Will this be the new budget combo for a few years from now on?

[asintu]

ATI Express200 mobo + celeron d (64bit) (or maybe even sempron 64..who knows?)

 

[Tostada]

Huh? What's a 64-bit Celeron D?

The Radeon Xpress 200 has pretty good on-board video, but that's really its only strong point. It's too expensive to be a budget board and too slow to be a non-budget board.

The Radeon Xpress 200's video isn't enough to make it a good chipset, and it doesn't make sense as a budget chipset when there are no Socket 478 or 754 versions. LGA 775 is $90 for a CPU that can't outperform an old Socket A system, and Socket 939 CPUs start at $150. If you're going to get a Socket 939 Athlon64 it really deserves to be in a chipset that doesn't cripple it, and you might as well get some kind of real video card, even if it's just a $30 Radeon 9200 SE.

The Socket A platform is getting pretty tired, but if you want a better budget system with integrated video you're probably stuck with a VIA UniChrome board (can get a K8M800 board for $65) and a Socket 754 Sempron (can get a retail 2200+ for $60). If you want an LGA 775 board, you can get a VIA PM800 UniChrome board for $50 or an Intel 865GV board for $60, but you'd probably be better off with a Socket A system. The Intel Radeon boards are about $105 and the Socket 939 ones are about $90. It's just not a good deal.

Hopefully the next ATI chipset will be really good. The first NForce chipset sucked, after all.

 

[stevty2889]

I don't think the 64bit celerons are out yet, nor am I sure that chipset supports them, so it's hard to say right now. A socket A or Socket 754 sempron would be a good choice as well. I don't think there will be any 64 bit semprons...

 

[asintu]

celeron d with 64 bit will be out in a few weeks i think
if you build a new system these days..it would only make sense to go with 64 bit CPU....cause if you upgrade it later on...that's more money...so not really "budget system"

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: asintu
if you build a new system these days..it would only make sense to go with 64 bit CPU

64-bit + budget doesn't make sense at this time. There is currently zero benefit to a 64-bit system, and even when XP 64 hits retail it will still be a long time before we have a reasonable number of apps that get a legitimate boost from 64-bit.

Two years from now 64-bit will make a difference. Now it doesn't. Right now going with 64-bit adds a decent amount to the price of a budget system, so it's really hard to justify. Socket 754 Athlon64s start at $120 while Socket 754 Semprons start at $60. Two years from now you should be able to upgrade to the best 64-bit Socket 754 chip made for that $60 you saved.

Regardless, you're making absolutely no sense. You start a thread to talk about a crappy chipset and a CPU that doesn't exist yet then you change the subject to how much everybody needs 64-bit. Try to determine what your point is before you argue it.

 

[Matthias99]

The Radeon Xpress 200 has pretty good on-board video, but that's really its only strong point. It's too expensive to be a budget board and too slow to be a non-budget board.

The Radeon Xpress 200's video isn't enough to make it a good chipset, and it doesn't make sense as a budget chipset when there are no Socket 478 or 754 versions. LGA 775 is $90 for a CPU that can't outperform an old Socket A system, and Socket 939 CPUs start at $150. If you're going to get a Socket 939 Athlon64 it really deserves to be in a chipset that doesn't cripple it, and you might as well get some kind of real video card, even if it's just a $30 Radeon 9200 SE.

I haven't tried one yet, but Anandtech gave the board a fairly glowing review:

No matter how we compare the performance the ATI RX480 is competitive or a bit faster than the best Socket 939 boards we have tested at AnandTech. That in itself would be reason enough to suggest a long, hard look at the ATI RX480 chipset, but there's more. ATI also did their homework in this go round; delivering a board that will excite any enthusiast who gives it a whirl.

TechReport was pretty impressed, too:

The Radeon Xpress 200 is a bit of a surprise, not just because it's the first AMD-oriented chipset from ATI or because it's possibly going to hit the market before the other guys' PCI Express offerings. It's a surprise because it's so darned good. With the integration of the memory controller into the Athlon 64 chipset, the last great barrier to would-be competitors in the core logic game evaporated. In its first attempt, ATI has managed to field an Athlon 64 chipset with competitive overall performance, and they're unlikely to be outdone by upcoming offerings from VIA and NVIDIA. Instead of playing from a position of weakness as a newcomer to the Athlon 64 chipset game, ATI is able to come from a position of strength as the long-time leader in DirectX 9 graphics.

They did knock it for the lack of RAID and NCQ support in its SATA controller, and I guess its USB performance was somewhat subpar. The onboard sound also lacks standard Realtek drivers at this point. These might all be remedied in the Xpress400.

I haven't seen any evidence that the Xpress200 "cripples" performance -- if anything, it's neck-and-neck with NForce4/K8T800 in almost everything. It could be a pretty solid choice for a (relatively) cheap S939 system that could then have a *lot* of upgrade potential (assuming dual-core CPUs work on these boards).

 

[Tostada]

Matthias99:

This is all of course irrelevant since you're talking about the 939 version and the poster was talking about an Intel system ... but did any of those reviews have actual benchmarks?

Everybody gave the RX200 glowing previews, but what about the final product? Notice that 2nd quote says it might hit the market before other PCI-E boards. That certainly didn't happen. There are plenty PCI-E boards, but the RX200 is barely available. I've only seen the MSI one and very recently the ECS one.

These are the only actual numbers I've seen for the MSI RX200 board, and it's pretty grim:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1784837,00.asp

It's as much as 20% behind an NForce 4 board. That's terrible. Unless those benchmarks are completely bogus, a much cheaper Socket 754 system would have comparable performance to an RX200 setup.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Tostada
Matthias99:

This is all of course irrelevant since you're talking about the 939 version and the poster was talking about an Intel system ... but did any of those reviews have actual benchmarks?

Everybody gave the RX200 glowing previews, but what about the final product? Notice that 2nd quote says it might hit the market before other PCI-E boards. That certainly didn't happen. There are plenty PCI-E boards, but the RX200 is barely available. I've only seen the MSI one and very recently the ECS one.

Both those reviews I linked had performance numbers, although both were benching an ATI-produced reference board, not the shipping MSI model. Performance was on-par with NF4 and K8T800, except for the USB issue noted above and the lack of some features in the audio drivers.

These are the only actual numbers I've seen for the MSI RX200 board, and it's pretty grim:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1784837,00.asp

It's as much as 20% behind an NForce 4 board. That's terrible. Unless those benchmarks are completely bogus, a much cheaper Socket 754 system would have comparable performance to an RX200 setup.

Interesting... I had not seen that review (probably because it came out last week when I was on vacation). That much of a difference between the reference board and shipping product suggests that either MSI screwed something up, or maybe the testers were having driver problems, etc.? I have not seen any reports other than this that the MSI board has noticeable performance issues, though... I'll have to dig into it some more.

Edit:

Here's a review/preview of the MSI non-IGP board: OCWorkbench review. Performance is just a few percent below an NF4 board, so I don't know what the problem is with the other MSI board...

 

[asintu]

Originally posted by: Tostada

Originally posted by: asintu
if you build a new system these days..it would only make sense to go with 64 bit CPU

64-bit + budget doesn't make sense at this time. There is currently zero benefit to a 64-bit system, and even when XP 64 hits retail it will still be a long time before we have a reasonable number of apps that get a legitimate boost from 64-bit.

Two years from now 64-bit will make a difference. Now it doesn't. Right now going with 64-bit adds a decent amount to the price of a budget system, so it's really hard to justify. Socket 754 Athlon64s start at $120 while Socket 754 Semprons start at $60. Two years from now you should be able to upgrade to the best 64-bit Socket 754 chip made for that $60 you saved.

Regardless, you're making absolutely no sense. You start a thread to talk about a crappy chipset and a CPU that doesn't exist yet then you change the subject to how much everybody needs 64-bit. Try to determine what your point is before you argue it.

now who's so dumb to buy an old 130nm sempron? assuming there are no 90nm semprons at 60 bucks

 

[asintu]

oh yeah..forgot...smepons 130nm are for socket A...so no upgrade to 64 bit there dude

 

[Tostada]

Originally posted by: asintu
now who's so dumb to buy an old 130nm sempron? assuming there are no 90nm semprons at 60 bucks

Originally posted by: asintu
oh yeah..forgot...smepons 130nm are for socket A...so no upgrade to 64 bit there dude

Pay attention. I said TWO YEARS FROM NOW. In two years, $60 will buy more than a Socket A Sempron. I was pointing out that 754 should still have a reasonable amount of upgradability in two years.

 

[shoRunner]

what i'd like to see is a ati xpress 200 follow the references design and have a dvi output. that would make it stand out.