RAM

DDR3 prices seem to have bottomed out and are holding steady at around $25 for 2 x 2GB kits and $35 for 2 x 4GB kits. While it might be tempting to spend $10 more on an 8GB kit of DDR3, 4GB is more than ample for basic to moderate multitasking. If the system will be used for extensive multitasking or for applications that benefit from lots of RAM like Photoshop, you might as well spring for an 8GB kit. Both Mushkin and GSkill offer 4GB kits that are usually less than $30 shipped. While these appear to be unremarkable budget memory sticks, my testing indicates both are capable of undervolting to 1.4V (from the default 1.5V) while running at stock speeds, and both kits can be modestly overclocked at the stock 1.5V setting. Additionally, GSkill's budget 8GB kit was capable of modest overclocking (though not undervolting).

Hard drives

As alluded to earlier, prices on hard drives have risen lately in response to flooding in Thailand and other areas of southeast Asia. In my previous buyers' guides, I've recommended 500GB drives that were available at every day prices of $40 shipped. Unfortunately, $40 500GB drives are not currently available from any of the major US internet retailers. How long these elevated prices will persist is anyone's guess, but from what I can gather, the supply disruption will last at least a few more months. It's possible prices will continue to rise, but for now, it's difficult to find 500GB drives for less than $50 shipped (day to day pricing). As much as it pains me to say it, you can save a few dollars by going for smaller capacity drives. For many basic users, 160GB might be enough storage space.

SSDs

SSD prices continue to fall, and upgrading to an SSD can provide a substantial boost to overall system performance. This is especially true for boot times, application load times, and general snappiness. Crucial's newest M4 line, including the least expensive 64GB version, offers excellent performance and solid reliability at a low price. I've seen this drive for as little as $85 recently and expect it to revisit that price during upcoming holiday sales. If you don't need a lot of storage, and considering the elevated pricing on HDDs, opting for a 64GB SSD could be a great alternative.

Video cards

The AMD Radeon HD 5670 continues to dominate the low-budget GPU space. This card is capable of playing every game that's currently available, though certainly you'll need to lower the resolution and details on anything demanding. Unfortunately its cost remains similar to when I recommended it earlier this year in the previous budget buyers' guide, at about $70 for the GDDR5 model. Though the Radeon HD 5670 hasn't changed much in price, the Radeon HD 6770 has creeped downward and can now be found regularly for less than $100 (after rebate, and often with a free game). The Radeon HD 6770 is essentially a rebadged 5770, and it is capable of playing nearly every game at 1080p resolution at minimum 30fps, though more demanding titles will necessitate lowering details. Keep in mind that for light gaming at lower resolutions, AMD's Llano APUs are likely a better option than a budget CPU paired with a budget GPU, and we'll be exploring Llano more in a future buyers' guide.

Power supplies

Antec's Earthwatts 380W and Corsair's CX 430W V2 remain stalwart budget power supplies. That said, I've seen the Antec Neo Eco 400W on sale for less than $30 shipped (without rebate) a few times in the last few weeks. Compared to the Earthwatts 380W, the Neo Eco has a larger, subjectively quieter fan as well as sleeved cables. The CX 430W also features a larger fan and sleeved cables. One thing to note is that neither Antec PSU comes with a power cord—if you have dozens sitting around like many enthusiasts, this isn't a concern, but if you don't have a power cord, expect to spend at least another $5 buying one. All of these PSUs are capable of quietly and efficiently powering any mainstream single GPU computer.

Cases

One product sector that has seen a few intriguing newcomers since the previous budget buyers' guide is computer cases. Specifically, the BitFenix Merc Alpha and Fractal Design Core 1000 offer tremendous value for budget builders. Dustin recently reviewed the Merc Alpha and after getting my own hands on one, I echo his sentiments: for a $40 case, it's well built, offers excellent thermals and acoustics, and is easy to work with, aside from the expansion slot area which was frustrating to me as well. The Fractal Design Core 1000 offers, in my opinion, better build quality, though if you'll be packing a lot of higher-performance (and therefore more power hungry) components into it, you'll want to add a rear 92mm exhaust fan. However, its thermals stay well within comfortable operational ranges without an additional fan for budget to mid-range rigs, so that's not necessarily a relevant concern for this guide. One aspect of the Core 1000 that I particularly appreciate is that at nine pounds, it's much lighter than the previous budget buyers' guide's 16 pound Antec Three Hundred—it's easier to carry up a few flights of stairs and cheaper to ship.

With all of the components covered, we outline specific builds on the next page.

 

 

Motherboards and Features Recommended Budget Systems and Closing Thoughts
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • buildingblock - Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - link

    I don't see how the X4 2.6Ghz 631 can ever even begin to be a winner against the Intel opposition. It is no more than an A6 3650 with the graphics unit disabled. My local hardware dealer is listing it at around 10% more than the Intel 2.8Ghz G840, which easily out-performs it and has a GPU. The budget end of the market is dominated by cheap Intel H61 motherboards and the 1155 socket Pentium G series, and the X4 631 brings nothing whatsoever to the table that's going to change that.
  • Taft12 - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 - link

    What analysis do you need to see? It is an A6-3650 with the graphics lopped off. If you want to know how it would do in CPU benchmarks, just look at a A6-3650 review.

    Despite the GPU sacrifice, you get no TDP savings. It's a piece of shit through and through not worthy of discussion.
  • mhahnheuser - Friday, November 11, 2011 - link

    ...you are spot on. But I can tell you why. Because if he ran the right discrete card in the Llano it would crossfire with it and then there would be absolutely no point to the comparison.
  • mhahnheuser - Friday, November 11, 2011 - link

    ...so the conclusion should have been....don't buy the Celeron over Llano unless you add a fast discrete DX compatible gpu. He only tested the X2 so that he could validate the comparision to Llano by building a higher performing, higher cost Celeron system. The X2 is a old Gen processor whereas the Celeron tested is in Intel's SB family...how is that a basis for fair comparison?
  • mhahnheuser - Friday, November 11, 2011 - link

    Good observation. I second your opinion.
  • Wierdo - Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - link

    Maybe I'm missing something, but how come the performance difference between the X2 3.0Ghz and A4 2.5Ghz is so big?

    They're pretty much the same core give or take a few tweaks and an added GPU block, right? I don't understand how a 500mhz drop can lead to 30->19 sec in PPT to PDT conversion for example.

    What am I overlooking here?
  • slayernine - Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - link

    The A4 is a different processor, it is not from the same line as the X2 and thus performs quite differently. Also 500mhz can make a huge difference in single threaded applications. For example if you tried to play back a 1080p video without GPU acceleration (relying entirely on the CPU) the A4 would stutter at 2.5GHz but the X2 should be ok at 3GHz. However in reality the A4 is a much more well rounded processor that allows light graphical capabilities for gaming and video performance.

    Also some might point out that a significant portion of the A4 chip is dedicated to Radeon cores thus limiting the ability of the CPU portion through purpose build design.
  • Taft12 - Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - link

    Wow, this is really coming out of your ass.

    The CPU part of Llano *IS* derived from good ol' K10 - Llano is/was referred to as K10.5

    It DOESN'T perform "quite differently", Anand found in the A8-3850 review that its performance was quite close to the Athlon II X4:

    <i>Although AMD has tweaked the A8's cores, the 2.9GHz 3850 performs a lot like a 3.1GHz Athlon II X4. You are getting more performance at a lower clock frequency, but not a lot more.</i>
  • slayernine - Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - link

    It offers different features thus is quite different type of processor. One of those differences is the amount of CPU die dedicated to actual CPU functionality. I didn't say the CPU is portion is built differently. I am fully aware it is based on the same architecture. Perhaps I confused you in my choice of words.

    FYI Taft12 we are talking about the X2 3.0Ghz VS A4 not Athlon II X4 vs A8. The reason this matters is that the X2 3.0Ghz offers better CPU performance A4.

    Summary: Clock for clock the X2 isn't much different from the A4 but the A4 is a lower clock speed and thus slower at CPU intensive tasks because half the the damn thing is a GPU! APU's at the same price point will generally be slower than the competing CPU. So perhaps the simple answer to Wierdo's question is simply: "Clock speed matters."
  • Wierdo - Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - link

    Hmm...I don't see how 500mhz difference causes super-linear scaling in performance, 2.5/3ghz is less than a %20 difference, it shouldn't be more than %20 performance difference one would think - with the cores being from the same family (K10) for both products I'm missing where the balance can affect non-multimedia workloads.

    It's quite interesting from an academic perspective, If it was primarily limited to graphics type workloads I could understand, but I don't see it for stuff like PPT->PDF conversions for example.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now