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
BigLan - Monday, October 15, 2007 - link
Thanks for noting that the kworld tuner could be a real POS. Personally, I'd stay far, far away from it if at all possible - pcalchemy have a white box avermedia combo for $80 which would be a better bet. I'd also recommend the hauppauge 1600 or 1800 for the main tuner - they're about $90-100, and can sometimes be found at ~$80 with a rebate at circuitcity or compusa.I'd also think about going for 2 500gb drives @ $110 each (total $220) rather than one 750gb one @ $200. It'll give you 33% more capacity for 10% more money, but it is another drive in the case adding to the heat and noise.
The analog tv situation doesn't really apply to cable-fed viewers either as cable providers will continue offering analog sdtv for a period of time after the ota transmissions are turned off (I think it was 2012 at the earliest.) You can also continue to use the svid input to capture SD channels from a set-top box even after that date. The 2009 switch off only applies if you're using an antenna for your sd channels.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - link
I can't speak from personal experience about most of the TV tuner cards out there, but I have looked at QAM tuners in the past and they were at best very time consuming to get configured. Still, I also have an AVerMedia dual tuner (non-QAM) installed in my own HTPC that works very well for analog channels (courtesy of a Comcast feed). Quality probably isn't as good as an ATI Theater 550 that I have, but analog TV quality is already lousy anyway.I currently use FireWire to capture HDTV content when I feel the need -- for example, I recorded the women's World Cup soccer matches since they were taking place at 3 and 5 a.m. usually. For one-time recordings like that, FireWire was enough. Unfortunately, that doesn't allow you to watch one channel and record another. Setting up recordings is also not nearly as user-friendly as using a Media Center interface.
One of the problems with using dual hard drives is that Windows Media Center doesn't worked as well in that situation (in my experience) unless you're running a RAID 0 array. All of the recordings are sent to one specific drive/folder, so you would have to manually transfer movies between hard drives. RAID 0 certainly is an option, but I'm pretty much okay with using a single larger hard drive in most situations. Besides, you could then upgrade capacity further in the future if necessary.
Obviously, there's no correct answer to which choice is best -- I say po-tay-to, you say po-tah-to. LOL
drpepper128 - Monday, October 15, 2007 - link
In your article you said that you would probably receive a lot of criticism for your choices, well I’m hear to make one. Your choice of memory seems to coincide with what you always choose in your systems. You chose a lower capacity, but faster timing for both gaming rigs. I thought it was proven a while ago that those types don’t really add much to performance, at least not as much as capacity does. I know however that you do include over clocking into your considerations, but is using the better timings and faster speeds really not needed? I personally would take the Intel setup and choose a the E4500 with slower higher capacity memory and over clock that way; however, I haven’t had much experience with the new 1333Mhz FSB Intel processors and their over clocking capabilities.One problem with using the higher memory capacity I stated above is the windows 64bit problem. I noticed you tackled this in your article on the workstation part, but is it worth it? I’m currently about to build a friend a system and was quite interested in the answer. I do know that a 32bit operating system has a limit around 2 or 3 gigabytes, but doesn’t a 64bit operating system also take up twice as much memory for each application essentially turning your 4GB of memory into only 2? Is it really worth spending the extra money on 4GB of RAM to future proof your system?
Does anybody know when the HD 2900 Pro will start coming out in mass? I’ve been thinking it will be a good buy when it comes down in price.
Finally, Anandtech, I miss the old style guides where you listed several parts using your price grabber and then recommended the best parts. I’m currently finding the best motherboards to use for builds through Newegg votes and forum posts. You do make several reviews on these boards, but they have been lacking lately, and it is hard to put all the motherboards in to focus and select the best one.
Thank you for your great article,
drpepper128
Calin - Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - link
I don't think going over 2GB is so important on a budget PC. Anyway, using 2x1GB allows one to buy two other DIMMs to increase the memory - so you buy 2 DIMMs now for 2GB and maybe later another 2GB for a 6GB totalleexgx - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
most small mother boards Only have 2 slots for ramJarredWalton - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
What reality do you live in? Even most uATX boards now have four DIMM slots. Only the absolute cheapest/smallest mobos have two slots these days.JarredWalton - Monday, October 15, 2007 - link
It previously seemed like most people would simply read one or two of the pages anyway, focus on the tables, and skip everything else. I figured just cutting to the chase would allow me to write less text and focus on the important stuff. I try to expound on areas that do matter (motherboards, GPU options) and not worry too much about stuff that most people will breeze over (case, keyboard, mouse, speakers).For the memory, note also what I said on the AMD setup: "We did choose to use some DDR2-1066 memory, which honestly might be overkill considering the price. $114 (after rebate) for 2GB of this type of memory might seem like a steel compared to a year ago, but if you're okay with DDR2-800 you can still pick up 2GB of 4-4-4 memory for a measly $75. In fact, one of the AnandTech editors did exactly that just this last week... twice! If you're thinking about upgrading to a 64-bit operating system, give some serious thought to running a 4GB configuration with DDR2-800 as opposed to 2GB of higher performance DDR2-1066." I think the Intel side would benefit more (i.e. for overclocking), but having good quality RAM is never a bad thing IMO. I'm not going to bother with DDR3 recommendations, but $40 for more flexibility in overclocking and such is reasonable.
Those of us who are running Vista 64-bit have now reached the point where compatibility issues are pretty much gone (at least, so I heard from Gary). I'm still running XP on my primary rig, but I keep looking at one of my Vista PCs and thinking it may finally be time to give it a serious shot. If I had a 64-bit version of Photoshop and perhaps some games that benefited, I think I'd make the switch.
Concerning memory footprints on x64, it's only certain instructions (memory addresses) that are twice as large. Most opcodes are still 32-bit and most data is still 32-bit. 64-bit OS/apps do use more memory overall, but it's nowhere near twice as much. 4GB and 64-bit is still going to be more roomy than 2GB and 32-bit.
Hope that helps.
Pirks - Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - link
No, it is not. You pay like 40% more while getting maybe 5% back in terms of performance. How can it be reasonable? RAM overclocking and paying 500% (THAT'S FREAKIN FIVE TIMES!) of a normal price to get those precious 10% in performance gain, when you install exotic duper expensive ddr2-1066? You gottabekiddin'!JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - link
5% at stock performance. If you push DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 to their limits with overclocking, stability on the DDR2-1066 modules is better and performance gains generally reach into the 15-20% difference range. Again, I have stated in the text that it isn't required or even necessary. If you have no intention of overclocking, grab DDR2-800 4-4-4 memory and save yourself $40.Consider this, however: $40 more on a $1500 system represents a total cost increase of 3% for what you admit is probably a 5% performance increase. $75 will get you an 8800 GTS 640MB, which will add anywhere from 0% to 25% depending on game, resolution, and detail settings. And yet many also question the listing of a 320MB part over a 640MB part as being just as unreasonable. That's why both alternatives are discussed in the article.
leexgx - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
overclocking ram at best is 1% (or 10 FPS thats when thay are at 150FPS range)been shown loads of times about ram speeds tested and tryed
id not pick any thing less then an 8800 640MB GTS but most users do not tweek there in game settings to higher ones so not be an problem still an Very fast card