to date features.
ChillBoy - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Yes, I'd be interested in the HTPC guides. As the home is moving more integrated This would be an asset. May I suggest silence, HDCP support, optical media and media server be options explored for the hardware options. Thank you.policy11 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I would definitely be interested in an HTPC buyers' guide.CKDragon - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I'd love to read an Anandtech HTPC guide as well. Hey, I'd settle for just a HTPC case roundup. I know there are other sites that have similar information, but none of them seem to be updated frequently enough for my liking. A solid, professional AT review would be great.CK
kleinwl - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
YES!!!Spacecomber - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Thanks for putting up an update to your buyer's guides. I always read these with interest to get other people's insights into what they think are the most useful criteria for selecting the best components to get the job done at a good price.For me, trying to sort through whose LCD monitors really offer the most in a given price range, such as the $290 to $300 range, continues to be one of the most frustrating areas of selecting components. The fact that manufacturers of LCDs seem to have no compunction about making up whatever technical specifications they think will best help them sell their products is maddening. Perhaps someone will eventually nail them with a class-action lawsuit similar to the one that got everyone to specify the difference between CRT tube sizes and viewable sizes.
Anyway, with regard to your recommendations, I'm skeptical that any of these LCDs, except the 24 inch Acer, are actually true 16.7 million color LCDs. As you said, it's easy to get to hung up on one specification, but all these LCDs, with the exception of the Acer AL2416W, appear to be using TN based panels. This means that in addition to them most likely really only being 6-bit + 2-bit with dithering panels, they suffer from the narrowed viewing angles that is the TN panel's other main weakness. Fortunately, while most manufacturers seem to have little problem with declaring all their LCDs to be 16.7 million color monitors, many continue to still be a little more honest about the viewing angles (though even these are often fudged, as well). The viewing angles on the monitors you listed are what seem to give away the true nature of these displays. They are relatively narrow, and they show smaller angles for the vertical compared to their horizontal angles, which as far as I know is very charecteristic of TN panels.
Anyway, my only point is that the more information you can dig up and provide us about what's what with LCD panels the better. This continues to be one area of computer hardware where facts and reviews are skant and hard to find.
Thanks
Space
KorruptioN - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
That BenQ FP202W 20" really is a TN panel. Some say it is a full 8-bit panel (16.7M) instead of a 6-bit panel (16.2M). I don't really know for sure. If it is indeed 8-bits, then I don't think I would hesitate to recommend it (for that price with rebate), even with the slightly restrictive viewing angles.That said, I would recommend people spend a little bit more and get the Viewsonic VX2025WM. It is a full 8-bit P-MVA panel from AU Optronics and offers the best of both worlds (response time, viewing angles, and colour depth). It can be had for just under $350. It has the height adjustment too.
kmmatney - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
The BenQ web site always lists the correct number of colors a monitor supports. In this case the web site lists 16.7 million colors, so its an 8-bit display. Its also a TN panel, so viewing angle will not be as good as an MVA panel.Here's a review, though:
http://gear.ign.com/articles/699/699896p1.html">http://gear.ign.com/articles/699/699896p1.html
My experience with BenQ's is that it takes some fiddling to get the colors right, but they are very nice after that. They are not so good out-of-the-box.
Spacecomber - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
Well, you might be right, but I remain skeptical about the BenQ FP202W being a 16.7 million color monitor. It seems like it would be big news if someone was successfully manufacturing TN panels with that many true colors.www.flatpanels.dk seems to think that this monitor is using a Chungwa panel (CPT CLAA201WA01) and that this panel is also found in the Acer AL2017. Acer lists their panel as supporting 16.2 million colors, typical for how 6-bit plus dithering panels are described.
Again, this just seems to emphasize how hard it is to get factual information that you can rely on when it comes to LCD monitors.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
I've got the 19" 2ms and the 20" 8ms both setup right now, and I couldn't tell you (with my eyes) whether they're 6-bit or 8-bit. I need better eyes, I guess (which is actually true). I've edited the display text slightly if you want to check it out.JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
Full reviews (with empirical data, rather than just using my eyeballs) will be coming soon.Spacecomber - Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - link
I look forward to those. With so much of the cost of a system potentially going into these monitors, not to mention their expected useful lifespan, more LCD monitor reviews will definitely be welcome.The trick will be how to go about getting those facts and then figuring out what they really mean. I know that ranslating numbers into users' experiences is easier said than done.
I'm sure that one of the reasons that there aren't very many in depth reviews of LCDs available is because this is such a difficult piece of hardware to get a good, analytic handle on.
Space
kmmatney - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I meant to put in a few more reviews:http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=45...">http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?page=45...
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/BenQ_FP202W/4505-3174...
http://www.gamerz-edge.com/hardware/reviews/fp202w...">http://www.gamerz-edge.com/hardware/reviews/fp202w...
There is a review out there that compared the BenQ against a few other LCDs inlcuding the ViewSonic 20" widescreen, and the ViewSonic was deemed the better LCD.
punko - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Thanks for the Guide, Jarred.I guess sometimes its worth whining!
Punko
Yawgm0th - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I can't quite understand the recommendation of a 400W Eneremax power supply. There are more powerful modular power supplies in the same price range, with some being cheaper, even the ones from reputable brand names. There are even better PSUs in the same price range without modular cabling. A modular PSU is hardly a necessity for a mid-range computer, but a good power supply is. Enermax makes some great PSUs, but I wouldn't want to try using a 400W in a system like this, especially when there are good 500W power supplies in the same price range.Griswold - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Shouldnt always go for the bigger number at a similar price. There are more important numbers with PSUs than the absolute wattage.KorruptioN - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Even though it's only rated at 400W overall (yes, wattage is not the best indicator of overall output), it can do 30A on the +12V output alone (360W divided by 12V), which is a good amount for a non-SLI configuration. Even two 7600GTs wouldn't be enough to push this power supply past it's limits. I think it is a good all-around choice.JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
I've got a system very similar to this, only with a 7800 GTX, an overclocked X2 3800+, and two 250GB hard drives... all running off a Thermaltake 410W PSU. Maximum power draw hits about 315W - and that's not even counting for PSU efficiency (i.e. that's measuring at the outlet).I mentioned several alternative PSUs that people can consider. Why do I like modular units? Sleeved cables, reduced cable clutter, and for an extra $15 I'm willing to go that route. Opinions vary, naturally - this guide is basically my opinion, after all.
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Sure about that. Only 35%?? I think 35% will be the absolute minimum over Netburst in Netburst optimized apps.
peternelson - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Difficult to make comparisons of "same price" netburst cpu, because Intel roadmap will make FURTHER REDUCTIONS in price of 930,940,950 after Core Duo 2 launches through November.950 probably isn't going to compete with the new chips on total performance, but may not be that bad in bang for buck in comparison.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 9, 2006 - link
Rough estimate, and it could be more or less depending on benchmarks. Core Duo T2300 costs a bit more than Pentium D 930. Looking at *stock* performance, AutoGK encoding for example should be around 55 FPS for the 930, while the T2400 get 44 FPS. Even with a 25% boost in performance, the Core Duo 2 $210 CPU is probably going to about equal PD 930.The flipped side is that some benches (games especially) will be more than 35%. PD 920 at 2.8 GHz maxes out at 63 FPS in BF2, roughly. (Doesn't matter about resolution - 800x600 still gets ~63 FPS.) Gary got 83 FPS with T2400 at stock, and 112 at 2.8 GHz. If CD2 gives another 25%... we're looking at maybe 104 FPS for a 1.83 GHz Core Duo 2. Assuming such a chip costs $210, it's got a 65% performance advantage. :)
Anyway, I'll tweak the text slightly.