Memory

Recommendation: 1 X 256MB Kingston PC3200 (DDR400) ValueRAM module
Price: $50 shipped



Kingston ValueRAM modules have decreased in price, about $2 or so, since the last time we took a look at them, and $5 in the last 7 weeks. This is a somewhat positive fluctuation in price, as DDR prices have been slowly on the rise these past few months. Knowing this, it's clear that the time to buy DDR modules is now, if you're going to be purchasing DDR modules at all. Do not wait unless you aren't in a hurry to build your entry level system, as we don't foresee any major increase in DDR memory for quite some time (though that is obviously quite difficult to predict).

We also feel it's necessary to note that we're not recommending PC2100 for our entry level system here today for a reason. That reason is directly related to the recent upward fluctuation of DDR prices; PC2100 and PC3200 modules are priced almost exactly the same. Therefore, it would be pointless to purchase anything but a PC3200 module (in the 256MB variety) right now, as it offers 66.67MHz (133.33MHz DDR) more speed and only 0.5 higher latency (CAS 3.0 instead of 2.5) with this particular Kingston KVR400X64C3A/256 module.

Alternative: 1 X 256MB OCZ PC3200 EL (Enhanced Latency) CAS2.0 module
Price: $65 shipped



OCZ's DDR modules have also dipped in price since we looked at them last month. We've talked about OCZ's troubled past and history in detail before, but thankfully, those issues have been resolved from all indications and OCZ is able to bring great memory to market, and has been doing so for over a year now. With that said, OCZ has had tremendous success with their EL series of modules for a reason: a great price/performance ratio. At only $15 more than the Kingston ValueRAM that we recommended today, you get lower CAS timings (CAS 2-2-3 1T) with OCZ EL modules instead of high CAS timings (CAS 3-3-3 4T) with the Kingston ValueRAM modules. Lower CAS timings along with the EL series' overclocking capability translates into better performance for a great price.

With that all said, be sure to check out Crucial's line of PC3200 modules as well, as they are rightfully known as one of the most reliable and highest quality memory makers on the planet.

Video

Recommendation: 64MB Sapphire Radeon 9200SE
Price: $43 shipped



Just like last month, our recommendation this week is the Radeon 9200SE instead of the regular 9200. While the 64-bit memory interface of the 9200SE (SE indicates the halved memory interface) cripples gaming performance considerably compared to 128-bit video cards, it's still an acceptable card for the light to occasional gamer, and of course, more than necessary for non-gamers. 2D IQ quality will live up to business users' needs as well as the regular Joe Shmoe's needs; that is, crisp text and excellent clarity in general. At $43, it's hard to find a better video card with the said feature set.

Also, we feel that a major point of concern, which we have failed to address adequately in previous Buyer's Guides, is ATI's spotty record for reliable drivers in the past. While this was certainly a major issue in the days of the Radeon 8500 and certainly before then, these days, ATI's Catalyst brand of drivers are delivering excellent stability for each segment of users (entry level, mid-range, high end, etc.). We've been able to verify this fact personally here in AnandTech's own labs. In fact, I, myself, run a 9200SE-powered rig 24/7. It's a very basic, but very reliable box, an SFF (Small Form Factor) box in fact, and I run quite a wide range of tasks on this system. It won't set graphical performance records, but it's not meant to anyway.

Alternative: 64MB Sapphire Radeon 9200
Price: $52 shipped



The Radeon 9200 is the AGP8X version of the Radeon 9000. This is the non-crippled, 128 bit memory interface version of the 9200SE. Vendors may or may not make this information about memory interface differences clear when advertising their 9200 video cards, so be sure to check. Gaming performance is considerably better with this Radeon 9200 than the Radeon 9200SE, and 2D IQ is identical, if not better in some cases, depending on whether or not you choose to pick a higher quality version of ATI's Radeon 9200 (from Gigabyte, for example). You should definitely be considering this card for your entry level system instead of the 9200SE, if you're at all interested in some semi-serious gaming. As far as the onboard video memory size is concerned, 64MB should be more than enough for the majority of video games out there, and certainly enough for entry level users. There are 128MB versions of this card available, but it's completely unnecessary to upgrade to them when looking at the higher price differential.

If you're at all interested in gaming performance at 1024x768 resolutions and up, we highly suggest something more powerful than Radeon 9200, like a Radeon 9600 Pro or GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, for example. Either card will be able to perform significantly more smoothly at those higher than 800x600 resolutions.

Listed below is part of our RealTime pricing engine, which lists the lowest prices available on ATI video cards from many different reputable vendors:


If you cannot find the lowest prices on the products that we've recommended on this page, it's because we don't list some of them in our RealTime pricing engine. Until we do, we suggest that you do an independent search online at the various vendors' web sites. Just pick and choose where you want to buy your products by looking for a vendor located under the "Vendor" heading.

CPU and Motherboard Alternatives Monitor, Computer Case, and Power Supply
Comments Locked

41 Comments

View All Comments

  • MAME - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    the via chipsets are not worth saving $20
  • JuniorXL - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    What about getting the Asus A7V8X-X KT400 instead of the A7N8X-X NFORCE2? Its usually about $20 cheaper and has the same features, just a different chipset. Is the KT400 really that bad?
  • ECarlson - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    Two easy fixes for the weekly systems guides:

    1. Especially for us returning readers: Have a one-page synopsis of the changes from the last guide (for each system level). This could even be a cumulative history, including all the changes over time (That would be nice). No need for us to read mostly the same content over and over and over and over and over.

    2. Put the "Next page" button above the price list. It is very annoying to have to scroll past the price list just to get to the next article page. (Of course, if you implemented #1, this would be far less of an issue to regular readers.)
  • cparker - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

  • MAME - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    To the guys suggesting gaming and such: this is a budget system, not a gaming one. Someone even mentioned Doom 3...it's not intended to even touch a game like that.

    A $70 case someone else mentioned? You're thinking about the next level up. I think AT did a good job picking out the best product for the price (though some changes can be made).

    But for sure, $10 for 40 MORE gigs! (and 6 more megs for the buffer size)
  • cosmotic - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    What are you talking about? This is a budget system, GF4MX is perfectly fine. Infact, its better than fine. A new video card would be an upgrade. I dont think people paying 500 bucks for a computer would expect to get enough performance out of it to play all these new games. You guys are on crack! "My 500 dollar computer wont play FarCry or Doom3... I WONDER WHY!"
  • Pumpkinierre - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    From what I hear of those 5200s, they arent worth the candle. A friend who had one with a new system was so disatisfied that he got a computer repairman to swap it for a Geforce4 of some denomination and now seems happy. Admitedly he mainly does 2D graphics. However I agree with an earlier article's post: the entry level system ought to be an integrated graphics solution possibly with upgradeable AGP port. With new IG chipsets from ATI, Intel and nVidia this should make for some competition when allied to Paris/Sempron and 64bit prescott celerons as well as the older socketA's and N'wood celerons. My present favorite: Duron 1.8, ATI IGP 320 mainboard (http://www.sapphiretech.com/mainboard/a3-285.asp), 512MB DDR.

  • henan - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    I agree with that 80 gig drive, and also integrated graphics might add more room for other components (ram?).

    I'm very disappointed in the missing OC guide. Last two just haven't been there, but nothing else has filled that gap yet, just a week withiut anything. To me that is the only important one, although the others are good reading. I hope the OC system guide will be back soon!
  • TrogdorJW - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    Duker, the problem is that while the 5200 might technically be a DX9 card, it's not fast enough to actually run DX9 graphics at even the lowest quality settings, so it would end up being used as a DX8 card. The 9200SE is probably too slow to run even DX8 titles, but the 9200 is perfectly capable as long as the resolution is kept at 1024x768 or lower and detail settings aren't too high.

    If you want any real chance at running DX9 games, the minimum card would be a 9600 Pro, like this one: http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?desc... At $111, that's way out of the price range of a budget system. (IMO, on a budget system, $100 would be the maximum price of any single part, and $50 would be preferred.

    Anyway, as an alternative, the FX5200 cards might be okay, but they're still pretty much DX9 parts in practice.
  • yossiz - Thursday, June 10, 2004 - link

    I'd really like to see an HTPC builder's guide. One that focuses on quiet, multimedia-oriented PC.

    Also, as someone mentioned already, I think that the RAM alternative should not be a lower latency module, but rather a 512MB module, making your alternative system a much more viable budget gaming machine.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now