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 $40 in main-in rebates) is a pretty good chunk of change if you don't mind the slower GPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
Benoit_P - Friday, May 14, 2010 - link
To the Anandtech team:I wish you would update the "Sub-1000$ 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.