Graphics Recommendations

We've given a few integrated graphics options for both platforms, so if you decide to go with one of those motherboards, you can skip the graphics recommendations. Office work and surfing the internet has very little use for even moderately powerful 3D accelerators, though that could change when Windows Longhorn is released next year. Our graphics recommendations, therefore, assume that gaming is at least a small consideration in terms of what the computer needs to handle. The only drawback of the integrated graphics solutions is that most of them don't include a DVI port - none of the boards that we've mentioned in this Guide have DVI, at least. While we won't be recommending an LCD for the budget system, it's something that a lot of people may use down the road and we will suggest one for the upgraded configuration. In either case, you'll need a graphics card with DVI to get the best quality from your LCD.

Since we've gone with PCI Express motherboards for all of the systems, we only need to provide a budget and upgraded recommendation in this Guide. If gaming is an interest, the graphics card is probably the most critical factor. You could get very decent performance out of any of these systems with the upgraded graphics card, though you may at times be limited by the CPU for the budget models. Here are our two picks.


Click to enlarge.

Budget Graphics Recommendation: MSI X300SE 128MB
Price: $53 shipped (Retail)

Due to new information, we have changed our graphics card recommendation from what was initially listed - you'll find out why below. Since this is a budget card and we're just looking for a decent price and specific features, we've ended up with the cheapest PCIe card that we could find that still includes a DVI port. The difference between this $53 card and something like an X600 Pro or 6200 (non-TC) is around $30 for up to twice the performance. If you're truly interested in graphics performance, though, we strongly recommend the upgraded recommendation below.

Our only real requirement for the budget graphics card was that it needed a DVI interface, so we ended up with this MSI card. With a 325MHz core clock and 400MHz RAM using a 64-bit interface, it's nothing special, but it will work. You can't really find much cheaper, but there are several alternatives that offer similar performance. The 6200TC with 16MB RAM starts at $55, as do the ATI X300SE HyperMemory cards, and both have a DVI interface. Besides the ability to connect your PC to an LCD, DVI interfaces are also useful for hooking up your computer to most HDTVs. If you've ever used the S-VIDEO or Composite Out features of a PC to connect to a standard television and ended up disappointed, HDTV connectivity my change your mind - you need an HDTV for this feature to be useful, of course.

So why the change? We knew that we wanted 6200TC card for our budget setup, but determining which card is the right one can be difficult. Manufacturers seem content to let the obfuscation continue, unfortunately. If you've read our TurboCache vs. HyperMemory article, you know that the 64-bit memory interface models are desired, but you also want 700 MHz RAM rather than 550 MHz RAM. The 64MB RAM 6200TC cards ship with slower RAM and end up being outperformed by the 32MB models in most cases. The 16MB models are all 32-bit interfaces, so they're the slowest of the 6200TC cards (and not surprisingly the cheapest).

We searched diligently to find a 32MB 64-bit card with 700MHz RAM, but we can't seem to find such a model anywhere. As a particularly bad example, Newegg lists an ASUS board as having a 128-bit interface with 700 MHz RAM, while ASUS says it is a standard model - 64-bit, 64MB 550MHz. (We're going to trust ASUS on this one.) It's still a reasonable choice, but it's not exactly what we wanted. (This was our original selection until a reader pointed out the error.) We found plenty of 32MB cards with 700MHz RAM, but they were all 32-bit interfaces as far as we could tell, making them lower performing than the 64-bit 64MB models. If you can find a model with a 64-bit interface and 700MHz RAM, please let us know. It could be that those cards are not available as they outperform the supposedly superior "TurboCache with 256MB support" - it's all about market segmentation, unfortunately.

Update: ASUS has updated their specifications on their web site, listing the RAM as being 700 MHz now. Apparently Newegg had it right the first time. For the extra $20, it's a reasonable upgrade to performance, but it's only really useful if you plan on moderate gaming. Hopefully this is the correct spec and will remain static now.


Click to enlarge.

Upgraded Graphics Recommendation: Gigabyte GV-RX70P128D Radeon X700PRO 128MB
Price: $112 shipped (Retail)

Our upgraded graphics recommendation offers roughly twice the performance of the budget card in modern games, and it can handle any current title on the market - though you'll have to tweak the detail levels for optimal performance. With a 425 MHz core and 860 MHz GDDR3, the X700 Pro roughly matches the performance of the old 9800 Pro 128MB cards. The original MSRP of the X700 Pro was $199, but prices have dropped substantially in the past month, making the X700 Pro a great value. Models with 256MB of RAM are also available, though the benefits of adding more RAM to a slower graphics card are dubious. Games that can really make use of 256MB of graphics memory will often require the higher performing models to actually reach playable frame rates.

If you're opposed to purchasing an ATI card for whatever reason, NVIDIA offers several alternatives worth mentioning. At the lower end of the price scale are the 6600 and 6600GT. The 6600 is outperformed by the X700 Pro in every test, but some people will prefer NVIDIA regardless. The 6600GT on the other hand beats the X700Pro in the majority of gaming benchmarks by a reasonable margin - it should, given the specifications. The added benefit of the 6600/GT is that it supports SM3.0, not to mention SLI which allows you to run two of the cards in concert on an appropriate motherboard. There are quite a few 6600GT PCIe cards available, and most of them are similar in performance and features. We like the XFX model with dual DVI ports, though it isn't the quietest card around. Leadtek, Gigabyte, Chaintech, MSI, ASUS, eVGA, and several other companies all offer competing products - you can check out our 6600GT PCIe Roundup if you want further information on any of these models. We had issues with the HSF mountings on quite a few of the cards in our 6600GT roundup, and we're not sure whether or not these issues have been addressed.

Moving beyond the X700 Pro price, the X800 cards currently have a $30 mail-in rebate available from ATI, putting their price slightly lower than the 6600GT if you can wait for the rebate check to arrive. They typically outperform the 6600GT cards as well, giving them a price/performance advantage. We've been going on for a while about how NVIDIA has the better GPU lineup with the 6600GT and higher models, particularly with the SLI advantage. With the launch of the 7800GTX, ATI has responded by cutting prices on many of their models. We give credit where credit is due, and while NVIDIA may hold the performance crown, ATI should be able to sell a lot of their mid-range models over the coming months with the current pricing advantage.

Memory Recommendations Storage Recommendations
Comments Locked

57 Comments

View All Comments

  • wilburpan - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    Regarding Dell: before I read the comments I went over to the Dell website and looked over their current offerings. There are cost cutting measures on the part of Dell to bring the price down on their budget systems: PATA instead of SATA, questionable memory, lack of PCIe, their Celeron based systems come with a maximum of 512 MB RAM, and probaby a bunch more that I don't know about.

    About this buying guide: some of the recommendations take into account future upgradability. I'm not sure that this should be a real priority for a budget system. One thing that has been made clear to me over the past few years is that building a computer is an exercise in balancing all the components. As a result, once a computer gets very old, it is more cost effective to replace the whole thing rather than upgrading a component at a time. Being that this is a budget system, the lifetime of the components would be less than average, as these components have already been on the market for a while.
  • bob661 - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    Jarred,
    In the article you mention that you can do 222 with the OCZ Gold at 2.8V but on OCZ's website it says 3.2V. Can you clarify this?
  • Zoomer - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    What about motherboards based on the RS482?

    They offer decent integrated graphics at a good price.

    http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/m...
  • xsilver - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    #12
    gigabyte makes a fanless 6600GT
    costs a few dollars more but if you need it
  • bupkus - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    I just built a system with an OEM 3000+ Venice for $115, Epox 9NPA+ Ultra for #105 and a Gigabyte X300 for about $70 and now I hear the X700 is the way to go for just a little more. I like to play Ut2004 and that's it. Hmm.. time to rma the X300 and get that X700 before it's too late.
    I'd consider the 6600GT but I dont' want noisy and I get that impression.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    Bah - I caved and listed an optional PSU. I still feel like I keep repeating myself from Guide to Guide, but maybe you readers don't notice it as much? :)

    10 - PATA is going to be a bit slower and we don't really like the cables. The newer Intel motherboards often come with a single PATA connection (supporting two drives), making it a very poor choice for such motherboards. It *is* an option, but there's a reason PATA drives are getting large mail-in rebates. The same reason such drives often end up in OEM systems: the manufacturers are clearing out old inventory.

    Anyway, I don't generally worry much about the mail-in rebate opportunities, as it's basically loaning a company your money at 0% interest for several months. If you can find a good rebate on an SATA drive, I'd prefer that personally, but PATA drives are still okay for some people.
  • Hacp - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    One question I had was why SATAII? Why not a 40 dollar 80GB PATA100 HD from circuit city or best buy after rebates? I know that those two stores are good for their rebates, and with the 15 dollars you save, you can defenetly upgrade the processor, which is a better bang for your buck in terms of performance.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    Regarding case and PSU: yes, I realize the PSU is suspect, and I always put better PSUs in computers I build. However, I've also used generic PSUs in budget PCs, and provided the systems aren't overloaded you rarely have problems. At full load, I would guess that the two budget setups will draw 150W or less. If you add in a second hard drive and a more powerful graphics card, you're asking for trouble, but as built they should be fine. Feel free to buy a Fotron Source, Antec, Enermax, etc. - I've suggested it many times and hopefully have made it clear that a nice PSU is never a bad idea.

    I've got some Dell systems that I use regularly that include Pentium 4 2.8 GHz processors and 1GB of RAM, and they're paired with a (generic) 200W PSU. If Dell thinks a 200W is sufficient for that setup, I'm comfortable with slightly better PSUs for these budget setups.
    ----------------
    As for buying a Dell, that last comment of mine ought to give you something to think about. Dell/HP/etc. often take a good processor like a Pentium 520 and pair it with the cheapest remaining parts that they can find. You'll also get 256MB DIMMs, because no one else wants them these days - upgrading a Dell to 2x512 instead of 4x256 often costs as much as buying 2x512 on your own.

    They're still okay, and you can often get a decent LCD with them as well. Upgrading them can often be a frustrating experience, and rarely do they make something an enthusiast would be happy with. If you're okay with that, they're decent systems. I'm not going to do buyers guides picking out OEM systems, though. ;-)
    ----------------
    Finally, I wasn't aware that the low-end Semprons don't support Cool 'n Quiet, but it doesn't matter much to me. They're 90nm parts with 1/2 or 1/4 the L2 cache of the Venice core, so they should run relatively cool already.

    I once calculated the cost of running a 60W lightbulb 24/7 for a year and it was only about $37 - 526 kWHrs at 7 cents per kWHr. Cool 'n Quiet on a Sempron isn't likely to save 60W, more like 20W, so the yearly savings would only be around $12. That's enough to upgrade to the next higher Sempron, of course, but if you're looking at the yearly costs it becomes easy to justify buying a much faster PC - at least for me.
  • Hacp - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    Why not buy a dell? Because Dell offers less performance, few overclocking features, a huge premium for upgrades(ram and dvd rewritable for example), and even crappier graphics than the integrated/turbocached stuff that anandtech is reccomending. Some of the choices are questionable in the article though. The power supply is a major concern.
  • xsilver - Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - link

    really #6?
    didnt know that!
    wont it be benefitial to upgrade then as in the long run the cost of a lower power bill will make the cpu pay for itself?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now