Final Words
The problem with "entry-level" systems is that they are normally boring. They aren't normally sexy or groundbreaking, and PCs costing less than $800 are therefore normally devoid of any of the glitz and excitement associated with the midrange to high-end market. Many ignore low-end PCs and simply point to the latest Dell or HP special of the week - PCs that are hardly worthy of consideration as a "real" PC.
However, sometimes you can break that mold of the boring entry PC, and this is one of those times. It is all possible thanks to AMD's new wunderkind, namely the ATI HD 4770. You probably remember fondly the smile the NVIDIA 8800 GT brought to your face when you first found out "the only card that mattered" would cost around $200. The 8800 GT wasn't the fastest card you could buy from NVIDIA, but it was definitely the best value around in graphics performance. Nothing was even close at that $200 price point.
The ATI 4770 has grabbed our interest in the same way, but at a ridiculous "take the money and run" price of just $99. This $100 video card outperforms everything approaching its price. More than that, it is almost the Universal GPU, since any user who games on less than a 30" monitor will likely be very satisfied with the frame rates and "playability" of the 4770. We took the HD 4770 concept to its logical conclusion on pages 4 and 5. It is almost embarrassing to call these systems "budget computer", but for less than $550 the basic box certainly fits that category. We prefer to look at these two systems as redefining the expectations of a budget computer. Whichever of these two systems you decide to build, it will blow away what you've come to expect from an inexpensive PC. Console gaming got you down? Now you can do real work as well as play games for just a couple hundred dollars more. If you are an overclocker, you will be even more excited.
Of course, not everyone needs or wants a gaming rig, and the entry systems may be perfect for a parent's internet and email needs, a kid's computer, or an expandable system to start with if you have a very limited budget and want to grow with your computer. The basic AMD system is under $300, and a complete system with 19" widescreen LCD, speakers, and Vista Home Premium 64-bit for either Intel or AMD is less than $550. This is for a competent and capable Intel dual-core E5200 Wolfdale or a dual-core AMD 7750BE Kuma. The boards in both systems fully support HDMI and HD video. These are powerful systems at very friendly prices.
Finally, you will find a basic HTPC computer in a component-type case is also a better buy today. With either Intel or AMD, the HTPCs deliver HD output, 1TB HD storage, video-ripping power, and Blu-ray playback capabilities to your HDTV and home theater setup. The cost has dropped to just $550 for the basic HTPC box or $680 with the addition of the Vista OS and cordless keyboard/mouse.
With the ability to include a capable gaming video card in a complete computer system at around $800, the entry segment now covers a range of options wider than ever before. That is very good news for enthusiasts who have been looking for power but were previously held back by a tight budget. Build any of our budget PCs with a $99 ATI HD 4770 graphics card, and you will be able to rejoin the PC gaming world.
To put this value in perspective consider that the original 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo cost $1000. The $140 E7500 in our $825 Intel Budget System is basically the same CPU updated to a more efficient manufacturing process. It provides the same speed and similar performance to the $1000 part. That should give you a better idea of how quickly satisfying CPU performance has moved down to the entry-level computer segment. The $99 ATI 4770 included in our $825 Budget systems outperforms anything even close to its price. With that added graphics power you have a truly powerful computer system at a very entry price. That is the our idea of true value.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
That is the way it is on the Intel side. We have to go up to the $169+ range to get VT on Intel and quite frankly, maybe 1% of people might ever run XP mode in Win7.If running the Windows Virtual PC under Windows 7 for XP Mode is important to you, then moving to the E8x00 range or the E6x00 are the best VT options. That would blow the Budget out the door, and make the Intel selections not competitive in the Budget Range.
Do you work for AMD? This is a really minor nag for the vast majority of our readers, and as I'm sure you aware, for a Budget PC if this feature really matters to you then go for an AMD system in the budget price range.
nycromes - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
I think their point was/is that there is no mention of it in the article. It is nice to know what you get and what you don't get for these kind of systems. I don't think many will need the VT feature, but it could have still been presented in the article for those that might need it. I wouldn't change the recommendations, but just a small blurb about it would probably suffice.Of course, if they read the comments, there is plenty of mention of it so it doesn't really matter anymore.
Gary Key - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
We had strict budget numbers to meet for this guide. We had to select the entry level Intel processors due to cost and still provide a decent set of components around it. We added a statement about VT support to the processor descriptions.HelToupee - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
This will be a boon to those using non-Microsoft OSes for our HTPC's XBMC, my HTPC OS of choice has supported nVidia's accelerated video playback for quite awhile now. Unfortunately, players have not been able to take advantage of AMD/ATI's Linux drivers due to AMD/ATI being slow to release specs/headers. Acelleration on nVidia is supported in most major Linux video players by default, all you have to do is have the nVidia binary driver installed.kleinwl - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
It's probably worth mentioning that a core i7 makes a great cpu in an HTPC. While it blows the budget, if you are looking to upscale DVDs using ffdshow (or the like) to fit your 52" screen, I would suggest that you do not skimp on the cpu power. While ffdshow is a nightmare to get properly configured (thousands of options, no consistent recommendations), once you do, you can have a viewing experience close to that of an oppo. However, ffdshow can be a resource hog, and thus I recommend pushing the cpu spec as high as you can aford.Spoelie - Friday, May 15, 2009 - link
1. Size of the screen is not directly related to resolution (and thus scaling power needed). There are large plasma screens with the same resolution as a 17" LCD. A modern 52" TV will 'only' have a resolution of 1920x1080, and as such BR will need no scaling, and decoding DVDs is such a light load that there's plenty left for upscaling.There's a reason media tanks do not use super-fast general purpose cpus. They just aren't needed for playing back stuff, even with scaling.
The only valid reason to push cpu power is for transcoding.
2. Ideal = low power, noise, heat, consumption. Not something one would associate with an i7.
Nowadays, even though I have a HTPC, I'm of the opinion you're better of with a media server/transcoder somewhere in a back room and a networked media tank next to the screen instead of a single device to do both tasks.
HOOfan 1 - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
Just an FYInecrohippy - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
biostar t-series motherboard amd athlon x2 3.0ghz 4gb ram 500watt moduler psu decent case nvidia gtx geforce 260 896mb video card xp pro $600 after rebate $750 in the first place changed cpu from 3ghz to 4.5ghz a great gaming rig for the money....smoken. I had keyboard,mouse,and 19inch viewsonicmrubermonkey - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
With these Intel systems people will not be able to do hardware virtualization of Windows XP from within Windows 7, but people with AMD systems should be alright.JarredWalton - Thursday, May 14, 2009 - link
I think you're talking about a very small group of people that will even need that feature. Virtual XP is a "fix" from MS that's only for older programs that refuse to work right with Win7, and even then you're running with the equivalent of old unaccelerated GPUs. If you have a program that works with Vista, it should be fine on Win7. If you need virtualization that badly, though, by all means make sure you buy a CPU that supports hardware VT. (Intel will be releasing updated versions of many CPUs with VT enabled in the near future.)