System Buyer’s Guide: $1700 Performance Midrange
by Mike Jones and Jarred Walton on May 12, 2010 4:52 AM ESTIntel Performance Midrange System
Since the introduction of Intel’s i5-750 in Q3 09—delivering quad-core performance that tops the i7-920 for significantly less money—reviewers and builders alike have praised its performance, efficiency, flexibility and value. Even as Intel has rounded out their CPU lineup with various Clarkdale CPUs, the i5-750 remains a compelling processor that can serve as the base for a performance/value machine. Compared to our last Intel performance midrange system, enthusiasts can begin their builds with $100 or more of combined CPU and mobo savings in the piggy bank, or use it to beef up other components. Better performance for a substantially lower platform cost? That's music to the DIYer's ears. Here's the basic setup.
At $200, the i5-750 is a terrific bargain. As noted in our Lynnfield article from September 2009, the i5-750 brings quad-core performance that tops the i7-920 in most benchmarks to the significantly less expensive LGA-1156 platform. While the lack of Hyper-Threading costs the i5-750 some performance in well-threaded applications, its aggressive Turbo Modes—which enable the clock speed to rise to 3.2GHz whenever two or more cores are idle—makes it a processor that punches well above its weight in the majority of usage scenarios. The i5-750 is also a great overclocker, but requires overvolting to get anywhere near its full potential. If you’re buying the 750 with anything more than mild overclocking in mind, the retail cooler is not going to be sufficient.
The Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD3 is a feature-rich option for the builder who might want CrossFireX down the road and it comes at a midrange price. It's an excellent choice for an i5-750 system designed to maximize performance, flexibility, and value. Its feature set includes eight USB 2.0 ports with two more headers on the board, and two more USB 3.0 ports on the rear I/O panel. For hard drives, the board has six SATA 3Gbps ports and two more SATA 6Gbps ports. If you want to enable both USB3 and SATA6, the primary GPU slot will drop down to x8 speed, while the secondary x16 slot always runs at x4 bandwidth. For the price, however, it's a very good board and it has good overclocking abilities if you're interested.
Options for Intel 1156 motherboards abound, and we want to mention a few alternatives. First, if you prefer higher performance CrossFire (or you want the potential for SLI), look at the MSI P55-GD65. It provides GPUs dual x8 lanes as opposed to the x16/x4 combination on the P55A-UD3; you also get Firewire support. Though not without a blemish or two, it offers performance and features on par with more expensive offerings and exceptional power consumption characteristics. One major drawback with the MSI board is that tweaking memory timings is an all-or-nothing affair, so if you prefer to set most to "Auto" while only changing a few important items, look elsewhere. For non-CrossFire/SLI setups, the ASUS P7P55D-E LX also boasts USB3 and SATA6 support, with your primary GPU slot always running at x16. Not surprisingly, the P7P55D-E LX is another great overclocking board for this price range, just like most ASUS boards.
All of the boards we mentioned are P55 chipset offerings, which is preferable for overclocking and dual GPU configurations. However, if you don't need a lot of CPU cores and want to save money on your power bills, the H55 chipset boards and Clarkdale CPUs are certainly a great option. You can also get an H55 board and use a Lynnfield CPU as the boards do tend to cost a bit less. The BIOSTAR TH55XE, ASUS P7H55D-M EVO, and Gigabyte GA-H55M-USB3 are all worth a look. Paired with an Intel Core i3-540, they can shave ~5W to 60W off your system power consumption relative to the recommended i5-750 + P55 setup, and the total cost of the system will drop around $100.
On the other end of the spectrum, overclockers and users looking to potentially move to hex-core Intel chips down the road might want to think about X58 and socket 1366. With the Core i7-920, 3x2GB DDR3, and the least expensive X58 motherboard you're looking at a price increase of around $150 and performance that may not be noticeably better in most applications. Still, some will prefer going with the higher-end Bloomfield route.
A nice change since the days of DDR2 vs. DDR3, triple-channel vs. dual-channel memory is that all of the remaining components for our AMD and Intel platforms are the same. You can find additional information about the other parts and accessories on pages four and five. First, let's look at the AMD motherboard and CPU recommendations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
Benoit_P - Friday, May 14, 2010 - link
To the Anandtech team:I wish you would update the "Sub-1000$ System Guide" given the latest AMD cpu and chipset release.
BP
Belard - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Maybe back 10~12 years ago, $1700 could be considered a mid-range computer... but not today.What I consider:
$400~500 = Office / basic computers (does Word, internet just fine) - AMD typical X2 CPU.
$600~700 = Basic Gaming system with a 5600 or 5700 series video card and a sub $100 AMD CPU.
$700~999 = Mid-Range gaming PC... this CAN be a system with a 5850 card, easily.
$1000~$1800 = top end, dual video card systems for uber gamers.
Also $700~1200 for higher end desktop systems with hybrid drive arrangements (SSD boot & application drive + HDD for games & data).
In the real world, as shown on this site and others. The difference in gaming performance between a $65 AMD X2 CPU and a $950 i7-Quad is about 25% when both are using a top end video card. Go with a $150~180 AMD X4 CPU - and that difference in performance is closer to 5~10% slower.
Rather pocket the money, put it towards an SSD or bigger monitor, go out on a date, etc.
justaviking - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
This was a PERFORMANCE Midrange buyer's guide, not a midrange "value" or "budget" system. As such, there is still lots of opportunity to spend more money, even without it turning into a "dream" system.Notice it has an i5, not an i7 Intel CPU.
Notice it has a $310 graphics card, not a $500 graphics card.
Notice it has 4GB of memory, not 8.
Notice it has a Bluray player, not a burner.
There has been some good debate, especially about Bluray and SSD trade offs. But take a chill pill. There's no need to be hostile. No need to be defensive. I'll bet no two people at AnandTech even agree on one of these articles.
racerx_is_alive - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
This falls pretty squarely in the Midrange Gaming PC category. Probably not a midrange PC in general, but it matches up pretty well pricewise with other guides across the internet. For example at Tom's Hardware, they have 3 Gaming builds: Budget at $750, Midrange at $1500, and Extreme at $3000. So $1700 isn't out of line for a midrange build. I don't think this system gives you the best bang for your buck necessarily, but that's another topic completely.That being said, I agree with the blu-ray/SSD comments above. At this time, I don't see how a blu-ray drive is necessary in anything other than HTPC builds.
Krofojed - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Blu-ray makes it possible for your computer to do something that it otherwise couldn't - namely watch blu-ray movies. SSD does no such thing, although I have no doubt that it's a nice thing to have. I'm not saying the suggested configuration is optimal (and I'm not saying it isn't), but choosing blu-ray over SSD is hardly a reason for apoplexy.GullLars - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Considering it's a "Performance midrange" and not a "high-end HTPC", an SSD for os + (core) apps makes a lot more sense. The system will always feel snappy, and all programs will load nearly instantly even if you multitask like crazy and copy files while doing a virus scan. Even during light disk impacting multitasking (virus scan, updates, or file copy in the background while attempting to interact with the system), a WD black will slow to a crawl.I would, whitout any doubt, list BD as an optional upgrade if you intent to watch BD movies on the PC. If not, it's a notable waste of money, and is a piece of hardware that will serve no purpose most of the time.
32GB is enough for Windows 7 (64bit, any edition), office suite, other "office" type apps, antivirus, HTPC type apps, and small usefull programs (i have done this on 3 computers, so i'd know). For a couple of larger apps (like CS4 suite), 40GB should be enough. For a higher number of larger apps and app suites, an 80GB SSD could be considered if placing the least used large apps on a short-stroke partition on a "green" HDD doesn't yield acceptable performance for those apps.
I use 64GB for OS + apps + games myself, and my best friend also does so. A third friend uses 80GB, and i helped a girl i know set up a 40GB for W7 + apps. None of them have complained about space, but loved the speed and said "It was totally worth it" and "i'm never going back to HDD for OS".
wicko - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
I could never, with a straight face, recommend getting a bluray reader. Just for the sole reason that pretty much all bluray playback software is garbage, and you'd be better off getting a bluray burner (perhaps when they are more affordable) or a dedicated bluray player. Unless you absolutely need a bluray reader, I think we could all do without it. Bluray burner makes more sense, 25GB+ data discs can be incredibly useful. Same with bluray authoring. But playback, until we see open source playback software I can't recommend paying for bluray playback software.Jediron - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - link
I don't need a blueray player to watch blueray, what a silly idea...loldarckhart - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
1700 is NOT midrange. "performance" moniker or not.GeorgeH - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - link
Firstly, the article format and layout are excellent and vast improvements over past articles. You've done a lot of work there and it shows.Secondly, the build in the article isn't bad at all, but here's how I'd do it:
1) Drop the BluRay. Unless you're watching BluRay's on your PC (why?) or ripping them to a media server, it's a pointless expense and people who know they need one can figure it out on their own. Savings: ~$90.
2) Stick with the OEM CPU cooler. From the other components this isn't going to be a silent build, and the people who are going to overclock should know enough to figure out what they want. Savings: ~$30.
3) Go with higher quality 2.1 speakers. 5.1 is great for headphones, but setting up 5 speakers around the typical PC station is a PITA that typically yields substandard results when compared to a quality 2.1 setup unless you're an audio geek. Savings: ~$0.
4) Get a cheaper ~400-500W PSU. 750W is incredible overkill for this build. Savings: ~$40.
5) $310 is too much for a video card for all but an incredibly small subset of the population. With 95% of AAA titles being console ports that can easily be played maxed out on a <$200 video card, the days of beastly PC cards like the 5850 being all that relevant are over for the time being. Savings: ~$110.
I just saved you $300 without even trying hard. Buy some games, upgrade your monitor and case so they'll last for your next build, or just pocket the difference.