Introduction

Since last November AnandTech has looked at most of the components in the various system configurations you might want to purchase. This included specialty guides for Core i7 Systems at the high-end and our most recent guide for the newest CPUs in the Phenom II System Guide. The one constant in the computer market is change, and generally new product introductions bring greater value to market segments affected by the new CPU - and those downstream from the announcement.

That is certainly the case with the new AMD Phenom II, which started a midrange price war. After the Phenom II launch Intel responded quickly with Core 2 price cuts, and AMD countered with price adjustments that placed the Phenom II processors at price points where they compete very well with similarly priced Intel Core 2 processors. AMD then filled out their 45nm Phenom II line with models that extended to the upper end of the entry market, which squeezed other models in both lineups and created further price adjustments.

Now that the dust has settled for a while it is time to take another look at the entry-level computer systems. Low-end PCs have a reputation for being sub-standard, underpowered, and barely better than off-the-shelf PCs. That certainly was true in the past, but with the continuing drop in component prices, you can get a lot of PC today for your $300 to $800. About a year ago it would cost you about $700 to $750 to put together an entry system. Today you can build a similar but more powerful system for about $200 to $400 less.

We last looked at entry systems in late December with our buyers' guide for PCs under $1000. At that point prices had dropped to the point that $1000 was starting to look more midrange than entry, which is why that guide focused on cost rather than "classification". Prices have continued their slide, particularly in processors, to the point that our guide now focuses on complete PC systems for under $800.

Component classes and individual items were covered in detail in the various component guides in December. You will find those a useful reference for many of the components chosen in these system guides. This guide will take a closer look at the complete systems you can build for less than $800 these days. We have also revised the component tables with a subtotal for the basic system without speakers, I/O, display, or OS as several readers have requested. With a quick glance you can now see the cost to build a basic box which many would consider in a system upgrade. You can also see the total to build a complete system with all the peripherals needed for a balanced brand new setup.

In this guide we will be taking a look three common categories of systems you can now buy for under $800. This includes the entry-Level PCs that represent the best value for a basic box costing around $300 or a complete system for around $500. The bar is then raised with budget PCs that feature the most bang for the buck closer to $500 for the basic box and the $800 price point for a complete system.

It was a bit of surprise to find you could build very capable AMD and Intel machines, complete with keyboard, mouse, operating system, and a Full HD widescreen monitor for less than $800. These all rely on integrated graphics, but it is very easy to add a capable discrete graphics card if you require more graphics power and still end up well below $1000. In reality, dedicated gaming rigs normally begin in the midrange spectrum and entry PCs are normally the realm of integrated graphics. However, CPU prices are so low today with so much power that it would be very easy to add a $100 to $150 video card and end up with powerful graphics that can easily tackle gaming.

All of our recommendations are upgradable - even the cheapest entry boxes. You never know where your computer interest might lead, so options for future upgrades are always a good idea. The storage recommendations may seem overkill to some, but there is little reason to choose a smaller hard drive when you can buy 500GB of hard drive storage for $59 and a 1000GB (1TB) drive for just $100. Since most will have trouble filling 500GB on an entry PC we didn't choose anything larger, but you can easily double your storage to 1TB for just $40 to $50 more.

Finally, we put together basic HTPC computers to deliver video content to your home theater. HTPC builders have normally already selected a display/TV and the sound system. For that reason we did not include either the display or speakers in the basic HTPC component selections. With the current CPU and chipset power available in the entry to lower mid-range it is amazing how much video-crunching power you can put into an HTPC at such a low price.

AMD Entry-level PC
POST A COMMENT

67 Comments

View All Comments

  • 7Enigma - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    I think the answer is, "because we can". Honestly for a true HTPC the last article was fine, and nothing has really changed since then IMO. Yes you can for the same money get a more powerful system or even slightly cheaper, but the HTPC's job is not to be more and more powerful for the same/less money, it's to be cool and quiet while allowing for 1080p and all the resolutions below.

    Where the latest HTPC systems are beneficial is if you are using the HTPC box to rip or encode to different compressed formats while simultaneously watching something else, and/or recording multiple signals. Then it will be beneficial to have the Phenom II 3-core over a lowly X2.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    We mentioned the benefits of tri-core for video encoding. Also remember that the latest AMD CPUs are 45nm, while the older non-Phenom chips are dual-core 65nm. I think the tri-core chip may actually be the lower power option at this point - it's certainly not going to be significantly hotter while it will be more powerful. Personally, I'd go for Phenom just to get the updated architecture and other improvements, as the dual-core chips are now based on a design that was state-of-the-art several years back. Until AMD moves the Phenom/K10 base design into dual-core, that will continue to be an advantage of the tri-core and quad-core chips. Reply
  • StormyParis - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    As you say, it seems AMD has pretty much achieved parity processor-wise, at any given price point except the highest where AMD just really has no product.

    The MBs for AMD processors are always significantly cheaper than the equivalent for Intel CPUs, which tilts the balance. Why is that ?
    Reply
  • Goty - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    I'm assuming it comes down to the fact that AMD's chipset logic needs to be much less complex than Intel's due to the fact that there is no memory controller. This would allow AMD's chipsets to be smaller, cheaper to manufacture, and cheaper to sell to motherboard makers, thus helping to lower the cost for the end-user.

    I'm sure this isn't the only reason, seeing as how the actual chipset isn't too expensive either way, but things like the complexity of the PCB needed, the number of surface mount components, etc, probably make up for the rest of it.
    Reply
  • just4U - Tuesday, March 17, 2009 - link

    Not only that but for the last little while amd has been stuck in the budget bin so alot of the MB's that were popular sellers were in that catagory(manufactuers know whats selling whats not).
    Reply
  • Jaramin - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    There are two mistakes in the Intel budget article, in the motherboard section.

    First, it refers to a E7300 CPU, while the CPU is a E7500. Second, and most important, the motherboard has NO integrated graphics. Either change the mobo, or include an entry level discrete GPU. In any case, you'll have to update the price listing...
    Reply
  • mariush - Thursday, March 19, 2009 - link

    The AMD Entry Level PC lists:

    Athlon 64 X2 7750 Kuma 2.7GHz Black Edition (2.7GHzx2 95W 2x512MB L2)

    I don't know how they managed to fit 2x 512Megabytes of cache in it...maybe it's KB?
    Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Friday, March 20, 2009 - link

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Now corrected. Reply
  • Wesley Fink - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    My apologies for the error. We are correcting the error as I type this. The last guide revision did include the Gigabyte GA-E7AUM-DS2H nVidia GeForce 9400, which is a 9400 chipset Integrated Graphics board. However, when it went to post the $120 price and Gigabyte was right, but the description was the non-integrated board from tn\he earlier Budget Guide.

    The board name and picture are now corrected. The updated description will post shortly.
    Reply
  • Jaramin - Monday, March 16, 2009 - link

    The price for the motherboard is still wrong. 120$ in the budget system, 135$ in the HTPC, same motherboard. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now