Entry Level Buyer's Guide, October 2005
by Jarred Walton on October 14, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Display Recommendations
The final component left to choose is the display. This is very difficult to do for a budget guide, without compromising on quality. We'd love to throw in an LCD, but without resorting to three-year-old models on clearance - a lot like what you get with many $500 OEM systems - the cost is a bit high. The cheapest decent LCDs (i.e. 17" 1280x1024 panels) start at over $210, so we're going to stick with CRTs. As with cases, you can probably get a better idea of what you're buying if you go to a local store. Larger stores like Best Buy and CompUSA will often have sales as well, and shipping costs on 35+ pound monitors often negate any price advantage of shopping online.
One other piece of advice if you want to get an LCD: you'll really want a model with a DVI connection. The digital signal prevents noise from creeping into the image, and we definitely feel it's worth the added cost. This brings up a second point: none of the current motherboards with IGP (that I'm aware of) have a DVI port. Even if you don't care about graphics performance, you'll have to purchase an add-in video card to get DVI-out.
Before we get to the actual recommendations, we want to offer this advice: your display is what you look at when you use the computer, and if it's a lower quality display, you will notice. You might also keep the display for many years, going through several PC upgrades. More than any other component, we would advise people to splurge on a really nice display. If you gave most people the choice between a really fast $800 system with a cheap CRT vs. a budget system with a nice 19" or even 20" widescreen LCD, the vast majority would prefer a quality display over the faster PC. If that doesn't apply to you, that's fine, but most of us have moved to LCDs now, and old 17" CRTs (as well as the early 40 ms LCDs) are almost painful to use.
Price: $127 shipped
The options for decent 17" CRTs are very limited. There are better models, but they are increasingly difficult to find online, and prices are often higher than 19" CRTs. Envision is a generic brand, and the display uses an invar shadow mask tube as opposed to the preferred aperture grille. Still, it has decent quality output and can run at up to 1280x1024 at 60 Hz, though we'd recommend 1152x864 at 75 Hz instead. (Unlike LCDs, a 60 Hz refresh rate on a CRT is clearly visible and most people find the flicker effect to be irritating.)
For about $20 more, you could "upgrade" to the NEC FE772 model, but you really don't get anything extra. They have the same resolution and features, and while the NEC display might be a bit better, we'd go for a larger display instead. The older NEC FE771-SB was a better monitor, and it used an aperture grille tube. It no longer shows up on most online pricing engines and has been discontinued. The replacement FE772 is a shadow mask like the Envision, and we find the displays to be a little less flat and a little less bright. As we've already stated, the quality of CRTs is on the decline, and "upgrades" like this only further illustrate the point. The majority of CRTs now being manufactured are cutting every corner possible to keep the costs down, and in reality, most 17" CRTs probably cost more to manufacture than even the 19" LCDs. Demand is the only thing keeping LCD prices up, and conversely, it keeps CRT prices low.
Price: $169 shipped
Déjà vu - didn't we already see this monitor? Just as the pickings are slim for 17" CRTs, they are equally poor on 19" models. We ended up with Envision again, based on price and quality. There are no aperture grille displays to be found online (in the 19" market), so the only thing that you can get out of the more expensive models is support for higher resolutions. Anything beyond 1600x1200 on an 18" viewable display is going to be difficult to notice.
Slightly better models are available for about $70 more, such as the Samsung 997DF. Contrary to the manufacturer specs, that actually will run 2048x1536 at 60Hz - at least the one that I own works at that resolution. 1600x1200 at 75 Hz is far preferable, though, outside of running high resolution benchmarks - at least in my opinion. Incidentally, I picked up my Samsung 997DF over a year ago for $200 at Best Buy, which is $40 less than the current online price plus shipping. They might still have some on clearance, if you're lucky.
The final component left to choose is the display. This is very difficult to do for a budget guide, without compromising on quality. We'd love to throw in an LCD, but without resorting to three-year-old models on clearance - a lot like what you get with many $500 OEM systems - the cost is a bit high. The cheapest decent LCDs (i.e. 17" 1280x1024 panels) start at over $210, so we're going to stick with CRTs. As with cases, you can probably get a better idea of what you're buying if you go to a local store. Larger stores like Best Buy and CompUSA will often have sales as well, and shipping costs on 35+ pound monitors often negate any price advantage of shopping online.
One other piece of advice if you want to get an LCD: you'll really want a model with a DVI connection. The digital signal prevents noise from creeping into the image, and we definitely feel it's worth the added cost. This brings up a second point: none of the current motherboards with IGP (that I'm aware of) have a DVI port. Even if you don't care about graphics performance, you'll have to purchase an add-in video card to get DVI-out.
Before we get to the actual recommendations, we want to offer this advice: your display is what you look at when you use the computer, and if it's a lower quality display, you will notice. You might also keep the display for many years, going through several PC upgrades. More than any other component, we would advise people to splurge on a really nice display. If you gave most people the choice between a really fast $800 system with a cheap CRT vs. a budget system with a nice 19" or even 20" widescreen LCD, the vast majority would prefer a quality display over the faster PC. If that doesn't apply to you, that's fine, but most of us have moved to LCDs now, and old 17" CRTs (as well as the early 40 ms LCDs) are almost painful to use.
Click to enlarge.
Price: $127 shipped
The options for decent 17" CRTs are very limited. There are better models, but they are increasingly difficult to find online, and prices are often higher than 19" CRTs. Envision is a generic brand, and the display uses an invar shadow mask tube as opposed to the preferred aperture grille. Still, it has decent quality output and can run at up to 1280x1024 at 60 Hz, though we'd recommend 1152x864 at 75 Hz instead. (Unlike LCDs, a 60 Hz refresh rate on a CRT is clearly visible and most people find the flicker effect to be irritating.)
For about $20 more, you could "upgrade" to the NEC FE772 model, but you really don't get anything extra. They have the same resolution and features, and while the NEC display might be a bit better, we'd go for a larger display instead. The older NEC FE771-SB was a better monitor, and it used an aperture grille tube. It no longer shows up on most online pricing engines and has been discontinued. The replacement FE772 is a shadow mask like the Envision, and we find the displays to be a little less flat and a little less bright. As we've already stated, the quality of CRTs is on the decline, and "upgrades" like this only further illustrate the point. The majority of CRTs now being manufactured are cutting every corner possible to keep the costs down, and in reality, most 17" CRTs probably cost more to manufacture than even the 19" LCDs. Demand is the only thing keeping LCD prices up, and conversely, it keeps CRT prices low.
Click to enlarge.
Price: $169 shipped
Déjà vu - didn't we already see this monitor? Just as the pickings are slim for 17" CRTs, they are equally poor on 19" models. We ended up with Envision again, based on price and quality. There are no aperture grille displays to be found online (in the 19" market), so the only thing that you can get out of the more expensive models is support for higher resolutions. Anything beyond 1600x1200 on an 18" viewable display is going to be difficult to notice.
Slightly better models are available for about $70 more, such as the Samsung 997DF. Contrary to the manufacturer specs, that actually will run 2048x1536 at 60Hz - at least the one that I own works at that resolution. 1600x1200 at 75 Hz is far preferable, though, outside of running high resolution benchmarks - at least in my opinion. Incidentally, I picked up my Samsung 997DF over a year ago for $200 at Best Buy, which is $40 less than the current online price plus shipping. They might still have some on clearance, if you're lucky.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
35 Comments
View All Comments
Rocket321 - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
Is 100 hours an exaggeration or near the true testing time for that type of article? I guess that would leave lots of time to write an article to go with the numbers.Just curious.
Rocket321
JarredWalton - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
Read the http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">Venice overclocking article. 100 hours isn't really an exaggeration, if I'm thorough. It's about 5 hours per complete benchmark run, assuming it doesn't crash or fail at some point. (Or just get stuck - WinStones can do that, even on a stable system. It just sits at some point where the script got stuck, and you have to manually restart it. That sucks when you start the benchmark, leave, and come back five hours later to find that it only ran for 5 minutes before getting stuck.)So, 1.8 GHz to 2.6 GHz is five configurations, and two RAM choices makes for 10 benchmark runs. Given the amount of time there are glitches to address, 100 hours is probably about right. Luckily, I don't have to be sitting at the PC the whole time. Heheh.
mino - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
Well, as usuall. Someone clearly stole some letters here and there. I apologize for him :)just one addon:
This guide IS one of the best(if not the best) one could find around. No irony here.
I felt my comment was not clear enough on that matter.
yacoub - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...amp;thre...noxipoo - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
while it is a good guide for the price, I think the price targets needs to be revised or followed better. it is the same issue I had with the mid-range system guide. 1200-1500 is just not mid-range for me. kind of feels like the guy that told me 55 grand for a car is mid-range because there are ferraris that cost a lot more...JarredWalton - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
A few quotes from the summary page:"You might not realize this, but I actually pick the parts that I want to include and only then tally the cost. As long as I'm within about $100, I usually stick with it - if I overshoot the budget, it's because I really don't feel that it's a good idea to cut corners any further just to shave $50 from the total."
That should explain my philosophy. Others disagree with it, but if you can spend $500, you can also spend $600. This budget guide is cheaper (for the non-gaming setups especially) then the last one. I also offered advice on how to cut costs of either system:
"If the $500 price point is really important, dropping to 512MB of RAM and getting rid of the speakers will get you close."
As well as:
"Our gaming configurations exceed the target $750 price by a bit more, though there are additional opportunities for cutting costs. Getting the less expensive options on the RAM, HDD, DVDR, display, and speakers will cut the price of each system by $90 without really affecting performance or features much (other than the noticeable change in display size)."
The tables are quick summaries of 7000+ words of text, and as such they cannot even begin to convey all of the options that are out there. That's what all the extra writing is for, to explain why the final choices were made.
And of course, for every person like you who feels the price is too high, there are several others suggesting upgrades like a better PSU, an LCD, a different case, etc. Catch-22. If you can actually put together a complete PC for $500 that people on here would really consider better, I'd be more than surprised. Feel free to post such a system, though, and ask for comments from others. :)
PrinceGaz - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
I don't think dropping down from 2x512MB of RAM to 1x512MB of RAM would be a good idea on the AMD gaming system, despite it being a S754 CPU with asingle-channel memory, as it would only save $48 at the prices listed. Many games these days require a minimum of 512MB to run acceptably, and having 1GB makes a big difference with many. And then there's BF2 which likes more than 1GB, and others will follow soon.Rather than drop down from 1GB to 512MB and cause stuttering in the latest demanding games, you'd be better off saving a similar amount of money by getting a cheaper graphics-card like a standard 6600, or an X700Pro. Let's face it, the sort of games that need more than a 6600 or X700Pro, are also going to need more than 512MB of system memory to run smoothly, so the money is better spent on double the memory rather than a faster graphics-card.
Apart from that, a good article. Putting together systems on a tiny budget isn't easy as you're always having to weigh the consequences of shifting a few dollars from one area to another.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
Actually, the 512MB RAM comment was for the office systems. For the gaming, I'd just go with the cheaper options (listed in the office configs) for every part, other than the GPU. $95 RAM vs. $87 RAM, $169 CRT vs. $127, etc.Adding up the total cost of the "value gaming", you could get:
AMD:
Sempron 64 (754) 3000+ - 128KB 1.80 GHz Palermo 75
DFI Infinity nF4X 77
Patriot Signature CL2.5 2x512MB 87
eVGA GeForce 6600GT 128MB 138
Hitachi 3.0Gbps 80GB 7200RPM 8MB Deskstar 7K80 57
NEC 3540A Black (OEM) 41
Foxconn 3GTH-002 plus 300W PSU 70
Envision EFT720 17" CRT 127
Logitech X-230 2.1 Speakers 37
Logitech Internet Pro Desktop 23
Bottom Line $732
Intel:
Celeron D 331 - 256KB 2.66 GHz Prescott 79
Gigabyte GA-8I945P-G 113
Patriot Signature PC-4200 2x512MB 74
eVGA GeForce 6600GT 128MB 138
Hitachi 3.0Gbps 80GB 7200RPM 8MB Deskstar 7K80 57
NEC 3540A Black (OEM) 41
Foxconn 3GTH-002 plus 300W PSU 70
Envision EFT720 17" CRT 127
Logitech X-230 2.1 Speakers 37
Logitech Internet Pro Desktop 23
Bottom Line $759
The display is still a big compromise, IMO, but everything else on that alternative gaming setup is almost as good as the higher cost version. I still prefer to spend the extra, particularly on the case/PSU, speakers, CRT, and HDD. The RAM and the DVDR upgrades are less critical.
RandomFool - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
Not to nit pick but if you're going to make a budget system and set a target price of 750 you really shouldn't go over that by more than 20-30 bucks. I realize gaming systems need more oomph but it is a budget system. You could cut back on ram grab some normal 2.1 speakers (i don't think 5.1 is required at all.) and be alot close to 750 before OS that is.Also the price of an OS should be included because without one all you have is a box that wasted electricity.
flatblastard - Friday, October 14, 2005 - link
I couldn't agree with you more. The trend here lately seems to be to blow the budget by $100 or more. The rigs in my newegg wishlist would probably have made better candidates for the entry-level and mid-range price guides of late, and they don't cost more than the budget I originally set for them either.