Weekly Buyer's Guide: High End System - April 2004
by Evan Lieb on April 30, 2004 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
CPU and Motherboard Alternatives
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3.4C (512K L2 cache) NorthwoodMotherboard: ABIT IC7-G MAXII Advance (875P chipset)
Price: CPU - $416 shipped (retail heatsink and fan). Motherboard - $139 shipped
The highest-end version of Intel's Northwood core (the 3.4C) chosen here today came in a close second behind AMD's Athlon 64 3400+. Both offer virtually the same performance in today's applications depending on exactly which applications you use. If you're strictly a desktop user and do a lot of encoding, then you will want to stick to the 3.4C over the 3400+ for now. If you're a gamer, then you should stick to the 3400+ instead of the 3.4C. We suggest that you research for yourself and see which processor fits you best by first reading AnandTech's latest CPU article on this matter. One other advantage of going with a Pentium 4 is Hyper Threading. Hyper Threading can increase performance quite drastically in multi-tasking situations, but it is less and less noticeable as clock speed increases. In today's applications, HT offers very little benefit, though future iterations of HT that we haven't tested yet are supposed to be promising.
One thing that we'd like to make clear again before moving on is the labeling system Intel uses with their high-end processors. An Intel Pentium 4 labeled with a "C" after its core clock speed (3.4C in this case) is based on the Northwood core, has 512K of L2 cache, and is built on (mostly) 0.13-micron technology. A Pentium 4 labeled with an "E" after its core clock speed (3.4E for example) is based on the Prescott core, has 1MB of L2 cache, and is built on (mostly) 0.09-micron technology. Finally, a Pentium 4 labeled with an "EE" after its core clock speed (3.4EE for example) is based on the Northwood core, has 512K of L2 cache plus 2MB of L3 cache, and is built on (mostly) 0.13-micron technology. The C, E, and EE Pentium 4 processors all run at 800MHz FSB and are dual channel DDR capable. We explained in great detail why you want to stay away from Prescott E processors here. If you can spare the money, the AMD Athlon 64 FX53 is the fastest available desktop processor on the market, inching out Intel's Pentium 4 3.4GHz EE processors. However, prices for these processors are extremely prohibitive, and that's why we don't recommend either the Pentium 4 EE or Athlon 64 FX processors here today.
In the last month, the IC7-G has dropped drastically in price, by $17 in fact. This is definitely a welcome change from the previous month, where the IC7-G climbed $9 in price. This $17 decline to around $140 retail will probably stay pretty constant for the coming months. Anyway, last summer, the Gigabyte 8KNXP was our pick for best high end Pentium 4 motherboard, but since then, the ABIT IC7-G has edged out the 8KNXP due to the fact that it offers virtually the exact same number of features and performance for $50 less. This wasn't true last summer, when the IC7-G price was much higher and its feature set was quite different. Price usually isn't a concern with a high end system like the one we're recommending here today, but saving $50 and getting a motherboard that's basically as good is never a bad idea, however you cut it. Anyway, the ABIT IC7-G's mix of Gigabit Ethernet, SPDIF, 3 X IEEE 1394 FireWire ports, and Serial ATA RAID, among other features, combined with the industry leading performance and stability of the Intel 875P chipset are the primary reasons why we choose ABIT's IC7-G. Another reason why we choose this motherboard for today's high end system is because we've tested virtually every high-end Pentium 4 motherboard in existence over the past 12 months, and to this day, we still can say confidently that the reliability and stability of this ABIT motherboard has been excellent. This exact motherboard is used in one of AnandTech's very own computer labs and I have personally built several high-end gaming systems centered on this motherboard. All in all, the performance, reliability and even the price are stellar.
Listed below is part of our RealTime pricing engine, which lists the lowest prices available on the Intel CPUs and motherboards 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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
Murst - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
I am looking to build a new system, and I have used this article for a lot of guidance. However, some points I disagreed with. Here is what I have come up with. The case I'm not too sure about yet, as there are also many great choices from other top manufacturers. This does not include a monitor, and I will be looking for an LCD with a fast response time (something good for gaming). Sorry if I left out anything. The prices include shipping.Processor
AMD Athlon 64 3400+
404
newegg.com
Motherboard
MSI|VIA K8T800 K8T NEO-FIS2R
126
newegg.com
Heatsink
Thermalright SLK-948U
43
newegg.com
CPU Fan
Vantec Tornado
15
newegg.com
Power Supply
Antec TruePower 550W
106
newegg.com
Case
Cooler Master Wave Master
153
newegg.com
1 GB RAM
OCZ Gold Revision 2 (2x512)
284
computerhq.com
Sound Card
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
76
newegg.com
Graphics Card
ATI X800XT
500
not out yet
Speakers
Logitech Z-5300 5.1 THX
153
newegg.com
Hard Drive 1
WD Raptor 10k RPM 74GB
215
newegg.com
Hard Drive 2
Seagate SATA 160 GB 7200 RPM
122
newegg.com
DVD RW
NEC 8x DVD RW #2500a
87
newegg.com
Total:
$2284
cK-Gunslinger - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
D'oh! Looks like I missed the boat on this one. Where have I been the past 3-4 days?Anyway, this is a pretty good guide, but I agree with quite a few of the other posts here. I keep up with my own system guides just for kicks, and they have always pretty much mirrored Anand's. The biggest differences seem to be in Storage and Monitors.
With harddrives so cheap today, why do we still recommend only a single drive? You can get quite a bit of performance increase as well as flexibility by simply exploring multi-drive options. Yes, you may increase the total cost of the system by $100-200 dollars, but you'd probably be better off than you would by jumping up to those $250 speakers you recommend.
Also, I know these systems are primarily used for gaming, so CRTs are rather entrenched, but good LCDs such as the Dell 2001FP work beautifully for games as well as general desktop usage. Again, this adds to the total cost, but if you are going to be staring at your monitor for hours per day, a 1600x1200 LCD with 16ms response will be easy on the eyes.
Again, I know these guides are highly subjective, but you've done a pretty good job keeping things in order. I just wish you'd be a little more willing to experiment and explore other options. Keep up the good work!
cbcphotog - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
1) You made several changes in your latest guide but didn't give any explanation. I'd be interested in knowing why...... The motherboard for the AMD 64 changed from the ASUS K8V Deluxe to the MSI K8T Neo-FIS2R?
... The alternate monitor from the Phillips 202P45 to the ViewSonic P225F?
2) I'm also wondering why you chose the NEC2500A optical drive for this system instead of the NU Tech DDW-082 that recently received you editors choice award.
Thanks.
NordicNINE - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
There doesn't seem to be many CRT reviews lately. Esp for larger models. I'm looking to get a 21-22". I do play games a few times a week and every other week or so, I play games all night, so I want something that works very well for games, but mainly I want something with razor sharp text. I know that aperture grill monitors have brighter colors, etc but they have lower quality text than a good invar shadow mask. So, would the 1100df be a good choice? I was thinking of the NEC 22" Diamondtron monitors but again I'm worried about the text quality and it seems that anytime you see monitors setup somewhere they're running some stupid looping demo that doesn't show text AND they run through some crappy splitter so all the monitors look bad.Philotic - Monday, May 3, 2004 - link
I second, third, fifth, eighty-seventh...whatever the hard drive recommendation, but my real question is who only uses one hard drive for storage? I personally store my important data on multiple hard drives based on the type of data. I wouldn't store important information on the same drive as my operating system, that's madness! I would use a WD74Gb Raptor as the OS drive because of speed, but I would only use Seagate drives for storage. I also disagree with the speaker selection; I would recommend the Logitech Z-680s or the Creative Gigaworks 7.1s, perhaps the updated high-end Klipsch Promedia 5.1. Video card? I think everyone agrees that this is a poor time to purchase a video card but the guide must go on!Mackintire - Sunday, May 2, 2004 - link
Evan Lieb,Looks like you saw a couple of my posts. I suggested that Seagates 7200.7 drive would be a better drive. Yes, I frequently visit SR. But as someone who orders near 50+ HD's a month I can tell you my personal experience. With 10 hour a day operating time. I have near 70% of our WD based drives have displayed bearing disfunction, by either failing or grinding within a 6 month period. None of the Seagate 7200.7 series drives we have used have failed so far. We currently have a smaller percentage of Seagate 7200.7 drives in the field. And 3 sets of 30 are over the 6 month point with no apparent problems.
The 7200.7's appear to be slightly faster in general use. I personally own both types of drives and can confirm the Seagate 7200.7 is quieter and runs cooler then the WD 120g JB. This is again my experience.
Thank you for your response.
Mackintire
Mackintire - Sunday, May 2, 2004 - link
AtaStrumf,The drive you are refering to is Seagate's 120gig Barracuda V. The Barracuda V based drives are know to run hot. The Hard drive I am speaking about is from Seagate's 7200.7 series. The 7200.7 series are one of the coolest running drives on the market.
I know about vowing never to buy another XXXX brand drive again. After returning near 40+ drives to WD I was almost ready to count them out.
But I gave them another chance by purchasing a 74gig Raptor, and I couldn t be more pleased with it. For now I will stay away from WD normal drives untill they fix them.
Please be a little more specific next time about what hard drive model you had bad experiances with.
Mackintire
Evan Lieb - Sunday, May 2, 2004 - link
TrogdorJW, good call, we’ll include an Alternative for the case next time around. We really don’t get much responses for cases, as everyone has their own priority. Look is very subjective with a case, something we don’t have to worry about with HDDs, CPUs, etc.Ducsauce, try Newegg.com.
Mackintire, most user’s experiences are different. Take a look at SR.com’s database of user reviews on WD, Seagate, etc. HDDs. You’re exaggerating the tangible differences in performance as well.
TrueWisdom, you, like Mackintire, are vastly overemphasizing the real world difference between a Raptor and a JB drive in single user desktop scenarios. Not everyone is going to notice the difference in performance, and certainly not enough to justify a $125+ price delta.
Nigham, depends what type of RAID array you’re referring to, not to mention the fact that you have to buy a second HDD. And your performance will increase anyway with two HDDs not in RAID, anyway.
n4v3k, a 480W PSU is not mandatory, we’ve tried lower wattage PSUs with a 6800 Ultra.
00aStrOgUy00, we’ve tested both speaker systems plenty, and probably more than you have. ;) Also, the whine does not apply to all WD drives, notice we didn’t say ALL drives have this problem (really, no one besides WD truly knows what percentage of their drives whine). Then again, many users will care less with the case we recommended, since it effectively funnels the noise. The Barracuda’s are quieter, but are not faster (and if they were in select scenarios, it isn’t noticeable in the real world), and there’s no hard data that says Barracudas are more reliable than Caviars either. Our experience says both are about the same reliability-wise.
As for those recommending an FX-53 or dual Raptors in RAID….this isn’t a dream system, this is a high end system. We clearly explained why we didn’t want to recommend A64 FX or P4EE processors, and why we didn’t want to recommend a Raptor. They are not bad choices, just prohibitively expensive for the small benefit in real world. And of course, the accepted definition of “High End” has never been “Fastest hardware on the planet without regard for price or reason”. :)
AtaStrumf - Sunday, May 2, 2004 - link
I tested a Seagate 120 GB SATA drive a long time ago and vouched never to buy one! Why? Because the damn thing got so hot I could fry eggs on it!!! The HSF on an Athlon XP with its fan off is the ONLY thing in a PC that gets hotter than that drive. I really don't see where you get off saying it runs cooler than a 120 GB WD.00aStrOgUy00 - Sunday, May 2, 2004 - link
I also forgot to mention, you said the hard drive has an infamous whine. Why recommend it if you know it has this problem?