Introduction
AMD introduced the Athlon II X2 and Phenom II X2 early last month. These new processor options extend the 45nm process and the updated Phenom II architecture to lower price points, which is certainly good news. However, the real impact with the top-line Phenom II X2 at $102 is in choices for budget systems with a cost below $800. Those CPUs bring tremendous power to budget systems, as you will see in our upcoming updates to our sub-$800 buyers' guide.
Intel made the world's fastest Core i7 even faster at about the same time AMD was filling in Phenom II at the bottom. The new 3.33GHz Core i7-975 is the fastest Core i7 but it comes with a $1000 price tag. The 3.06GHz Core i7-950 is a more affordable $562 and it does revise some i7 price points. However, the new changes are at the $562 and up price range, which is definitely the high-end range.
The action at the top and bottom don't have much impact on midrange systems, which is where most of our readers spend their money. Priced from around $700 to around $1700 for a complete system, there are plenty of options to from which to choose. You will mostly see refinements to previous guides, a few hot new board choices, and some best value components that have emerged since our last midrange guide.
The midrange base system has dropped a bit and now starts at $700 for the basic computer without peripherals. That has less to do with price reductions this time than with our change of the optical drive to a 32X DVD Sony burner instead of a combo Blu-Ray reader/DVD burner. Many commented BD playback was a bit pricey for a midrange value system, so we have chosen the latest Sony Optiarc 32X DVD burner for the value midrange. The BD/DVD combo is still the choice for performance midrange systems, and naturally you can mix and match optical drives depending on your personal needs and wants.
Phenom II X4 and X3 options have matured rapidly since their introduction a few months back, providing new choices for building a great Phenom II quad- or tri-core midrange system. Intel options have changed little as the market mostly prepares for a new midrange Intel socket in the next month or two. Manufacturers are gearing their Intel efforts toward new Socket 1156 motherboards, which will be home for upcoming Core i5, i3, and even a few Core i7 processors.
You can now build a decent entry level PC for around $500 - including a 1080p LCD monitor and the Vista Home Premium OS. If you already have a monitor and OS, or use one of the free operating systems like Ubuntu or another Linux variant, you can get your desktop system cost down to a bit over $300. As we discussed in our sub-$800 buyers' guide, these cheap entry systems are very capable of doing everything that many users need from a computer. Nevertheless, that $500 machine is certainly not the paragon for gaming, graphics, or raw computing power. As you move up the price scale you gain in all of those parameters. We started to beef up those areas in the bargain systems detailed at closer to $800.
Most of our readers are looking to buy in the next rung up the ladder, broadly defined as the midrange. A midrange system generally provides plenty of performance for the cost, while ensuring that the components still have some staying power in the market. That's our focus for this guide. We'll spec out two Intel systems and two AMD systems. The first value pair targets a base system price of around $700, with a complete system price of around $1100. These $1100 systems represent the best-bang-for-the buck in the midrange.
The second pair of systems target midrange performance. At about $500 to $650 more than value midrange, these $1600 to $1800 complete systems invest that extra cost in performance improvements and upgraded peripherals. The midrange performance segment builds around a powerful Intel Core i7 CPU or the fastest Phenom II you can currently buy. Both are very high performance for the money - and high performance by almost any other measure.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
SiliconDoc - Wednesday, August 5, 2009 - link
The idea that the 4870 or the 4890 beats the GTX275 is a FANTASY.-
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=7...">http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=7...
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/04/...">http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphi...03/radeo...
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1539&pageI...">http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1539&pageI...
http://www.dailytech.com/422009+Daily+Hardware+Rev...">http://www.dailytech.com/422009+Daily+H...adeon+HD...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-revi...">http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-275-revi...
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/15/">http://www.legitreviews.com/article/944/15/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_3d_...">http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_3d_...
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...">http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha...a-geforc...
http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX...">http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX...
http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/nvidia-gtx-275-...">http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/02/nvid...275-ati-...
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx...">http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_gtx...
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=684&type=...">http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=684&type=...
-
If you're spending $700.00 to $1,600 dollars and a $15 difference on one of your most important components, the videocard, makes your mind up for you... well...
---
NVidia often has 1 or TWO free games with it at the egg - while the red card far less often has just 1. There's another $50 - or $100, going with Nvidia - because of course with either card that makes it a GAMING system - and one would need some games.
---
I wasn't surprised that EVERY CARD in EVERY SYSTEM recommended was the red rooster card - considering where we are.
Mirrorblade - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
Hiya, for HDD choice you write"While there are differences between hard drives, outside of running benchmarks most people aren't likely to notice the difference in performance between Western Digital, Seagate, Samsung, Hitachi, and other major brands." -
but for memory, you recommend an overclocking memory set, where you could easily save some money (and you don't even give an alternative "for the people that will never want to overclock at all).
.. I don't see any point in advising only overclocking stuff. Sure one might want to overclock, but in this case you could add something as an alternativ, not recommend the OC stuff in general.
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
Even if you never overclock the low-voltage designs of the memory we recommend in the Guide will perform well and last a last time. You can certainly substitute lower cost and lower spec'ed memory if that better meets your needs.Search for a standard like DDR2-800 for the DDR2 systems and DDR3-1066 or 1333 for the Performance mid-range systems. Name brand memory with a real warranty is the better choice - even at the low end. If anything goes wrong quality memory suppliers will replace the bad memory quickly and many better companies offer a lifetime memory warranty.
In comparing memory at the same price choose the one that has the tighter timings, like 5-5-5 instead of 7-7-7. At the same timings and price the one that is specified with the lower voltage is generally the better choice.
nafhan - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
I think they recommended overclocking memory because they are recommending overclocking in general at this price point. Notice the processor and motherboard choices are geared towards overclocking as well. If you are definitely NOT going to overclock the value midrange, you could buy cheaper memory, motherboard, and (on the AMD side) a non-black edition CPU. You'd save about $100, and still have a fast, reliable system.It might be interesting if they listed a non-overclocking alternative for those parts (Mem, CPU, MB). Although, that may just push things down into the "budget" system range.
IlllI - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
can anyone tell me if the OCZ ModXStream Pro is better than the ENERMAX PRO82+ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8... ? they are both about the same priceThe0ne - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
I don't know about the enermax but I've researched before purchasing my OCZ 700W PS. Their lower wattage PS have good reviews except for this one but with the recent updates it's gotten better reviews. It was below average before. Sorry I don't have the link to the website that reviews PS.One thing to keep in mind is that if you're not really going to use the max wattage then I wouldn't worry about it. Also, it's best to know your system configuration and try to get a PS with some buffer wattage just in case....you know like when it ages :)
Wesley Fink - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
Today's price on the OCZ Modular 600W is $50 after a $20 rebate, or an initial cost of $70. The Enermax is a decent PSU, but current cost is $60 after a $50 rebate or an initial cost of $110.The OCZ slightly higher power rating, modular design, and 3-year warranty tilt the value toward the OCZ. Both units are 80 Plus certified, and OCZ has an excellent reputation for Customer Service.
C'DaleRider - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
That OCZ ModXStream isn't even in the same class as the Enermax Pro82+. Interior construction----the OCZ uses Chinese off-brand capacitors while the Enermax uses high quality name brand Japanese capacitors.Efficiency----not even a contest, the Enermax by a landslide.
Voltage regulation and ripple/noise suppression----again, the Enermax trounces the OCZ.
In all, the OCZ is a mediocre power supply that failed testing when subjected to temps above 40C. On the other hand, the Enermax is better constructed, more efficient, and flew through testing despite being subjected to temps in excess of 40C.
You make the call.
jonup - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
First the Enermax comes with $50 MIR. Which is a turnoff for many.Second, I just bought OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W (it should ship today) and I did some reading before I bought it. Non of the reviews had an issue with the performance. It performed as rated or better with stable voltages.
Third, for a midrange system it should be running in less then 400-450. At such output the OCZ if working 2 85-86% efficiency. I am not saying that it is better than the Enermax, but in worst case the OCZ will be behind 1-2% which is immaterial.
erple2 - Monday, July 27, 2009 - link
My system (non-overclocked E6750, radeon 4890, 2 memory sticks etc) eats about 325 W at the wall when running at or near full tilt. Factoring in even the highest efficiency available for my PSU (85%), the system is using about 275W of power. I think that the midrange systems listed here (particularly the lower midrange ones) will be chewing through about 300W at full tilt. So I think that the 600W psu should be more than enough.Yes, you can play games with specific efficiencies at specific wattages, but for that you're going to need to see the charts to make that fine-tuned an estimate. But, most power supplies that I've seen reviews for hit max efficiencies between 30 and 60% utilization.
Also, does that extra few percentage of watts make that much of a difference? I dunno. Turn off a light instead. That will save you more power.