System Buyer’s Guide: $1700 Performance Midrange
by Mike Jones and Jarred Walton on May 12, 2010 4:52 AM ESTAMD Performance Midrange System
AMD recently launched their new six-core Thuban processors, the Phenom II X6 1055T and 1090T. With the same power requirements as previous Phenom II X4 processors, plus Turbo Core for boosting performance in situations where some of the cores are idle, the Thuban processors are generally better than the previous X4 series. In fact, our power tests show that despite having two additional cores, the new CPUs actually draw slightly less power than quad-core Phenom II thanks to process refinements. In something of a shocking break with tradition, our AMD Performance Midrange system actually ends up costing as much as the Intel setup, mainly because of the motherboard and CPU choices. We could certainly build a quad-core AMD system and save a lot of money, but the features offered by the newer CPU and motherboard are compelling.
At $205, the six-core Phenom II X6 1055T Thuban is a great bargain in its own right. While the 1055T is superior to the i5-750 in multithreaded applications, the i5 holds an advantage in gaming, so the decision as to which platform to adopt may boil down to your intended use. The 1055T also utilizes a turbo mode (AMD Turbo Core), and its 2.8GHz clock speed can increase to 3.3GHz on lightly threaded workloads (when half the cores are idle). Additionally, the 1055T is a fine overclocker out of the box, with sizeable increases in clock speed being attainable with the retail cooler. All in all, AMD’s 1055T deserves a serious look for those shopping around at the performance midrange level, especially for those users who do a great deal of video encoding.
Alternately, if you’re looking to save a few bucks, you might want to (re)consider the 965BE, an outstanding processor for $185. Though it gives up a couple of cores to the 1055T, it performs slightly better in gaming, and its unlocked multiplier will appeal to those who are looking for maximum flexibility in overclocking their AMD machine.
Like the Gigabyte board chosen for the Intel system, the ASUS M4A89GTD Pro offers a lot in the way of features and capabilities without breaking the bank. This board includes Realtek’s 8111E LAN (PCIe), six SATA 6.0 Gbps ports (as well as an eSATA 3.0 GB/s port), two USB 3.0 ports, 12 USB 2.0 ports, and Realtek’s ALC 892S – 7.1 Channel Audio – with DTS Surround Sensation Package. The board also features support for CrossFireX (not to mention an integrated ATI Radeon HD 4290 GPU, just in case). All in all, the M4A89 GTD Pro is worth a long look in the performance midrange segment.
We debated a bit about moving to an 890FX board, but the fact is the added $25 to $50 doesn't get you much beyond better overclocking support. If you're dead set on some serious overclocking, we'd recommend moving to the ASUS M4A89TD PRO, but for the vast majority of users it's not necessary. As another potentially interesting option, instead of our above recommended system, Newegg currently has a massive combo package that includes just about everything you need. You get the same 1055T CPU, Rifle cooler, a more expensive case, a 1.5TB HDD, value RAM, and a Cooler Master 700W 80Plus PSU. You lose the 5850 and drop to an ASUS overclocked 5830, and you also lose the Blu-ray reader and get a standard DVD-RW, but the total price of $1054 (with $40 in main-in rebates) is a pretty good chunk of change if you don't mind the slower GPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Flip that around, what would you call a system with a 980X and multiple Fermi GPUs if this is high-end? I suppose you could call this the bottom of high-end, upper-midrange or lower high-end is really semantics.I wonder why they keep saying the i5-750 is faster than the i7-920 in most benchmarks when Bench shows the opposite.
Phate-13 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
So a Porsche 911 Turbo S is midrange because there happens to be a Bugatti Veyron that costs more than 10 times as much?In my opinion, midrange is the "typical" range. What the average person would buy. Low end is below that, high end is above that. This is not something the average person would buy. But this argument is actually quite irrelevant, imho. You can't "prove" that something is mid-range, that depends on personal factors. I repeat, I was just stating that it was my opinion that this is rather high-end.
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
By that definition, midrange is a $600 Dell. ;-)You can go so many routes with a $1000 to $1750 build, and whichever route you go and whatever you call it, it's still a $1000 to $1750 build. For the price and for a complete system, I'm very comfortable with the recommended components. If you don't want Blu-ray, I assume you're all plenty smart and can manage to not add the Blu-ray drive and--GASP!--even put a DVD-RW in its place. I figure the same goes for the GPU, storage, case, keyboard, mouse, and LCD. All of those are literally drop-in replacements, and we have plenty of other articles reviewing things like SSDs for the interested.
In my opinion, the biggest decision in any build really comes down to the choice of motherboard. That's the one where you have to really think about what you want and what you're willing to spend. And I spent time chatting with several others here just to make sure we had good motherboard recommendations.
As for high-end, I personally start that at $2000 and go up. This is close to that, which is why it's "performance" midrange--or "upper" midrange if you prefer. At $2000, I'd seriously push for adding an IPS LCD, and if you give me $3000 to work with, there's no beating 30" LCDs (still) with most likely a 5970 GPU to drive it. Or you can grab three 24" LCDs and run them in portrait mode. I'd also call that sort of setup "Dream" but regardless of the label it's still just a really expensive and fast PC.
artifex - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Jarred, I agree, the biggest thing to think about is obviously the motherboard. Could you give a little more insight into your decision that 890FX isn't worth it? I'll be buying a board quite soon, and up until today, based on info here and at TechReport, I'd been leaning heavily towards an FX-based board, with the same CPU you selected. Since I don't need the latest and greatest graphics support, however, the GX's integrated one would be fine. ("Performance" for me is a solid number cruncher that also does some HTPC and storage duty. The only game I play for now is WoW.) I'm trying to build this thing to last more than 3 years without heavy upgrading, though :)JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
I talked with Raja about the motherboard and chipset, and he said that the primary benefit of 890FX over 890GX is better extreme overclocking. 890FX also has dual x16 links for CrossFire while 890GX will drop to x8/x8 for dual GPUs. So if you don't plan on running dual GPUs and you don't intend to pursue extreme overclocking, 890GX is a great chipset.artifex - Thursday, May 13, 2010 - link
Thanks, Jarred. I think you just saved me a bunch of money.Benoit_P - Friday, May 14, 2010 - link
Good article. One taking the time to read it calmy and understand the caveats will find how to modify the hardware list.However, I think that you have overlooked the fact that the 890FX chipset can do virtualization, something the other 8xx chipsets are incapable of.
Given that running WinXP mode in Win7 Pro/Ultimate requires virtualization capabilities, this is an important point for some users.
The article does not mention virtualization capabilities for the intel builds either.
Question:
Does a PC used only for photo editing (Photoshop) and video capture/editing/encoding (Première) from an HD camcorder (AVCHD codec) benefits at all from a powerful graphics card ? or can do with an embedded solution ?
BP
JarredWalton - Friday, May 14, 2010 - link
I know Photoshop benefits from GPUs now (via OpenGL), but I don't know how much of a difference there is between IGP and dGPU. I don't know if Premier benefits from GPU or not, though I know there are other video manipulation applications that leverage CUDA (in which case the AMD GPU we selected wouldn't help, obviously).As far as virtualization, I thought that was the CPU that handled that. I wasn't aware of any limitations with 890GX not supporting virtualization. It appears that the IOMMU isn't virtualized except in 890FX, which isn't a problem with Xen, Hyper-V or VMware ESX but prevents its use with WinXP Mode on Win7.
Honestly, I hear about Virtual WinXP in Win7 so often that it's really quite surprising, as I don't know of a single person who uses it. I'm sure businesses do, but do home users really care? I have been using Vista on my machines since 2007, and outside of a few 64-bit compatibility issues (which have since been solved with updated applications), I haven't had any apps that didn't run properly. Who is actually using this (which means you need to buy Win7 Business or Ultimate... a small minority of home users), and what are they using it for? It just seems like something 99.99% of people won't ever use.
Phate-13 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Let me rephrase that, the midrange is the typical pc a consumer buys with a specific goal in mind. What the average person with (game-)performance in mind buys, thats what I call midrange.But anyway, why would de motherboard be the most important part? There is barely any difference between specific motherboard, except for some very specific features that most of the people don't need. When looking at motherboards, performance is a non-issue, there is barely any difference. The only difference is features, but what are features that are so important that you need to have them, but not important enough so that not all motherboards have them? (And no, I'm not stating that any motherboard is ok, I just wouldn't know.)
Phate-13 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
And damn it's annyong that there is no "edit" button.Anyway, if everything is a drop-in replacement, than what is the point in making a guide at all?
(Though again, let it be clear, I really like the effort that is put in these articles, but there is a fundamental flaw with these guides, almost any guide. And that is that every person has different needs and the persons who can adapt these configs to their needs are often the persons who actually don't need a guide, while the ones who can use a guide very often don't know anything about it and what to and what not to replace.)