AMD or Intel?

Lifonlyiwasyounger on 29/01/2014 - 15:24

I want to buy a new desktop computer for some serious web-browsing, movie viewing/downloading, photo viewing & editing, emailing and regular MS Office application usage (but no gaming). My budget, including Windows 7 and MS Office is approximately $800-900 (excluding monitor, keyboard & mouse).

I would be grateful for any informed advice re the following please:

  • AMD or Intel processor (which offers the best value-for-money for my usage?); and
  • Whether to buy a manufacturer's product (eg, Acer, ASUS, HP), or have a system built (noting that I would need recommendations for an appropriate system configuration and supplier).
Computing

Comments

  • kathmandu-jeff on 29/01/2014 - 15:50
    +4

    With your budget you can get an intel i5. AMD is more for budget computers (sub $500). You will also get better overall performance with intel. I would recommend getting a computer with an ssd if your budget allows.

    • ifonlyiwasyounger on 29/01/2014 - 15:59

      Thank you kathmandu-jeff. Would a 3rd generation i5 be okay? Can you recommend any suppliers who custom build?

      • kathmandu-jeff on 29/01/2014 - 16:26
        -1

        Even though the performance is similar between a 3rd and 4th gen processor, the chipset is better with the 4th gen processor. Therefore I would recommend a 4th gen processor.

      • deal seeking missile on 29/01/2014 - 17:07
        +2

        http://www.onlinecomputer.com.au/product_info.php?products_i…

        Here is the type of thing you're looking for, 4th gen i5, 8gb ram and 3tb of hhd. Only thing i might add to that is a $100 ssd just for the os.

        • Tnetennba on 31/01/2014 - 00:19
          +1

          Can't recommend an SSD enough. People overlook them but they provide ridiculous performance increases over regular HDD. Blazing fast compared to regular slowdrives.

  • klatscho on 29/01/2014 - 15:56
    +1

    … I agree with kathmandu-jeff, however your use-cases are perfectly suited to a budget system. I would therefore opt for an AMD system (substantially lower platform cost), and actually spend the money on an SSD and a nice monitor (with ips-panel) in case you don't have one

    • ifonlyiwasyounger on 29/01/2014 - 16:03

      Thank you klatscho. What type of AMD processor would you recommend, and what size SSD would I need? I am considering getting a Dell monitor.

  • donkeydoc on 29/01/2014 - 16:19
    +1

    Go for the i5, definitely worth it, it's best value

  • macrocephalic on 29/01/2014 - 16:25
    +2

    I know it's not very specific, but when I built a new machine 18 months ago I realised I didn't even need an i5, I went with an i3 and I've had no problems with it. I don't play many games either.

  • xyned on 29/01/2014 - 16:47
    +1

    3rd gen intel i5. Works faster in a straight line than AMD. Go for MSY if in NSW or VIC.
    Also, recommend the following

    1. Spacious case - Easy to clean, well ventilated
    2. SSD 128gb + HDD for storage or 256gb SSD
    3. 8 GB ram minimum
  • humdingaling on 29/01/2014 - 16:47
    +2

    on your budget i would go i3 or AMD and not even consider the i5

    considering you want to buy windows and office
    roughly 200 of your budget goes to this
    *Microsoft Office 2013 Home and Student Activated Key Pack $79
    *OEM 64 bit MS Win7 Home Premium $109

    another 130-200 odd goes to monitor (21" monitor should be the least, no one should be using anything smaller)
    21.5” 5ms Benq GL2250 - $129 (not recommending just using as price guide)
    and you can get budget kb/mouse for about 20-30 bucks

    so before you even look at computer components you are down 360 off your budget
    really you are after a $500 computer

    4g ram - single $50
    WD 1tb green - 68
    PSU - Corsair VS350 - $45 (use a brand name at the very least)
    Case - Thermaltake USB3.0 Commander MS-II - $60

    now this said the cheapest i5 you can get is around 220
    b85 platform m/b ~$80-90 (you could go on the H81 saving you 10 odd bucks as well)

    leaving you with something just under 900 mark @ 893

    SSD is a premium you cannot afford (*if you choose the i5, may be able to squeeze a boot drive SSD if you go i3 or AMD)

    SSD as boot drive would be approx 70-80 but you would still need a regular storage drive
    SSD as only drive (would not do unless its at least 250g) and those are around 200 bucks not ideal for budget computer

    *disclaimer
    all parts prices from MSY pdf

    • ozhunter on 29/01/2014 - 16:54
      +1

      He doesn't need to buy a monitor, mouse, or keyboard.

      • humdingaling on 29/01/2014 - 17:02

        whoops read including because he was talking about getting a dell monitor X_X

        still wouldnt go with i5 though
        i3 or fx6300 with ssd boot drive would be plenty

    • OBone on 30/01/2014 - 20:54
      +1

      Nothing wrong with an i3 for this application.

  • ozhunter on 29/01/2014 - 17:00

    Budgetpc and Cpl have had good deals late last year on already built desktops such as this one https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/128935 though neither of them have posted deals this year.

  • ifonlyiwasyounger on 29/01/2014 - 17:35

    Thank you to everyone for your advice and suggestions so far.
    A "friend-of-a-friend" has just sent me a link to this: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Intel-Quad-Core-i7-4770-3-4GHz-1T…
    Comments anyone on either the system config and/or the supplier?

    • donkeydoc on 29/01/2014 - 17:36

      reasonable price, you could save money with an i5 system ($100), if you build yourself you could get an i5 system with an SSD for same price.

    • Manh on 30/01/2014 - 19:41
      +1

      This eBay item doesn't include Windows or Office. Adding these two options will put it in the higher end of your budget (or possibly blow it — I didn't check what he's charging for the upgrades).

      Besides, i7 CPU is overkill for what you want to do. Worried about futureproofing? Even an i3 (or AMD A10-6000 series) will be futureproofing you for several years for what you want to do.

  • donkeydoc on 29/01/2014 - 17:55
    +2

    I'd recommend this:

    Motherboard: Asus b85m-g $92
    CPU: i5 4440 $212
    SSD: Samsung Evo 120gb $106
    HDD: Seagate Barracuda 1TB $68
    RAM: 8gb single patriot $86
    Optical: DVD rw LG $19
    Case: Thermatake Versa H22 /w PSU 500W $75

    Total $659

    Add another $70 assembly, also need Windows 7 as you do with the deal you linked, al alternative to MS office is OpenOffice which I prefer and it's free, it opens all MS Office documents and saves as MS documents and pretty much is the same thing.

    • ifonlyiwasyounger on 29/01/2014 - 18:06

      Thank you donkeydoc.
      Do you know where I can get this system already built? Perhaps MSY? (There is a store in Canberra).

      • donkeydoc on 29/01/2014 - 19:30

        Yeah MSY is where I got these prices,if you'd prefer a blu ray reader, it is $50-60 compared to the dvd writer which is $19, a blu ray burner is around $85

    • This Guy on 30/01/2014 - 05:20
      +2

      This is a good system, but I'd focus on maxing SSD size:

      Motherboard: AsRock B85M-PRO4 $87
      CPU: Pentium G3220 $69
      SSD: Samsung EVO 500GB $375
      HDD: not needed
      RAM: DDR3 8GB kit (2* 4GB sticks, cheapest brand) $89
      DVD: cheapest $19
      Case: Thermatake Versa H22 /w PSU 500W $75

      Total: $714

      OS: Win 8.1 64 bit $108
      Assembly: MSY from $70
      Office: Libre Office (free)

      Grand total: $892

      Basically I've cut DonkeyDoc's costs to get to the key parts Doc selected (good chipset, good CPU cores, duel channel memory and big SSD).

      • OBone on 30/01/2014 - 21:04
        +1

        +1 for Libre Office.

  • _Bruce_ on 29/01/2014 - 19:32
    +3

    You are highly unlikely to notice any different between an i3 and i5, save your money.

  • Simo82 on 30/01/2014 - 06:21

    If you are in Victoria i would recommend a guy in Altona, i have brought 2 computers from him and also a few mates got systems from him. i have no issues ever with them, you call him up , he builds it and delivers it to your door. plug in in and away you go. here is his link to the gumtree "store" http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-seller/JOSEPH/55381741
    (also ships interstate i believe)

    Simon.

  • niknah on 30/01/2014 - 09:57

    Consider getting a laptop.

    With the cost of electricity these days.
    Say you left the desktop turned on 24/7, at 150watts, 0.27c kwh per hour. That'll be $30 of electricity per month.
    If your desktop costs $800 and lasts you 3 years. That's $22.22 depreciation per month(36 months).

    So the electricity could be costing you more than the desktop!

    • _Bruce_ on 30/01/2014 - 10:59
      +5

      So your argument is based on the idea that a PC constantly uses 150W, and is left on all the time, and a laptop uses 0? A laptop will cost more and usually because of the battery die sooner, planning to compare costs there?

      The more sensible advice to save power would be consider something like this:

      http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/51803-gb-bxi3-4010

  • MrGareth on 30/01/2014 - 10:55
    +2

    If it was me, I'd be doing it like this…. (cut fron This Guy's post and modified with my recommendations)

    CPU: Pentium G3420 $78
    Mainboard: Gigabyte B85M-HD3 - $86
    SSD: Samsung 840 PRO Series SATA3 128G - $139
    HDD: Seagate 2Tb - $98
    RAM: 8G Kit 1600 G.Skill-NT $94
    DVD: cheapest $19
    Case: Thermatake Versa H22 /w PSU 500W $75
    Win 8.1 64 bit - $108 (Or windows 7 64-bit home premium)
    Microsoft Office 2013 Home and Student Activated Key Pack - $79

    Total - $776

    The new Pentiums are basically Haswell Core i3's with the hyperthreading disabled, so they're plain dual-core. Even that's way more than you need for web browsing and office work. And yep they can still handle games.

    You can actually get away with only 4Gb RAM though, perhaps look at getting one stick and adding another later on. Even with some serious web browsing I bet you'll rarely (if ever!) get anywhere near that limit. My desktop has 16Gb and I the only time I've gone anywhere near half that is when doing heavy photo editing in Lightroom. Never seen it go above 4gb otherwise (I don't really play games so I can't comment on how much RAM those need these days!).

    If you intend to actually game later, and want to add a decent graphics card though, I'd consider a case without a PSU and then purchasing an Antec PSU… which would bring it up closer to the $850 - $900 mark.

    (However I've got two of those Thermaltake cases, one running an old Core2Duo E8500 + ATI 6770 and the other running an old Core2Duo E8400 + 6570 and the PSU's in those thermaltake cases are still running fine!).

    • _Bruce_ on 30/01/2014 - 11:05
      +1

      The new Pentiums are basically Haswell Core i3's with the hyperthreading disabled, so they're plain dual-core. Even that's way more than you need for web browsing and office work. And yep they can still handle games.

      Perhaps, but for $57 more an i3 4130 will give you hyperthreading, higher clock and (importantly) a much improved GPU.

      If you intend to actually game later, and want to add a decent graphics card though, I'd consider a case without a PSU and then purchasing an Antec PSU… which would bring it up closer to the $850 - $900 mark.

      Even here, if the card you add is 150W or less (660/270 or lower) I would happily stick with the stock one.

      • MrGareth on 30/01/2014 - 11:29
        +2

        It really depends on what he's trying to do. You won't see a difference between a new Pentium vs i3 if you're just web browsing or creating Word documents. :) Yep it's only $57 more, but that's still close to twice the price of the pentium CPU itself. If it's all within budget I'd upgrade to the i3 though, it just depends on how much he really wants to spend :)

        These days any modern 3Ghz dual-core Intel CPU is very fast for running Windows. The key is to have an SSD as the boot disk :)

      • This Guy on 31/01/2014 - 00:59

        If you want a better GPU I'd use one of the new AMD APUs (CPU + GPU). Better driver support plus potential for some massive increases in performance in a few years.

        The i3 has a 6% faster clock than the Pentium Gareth selected. Hyperthreading can add around 30%, but only in some situations. I am a power user, but unless I'm gaming I rarely utilise more than 15% of my CPU and my CPU is clocked 10% faster than the Pentium (I have 3% utilisation for most tasks).

        That PSU has two 12V rails. If the 12V PCI express connector shares its rail with a power hungery device or two (say a DVD drive and hard drive), or the GPU is out of spec, adding a GPU may cause stability problems.

        • _Bruce_ on 31/01/2014 - 08:21

          Better driver support

          For AMD over Intel? Really?

          plus potential for some massive increases in performance in a few years.

          I'll take performance now thanks. The AMDs APUs overall just aren't competitve with Intel, even if the GPU has a slight edge.

          but unless I'm gaming I rarely utilise more than 15% of my CPU … (I have 3% utilisation for most tasks).

          This is a poor statistic. Most of the time the CPU is idle, sure, but when you hit it (task switching, open document, render web page, etc) you hit it 100%. It matters.

        • This Guy on 31/01/2014 - 10:33

          AMD graphics drivers tend to be independent of the motherboard and include optisemations for games. Intel graphics drivers need to be varified my your board manufacturer as not to break features.

          AMD are CPU competitive. While their core performance at the same clocks is ~30% less, AMD will sell you extra cores at the same price to make up the difference. And all this dosen't matter, because desktop CPU's have been generally data bottlenecked for the last five years.

          If a modern desktop hit 100% when switching tasks, opening a document, or rendering a web page then how can I do all of that on my phone which is a fair bit slower than even the worst of the worst AMD APUs (I'm looking at you C50).

          Even AMD's C50, a 3 year old, 1GHz processor doesn't hit 100% doing these tasks. 8 GBs of RAM and an SSD can make most CPU's from the last five years feel snappy.

          Sorry for the lake of quotes, I'm not sure how to do them.

        • _Bruce_ on 31/01/2014 - 11:02

          Intel graphics drivers need to be varified my your board manufacturer as not to break features.

          What? I've never heard of a motherboard manufacturer modifying Intel GPU drivers. It isnt' even on the motherbaord it's on the CPU. Have a source for this?

          AMD are CPU competitive. While their core performance at the same clocks is ~30% less, AMD will sell you extra cores at the same price to make up the difference

          .. which only 'makes up the difference' for highly threaded loads.

          If a modern desktop hit 100% when switching tasks, opening a document, or rendering a web page then how can I do all of that on my phone which is a fair bit slower than even the worst of the worst AMD APUs (I'm looking at you C50).

          Mostly because the phone keeps common screens on memory at all times, and you usually only change between a few common screens. When you have to load something new it does impact on your phone. This is also not noticed as much because of the input system, and you usually have your hand in the way at the time.

          Even AMD's C50, a 3 year old, 1GHz processor doesn't hit 100% doing these tasks.

          You don't understand how schedulers work. I have a job, I give it to the CPU and it runs 100% until I finish (or another job takes over). When you have down time of not running it brings the average down, but CPU cores either run 100% or 0%*. If you are using a program to monitor the load, it will average the On/Off over time (say, running for 100ms, not for 900ms will be '10%').

          * OK technically they can change clock rate, but that isn't what we are talking about here.

        • p1 ama on 31/01/2014 - 17:40

          Intel graphics drivers come directly from Intel's website and is on the CPU die.

          You're talking about like 10 years ago when the graphics was on the Southbridge, not anymore.

        • This Guy on 01/02/2014 - 01:50

          intel generic drivers can break features. My motherboard has HDMI pass though and a few other features. Generic intel drivers were not compatible when I tried updating them six months ago. Honestly I have not tried since.

          Many popular, modern programs are multithreaded. But that doesn't matter. If you are running antivirus, an operating system, a web browser and an email client you already have enough programs open to minimise the performance difference between an intel duel core with hyper treading and an AMD quad. Firefox, Outlook and Windows are all heavily threaded.

          Phones don’t have screenshots for fresh reloads of webpages. Screen catches are a memory latency and bandwidth band aide for large programs. Most phones use cheap eMMC for storage. eMMC sucks.

          Mate, I'm not sure which scheduler you are referring to. CPU's are general purpose. They are designed to complete a large variety of work as quick as possible. Modern cores have several parallel execution units. Each execution unit will be loaded up with multiple pieces of data during the same clock.

          All these concepts make CPUs faster. Scheduling a large variety of tasks down to very simple operations on limited hardware at the picosecond scale means there will rarely be a nanosecond when a modern CPU will truly be 100% utilised. This is especially true when code is high level like on a PC.

          I'm just being a dick because you said I don't understand schedulers :p
          Also your example CPU is 5Hz.

        • _Bruce_ on 02/02/2014 - 08:38

          If you are running antivirus, an operating system, a web browser and an email client you already have enough programs open to minimise the performance difference between an intel duel core with hyper treading and an AMD quad.

          This is really not true, it is rare that even two of those will want the CPU at the same time.

          Phones don’t have screenshots for fresh reloads of webpages.

          Yes, and the rendering it slow, but hidden by slow(ish) net speeds.

          All these concepts make CPUs faster. Scheduling a large variety of tasks down to very simple operations on limited hardware at the picosecond scale means there will rarely be a nanosecond when a modern CPU will truly be 100% utilised. This is especially true when code is high level like on a PC.

          Technically true but beside the point. If your integer section is used 100% and you don't need to do any floating point calculations, this makes no difference.

          I'm just being a dick because you said I don't understand schedulers :p

          And your still missing the basic point that suggesting your OS not reporting 100% CPU usage means that there is no advantage to a faster CPU is just wrong.

    • ifonlyiwasyounger on 30/01/2014 - 11:49

      Thank you webbiegareth.
      Can the system you described be built by a company such as my local MSY store?

      • humdingaling on 30/01/2014 - 12:37

        yes but MSY will charge you 70 to build it
        also being MSY no guarantee they will have exact stock =)

    • This Guy on 31/01/2014 - 01:01

      I used a large SSD because I've never known anyone with multiple drives (or partitions) to store their data and apps properly.

  • IdLikeToBeATree on 30/01/2014 - 12:28
    +3

    What's classed as serious web browsing? Never heard of that before :p

  • ESEMCE on 30/01/2014 - 13:30

    For your usage, the cheapest machine you can find will be more than sufficient.
    Even the new Bay Trail Atom CPU will suffice.
    You could even go for a second hand Core2Duo/Phenom era machine.

  • NaughtyBoy on 30/01/2014 - 15:34

    WHY get a desktop?
    Any cheap Laptop will do perfectly for you, just plug in an external monitor, keyboard and mouse.

    I have a Pentium 2117u laptop (this is a weak laptop) and it runs everything you mentioned perfectly and fast, I can even do light gaming on it. The laptop cost me $299 NEW 12 months warranty (check MSY for laptops, cheap prices crap service).

    All of the i3 or i5 suggestions above are a waste of money for what you said you need, unless of course you want to waste money. You can save yourself $300-$500.

    • _Bruce_ on 30/01/2014 - 15:43
      +3

      $299 will not get you an SSD and 4G RAM, which will not be 'perfectly fast' for most people. Also the cheapest at MSY is $399.

      And yes you can go cheaper, but why does that make a laptop better? Why not get a cheaper desktop if you are using an external keyboard and mouse anyway?

    • ifonlyiwasyounger on 30/01/2014 - 16:47

      I did consider buying a laptop and using it with an external monitor (in fact, this is my current set-up that is now 5 years old).
      I am finding it is now running slower than before, perhaps because of the 4GB RAM. I would like my new system to have an SSD - but I do not know whether a laptop would be cost-effective with 8GB RAM and an SSD.

      • _Bruce_ on 30/01/2014 - 17:45

        Most apps are still limited to 4G of RAM each, in most cases 8G doesn't help.

        • Gnostikos on 31/01/2014 - 01:07

          More RAM will not make single tasks "run" faster but will allow your PC to do many more tasks simultaneously without paging your primary HDD/SSD like crazy, which is when you experience slow-downs (because stepping down to your paging file is incredibly slower than accessing RAM).

          Very few single applications with the exception of things like VirtualBox, VMWare, Photoshop, Final Cut, 3dsmax, Sony Vegas Pro, AutoCAD/Revit, will actually use on the order of 4-12GB of RAM in intensive usage (but don't forget for some people those applications are their bread and butter), but for hardcore multi-taskers it is quite easy to rack up 40-70% physical memory usage of even 12GB of RAM.

          Hell in my Task Manager right now, Firefox is showing a peak memory working set of 1.2GB by itself (when I have god knows how many tabs open and god knows how many add-ons installed); combine that with a few other things (VOIP software, music players, some Office applications, image editors, a resource-hungry AV) and I have easily cracked the 4GB barrier. And that's without really doing any serious work; if I was doing CAD on here that's my RAM allowance blown out of the water.

          Also a lot of newer games with 64-bit executables will (e.g. Far Cry 3) can use just over 4GB of RAM at full pelt.

        • _Bruce_ on 31/01/2014 - 08:24

          it is quite easy to rack up 40-70% physical memory usage of even 12GB of RAM

          How are you measuring this? It is very hard to get a good understanding because a modern OS will not free memory unless it needs to, which leads to a lot of mis-understanding about memory requirements. With an SSD for swap and 4G of RAM most users will hardly notice a difference if you add an extra 4G. This doesn't mean it is useless to everyone, but it isn't worth it for many people.

          Also a lot of newer games with 64-bit executables will (e.g. Far Cry 3) can use just over 4GB of RAM at full pelt.

          You say 'a lot of newer games with 64-bit executables' but I'm only aware of about 3 existing at all.

  • dezaman on 30/01/2014 - 17:23
    +1

    I gotta go with the guy who said a laptop, i spent my youth building rigs and really getting over it now. Bought my 3rd gen I7 from mwave for $600 (1tb, 8gb ram, nvidia 740m), for about 100-200 more i could have had an ssd, Not sure how its going to handle games (like bf4) but i'll find out soon as i am getting rid of my gaming desktop, even on medium its worth getting rid of the headaches.

    to answer your question, zdnet just posted an article about AMD thinking about selling off their PC fab's, as there past two generations have sucked terribly. for two reasons.
    1: APU's, although better for gaming then a stock i5 with no graphics card, sucks comparatively in cycles, to similiarly priced Intel CPU's, so having 100 tabs open on your browser will slam it.
    2: AMD CPU's, have always been about cheap similar performance to Intel's CPU's, and as far as a year ago this was the case, you could buy an 8 core AMD for the price of an I5, which is rated much higher (my AMD 1055t 6core was 16000mhz combined, it cost me $220 5 years ago, my new I7 is 8800mhz combined), but each core was really inefficient, an I5 of the time could unzip small files faster, and was better for gaming, not longer processing but i rarely did any of this.

    The push for me to swap from my 1055t to an I5 was i bought a $20 energy meter, it told me at idle my AMD pc was using 350 watts, my I5 sits at 50-70 and only goes higher when gaming (compare this to my I7 laptop at 10-20 watt).

    anyway at the end of the day I'm kissing my I5 good buy and just using this laptop to game with and a single 4tb external, sure it wont play BF4 on max but its a hell of a lot easier (for instance my I5 has two 3tb drives in raid 0 mode, you cant install windows on a drive bigger then 2tb, so i had to buy an ssd, which is blue screening on me currently and because its only 60gb it is a pain in the butt to stop it from maxing and forcing everything onto the raid array, in fact to install the windows 8.1 update to this laptop was very short, my 1055t stopped booting to bios, and it required an effort to get it to the i5 PC thanks to my dodgy copy of windows 8)

    only get a PC if you want to game on max settings (which sounds easy, but then you have driver issues with every game/graphics card combination, the 1055t could max some games, sucked at bf3, the i5 maxes bf4, sucks at crysis 3 which isn't as intensive as bf4) max settings cost's good money too.

    on the plus side though for desktops, if you build em yourself, you wont lose as much, i never sold a PC for less then i paid for the parts after 2 years (not sure if this will work in the current market when everyones moving away from PC's)

    Note on Intel Generations: 3rd gen is good bang for buck for PC's, decent on laptops (my i7 gets 4-5 hours), the 4th gen isn't better on performance on the whole but it is power efficient on laptop models, pushing them to almost 8 hours.

    Oh yeh, P.S, if your really interested in a desktop, you can buy my I5 from me, it's about 6 months old, 3rd gen i5, 60gb ssd, 6tb drive, ATI 7850 OC, 8gb ram, Fractal case, $850

  • Manh on 30/01/2014 - 19:59

    to answer your question, zdnet just posted an article about AMD thinking about selling off their PC fab's, as there past two generations have sucked terribly. for two reasons.

    Can you link the article for me? I can't find it. I thought AMD doesn't have any Fabs anymore as it was split from the company to form GlobalFoundries a while back.

  • Gnostikos on 31/01/2014 - 01:24

    Short answer: AMD has not been relevant in the processor scene for at least 2 years now.

    GPU-wise yeah there are some very legitimate reasons to buy an AMD card for low-to-mid-tier builds, and it will save you money over an equivalent offering from NVidia, but for processors? As much I hate rampant monopolisation and a lack of consumer PPP, I also just want to get sh*t done and have a processor that'll last for at least 2 years, and in that context there is no good reason to get an AMD CPU.

    Gaming-wise though, there is a negligible different between i3's and i7's; so if you're goal is being thrifty you can happily go with an i3 and save money knowing you are not sacrificing FPS, since all games are GPU-limited these days (which is what any sensible gamer should spend a majority of their dough on).

    (Disclosure: Not a fan boy, I'm running an oil-and-water build right: AMD GPU with an Intel processor; maniacal laughter).

    • This Guy on 01/02/2014 - 02:28
      +1

      OP ain't gaming. CPU choice irrelevant if OP uses SSD boot drive. I moved from Conroe to Haswell, both on SSDs. Trust me. No difference for every day stuff.

  • ProjectZero on 31/01/2014 - 15:21
    +2

    No idea why you guys are mentioning anything to do with a GPU, the OP said "no gaming" in his post… unless that changed, any GPU will work… even the onboard ones.

    If you are going to stream vids though at least get the low tier GPUs because i tried it on a laptop. When i streamed vids without dedicated graphics… it stuttered but as soon as i turned on the dedicated graphics it was fine.

    Also, unless you do hardcore spreadsheets (crap loads of calculations and formulas) and photo editing (converting RAW) you will probably be fine with an i3. If you do any of that, then get an i7. i7 has more threads which are used by MS office 2007 onwards and if there are many calculations, formulas or if you need the processing power to convert from RAW i7 would help more.

    In regards to SSD, if you want to save money just get a normal HDD… SSD speeds up the computer by allowing higher speeds to read and write but if you're going for budget… HDD do the same thing just slower.

    Donkeydoc quoted a whirlpool build which is awesome so i'd go with that… again if you want to save money just get rid of the SSD…

    • ifonlyiwasyounger on 31/01/2014 - 17:33

      Thank you ProjectZero.
      You are correct that I will not be doing any gaming. I am inclined to go with donkeydoc's build (and seconded by you), with the SSD. Now I just need to find a reputable company to do the build - perhaps my local MSY.

      • ProjectZero on 03/02/2014 - 10:36

        I've only had one dealing with MSY and it put me off… i'd pay a little bit more to not have to deal with them.

        I think a few others here would agree as well, if you are in sydney, I'd recommend giving ARC or Mwave a try. Not too sure how much they charge but they are usually the stores i go to… or if you have one near you JW as well though their stuff is overpriced… just go in and talk them down abit because they usually give you a discount if you can prove it is cheaper else where…

  • Wally Simmonds on 31/01/2014 - 16:00
    +1

    "GPU-wise yeah there are some very legitimate reasons to buy an AMD card for low-to-mid-tier build"

    Hmm okay, guess those R290's are mid tier…

    However, for the CPU front, I'd generally agree with most comments here, and I'd go as far to say I'm a bit of an AMD fanboi. I think the important point is that for the most part, processors from both sides of the fence have been 'good enough' for every day tasks. I just don't see general usage slamming even a 2-3 year old mid range cpu. That's why I appreciate where AMD are going with their APU's - if they get their thermals and power usage down, I think they're onto a winner. I've stopped caring about clock performance in 2008..

    Bearing that in mind though, unless you can see yourself using the APU of the latest Kaveri chips, I'd still be inclined to lean towards a lower end I3 for general usage - mostly based on power consumption etc.

    • donkeydoc on 31/01/2014 - 16:20
      +1

      my old PC i built five years ago has an i5 750, still a beast of a PC, might last another 5 years

  • p1 ama on 31/01/2014 - 17:39
    +1

    Intel Conroe'd AMD, then they Nehalem'd them and then they Sandy Bridge'd them, those are Intel's three generational leaps which have put them head and shoulders above AMD. Intel can literally sit back and just churn out processors which perform 10% better than the last because AMD is just not competitive.

    • Wally Simmonds on 01/02/2014 - 00:44

      I know, it really annoys me when I have to wait for the AMD procs to catch up to my webbrowsing

      /massivefuckingrolleyes

  • srhardy on 31/01/2014 - 21:50
    +1

    CPU: Pentium G3420 +1, its 4th gen, dual core and its seldom slow for the tasks you mentioned
    SSD yeah install OS and then MOVE (google move my folders on the how to) to the HD & depending on price 1gb is enough

    (if) you want to store downloaded movies then i would CPU: Pentium G3420 RAID0 x2 2gb, 3gb or 4 gb HD for either for either 4/6 or 8gb of storage and its saves buying a NAS… Running a tower 24x7 isnt expensive with simple specs like this but start bitcoin mining with 2 GPU and you best own ergon IMO…

    AMD are good but run warm…

    • This Guy on 01/02/2014 - 02:40
      +1

      Don't RAID two hard drives. When one hard drive fails (and one always fails) you will lose all of your data.

      • nicksinternet on 01/02/2014 - 12:57
        +2

        Agree. Raid is good if you go Raid 1 or 5, but not 0.

        Raid 1 gives you a mirror backup of your first drive by using a second drive.

        Raid 5 needs 3 drives, and again gives you a backup by sacrificing 1/3 of space across all 3 drives.

  • srhardy on 31/01/2014 - 21:53

    … and yes, msy will build a rig for you

    but you should add 8gb and a SSD to the laptop (240gb min!!!) and a excternal HD as it will extend your investment, give you a backup and make you smile at how it can make an old lappie fairly tear along! MSY can UG your lappie for you too, maybe get win8.1 for it while your at it!

  • Tech5 on 31/01/2014 - 22:36
    +3

    You can get a prebuilt laptop with

    Core i7 3630qm (very nice)
    8gb ram 1666 (very nice)
    1tb HDD 5400rpm (average)
    17 inch HD screen
    Nvidia GT650M

    It's called the Dell 17rSE and it's the laptop I bought for $850. For that price, it is extremely good value

  • Wally Simmonds on 01/02/2014 - 00:50

    Given the consoles are running Jaguar, if I was building a new system on a budget, I'd be looking at the cheapest AMD CPU/GPU I could find. Mantle is looking good.

  • nicksinternet on 01/02/2014 - 12:55
    +1

    Get AMD, you won't notice the difference. Put the cash into an SSD and Graphics card where you will notice the difference.

  • cheepwun on 01/02/2014 - 19:13

    For non-CPU-intensive tasks, any CPU will do. Asking that question here with that title is like asking for the dog to not chase the cat. The brand of processor is irrelevant. Get the most efficient, slowest, less-heat-producing one you can. It will be fine and be cheaper to run. You can do a mean browsing session on a 10+ year-old computer tossed out on someone's nature strip, in fact.

    If self-building, don't skimp on the power supply and RAM. Heavier power supplies tend to be beefier and supply stable current to the machine. Ignore the wattage labels. Ask to hold various power supplies at local computer store. That said, it's not necessary to spend much more than $60 for a half-decent power supply. Nor is it necessary to pay truckloads for the mainboard.

    Go with the cheapest office suite you can find, unless you have a specific need for an Office suite from an NSA associate. Buy whatever with the savings you make here.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join