Memory

Recommendation: 2 X 256MB Mushkin PC3500 Level One Dual Pack (CAS2)
Price: $145 shipped



For whatever reason, memory prices have skyrocketed recently. Everything from PC3200 or PC3500 to 1GB, memory modules have gone up significantly in price. By the time you read this, prices may have shifted significantly, so be wary.

While companies like Corsair, OCZ and now Kingston are heavy favorites among high-end memory consumers, Mushkin is also starting to gain favor rapidly. In the last few months, we've been using OCZ's Platinum modules as the standard for a majority of AnandTech's testbeds, but we have also been using Mushkin Level One memory (mostly Level II actually). Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to find dual packs nowadays, but Mushkin Level One Dual Packs are available at large vendors, like Axion and Newegg, so they're still out there. We've been able to do lots of testing with these specific PC3500 modules and they indeed run stabily at PC3500 (433MHz DDR) on many currently available motherboards. There are many PC3500 modules that aren't capable of reliable DDR433 speeds on popular motherboards, so be wary. But motherboards such as the ABIT NF7-S Rev. 2 and ASUS P4C800-E will run these modules very well, so we suggest that you take a look at them when purchasing your motherboard. However, don't get confused; PC3500 is not an officially sanctioned JEDEC spec, and therefore there are no motherboards on the market which can claim that they officially support PC3500 speeds. PC3500 is quite easily attainable with modern-day motherboards, but just be aware that PC3200, not PC3500, is the highest speed that your motherboard manufacturer will officially support under warranty.

Alternative: 2 X 512MB OCZ PC3700 GOLD Revision 2 (CAS2.5)
Price: $269 shipped



After developing a reputation based on shoddy business practices, not to mention shoddy memory, OCZ has come roaring back and has gained wide acceptance among enthusiasts and average users alike after many months of wary purchasing and close inspection by hardware web sites like AnandTech. We've raved about OCZ modules in many reviews over the last few months (this one most recently), and have been extremely pleased with the results that we've been getting. OCZ modules have gone from disappointing and unreliable to impressive and dependable in what seems like an overnight transformation. OCZ still has a ways to go to gain acceptance among doubters who have never tried their memory or continue to hold onto conspiracy theories about their link to the OCZ of old, but we aren't placing OCZ's GOLD Rev. 2 PC3700 modules as runner-up based on whim, so take that to heart. The GOLD series is capable of a "low" latency of CAS2.5 at DDR466 speeds (PC3700) and has a huge ceiling for overclockers. If you're not an overclocker, then obviously the GOLD series will not be of much value to you. If you are overclocking, just remember that you take a risk by overclocking your memory, both in terms of voiding warranties and damaging hardware. Beginners need not apply here for overclocking.

Notice that these OCZ modules are 512MB modules and not 256MB modules like the Mushkin ones that we had recommended. If you want cheaper 512MB modules, we suggest that you take a look at Crucial and Kingston brands. Just be aware that, generally, the cheapest 512MB modules are usually the modules that don't overclock that well.

Video

Recommendation: 128MB Gigabyte Radeon 9600 Pro, DVI and TV-out
Price: $135 shipped



Gigabyte makes several excellent ATI Radeon cards nowadays. Their stock coolers are bigger and better than most you'll find, at least compared to PowerColor and Sapphire.

Gigabyte sent us their Radeon 9600 Pro quite some time ago and today, we are finally able to do a little testing on it. Performance is on par with other 9600 Pro video cards that we've tested. In fact, it was one of the fastest of the bunch. Overclocking performance with Gigabyte's 9600 Pro is stellar; we were able to achieve 475MHz core clock and 700MHz memory clock speeds using the stock Gigabyte cooler. These speeds were Prime 95 and SPECviewperf 7.1.1 stable, but as we've said before, that only gives you a narrow idea of how stable your system will be over a period of several months. Still, we didn't experience a single issue during our stability testing at 475MHz/700MHz. Remember, the stock speeds for the 9600 Pro are 400MHz/600MHz, so we're talking about quite a large difference in performance when overclocked to 475MHz/700MHz.

In case you're curious, we set VAGP in the BIOS to 1.6V. This is a perfectly safe voltage, even though 1.5V is the default VAGP for modern day motherboards. Nothing higher than 1.6V is necessary though, as it'll yield diminishing returns to the point where it's basically pointless to overvolt any higher. The 475MHz/700MHz overclock was achieved on both the 2500+ ABIT NF7-S Rev.2 system and the 2.8C ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe system, running at 2.52GHz (1.80V) and 3.59GHz (1.65V) respectively.

Alternative: Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro with DVI and TV-out
Price: $209



Sapphire also makes one of the better 9800 Pro video cards out there. Speed and features for the price are excellent ($209), and overclocking performance with the stock cooling is impressive. The best combination of core and memory clock speed that we were able to reach was 415MHz core clock and 780MHz memory clock speeds with just the stock cooling. For the few hours that we tested the 9800 Pro with Prime 95 and SPECviewperf 7.1.1, we were unable to see any IQ issues and didn't discover any instability. Overall, a fantastic performer for the money.

If you feel the need to squeeze out more performance from your video card, we suggest that you replace your stock cooling solution (whether it's the 9600 Pro or 9800 Pro) with an Artic Cooling VGA Silencer. They can be had for $26 shipped online.

Listed below is part of our RealTime pricing engine, which lists the lowest prices available on ATI video cards 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.

CPU and Motherboard Alternatives Monitor, Computer Case, and Power Supply
Comments Locked

30 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jeff7181 - Sunday, April 11, 2004 - link

    Oh, and DannyOcean... you say the mobile Athlon XP's only have a 266 Mhz FSB. So what? Mine's running on a 432 Mhz FSB right now... just cause at stock speed they run at 266 Mhz doesn't mean you HAVE to run that at that speed.
  • Jeff7181 - Sunday, April 11, 2004 - link

    Muzzy... no, you're not missing something, newegg is... they're wrong if they have it listed at 1.83 Ghz... it's not, it's 133x14 which is 1862 Mhz.
  • DannyOcean - Sunday, April 11, 2004 - link

    timebecomes,

    The mobile Athlon XP's only have a 266 FSB, what's the point?

    Evan Lieb,

    A Northwood P4C certainly does run faster clock-for-clock, but I would argue that you will not find 2.4C-2.8C P4's (which all clock quite similar) clocking higher on average then a 2.4A Prescott. The 3.0C-3.4C P4's are a differant story, though, and they do clock quite high. They also cost more then $75 over a 2.4A.
  • timebecomes - Saturday, April 10, 2004 - link

    I was just saying that it may drop the price of the existing cards out there such as the 9800 pro that was rated as an alternative at about $200.
  • Evan Lieb - Saturday, April 10, 2004 - link

    TrogdorJW,

    Yeah, I think we'll include an "Alternative" chart next time. As far as your other comments go, I agree to a point that we should include benchmarks. However, this is a still a "guide" and not so much a "review". Certain guides demand testing (mostly just the overclocking ones). Still, we'll give this more consideration. :)

    DannyOcean,

    The 2.8C is a better overclocking processor and isn't that much more. The 2.4A is slower per clock and draws considerably more power at high overclocks. Plus, the 2.8C actually overclocks better.

    timebecomes,

    Yes, but you can always say there is something around the corner. Plus, with video cards, sometimes you just never know with a new core how good initial driver support will be, among other early issues that arise with new products.
  • timebecomes - Saturday, April 10, 2004 - link

    May want to also hold off on the vid card if Nvidia and ATI are expected to release new cards in a week or two. It may dump the price of the 9800 pro enough to make it worth it.
  • timebecomes - Saturday, April 10, 2004 - link

    Yea... but it only has a 533 FSB...
  • DannyOcean - Friday, April 9, 2004 - link

    AnandTech should consider placing the Intel 2.4A (533 FSB) Prescott w/ 1MB L2 Cache CPU as an Intel alternative to the Mobile Athlons. The 2.4A (not to be confused with the earlier 2.4A that had a 400MHz FSB) has shown excellant overclocking headroom for a $150 Intel CPU. With decent air or water cooling it's capable of reaching 800 FSB (200MHz x 18 for a 3.6GHz overal speed). It's costs less then a 2.4C and offers a high multiplier that allows users to use low-latency DDR400 without needing a 5:4 or 3:2 ratio.
  • TrogdorJW - Friday, April 9, 2004 - link

    #11 - and also to Evan and the rest of the AT crew....

    What we really need are the *benchmarks* from these systems. What many people fail to understand is that an Athlon XP at 2.5 GHz is much faster than the Athlon XP 3200+. I would wager that the overall performance of the AXP 2.5 GHz is going to be the same if not better than the A64 3000+ (2.0 GHz and 512K cache). In fact, the 1 MB of cache on the A64 3200+ really only helps a few applications, so AXP 2.5 GHz could very likely equal that as well.

    So when are we going to get a set of benchmarks for all of the systems that are being recommended in the Buyers' Guides? I'm thinking that a five week cycle would be nice, unless you can just put the benchmarks into a chart for all the systems. Ideally, what you would have would be one set of pages that would automatically update with all the latest results from each of the systems. That would be pretty slick. Put a link to that in each guide, and we could just go check out the results for the current "recommended configurations". I for one am very curious to see how the OC system compares to the high-end system!

    And if it's not too much to ask, how about the total cost of the "Alternative" configurations? The "Alternative" is almost always higher performance, I think, so just have two tables at the end of the articles, one with the recommended setup, and one with the alternative. (And include the alternative setups in the benchmarks, if those are ever done.)

    Wow, I'm such a demanding twit. Sorry. Great job on these guides, though!
  • pgx - Thursday, April 8, 2004 - link

    i don't understand the why anyone would want to oc currently to save money unless i'm missing something. a 3000+ amd 64 is only just a bit more($90) but it is guaranteed to work. the savings in ocing just doesn't seem to be very good when compared to the added risk. instead of the system listed you could get an amd 64 3000+ w/ 1GB 3200 ram, and basically similar quality components for practically the same price. you could even oc it a little for even more performance.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now