The $500 Gaming Machine, 2007 Edition

[pous]

Shoot, they should hire one of you guys to write reviews/articles for them... I learn more reading what you guys write after the Tom's Hardware articles than actually reading the article itself.

 

[lunyone]

Well I'm sure there are better setups that several people on these forums could do. And I'm sure there is people on these forums that could write articles and probably do better. I'm not there yet, but I learn something every day that I'm reading on these forums.

 

[sojrner]

Want a good car analogy? how 'bout this: Why build a 500 HP capable balanced and blueprinted shortblock containing high nickel content block with four bolt mains, micropolished forged crank, full floating forged pistons with flycut valve reliefs, chrome-moly rings, and a set of polished oversized connecting rods, if you're just going to finish off the build with stock top end components and then put this 200 HP engine in your daily driver? It's a waste of money the way it is, investing over 3 grand in a bullet proof bottom end when a simple remanned shortblock would only be a third of the cost and probably would be just as reliable in your daily driver. Sometimes a plain old 2-bolt block, cast crank, mismatched rods and some cast pistons are really the way to go. Same thing applies to power supplies.

While I see you have some good rebuild lingo, I still feel it is a bad analogy. Your analogy is more akin to having an 8800ultra on a $50 mobo with a low-end sempron and 512Mb ram. In that instance the 8800 is wasted and would never see it's full potential, just as your shorblock would never return the money spent on it with the rest of the engine stock...

...for a car analogy the psu is more like spending money on a top-end battery with 1000cca and an RC of 120 minutes. (which, just like psu's the manufacturers claims do not always ring true in real world but you do get what you pay for) Say you spend $100 on it. If you put that battery in ANY car there is a great probability that it is more battery than what is required... but come winter time, say it is 30F below zero (yes, -30F is ~-34C... common here where I am at) regardless if the car is a Bugatti Veyron or a Ford Pinto... That battery would start your car when a cheaper one may not. Or with that 120 minute reserve and your alternator quits (or the belt breaks)... that 2 hours could get you to a parts shop to fix it where the lesser batt would die long before. Arguably the cheaper car (and older ignition system) could use MORE of the battery than the newer/more efficient parts but that is another point altogether. 😉

A psu is the same way. The better efficiency and power factor correction can save a system on brown-outs and even mild power surges that a lesser psu would not. If you have especially bad wiring in your home it can actually burn out a psu... sooner on the cheap ones.

I am not trying to be a "champion" of expensive psus here... just pointing out the merits of spending the cash there. That and the fact that a better psu is never wasted. Whether a car batt or a psu, you may not use the full extent of capability... but should you need it even once you will be glad you spent the cash. It is better to have and not need then to need and not have.

Your right, bad analogy I should've said a Dam holding water back (available power) and only trickling out the amount needed on that system. I agree a good PSU is always a good buy. I just thought that they went way overkill on that setup, with the goal of getting a "budget" gaming system. The only thing budget in that build was probably the case/memory!!

ya, I see your point. I agree that if you were really on a $500 budget you would probably not buy that level of psu... well, most wouldn't anyway. 😉 (like I said before, I would)

 

[kd5rax]

I think the whole point of the system was expandability, in which case the ONLY poor choice was a lower end dx10 graphics card, which should have been instead a good old 7600 GT... Would have been cheaper (given a little more cash to throw at RAM to bump it up to 2 gig) and performed similarly. If you really wanted to game on it, it would have been preferable to throw an old x1900 xt in there and it would perform rather admirably at the same cost.
Its just that the graphics card and ram pairing in this build makes no sense at all: Why get a dx10 card and not enough ram to run vista, and not a better dx9 for the same price when your clearly going to be on xp with 1 gig ram?

 

[KillerOfMethod]

yeah that article was a bit on the crappy side, I agree with everyone's main point: a $500 build doesn't need 20% of the budget to be the power supply, I've got a Apevia 420watt running my micro-atx box right now and it can handle my 7950GT and all my other fancy pants hardware.

 

[TSIMonster]

I've got a Apevia 420watt running my micro-atx box right now and it can handle my 7950GT and all my other fancy pants hardware.

Are you serious?

 

[tonyp12]

My choice:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ Windsor 2.4GHz........ $97
ABIT AN52 AM2 NVIDIA nForce 520 MCP ATX... $69
ADATA 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800......... $60
HIS Hightech Radeon X1950PRO 256MB.......... $120
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB harddrive... $70 ($10 combo discount)
Samsung Black 20X DVD+R SATA.................. $32
Antec Sonata III Black ATX Mid with earth 500W psu $100

total: $548 (after mail-in rebates, some shipping apply)

 

[zenmaster]

The 7950GT is actually quite power efficient.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/21/energy-efficient_computing_options/page5.html#single_graphics_cards

Dell sells alot of their systems with 400w PSUs and the 8800GTS.
Most people just seriously over-estimate the power they are going to need.

If you are not going to SLI, there is not a reason to be getting 600-700+W machines.

 

[joefriday]

While I see you have some good rebuild lingo, I still feel it is a bad analogy. Your analogy is more akin to having an 8800ultra on a $50 mobo with a low-end sempron and 512Mb ram. In that instance the 8800 is wasted and would never see it's full potential, just as your shorblock would never return the money spent on it with the rest of the engine stock...

No, the example you just presented is analogous to the 1000 horse power mustang stuck in first gear. It could perform much greater if it wasn't for the damn tranny (or in the computer case, the CPU and ram).

In my example, the short block will never increase performance by itself (I made no mention of increased stroke, bore, or compression for a reason), all it can do is support a high horsepower build. Same with a massive power supply. Let's say I put a 1000 watt PSU in my K6-2. It won't make the old computer any faster at all, but if I were to swap out the K6-2 setup for a Pentium D 840/8800 GTX kit, then that 1000 watt PSU comes in handy as it is easily capable of handled the increased load put upon it.

Your battery analogy is flawed. Computers don't just change power consumption. Parts will consume x amount of power in a range from idle to full load during operational state. That never changes. There is no "Winter" for a computer's PSU. Therefore, in your analogy, a 450 CCA battery will always be adequate for the vehicle it is in (as long as 450 CCA is the recommendation for the automobile in question), because the temperature never changes.


The only way to change power consumption is to change the components in the computer. Until the computers in the review are upgraded to power hungry components, a cheap, decent quality 300 watt PSU will serve them just fine. Or, in your analogy, a 450 CCA battery will work just fine starting up your 2.0L 4 cylinder engine, but when you decide to put in a 7.5L performance V8 engine with 14:1 compression, you'll definitely need a battery with more cranking amps.

Now, I could follow along with you in your analogy by insinuating that "winter" is analogous to a major hardware change that drastically increase power consumption, but this means to azzume (try spelling it correctly and see what happens) that an upgrade to power hungry components is inevitable, which is obviously not true. The computers could never be upgraded, or upgraded 3 years from now, and by then, we'd probably want to use a new PSU just to be compatible with new equipment (e.g, the 24 pin connecter, the addition of sata power connectors, and the multiple PCIe connections found on today's PSU that weren't found on PSUs 3-4 years ago). Or, these computers could be upgraded in a year or so, but with power efficient parts to increase performance without necessarily increasing power consumption. These are all possibilities that don't fit in your analogy.

A psu is the same way. The better efficiency and power factor correction can save a system on brown-outs and even mild power surges that a lesser psu would not. If you have especially bad wiring in your home it can actually burn out a psu... sooner on the cheap ones.

First of all, I argue that expecting a PSU to be your 1st line of defense in the case of dirty mains is a recipe for disaster. Why not use the equipment built for this kind of thing, such as line conditioners and surge protectors? The surge protection you get from an expensive, high quality PSUw/PFC is minimal compared to the same protection afforded by a cheap, decent quality psu w/o PFC. Most PSU can withstand a small surge, and a high quality unit with PFC isn't going to save you one bit when you get high by anything significant.

 

[sojrner]

No, the example you just presented is analogous to the 1000 horse power mustang stuck in first gear. It could perform much greater if it wasn't for the damn tranny (or in the computer case, the CPU and ram).

In my example, the short block will never increase performance by itself (I made no mention of increased stroke, bore, or compression for a reason), all it can do is support a high horsepower build.

Fair enough, I was thinking about that first gear one when I wrote that... but yours is still not the same as a psu. It is not about what the psu can support (your example) but what it prevents. You can prevent system crashes from bad power, fried components from a 12v rail being out of spec (common on cheap ones) or any number of "gremlins" in the system. Your short block does not provide any of this on your example.

Same with a massive power supply. Let's say I put a 1000 watt PSU in my K6-2. It won't make the old computer any faster at all, but if I were to swap out the K6-2 setup for a Pentium D 840/8800 GTX kit, then that 1000 watt PSU comes in handy as it is easily capable of handled the increased load put upon it.

Your battery analogy is flawed. Computers don't just change power consumption. Parts will consume x amount of power in a range from idle to full load during operational state. That never changes. There is no "Winter" for a computer's PSU. Therefore, in your analogy, a 450 CCA battery will always be adaquate for the vehicle it is in (as long as 450 CCA is the recommendation for the automobile in question), because the tempurature never changes.

You did not read my explanation at all. One piece:
"A psu is the same way. The better efficiency and power factor correction can save a system on brown-outs and even mild power surges that a lesser psu would not. If you have especially bad wiring in your home it can actually burn out a psu... sooner on the cheap ones. "
I never said they "just change" consumption, but the power goint IN to the system DOES... which in turn affects the psu output to the mobo and system. Meaning it is environmental, which is the same as temperature affecting a car's batt output. Seems simple and clear to me.

The only way to change power consumption is to change the components in the computer. Until the computers in the review are upgraded to power hungry components, a cheap, decent quality 300 watt PSU will serve them just fine.

wrong. As I explained above, environmental changes CAN change power consumption. Like I mentioned before, higher efficiency and PFC can make for less power usage on the system as a whole. As the psu gets older the cheaper one only loses more on this as heat and time take their toll on the meager components. Bad/cheap caps and other components can seriously destroy a system. (anyone remember the bad cap scare ~4 or 5 years ago?)

Or, in your analogy, a 450 CCA battery will work just fine starting up your 2.0L 4 cylinder enginge, but when you decide to put in a 7.5L performance V8 engine with 14:1 compression, you'll definately need a battery with more cranking amps.

Again, I mentioned that it is better to have and not need, than need and not have. Yes, that smaller batt will start the 4cyl... but change the environment and that is not the case. That is the whole point of what I am saying. I am not saying you HAVE to buy a good psu or that one is REQUIRED, just that it is never a "waste" to do so.

 

[joefriday]

.. but yours is still not the same as a psu. It is not about what the psu can support (your example) but what it prevents. You can prevent system crashes from bad power, fried components from a 12v rail being out of spec (common on cheap ones) or any number of "gremlins" in the system. Your short block does not provide any of this on your example.

If you knew anything about building performance engines you'd know how wrong you are. Without a strong short block to build upon, you can easily blow your engine. You don't run a 200 shot of nitrous on a stock engine, and you don't build an 8,000 rpm screamer using a stock shorblock originally built to handle 5,000 rpm. It is every bit the appropriate analogy for the case at hand. Too much demand placed on an inadequate PSU will kill it in short order, and may also kill some of your system components in the process, just like a 200 shot of nitrous in your daily driver is most likely make a piston exit through your oil pan.

You did not read my explanation at all. One piece:
"A psu is the same way. The better efficiency and power factor correction can save a system on brown-outs and even mild power surges that a lesser psu would not. If you have especially bad wiring in your home it can actually burn out a psu... sooner on the cheap ones. "

No, I did read that. It is utter horse manure. Use the proper equipment to handle this job, not a PSU.

I never said they "just change" consumption, but the power goint IN to the system DOES... which in turn affects the psu output to the mobo and system. Meaning it is environmental, which is the same as temperature affecting a car's batt output. Seems simple and clear to me.

Once again, (third time now) it's not the PSU's job to weather power surges or protect from brown outs. Get a line conditioner if it's that bad.

As I explained above, environmental changes CAN change power consumption. Like I mentioned before, higher efficiency and PFC can make for less power usage on the system as a whole.

Now that's completely wrong. The components in the computer will always consume the same max amount of power as long as the components are never changed. Once again, you start talking about the link between the power outlet and the PSU. The inefficiency of the PSU is only important for the additional amount of power consumed from the outlet, it is never factored into the max amount of output of PSU can deliver (i.e, a 300 watt psu w/80% efficiency can theoretically consume 375 watts from the outlet while delivering 300 watts of power to the computer components). PFC only helps reduce apparent power (something a home user isn't even billed for). It's line conditioning abilities are woefully inadequate when compared to a real line conditioner.

As the psu gets older the cheaper one only loses more on this as heat and time take their toll on the meager components. Bad/cheap caps and other components can seriously destroy a system. (anyone remember the bad cap scare ~4 or 5 years ago?)

Exactly my point, thank you. Why pay for that high end PSU now, especially if it might be 3 years before upgrading the computer? 3 years of capacitor aging takes its toll on any PSU, not just the cheap ones.

Again, I mentioned that it is better to have and not need, than need and not have. Yes, that smaller batt will start the 4cyl... but change the environment and that is not the case. That is the whole point of what I am saying. I am not saying you HAVE to buy a good psu or that one is REQUIRED, just that it is never a "waste" to do so.

Of course I agree that it's better to be to a err on the side of caution with your PSU purchases, but in the case of this build, the computers only consume 100 watts, max load, yet we have a 500 watt PSU. That's overkill. It's like killing an ant colony with an atomic bomb. I recommended a $20 300 watt PSU of reputable quality, as it is much cheaper and much more in line with the power consumption of the computers at hand, while still offering enough reserve capacity for modest upgrades. Especially since this is a budget build, I find a $100 PSU to be more of a complete waste of precious budget money than I find it to be in line with Boy Scout motto.

 

[sojrner]

If you knew anything about building performance engines you'd know how wrong you are. Without a strong short block to build upon, you can easily blow your engine. You don't run a 200 shot of nitrous on a stock engine, and you don't build an 8,000 rpm screamer using a stock shorblock originally built to handle 5,000 rpm. It is every bit the appropriate analogy for the case at hand. Too much demand placed on an inadequate PSU will kill it in short order, and may also kill some of your system components in the process, just like a 200 shot of nitrous in your daily driver is most likely make a piston exit through your oil pan.

Uhh... did you just do a 180 and now you are agreeing w/ me? You are now saying that too much demand on a weak psu will kill it... so that means get a better one, not a $30 POS. Your short block is still a mechanical connection and not an electrical one. VERY different. IMO your short block is more akin to the mobo than the psu, but I don't want an argument over what you say that you said that you meant. 😉 That is not the point that either of us are getting at.

No, I did read that. It is utter horse manure. Use the proper equipment to handle this job, not a PSU.

Once again, (third time now) it's not the PSU's job to weather power surges or protect from brown outs. Get a line conditioner if it's that bad.

wow, just wow... "third time"? this is the FIRST time I have heard you say this, as AFAIK I was the only one in this thread mentioning brown outs as something to consider... and did I say that the psu was replacing a line conditioner? no. I am merely saying that many ppl do not know how bad their home wiring is and it can fry a lesser psu... it goes w/o saying that if you KNOW there is a problem you should get the conditioner/backup IN ADDITION to a good psu. duh.

Now that's completely wrong. The components in the computer will always consume the same max amount of power as long as the components are never changed. Once again, you start talking about the link between the power outlet and the PSU. The inefficiency of the PSU is only important for the additional amount of power consumed from the outlet

which is what I was saying, so no... it is not completely wrong. You are re-forming what I am saying. My mentioning efficiency was only for a LOWER ELECTRIC BILL, which I stated earlier.

, it is never factored into the max amount of output of PSU can deliver (i.e, a 300 watt psu w/80% efficiency can theoretically consume 375 watts from the outlet while delivering 300 watts of power to the computer components).

The delivery wattage on a cheap one is AT BEST the stated output, and if you read many reviews of said psus you will find that most do NOT make that mark as a whole or even on individual rails.

PFC only helps reduce apparent power (something a home user isn't even billed for). It's line conditioning abilities are woefully inadequate when compared to a real line conditioner.

I never claimed otherwise, only that it is one more way to ensure stability that a cheap one does not have.

Exactly my point, thank you. Why pay for that high end PSU now, especially if it might be 3 years before upgrading the computer? 3 years of capacitor aging takes its toll on any PSU, not just the cheap ones.

You missed what I meant there, I said after time passes a cheap one will fail SOONER than a good one. Yes it takes its toll on all psus, but the cheap ones use lower end, shorter life caps and parts. My 430 watt enermax (on a secondary system now) that cost me $100 in 2002 is STILL rocking on massive system upgrades and oc's... MY point with the time factor is that the higher end psu will last longer and is thus worth the expense.

Of course I agree that it's better to be to a err on the side of caution with your PSU purchases, but in the case of this build, the computers only consume 100 watts, max load, yet we have a 500 watt PSU. That's overkill. It's like killing an ant colony with an atomic bomb. I recommended a $20 300 watt PSU of reputable quality, as it is much cheaper and much more in line with the power consumption of the computers at hand, while still offering enough reserve capacity for modest upgrades. Especially since this is a budget build, I find a $100 PSU to be more of a complete waste of precious budget money than I find it to be in line with Boy Scout motto.

Like I said, I am not championing the requirement for an expensive psu... only that IF (don't miss that word) you buy one, it is NOT a waste. That is my whole point, again... nothing more.

Like my aforementioned enermax, it has been going for so many years (on a comp that is on and running something a solid 5 days a week now and was my primary gamer for the first 3 years being on 7 days) that I am truly thankful that I paid the money for it long after the original comp it was for was turned into a frankenstein.

 

[joefriday]

Uhh... did you just do a 180 and now you are agreeing w/ me? You are now saying that too much demand on a weak psu will kill it... so that means get a better one, not a $30 POS.

Of course I agree that too much demand on a weak PSU will kill it. There's no argument in that. The example given was to counter your argument that a PSU and a shortblock are not analogous. You stated that the shortblock "supports", and a PSU "prevents", and thus are not the same. Well, this exampled showed that a properly built performance shortblock "prevents" catastrophic engine failure in a high performance engine as compared to bolting speed parts on a stock shortblock. In other words, it is able to "support" a higher horsepower engine reliably, and hence it is a justified analogy. As for you comment that a $30 PSU is a POS, I beg to differ. There is such a thing as a quality PSU at a low price.

Your short block is still a mechanical connection and not an electrical one. VERY different.

Thanks for stating the obvious. However, the concept of durability still applies.

which is what I was saying, so no... it is not completely wrong. You are re-forming what I am saying. My mentioning efficiency was only for a LOWER ELECTRIC BILL, which I stated earlier.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood what is was you were attempting to convey with that message. I thought you were alleging that % efficiency and PFC actually mattered in the ability of a PSU to supply reliable power to the system.

The delivery wattage on a cheap one is AT BEST the stated output, and if you read many reviews of said psus you will find that most do NOT make that mark as a whole or even on individual rails.

Hence the word theoretically.

You missed what I meant there, I said after time passes a cheap one will fail SOONER than a good one. Yes it takes its toll on all psus, but the cheap ones use lower end, shorter life caps and parts. My 430 watt enermax (on a secondary system now) that cost me $100 in 2002 is STILL rocking on massive system upgrades and oc's... MY point with the time factor is that the higher end psu will last longer and is thus worth the expense.

Now I see the root of this argument. You seem to think that cheap=rubbish. That doesn't have to be the case. There are cheap power supplies that are still very reliable. The point that I and everyone else here are making is that, in this case, where there is a $500 cap on the budget, splurging $100 for a PSU is a gross waste of budgeted money that could have gone instead to a $30-$50 psu that offers just as much quality and reliability as the $100 psu (but would almost certainly have a lower max power rating), and then apply money saved towards a more competent graphics card (being a gaming build and all).

I'm not saying the $100 PSU is OVERPRICED. It may very well offer up great value for the money. What I am saying is that the PSU is OVER BUDGET for this build. That's about as simple as I can put it.

 

[darklife41]

Shoot, they should hire one of you guys to write reviews/articles for them... I learn more reading what you guys write after the Tom's Hardware articles than actually reading the article itself.

Where do you think these reviewers come from? What's sad to me is that everytime a review comes out lately, it's torn up by 80% of the readers.

Read through this thread from beginning to end. Everyone has a different opinion about what are the best components for these cheap rigs. It wouldn't really matter which ones were used on the article, someone would argue that there are better choices.

I think the article did a decent job at showing cheap builds that'll play most mainstream games today acceptably. And that was the point, which most of these author bashers seemed to have missed.

It's one thing to list your choices and state your reasons why. It's quite another to bash the author.

 

[TSIMonster]

Are you serious?

Can anyone else believe that he is trusting his nice system on an Apevia PSU?

 

[tlmck]

Where do you think these reviewers come from? What's sad to me is that everytime a review comes out lately, it's torn up by 80% of the readers.

Read through this thread from beginning to end. Everyone has a different opinion about what are the best components for these cheap rigs. It wouldn't really matter which ones were used on the article, someone would argue that there are better choices.

I think the article did a decent job at showing cheap builds that'll play most mainstream games today acceptably. And that was the point, which most of these author bashers seemed to have missed.

It's one thing to list your choices and state your reasons why. It's quite another to bash the author.

I think the purpose of the articles are to generate discussion, and thus, get more "eyes on the page"(an advertising term). In that respect, they are very successful.

 

[darklife41]

Can anyone else believe that he is trusting his nice system on an Apevia PSU?

I believe it. I don't know anything about Apevia PSUs, but we've been building countless systems with the PSU's provided in our $40-$50 Hyka and Unistar cases for 5 years and never had one come back with problems. These cases use Speed, LGT, Codegen and Usicase PSUs. We always use cases with a 500/550w PSU. The only time we use a name brand PSU is when we're building a system for SLI/Crossfire that requires more than 550w. All of our systems are also sold with a surge protector.

I have had a couple of Codegen PSUs come in for repairs due to lightning strikes, but I don't think name brand PSUs fare any better in that situation as we've had more Antec PSUs come back in the same time frame. In every case, it was only the PSU that suffered damage.

There's no doubt that years ago PSUs were a major factor in failing components. Most PSU brands have come a long way since then, as to where they are no longer a problem. I think this name brand PSU crap is all hype and irrelevant to the average PC user/gamer.

 

[zenmaster]

I'm not saying the $100 PSU is OVERPRICED. It may very well offer up great value for the money. What I am saying is that the PSU is OVER BUDGET for this build. That's about as simple as I can put it.

Agreed.
What some people are failing to realize that with a fixed budget, you can't have both.

The extra $60 spent on the PSU cannot be spent on other parts.
Spend the Money on a 2nd GB of RAM and A more powerful GPU.
Swap CPU for a more powerful X2 at the same price.

Even the author of the article failed this simple test.
His $500 system was far from a $500 System.

I don't get the point of living with a substandard computer today, so that in 2-3 years when you upgrade the PSU is still usable. Sigh.............

 

[nubie]

I see everyone ignored my post, the Celeron Conroe-L is capable of 2.8-3Ghz operation on stock cooling and is only a Single core.

Since it is only $50 for 3Ghz "Core" tech it is a good processor, put your money in a Zalman and RAMsinks for overclocking your 7600/7900/8600 card for the money and walk away with a screamer.

If you want to spend $99 on a PSU, get the Silencer 470 from PCPower and Cooling, it is a super PSU and is so quiet I never hear it.

As I alluded to you can build a better/faster system for less than $500, say $300-400.

Real Gamers will not be happy you steered them wrong, but at least you are selling lousy Video cards (PS gamers don't care about saving power or watching HD-DVD, so HDCP is useless for them), and the video card companies must really like you.

The 7900 is not a hot card, the 7800 IS a hot card, don't lump them together, PLEASE. One is built on old tech, the other on new.

 

[darklife41]

Nubie,

I can't speak for anyone else.. but I ignored your post for 2 reasons.

1: The Conroe L Celeron is no longer available here at any price, and for that matter neither is the Pentium, Pentium D, nor any other Celeron. I'm glad the article didn't try to promote obsolete products.

2: I don't think a Celeron at any speed will make for a sufficient gaming system. The E2160 will blow away any Pentium, Pentium D, or Celeron, except for the extremes at stock speeds. Plus, the E2160 has great overclocking potential, and much moreso than any Celeron. C2D is a whole new ball game. You can't compare GHz of the P-D/Celeron to GHz of the C2D and expect the speeds to be similar. That would be like saying my E6750 at 3.0GHz is the same speed as the Celeron 3.0GHz. Trust me, it's not even close. ;-)

 

[KyleSTL]

The Conroe-L processors are still available. Here there are at Newegg for $44, $54, $66:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2+50001157+40000343+1050706981+1051707842&name=LGA+775

darklife, I don't really understand your statement 1 since the Celeron Conroe-L is based on 65nm tech and is on the Core mircroarchitecture and indeed IS a Celeron part (at least by name).

I do agree with you as the small cache (512KB) is a big handicap for the processor.

But, this chip is pretty powerful on a budget. Check out this (very early) review by Xbit:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/conroe-l-preview_3.html#sect1

You will see that it waxes the fastest Netburst Celeron at stock speed (in a lot of the tests) and on the next page at 3.0 Ghz it can match a stock Pentium D 925 (or best in some tests) and in some tests it even beats a stock E4300.

However, with more programming going the route of multiple threads, this chip will be out dated in the near future and simply will not be able to compete. It is a good buy for the rediculously low price, and can be swapped out for a Q6600 in the future.

 

[Joe_The_Dragon]

Way pay $66 for a single core low end cpu when you can get amd dual core for the same price and better MB for less then a good Intel board for OCing.

 

[KyleSTL]

I understand that, but the Celeron argument has some merit, too.

 

[Joe_The_Dragon]

not at that price and much higher cost of good intel MB

 

[KyleSTL]

The entry-level Celeron Conroe-L is $44 and has a high IPC than anything else in the price range. You can pick up a G31 or G33 motherboard pretty cheaply (starting at $70), and while it may not have RAID, Firewire, etc they are good chipsets that support next gen processors (something AMD refuses to guarantee with there current offerings). There is a gap in price between Intel and AMD motherboards, but this gap is closing.