Mid-Range to High-End Buyer's Guide, January 2006
by Jarred Walton on January 2, 2006 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Memory Recommendations
The price of RAM has dropped a bit over the past few months on most products, and there are many good deals to be found. DDR2 is generally cheaper at most performance levels, though the highest quality parts all cost more than what we would recommend for most people. Mid-Range systems should have at least 2x512MB these days, and there are some applications that can use even more than 1GB of RAM. On the high end, while some might be tempted by the lower latencies offered by 512MB DIMMs, we recommend making the upgrade to 2x1GB now rather than later - doubling the amount of RAM for $80-$125 is more likely to have a noticeable impact than spending the same money to upgrade to one higher CPU bin. Note that AMD systems require DDR memory at present while the Intel systems that we've recommended all use DDR2.
Price: $115 shipped (Retail)
There are many value RAM offerings available, but they all come with CL2.5 or even CL3 timings. Considering the overclocking capability of the Crucial Ballistix, it's worth the extra $20 in our opinion. Crucial Ballistix is rated for 2-2-2-6-1T timings, and though it fell out of favor with the widespread availability of TCCD and CH5 DIMMs at lower prices, the current price has moved it back to the top of our price/performance recommendations. We reviewed this memory over a year ago, topping out at just above DDR500, and the memory dividers on Athlon 64 will give you plenty of possibilities for wringing the last ounce of performance from your RAM and CPU. There are a ton of 2x512MB DIMMs available, and given the difference in price, there isn't much reason to get anything less than 2-3-2-6 rated memory these days. You can also find DIMMs rated for as high as DDR600, but given the price premium, we would look towards 1GB DIMMs instead.
Price: $233 shipped (Retail)
Unless you spend a lot of money on your RAM, you can't get 1GB DDR DIMMs with the same low latencies as 512MB DIMMs. However, dual cores, multitasking, and the latest graphical manifestos in the gaming world can all benefit from more RAM rather than just faster RAM. The OCZ PC-4000 EL Gold manages still to give a decent amount of overclocking range, though it has to resort to 3-4-3 timings to do so. Personally, I'll take the 3-5% lower frame rates with up to 33% faster load times in games like Battlefield 2. I can't see the difference between 60 FPS and 63 FPS, but I can certainly tell the difference between 38 seconds and 63 seconds. (Yes, those are the actual load times for BF2 comparing 2GB to 1GB of RAM.) There are quite a few alternatives in the memory department, so rather than giving a small list, I'm simply going to refer you to our Pricing Engine. If you want both low latency and 1GB DIMMs, OCZ, Corsair and PDP have some reasonable options, though OC bandwidth varies.
Price: $71 shipped (Retail)
The price/performance/bandwidth difference between DDR and DDR2 is becoming pretty interesting these days. While many will point to the lower latencies of DDR2 as a negative, remember that the latencies come with much higher clock speeds. CL4 at DDR2-533 is about 15 ns, and CL2 at DDR-400 is only 10 ns - still faster, but not "twice as fast". Given the bandwidth advantage and the fact that main memory accesses are buffered by the cache in many instances, DDR2 looks pretty respectable. You can also find DDR2-667 CL4 (12 ns latency) at a cost that's still lower than CL2 DDR memory. In the end, we went with the lower cost of PC2-4200 CL4, and G.Skill came out on top with their "Extreme" series. You can also find the same RAM in 1GB DIMMs for twice the cost, which is definitely worthy of consideration. Like the DDR RAM, there are plenty of alternative 2x512MB DIMMs available. The Corsair XMS2 C4 PC-5300 for $96 would be a close second, offering superior performance that can come in handy during overclocking attempts.
Price: $217 shipped (Retail)
Unlike DDR memory, it is possible to get low latencies, high capacities, and high bandwidths all in the same package - without breaking the bank! GeIL's Ultra RAM is rated for 3-4-4-8 timings at DDR2-667, at a price lower than the DDR-500 memory with similar timings. The benefits of large amounts of RAM are present whether you use an AMD system or an Intel system, so if faster load times are more important to you than maximum frame rates, this RAM is a nice upgrade. Honestly, the PC-5300 memory speed isn't even required, as PC-4200 is more than sufficient for most tasks. You can find plenty of great deals on 2x1024MB DDR2 kits. You can save about $75 by sticking with PC-4200, for example, by getting the G.Skill Extreme 2x1024MB pack. While the performance of AMD's M2 chips probably won't be much better than current 939 chips, the better availability of high performance 1GB and larger DIMMs is definitely one advantage that we're looking forward to receiving.
The price of RAM has dropped a bit over the past few months on most products, and there are many good deals to be found. DDR2 is generally cheaper at most performance levels, though the highest quality parts all cost more than what we would recommend for most people. Mid-Range systems should have at least 2x512MB these days, and there are some applications that can use even more than 1GB of RAM. On the high end, while some might be tempted by the lower latencies offered by 512MB DIMMs, we recommend making the upgrade to 2x1GB now rather than later - doubling the amount of RAM for $80-$125 is more likely to have a noticeable impact than spending the same money to upgrade to one higher CPU bin. Note that AMD systems require DDR memory at present while the Intel systems that we've recommended all use DDR2.
Click to enlarge.
Price: $115 shipped (Retail)
There are many value RAM offerings available, but they all come with CL2.5 or even CL3 timings. Considering the overclocking capability of the Crucial Ballistix, it's worth the extra $20 in our opinion. Crucial Ballistix is rated for 2-2-2-6-1T timings, and though it fell out of favor with the widespread availability of TCCD and CH5 DIMMs at lower prices, the current price has moved it back to the top of our price/performance recommendations. We reviewed this memory over a year ago, topping out at just above DDR500, and the memory dividers on Athlon 64 will give you plenty of possibilities for wringing the last ounce of performance from your RAM and CPU. There are a ton of 2x512MB DIMMs available, and given the difference in price, there isn't much reason to get anything less than 2-3-2-6 rated memory these days. You can also find DIMMs rated for as high as DDR600, but given the price premium, we would look towards 1GB DIMMs instead.
Click to enlarge.
Price: $233 shipped (Retail)
Unless you spend a lot of money on your RAM, you can't get 1GB DDR DIMMs with the same low latencies as 512MB DIMMs. However, dual cores, multitasking, and the latest graphical manifestos in the gaming world can all benefit from more RAM rather than just faster RAM. The OCZ PC-4000 EL Gold manages still to give a decent amount of overclocking range, though it has to resort to 3-4-3 timings to do so. Personally, I'll take the 3-5% lower frame rates with up to 33% faster load times in games like Battlefield 2. I can't see the difference between 60 FPS and 63 FPS, but I can certainly tell the difference between 38 seconds and 63 seconds. (Yes, those are the actual load times for BF2 comparing 2GB to 1GB of RAM.) There are quite a few alternatives in the memory department, so rather than giving a small list, I'm simply going to refer you to our Pricing Engine. If you want both low latency and 1GB DIMMs, OCZ, Corsair and PDP have some reasonable options, though OC bandwidth varies.
Click to enlarge.
Price: $71 shipped (Retail)
The price/performance/bandwidth difference between DDR and DDR2 is becoming pretty interesting these days. While many will point to the lower latencies of DDR2 as a negative, remember that the latencies come with much higher clock speeds. CL4 at DDR2-533 is about 15 ns, and CL2 at DDR-400 is only 10 ns - still faster, but not "twice as fast". Given the bandwidth advantage and the fact that main memory accesses are buffered by the cache in many instances, DDR2 looks pretty respectable. You can also find DDR2-667 CL4 (12 ns latency) at a cost that's still lower than CL2 DDR memory. In the end, we went with the lower cost of PC2-4200 CL4, and G.Skill came out on top with their "Extreme" series. You can also find the same RAM in 1GB DIMMs for twice the cost, which is definitely worthy of consideration. Like the DDR RAM, there are plenty of alternative 2x512MB DIMMs available. The Corsair XMS2 C4 PC-5300 for $96 would be a close second, offering superior performance that can come in handy during overclocking attempts.
Click to enlarge.
Price: $217 shipped (Retail)
Unlike DDR memory, it is possible to get low latencies, high capacities, and high bandwidths all in the same package - without breaking the bank! GeIL's Ultra RAM is rated for 3-4-4-8 timings at DDR2-667, at a price lower than the DDR-500 memory with similar timings. The benefits of large amounts of RAM are present whether you use an AMD system or an Intel system, so if faster load times are more important to you than maximum frame rates, this RAM is a nice upgrade. Honestly, the PC-5300 memory speed isn't even required, as PC-4200 is more than sufficient for most tasks. You can find plenty of great deals on 2x1024MB DDR2 kits. You can save about $75 by sticking with PC-4200, for example, by getting the G.Skill Extreme 2x1024MB pack. While the performance of AMD's M2 chips probably won't be much better than current 939 chips, the better availability of high performance 1GB and larger DIMMs is definitely one advantage that we're looking forward to receiving.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
archcommus - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Not just music, but DVDs and games, as well.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
The Klipsch are also very good speakers - some would say better, others would just say they're different. When you start getting into high-end speakers, a lot of stuff becomes more subjective. I don't know if this still holds, but in the past, Klipsch was regarded as having great customer support. I can't say the same for Logitech, but then I've never personally used customer support for either one. I think the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 speakers go for about $350 new, so they're more expensive and they lack the digital decoder. They probably sound a bit better, though.yacoub - Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - link
Well Klipsch had quality issues for a while with dead and fried amps. Then again Logitech's lower end models were pretty poor quality as well.Either way both systems are likely close enough in quality that you won't notice the difference hooked up to the same soundcard. You would find a much greater difference by improving the soundcard over switching from one of those two speaker systems to the other.
Also, if you're so anal as to be able to detect a huge difference between the two you probably aren't going to be happy with either one and should instead get a real home theatre system and hook your soundcard to the receiver. Then you have no more limitations of a computer speaker system and can swap in and out your separates as you wish and really configure it all finely and use much better quality components.
yacoub - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
There's no reason for the high-end case recommendation to be anything other than the Antec P-150, which is essentially the perfect case. If more room is needed (which would be the rare instance) the P-180 would be the alternative recommendation.jiulemoigt - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
one were the crt left out due to shipping costs? I got my 75lbs 22" Philips shipped free simply by buying from a local (ground shipping was free, fedex 2 day was several hundred dollars so I can see why shipping costs on a decent size crt could be an issue) based estore. I just wondered as I have yet to see a lcd that comes close to a professional crt in color or crispness, and if your willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a videocard to play games why not three to five on the monitor?the other question is I keep hearing about corsairs 3500 ll xms is it vaporware or did you guys simply miss this one or does it not live up to the hype? I did not see it on the price link or really any mention of it which leads me to wonder?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
On the CRTs, there are no new CRTs being made with good specs. I've been over that ground in previous Guides. Basically, you can get a new 22" CRT that is worse than 4 year old models, or you can try to find a 4 year old model, or you can give in and upgrade to LCD. It's unfortunate, but profit margins are better on LCDs, consumers like them more ("oooo - it's THIN!"), and so all R&D is now focused on improving LCDs rather than on CRTs. I fought the CRT battle for a few years, and now that I've upgraded to LCD I just don't miss the CRT anymore. 24" WS and plenty of desk space - what's not to love? :)Turin39789 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I'm sticking with my dual 22'inch crt's, a few years old made them available for ~150 each shipped and I like the colors/refresh rate/resolutions better than any crt's I've seen around for twice that money.And an 8 foot desk means never having to worry about space.
Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
The performance of the CRT displays is decreasing even in the 17" world - monitors from three years ago had better refresh rates and resolution than what you can buy now. CRT world is dying :(tjpark1111 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I was wondering about LCD size you guys.(that rhymes hehe) I currently have a 15" LCD on a laptop that has a 1024x768 resolution. Sometimes I find it that things are a bit too big especially in videos. I was going to buy a 17" LCD, but then a 19" was recommended here, and I was wondering if you 19" owners are bothered by, or you think that there is a lack of resolution for the huge size. I've seen a 17" and 19" side by side and the size improvement was so big, but I didn't get a chance to look closely, especially when playing video, so I don't know if 1280x1024 is all that bad on a 19". Thank you.Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I would very much prefer a lower resolution on the 17" LCDs - that 1152 by something would be great. I somewhat find the 1280 by 1024 too small, and just perfect on the 19" displays.