Intel Midrange Workstation
We'll wrap things up with a nice quad-core "workstation" that might be used for more serious work. We're not talking about a workstation that can compete directly with a high-powered 3D rendering workstations (at least not without spending some additional money), but this is still a computer that packs a lot of punch and would be suitable for software development, video editing, graphics artwork, etc. Again, overclocking isn't going to be a serious consideration; certainly this configuration is capable of some overclocking, but stability is going to be a far bigger concern.
| Intel Midrange Workstation |
| Hardware |
Component |
Price |
Rebates |
| Processor |
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz 1066FSB 2x4MB Shared) - Retail |
$278 |
|
| Motherboard |
ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP (P35 ICH9R) |
$155 |
|
| Memory |
G.Skill 2x2GB PC2-6400 (F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ) |
$170 |
|
| Video Card |
Powercolor Radeon HD 2600XT 512MB (26XT512M/D3HDMI) |
$142 |
|
| Hard Drive |
Western Digital Caviar SE16 320GB 7200RPM 16MB (WD3200AAKS) |
$80 |
|
| Optical Drive |
Samsung 20X DVD+R SATA (SH-S203B) |
$36 |
|
| Case |
Lian Li PC-7B plus II |
$106 |
|
| Power Supply |
Seasonic S12 Energy Plus SS-650HT |
$149 |
|
| Display |
Acer AL2216Wbd 22" 5ms (1680x1050) |
$235 |
|
| Speakers |
Logitech X-140 5W 2.0 Speakers |
$27 |
|
| Keyboard and Mouse |
Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 (B2L-00047) |
$28 |
|
| Operating System |
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit (OEM) |
$110 |
|
| Bottom Line |
$1516 |
$1516 |
 |
Obviously, the biggest change from the previous configurations is that we are using a quad-core processor. Intel's cheapest Core 2 Quad, the Q6600, now easily allows people to create a quad processor system that can outperform 2P systems from just two years ago, all at a much lower cost. Still, $278 for a "midrange" processor isn't exactly cheap. In order to make room for the added expense, we have trimmed some other areas. Looking at the overall configuration, however, you can see that we didn't have to compromise much.
 |
For the motherboard, we chose the ASUS P5K-E/WiFi-AP, which uses the P35 chipset. This is definitely not an inexpensive motherboard, but if we had to choose one motherboard brand that provides overall better stability than just about anyone else (outside of the server motherboard market), we would choose ASUS. That's not to say that ASUS is perfect - there have been a few problem releases over the years - but by and large they are one of the "safe bets" when it comes to overall quality. Getting WiFi support is simply an added bonus.
 |
For the memory configuration, we have upgraded to 4GB of RAM (in a 2x2GB setup). Naturally, we are also recommending a 64-bit version of Windows Vista. Overall compatibility with the 64-bit operating system has gotten a lot better since Vista's launch, and if you're going to open up a lot of applications at once having more memory really speeds things up. All we need now is to get more native 64-bit applications, but at least we'll be ready when they arrive. In fact, if you really want to take things to the extreme, you can try running a 4x2GB configuration. We haven't had the chance to verify that this works properly yet, but we hope to do so in the near future. In the meantime, we can verify that 2x2GB works fine. In terms of raw performance and overclocking, a 4x1GB configuration is better, but since this is a workstation losing a few percent performance and skipping out on overclocking isn't really a problem. The option to add more memory in the future is far more important.
For the graphics card, we wanted to make sure that we selected something that included a dual-link DVI output. No, we're not going to be able to fit a 30" LCD into our midrange components, but a true workstation environment might want to add one in the future. The Powercolor Radeon HD 2600 XT provides two dual-link outputs, plus an HDMI adapter. The 512MB of memory may not really help much, but Windows Vista is able to do a bit more with graphics card memory so it certainly won't hurt either. For alternatives, the 8600 GT/GTS all support at least a single dual-link DVI connection and cost about the same amount (though with half the amount of RAM). If you want a Linux workstation (or you're planning on dual-booting at least), NVIDIA cards remain the better option, despite
AMD's latest efforts.
The remaining component selections are mostly the same, except that we switched to a Lian Li case that we felt was a bit classier looking and more in tune with a workstation design, and we also upgraded to a Seasonic S12 650W power supply. Neither of these upgrades is strictly necessary, but we do feel that they provide a bit better overall package. We also downgraded the keyboard, mouse, and speakers; naturally, some people will prefer some other brand of input device, but we've always felt that the Microsoft Comfort Curve 2000 is a good baseline recommendation.
The total comes to almost $1516, and honestly we would really like to have a larger LCD. Trimming costs in a few areas in order to fit a 24" LCD into the picture might be possible, but with 24" LCDs now starting at $400 for basic models we would probably just spend the extra money instead. That's not to say that the quality of a cheap 24" display is the same as what you might get with some of the $600 24" LCDs, but the increased native resolution alone is worth the price of entry.
Conclusion
As usual, even after four midrange systems, we've hardly scratched the surface of what's possible. There are numerous tweaks that could be made in order to save a few dollars or increase performance in a specific area, but for those of you looking for a "State of the Midrange Industry Address" we have hopefully provided you with a good starting point. While there are plenty of new products that are just around the corner, we would also like to warn against paralysis by analysis. No matter when you look at building a new system, there will always be newer/faster parts coming out within the next couple of months. If you're at the point where you need a new system, we recommend taking the plunge and not looking back. After all, no matter what you buy, you'll probably be looking at putting together a new system again in just a couple more years.
10/29/07 Update: As many of you are probably aware, the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT is now available. Given the price and performance, not to mention other benefits such as power requirements and a single slot design, we can see absolutely no reason to even consider the 8800 GTS 320 cards any longer. The 640 cards do come in slightly faster in a few specific situations, but overall we'd take the 512MB 8800 GT. In fact, if you were previously thinking of an 8800 GTX/Ultra, 8800 GT SLI is almost certainly the better option now (barring price cuts). We won't be updating the rest of the article text, but this is an important enough announcement that we wanted to make sure our Midrange Guide doesn't mislead anyone.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
jonp - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
I would like to propose an alternative to both the Cooler Master Centurion 534 and the Lian Li PC-7B plus II: the Thermaltake Swing VB6000BNS/VB6000BWS (both available at Newegg $60/$67). This mid-tower case has:4 5.25" ext drive bays
2 3.5" ext drive bays
4 3.5" int drive bays (facing the case side for easy access)
0.8mm SECC steel except for the black plastic case front
Tool-free design with side cover thumb screws
12cm rear fan - included
12cm front fan
7 expansion slots
Room for a standard ATX motherboard.
Plastic fan brackets for easy fan install/removal.
Washable front dust filter.
BNS - no side window, BWS - side window
The case USB, 1394 and audio ports are on the top of case front along with one 3.5" ext drive bay. The is very convenient since all of my systems sit on the floor (noise, weight, desk space, etc).
Front power and reset buttons.
No power supply so you can choose your own.
Also I think the design in Piano black is both professional and attractive.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Who says you need a 64BIT OS to use 4GB of RAM ? Until I had to RMA a pair of 1GB sticks, I was using 4GB with WinXP x32. Photoshop ran faster, applications opened and closed much faster, and my system in general operated much smoother. I tried the /3GB switch, and no joy as it would cause random BSoDs, and in the end, I just let the default /NOEXECUTE=optin switch deal with /PAE for me, and I had 3.5GB of RAM availible to applications/processes. Was it a huge performance gain ? No, but it was well worth the ~$80 usd before MiR.
Remember, your system does not operate in a vacuum, it need memory to be effective. At the same time, programs like Photoshop that can make use of up 2.5GB of RAM just for the executable can benifit from having 2GB dedicated soley for its use. With 3.5GB availible I was able to allow Photoshop to use 100% memory(~2GB without the /3GB switch in use), and had 1.5GB for the system, and anything else I wanted to run at the same time.
So in short of using a 64BIT OS, it was a perfect solution that gave me plenty of speed increase for the money spent. A much better option that spending ~110 for 2GB of RAM, that is truely too much for the given system.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Apparently there's an abundance of people that feel "think about upgrading to a 64-bit OS" means the same thing as "you absolutely MUST upgrade to a 64-bit OS". See above commentary. Personally, when I finally switch my work system to Vista, it will be for Vista 64-bit. Because if I'm going to take the Vista plunge, I'm going to take the 64-bit plunge as well and hopefully be better prepared for future applications and memory requirements.Is it 100% necessary? Nope. But if someone asked me for my opinion on the matter, I'd advise them to give some serious thought to running Vista x64. Maybe in another year or two, we'll even start to truly see a need for it in more applications.
yyrkoon - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
That really has little to do with what I was saying. Mainly, my point has to do with your choice of RAM. You will most likely see a much more noticable performance gain using 4GB of RAM in XP, than using 2GB of high performance RAM(even overclocked). For instance, overclocking my AM2 1210 CPU, and looking for noticable performance gains, I do not notice any without diving into a battery of benchmarks. This also includes having run the memory 100MHZ over spec(900MHZ DDR2). I do agree with your article comments concerning 1066DDR2 memory could help your high overclock possiblities. Since Vista is a resource hog by comparrison, I am sure it would be far more benificial to run as more memory as possible as well.
Hey, I hear nothing but good things about Vista x64, but when I upgrade to Vista, it will be to Ultimate retail, and I will most probably at least start off with x64. IF it works out good, then I will stay. The problem is not all the ordinary applications I run that I am worried about, its the games that I play in my down time. Also when I make that leap, my costs will probably be higher than the average upgrader, as I plan on running 8GB of RAM.
Anyhow, for what its worth, Photoshop CS3, Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX, and several other RAW/image editing applications are supposed to run very well, and fast on Vista x64. At least this seems to be the general consensus with every dpreview photographers/image re-touchers that I have spoken to concerning the topic.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
If there were a native 64-bit Photoshop version out, I'd already be running Vista x64 with 8GB of RAM. (Curse you Adobe....) :)Isn't what you said what I put in the article, more or less? We selected DDR2-1066, but it might not be necessary depending on what you want to do with the system. 4x1GB DDR2-800 (or 2x2GB) and x64 is a very viable alternative. Which one you take depends on your end goal. Overclockers and tweakers will likely prefer DDR2-1066; more typical users that run a lot of memory intensive apps will be well-served by running 4GB of RAM. People looking for some cost savings that don't intend to push for maximum overclocks can happily run DDR2-800.
Panther - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
Great guide Jarred.I've been meaning to build a new workstation so the timing of this article is perfect!
One question though, is there any Nvidia card you'd recommend in lieu of the 2600XT which provides a similar performance profile? I'm going to run linux and would rather avoid ATi just based on my last experience (granted it's been almost three years ago) trying to use ATi's linux drivers.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
8600 GT and 8600 GTS cards are also reasonable choices. I have one that includes two dual-link DVI outputs, even. I suppose GPU choice is going to be impacted by how you're planning on using it. The 2600 XT is a pretty decent GPU, but in Linux and in games the 8600 GTS probably is a better choice. For video decoding (H.264) I think it beats the 8600 cards, but that's not really a huge concern for most workstations. The only concern is that the 512MB 8600 cards cost quite a bit more than the 512MB 2600 XT listed. So you can give up 256MB of GPU RAM or spend more money.I'm going to edit the GPU section on the workstation slightly, though, as you do make a valid point.
leexgx - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
not sure about the 8800 but the 8600 and lower cards i think have some driver supporti going to be putting k/ubuntu 7.10 onto an 80gb hdd to see if all my hardware works
Kishkumen - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
"...thinking about upgrading to a 64-bit operating system, give some serious thought to running a 4GB configuration"Um, why do you need to upgrade to a 64 bit operating system just to use 4GB of memory? Something is seriously wrong there. My 32bit operating system can use 4GB just fine. Even up 64GB I think. It is Linux... but I know a tech savvy site like Anandtech wouldn't make some sort of generalization that "operating system" automatically means some version of Microsoft's NT operating system would it? I mean we are open to different technologies around here aren't we? I wonder sometimes... Well, that's OK, I still like your hardware recommendations anyway.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - link
A standard desktop PC can't run let alone address 64GB of memory. Unless you're hiding the unbuffered 16GB DDR2 modules from the rest of us? I take it you're referring to 32-bit servers running PAE in order to access more than 4GB of RAM. Or are you referring to a large swap file (which isn't actually RAM)? Both are possible, but obviously for the general computing market it's not an important topic for discussion.I can't say that I run Linux on a regular basis anymore, but there are ways to work around memory limitations. Given the target audience of our Buyer's Guides, running off into tangents about various memory management theories doesn't seem to be particularly useful. For those that prefer to stick with Windows, pretty much the only way you're getting full use of 4GB of memory or more is with a 64-bit version of the OS.
Generally speaking, however, the BIOS and motherboard will limit your options. 4GB is now usually reasonable - in 32-bit Windows Vista you'll usually get access to around 3GB of memory - but while 8GB is theoretically supported on most modern motherboards, compatibility is still sketchy. I'd look up motherboard compatibility charts from the manufacturer and make sure to get approved modules if you want to do a 4x2GB setup.