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
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Once you select and install a motherboard, upgrading it down the road is really a PITA. Motherboard choice determines many of your core features, and while performance rarely varies much between brands, quality and stability (as well as overclocking and memory support) really differentiate the boards. If you only want to run stock, an inexpensive ECS board will probably work fine. Then again, I've seen a lot of inexpensive boards die after a couple years of use, while higher quality boards can last 5+ years.If you want to upgrade the HDD, GPU, RAM, or DVD you can do so in a matter of minutes. (If you have to clone the HDD to another drive, it will take a lot longer, but mostly you're waiting to copy files from one drive to the other.) If you need to upgrade the motherboard, it's pretty much like building a system from scratch.
Phate-13 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Ok, well yes, that's a fact, I forget that there are the really cheap brands. What I'm more interested in, usually when assembling a pc I go for the cheapest ATX motherboard from a decent brand (Gigabyte, Asus, ...) with a decent chipset. I've always thought that there is barely any difference between the motherboards within the same brand (Gigabyte f.e.) when looking at performance AND quality, and only in features. (Most people don't need the features of the 790GX f.e.)So example: Before the 880-chipset from AMD I would've went for the cheapest (f.e.) Gigabyte 785G motherboard when assembling an AMD system. (Only checking for crossfire possibilities if wanted and ofcourse if nothing was odd with it.)
Any comments on that way of selecting a motherboard? (I'm just hoping to learn from it. :) )
Thanks a lot for the information already. I hope I did not offend with my comments, their just my opinions. ;)
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Really, it depends on two things: how demanding you are... and luck. LOL. Sometimes you can get a cheap board that's absolutely rock solid, and other times you get a piece of crap that never seems to work quite right. Some boards have compatibility issues with some brands of RAM, USB peripherals, etc. The major brands (ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI...) tend to be safe, but even then there's the occasional lemon. Best way to avoid getting burned IMO is to not buy a board until it has been out at least 2-3 months, and then read a few reviews and see what users are saying. Few boards are perfect, so for instance anything at Newegg with a 4 or 5 rating is typically fine.michal1980 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
When are you anandtech Guru's going to get realistic with power supplies.from the grahpics card artile linked here, the system with thr 5850 peaked at ~ 310 Watts. Why do you recommend a PSU for 2x that load?
GullLars - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
+1, 500-550W is more than enough here. This is a third source freeing up money for an SSD, or even 2R0 SSD, wich will actually make a huge difference in user experience.bennyg - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Because PSU wattage ratings are a totally fail way to judge themthe higher the capacity: the less utilised it is during operation, the cooler it stays during operation, the more efficient it is, the longer it will last, the more room to upgrade in the future you will have, the better class of components are used in its manufacture. In general.
Of course there's a huge problem with yumcha "750W" PSUs which have stupidly high 3.3V/5V rails but are sadly lacking where it's actually needed - the 12V rail. But they are not the price that's listed in this article.
But marketing-by-misleading-specifications seems to be well represented in all hardware component markets (GTX260M anyone...)
Phate-13 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
On the other hand, most pc's are idle or on low load for most of the time. Account for the fact that under 20% load the efficiency of a PSU drop dramaticly, your better of with a PSU of less watt. At 100% load a PSU is still very efficient. Look at the 80Plus bronze rating: 82% @ 20%, 85% @ 50% and 82% at 100%.Less utilized percentage wise, isn't per definition a good thing.
Also it will last just as long. I mean, nobody said you have to find a PSU that exactly matches your maximum load. If the 310Watt load is correct, then 750Watt is almost 2.5 times what is needed. Even with 500 Watts you have quite a huge reserve.
And you also totally contradict yourself. You state: "Because PSU wattage ratings are a totally fail way to judge them" and then you state why higher is supposably better. If you want the better quality, buy a 500Watt PSU at the same price of the average 700Watt PSU, than you'll have a quality one.
Jediron - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
The 50% argument is just silly. I can imagine that all PSU builders, because they know alot of us speak that way,, are doing their best to keep their PSU's performing just like that. With a meager 2% better efficiency at te "sweet spot". Really, what a fuss about a meager 2% difference between 50 and 80% . Atleast, that's what you see with the better brands. Look at the number, Silentpcreviews. They say it all!Most good Quality PSU stay perfectly fine up and around 80% of their rated power. So a HX750 for example, can deliver 600watts (output) , at the wall that "would be around 700watt" (input). It gets a litte hotter and the fan is spinning a little harder then. So what ? That's exactly what a PSU is supposed to do!
That's exaclty what i expect from a "high quality" PSU, for which you payed a premium price.
I remember the day, i was running a fat setup, with a meager "soso quality" Aopen 350watt. Others would not believe me, it worked day and night, rock solid en never broke down on me. No, you know what it is ?
FEAR! Fear for the unknown. It's easy to make people scared when they know shit about PSU's.
Brands are guilty too, mostly the cheaper brands. With their overrated PSU's and poor quality.
When i buy a Seasonix X-750 you can bet i will make it swett. Not too much, but enough to give the feeling i didn't put a V8 engine on my bycicle.
michal1980 - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
where did I say to go with a crappy PSU. You could get a good quality PSU for less money then this with less wattage, that will for the overall system be far more efficent, and more importantly sufficent.Mid-Range PC's imho, are all about Bang for the buck. The 750W PSU used in this example fails that test.
mcnabney - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Ahm, you don't know how power supplies work, do you?They are by far most efficient operating around 3/4 load and are in fact DESIGNED to run at that constant load.