Mid-Range to High-End Buyer's Guide, January 2006
by Jarred Walton on January 2, 2006 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Display Recommendations
I've left the displays for last, and since this is Mid-Range and above, the choices will be confined to LCDs. Your eyes have to stare at the computer screen for hours at a time (at least, if you use a computer as much as most of us at AnandTech do), so skimping on the display is a poor choice. I've always been a proponent of overspending on displays, from my first 21" CRT 10 years ago to my recent upgrade to a Dell 2405FPW. There's no such thing as having a display that's "too big" if you ask me...although, dropping a 32" LCD TV on your desk is probably getting close to proving me wrong. It's too bad that LCD TVs are mostly limited to 1366x768 or lower resolutions, as otherwise, they could be a cost-effective alternative for large computer LCDs. Most of us can only dream of owning the 30" Apple Cinema displays, unfortunately.
Mid-Range LCD Recommendation: Acer AL1914smd 19 inch 8ms LCD
Price: $293 shipped (Retail)
Other than a slight drop in price, our LCD recommendation remains with the Acer AL1914smd 19" display. There are better 19" LCDs out there, but they all cost quite a bit more. One thing that you really need to look for is actual color depth. There are many low response time LCDs that only have 6-bit color depths and use dithering to approximate 24-bit color. The result can range from satisfactory to mildly annoying, and I would sacrifice a bit in the way of response times for better colors. The Acer certainly isn't the best in terms of colors, but the documentation appears to indicate that it is a native 8-bit panel, so at least dithering won't be required, and the price is right.
If you're looking for guaranteed 8-bit panels and are willing to spend a bit more money, upgrading to a 20" LCD - 1600x1200 standard aspect ratio or 1680x1050 widescreen - would be a better choice than looking at more expensive 19" panels. The Dell 2005FPW and 2001FP are both good choices. If you don't want to buy a Dell LCD, you might look at the Samsung 204T (20" 4:3 AR) or the Philips 200W6CB/27 (20" WS) or 200P4VS/74 (20" 4:3 AR), although you can almost certainly get a Dell on sale for less money than any of those. All five of these - the Dell, Samsung, and Philips models - are 16ms displays, but response times become less important once you get below 20ms. I don't have issues with most 16ms displays when gaming, but you might want to try out a display in person before making a purchase, as some people still feel that there's too much "motion blur" when gaming.
High-End LCD Recommendation: Acer AL2416Wd 24 inch 6ms LCD
Price: $980 shipped (Retail)
The High-End display choice is really high-end, so if spending $1000 on a quality display is too much, you might want to go back and read that last paragraph again. You can get two good quality 20" LCDs for the price of a single 24" LCD, but I've always preferred a single large display. Acer gets the recommendation again, though there are quite a few reasonable alternatives. First, the good points of the Acer. You can find it for $980 online, without any need to wait for a sale. It's a 24" 1920x1200 panel, and it boasts a 6 ms pixel response time - the best of any current 23/24" LCD, though there is definitely an element of marketing in the various manufacturer response times. $1000 is a lot of money to spend on just the display, but hopefully, the display will last you at least five years, and your eyes might thank you later.
Let's look at some of the other alternatives. The Dell 2405FPW is actually better in several areas: it has S-VIDEO, Composite, Component, DVI, and VGA connections, and you can switch between the five at the press of a button. (I have mine connected to two different PCs, and I've found this feature to be very useful.) If you can find the Dell on sale, you can get it for less money than the Acer, but you might end up waiting months for the right opportunity. The HP L2335 and Philips 230W5VS are 23" LCDs that are similar in price to the Acer, give or take $50. The extra inch of display size is going to be difficult to notice, but paying more for less is questionable. Warranties on most large LCDs are 3 years from the manufacturer, though you'll want to double-check on pixel defect policies before buying most likely. Sony also has a 23" display, the SDM-P234, but at $200 more than the HP and Philips, you're just paying extra for the name.
In the end, the decision comes down to the Dell and the Acer. The Acer wasn't around when I purchased my 2405FPW, or else it would probably be sitting on my desk. Still, if you're living in an apartment or dorm room and don't have a lot of space for a TV and a computer, the Dell can multitask between the two, with 720p and 1080i/p support. For a high-end system, there is nothing as likely to inspire awe and envy as a great looking display, and the 24" LCDs are the display to have these days. A friend came over with his 7800 GTX SLI system sporting an X2 4800+ a few months ago, and upon seeing the 2405FPW connected to my "pathetic" 6800GT/3200+, he was ready to return a few parts just so that he could upgrade monitors. Four years from now, any current CPU/GPU combination is going to be outdated, but you can still continue to run a 24" LCD happily until it finally breaks down. Money well spent, if you ask me.
I've left the displays for last, and since this is Mid-Range and above, the choices will be confined to LCDs. Your eyes have to stare at the computer screen for hours at a time (at least, if you use a computer as much as most of us at AnandTech do), so skimping on the display is a poor choice. I've always been a proponent of overspending on displays, from my first 21" CRT 10 years ago to my recent upgrade to a Dell 2405FPW. There's no such thing as having a display that's "too big" if you ask me...although, dropping a 32" LCD TV on your desk is probably getting close to proving me wrong. It's too bad that LCD TVs are mostly limited to 1366x768 or lower resolutions, as otherwise, they could be a cost-effective alternative for large computer LCDs. Most of us can only dream of owning the 30" Apple Cinema displays, unfortunately.
Mid-Range LCD Recommendation: Acer AL1914smd 19 inch 8ms LCD
Price: $293 shipped (Retail)
Other than a slight drop in price, our LCD recommendation remains with the Acer AL1914smd 19" display. There are better 19" LCDs out there, but they all cost quite a bit more. One thing that you really need to look for is actual color depth. There are many low response time LCDs that only have 6-bit color depths and use dithering to approximate 24-bit color. The result can range from satisfactory to mildly annoying, and I would sacrifice a bit in the way of response times for better colors. The Acer certainly isn't the best in terms of colors, but the documentation appears to indicate that it is a native 8-bit panel, so at least dithering won't be required, and the price is right.
If you're looking for guaranteed 8-bit panels and are willing to spend a bit more money, upgrading to a 20" LCD - 1600x1200 standard aspect ratio or 1680x1050 widescreen - would be a better choice than looking at more expensive 19" panels. The Dell 2005FPW and 2001FP are both good choices. If you don't want to buy a Dell LCD, you might look at the Samsung 204T (20" 4:3 AR) or the Philips 200W6CB/27 (20" WS) or 200P4VS/74 (20" 4:3 AR), although you can almost certainly get a Dell on sale for less money than any of those. All five of these - the Dell, Samsung, and Philips models - are 16ms displays, but response times become less important once you get below 20ms. I don't have issues with most 16ms displays when gaming, but you might want to try out a display in person before making a purchase, as some people still feel that there's too much "motion blur" when gaming.
High-End LCD Recommendation: Acer AL2416Wd 24 inch 6ms LCD
Price: $980 shipped (Retail)
The High-End display choice is really high-end, so if spending $1000 on a quality display is too much, you might want to go back and read that last paragraph again. You can get two good quality 20" LCDs for the price of a single 24" LCD, but I've always preferred a single large display. Acer gets the recommendation again, though there are quite a few reasonable alternatives. First, the good points of the Acer. You can find it for $980 online, without any need to wait for a sale. It's a 24" 1920x1200 panel, and it boasts a 6 ms pixel response time - the best of any current 23/24" LCD, though there is definitely an element of marketing in the various manufacturer response times. $1000 is a lot of money to spend on just the display, but hopefully, the display will last you at least five years, and your eyes might thank you later.
Let's look at some of the other alternatives. The Dell 2405FPW is actually better in several areas: it has S-VIDEO, Composite, Component, DVI, and VGA connections, and you can switch between the five at the press of a button. (I have mine connected to two different PCs, and I've found this feature to be very useful.) If you can find the Dell on sale, you can get it for less money than the Acer, but you might end up waiting months for the right opportunity. The HP L2335 and Philips 230W5VS are 23" LCDs that are similar in price to the Acer, give or take $50. The extra inch of display size is going to be difficult to notice, but paying more for less is questionable. Warranties on most large LCDs are 3 years from the manufacturer, though you'll want to double-check on pixel defect policies before buying most likely. Sony also has a 23" display, the SDM-P234, but at $200 more than the HP and Philips, you're just paying extra for the name.
In the end, the decision comes down to the Dell and the Acer. The Acer wasn't around when I purchased my 2405FPW, or else it would probably be sitting on my desk. Still, if you're living in an apartment or dorm room and don't have a lot of space for a TV and a computer, the Dell can multitask between the two, with 720p and 1080i/p support. For a high-end system, there is nothing as likely to inspire awe and envy as a great looking display, and the 24" LCDs are the display to have these days. A friend came over with his 7800 GTX SLI system sporting an X2 4800+ a few months ago, and upon seeing the 2405FPW connected to my "pathetic" 6800GT/3200+, he was ready to return a few parts just so that he could upgrade monitors. Four years from now, any current CPU/GPU combination is going to be outdated, but you can still continue to run a 24" LCD happily until it finally breaks down. Money well spent, if you ask me.
67 Comments
View All Comments
Reldan - Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - link
As awesome as a 30" Apple Cinema is, have you considered the prospects of using a much larger HDTV? I use a 65" HP MD6580n, and it's the best monitor I've ever owned bar none. It's ridiculously huge but the picture remains sharp at 1920 X 1080, especially with the wobulation tech which removes most if not all of the screen door effect you might have with a set this size.I know that a big deal is being made about these awesome 30" monitors from Apple and now Dell, but HDTV technology has progressed to the point where in my mind there is no better choice for high-end gaming.
gman003 - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
So my question to everyone is, is 2GB really worth the $100 upgrade compared to 1GB. Can you get decent memory to overclock with at 2GB? If I was planning to run a DFI LanParty Ultra-D board, would I really use the same 2GB memory Jarrod recommended for the HighEnd system for my overclocking purposes?I guess the biggest thing that struck me from the article was that you could probably get away using an old ATA133 7200rpm Drive as long as you have 2GB of memory. Should I really sacrifice not upgrading my hard drive so that I can have 2GB of memory?
flamethrower - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
You can check out the following article. The gist is that you get better loading times with more ram, the article will show you the results from changing various ram amounts in a high-end setup.http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ra...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/13/how_much_ra...
I apologize for linking to an outside site, but I don't think the content is available on Anandtech. Maybe you guys should think about (or point me to) your article on this topic.
Finally, you wanted to know "Is it worth it?" Only you can answer this question. My personal opinion is that it is, but you might be building a budget system and not have the budget for 2GB RAM. As Jarred points out: "You are not going to notice 60 fps vs. 63, but you are going to notice a 38 sec loading time vs 63" or something like that.
gman003 - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
Ok, maybe I will clarify:I am building a budget $800 system and want to know what will give me better performance.
Should I stay with 2 gigs of ram and not upgrade my old ATA 133 7200rpm 200GB drive or get 1 gig of ram and upgrade my hard drive to a new 3.0GB SATA 7200rpm 250GB.
Yeah, I've read that article too. But I mean, c'mon? With 2 gigs of ram, you don't notice any significant advantages in like 9 out of 10 tests with the only significant thing being load times/heavy multitasking. I don't know if I can justify $100 to load World of Warcraft 30 seconds sooner when I'm more concerned with FPS, video encoding, and large file transfers. IMO I think the the $100 could be spent on a HD or even better, a cooler mobo and/or case for the system.
JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - link
Generally speaking, for games you want GPU speed first, and CPU speed second. RAM speed and quanitity as well as HDDs are distant fourth/fifth place finishes. Once you've got the others at a reasonable speed, though - where diminishing returns kicks in - then you should start looking at upgrading the RAM and then the HDD. That's my take, anyway.flamethrower - Sunday, January 8, 2006 - link
What do you guys think about an Opteron 165 or 170 instead of the X2 4200+? The 170 and the 4200+ are about the same price.JarredWalton - Monday, January 9, 2006 - link
If you're willing to overclock, there's no real reason to go any higher than the 165/170 Opty or the X2 3800+. I've got a 165 that OCs to around 2.5 GHz with the stock HSF. I'm going to try a few changes to the system to see if I can go further than 2.5 GHz, but there's really not that great of a need.pg55555 - Thursday, January 5, 2006 - link
If you are looking for performance, I think RAID 0 is a valid alternative that is often forgoten in the guidesJarredWalton - Saturday, January 7, 2006 - link
I've used RAID 0 and found it to largely be a waste of time and money. RAID 1 and 5 I can understand, but in terms of improving load times, running 2GB of RAM has done far more for me than running RAID 0. It's just a lot of hassle for negligible performance increases IMO.archcommus - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I was pretty definite that the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 has better sound quality and bass than the z-5500. Now that AT recommended the Logitech even for the high-end system, I'm not so sure.I really like my music and am in the market for a new 5.1 system. Should I go z-5500 or Klipsch ProMedia Ultra?