Help critique PC build for Mom [solved]

[Ziggy]

edit: http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... 89#p867089

My Mom's current PC is showing its age, it's time for something new. Of course, there's a budget. Same old story, I wanna get the most I can for the least amount of money. But I'm not a fan of building something that's just enough to get by. I wanna build her something that should last 10 years.

I'm normally an Intel guy, but to get a better price to performance ratio I've decided AMD would be a better choice for this one. I'm mainly trying to decide if I should go with an AMD APU or CPU....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819113280

OR

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819113286

First, let me say, THIS IS NOT A GAMING PC! My Mom mostly browses the web, YouTube, listens to music, burns CDs, that's about it. She has a ~22" 1080p monitor. Recently she discovered Windows Movie Maker, and that's probably the most load she'll be putting the computer under.

I like the idea of the APU, but I'm torn. I know that the AM3+ CPU I picked out will outperform the APU, but I'm thinking with the APU I wont have to worry about a GPU.

The APU I picked out has a Radeon HD 7660D. All the AM3+ boards seem to have Radeon 3000 integrated graphics (I'm limited to microATX and they all have intergrated graphics). In my Mom's current PC is a PCIe GeForce 8400 GS. I'm thinking the APU will outperform the other two, but if I go with the AM3+ CPU, the 8400 might be a better choice then the integrated graphics. And the 8400 might be enough performance to meet her needs (no gaming) so getting a better CPU would pay off.

So I guess the question is... Should I get the better CPU and stick with the 8400 for graphics, or should I get the APU ? I'm leaning towards the CPU. I like the idea of the APU, especially since there isn't a GPU producing heat and taking up space (although I've read the Trinity APU puts out a LOT of heat).

Is the 8400 enough for her? I suppose the most she'd be doing, GPU-wise, is watching 1080p video.



Once I get the CPU figured out, I'll post my proposed full build.

edit: Or should I stick with Intel? The i7's are too expensive, but the i3's are around the same price that I'm looking to spend on a CPU. The i5's aren't too much more.

edit: I'm considering getting this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819116942

A little bit of Google tell me that the Intel HD Graphics 4600 would be better than the GeForce 8400. And the CPU seems better, too. Reading reviews on the AMD CPU/APUs, it seems like the stock HSF sucks and most people recommend buying a third party HSF along with the CPU. So all things considered, I'm leaning toward the i5 right now.

[Hazerd]

Go with the A10, or get a Intel i3.

I built my grandpa a computer for $400 not including Windows, it has:

Intel i3 CPU (HD 2000 graphics)
ASRock MOBO
4GB G.Skill RAM
430watt Corsair PSU
Lite on DVD drive
NZXT case
Samsung 320GB HDD

He uses it to browse the web, check email, play casino games, and solitaire, and im pretty sure he wont ever need a new computer.

So something along those lines, but i vote for the A10 over having a dedicated GPU if she doesnt plan on doing any intense gaming.

[isiolia]

If the cost isn't an issue, I'd probably go with an i5. The preview benchmarks for the upcoming APUs still show Intel having much stronger per-core performance. For a "just works" kind of build, integrated support for Intel graphics tends to be pretty good (while it likely doesn't matter, the 8400GS is part of the recently dropped group of cards for new nVidia drivers). APUs really only impress me in fairly niche situations, and the $50 you'd save is nothing over ten years.

'course, for the kind of stuff you mentioned, basically anything modern would do well for the foreseeable future. Likely what would make more of a difference in the end user experience is whether or not you can squeeze an SSD into the build.

[TSTR]

isiolia has it right. I would try and squeeze a SSD into the budget regardless of CPU/GPU configs. That's going to make a HUGE difference. For what she's doing with the machine, I would just stick with the AMD APU for price reasons.

[Ziggy]

I was thinking about trying to sneak in a SSD, but I don't know if I can because of the extra cost. If I went with the lowest cost CPU/GPU, I guess I could put that money to a SSD. But after comparing the i3 and i5 to the AMD APU and CPU, I'm not sure if I'd wanna go with an AMD. I'm kinda put off by how hot they run, and from what I gather from reviews the stock HSFs aren't good enough and an aftermarket HSF is pretty much a must.

edit: Yeah, at this point, I think I'd rather go with the Intel i3 over the AMD APU. They're both about the same price, but I like Intel better. They seem to just run better, all things considered.

Now I guess I'm trying to decide if $50 more is worth it for the i5. The i3 is dual core, but hyperthreaded, the i5 is quad core but no hyperthreading. They both have the Intel HD 4600 graphics. The i5 has a little more L3 cache. The i3 is $140 and the i5 is $195.

I'm also considering power specs, I keep going back and forth in my head if I wanna upgrade the PSU. The i3 runs on less power than the AMD APU (53w versus 100w!). Hell, even the i5 runs on a little less power (about 83w). The PSU in her current PC is a halfway decent 300w (Enermax, not 80 Plus Certified). It would have headroom on an i3 build. But I haven't decided if I'd wanna upgrade it anyway. I'm looking at a 430 Corsair for $50 that's 80 Plus Certified. But yeah, I could put that extra $50 toward a SSD.

[Hazerd]

Hyper-threading just makes the i3 dual core think it has more cores, its pretty useless in this day and age, and was a marketing ploy for the Pentium 4 when it came out.

Let me just say, i dont think Hyper-threading is something to even look at when deciding what to buy, be Intel or AMD.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

I would definitely support something like an A10 with some sort of SSD. The SSD, more than anything, will keep the PC feeling relevant.

[flex wood]

Zig Where are you looking at cpu's? If you aren't checking microcenter you should. If you are looking at newegg microcenter should save you roughly 30 to 50 depending on tax and shipping.

[Cronozilla]

Considering how close in price the APU chips are to the FX chips ... personally, I would just go after an FX chip and then look into on-board video or a $30 GPU or something. It's about a $50 difference, and you'll get much better performance.

If you want to do SSD, but want a decent price, get a hybrid drive, Seagate is the only manufacturer I know of that does it, but for $100 you can get a 8GB SSD 1-2TB HDD hybrid drive. It essentially uses the SSD section for caching, and achieves similar performance to straight SSD.

The things that will yield the most noticeable performance are RAM and HDD speed. Everything else now is so much faster than the software that utilizes it, but you'll see bottlenecks on Windows, especially from the HDD.

[Ziggy]

Zig Where are you looking at cpu's? If you aren't checking microcenter you should. If you are looking at newegg microcenter should save you roughly 30 to 50 depending on tax and shipping.

I'm looking on NewEgg for two reasons. One, it's my favorite site to window shop on. Easiest navigation, etc etc. And two, ultimately I'll probably end up ordering everything from NewEgg, especially since it might be financed through them. Once I get my final choices for all the parts, I'll check the prices elsewhere and see what's what.

Considering how close in price the APU chips are to the FX chips ...

See, that's what I'm thinking with AMD vs Intel right now. The i3 and i5 that I'm looking at are around the same prices as the APU and FX. I think I'm just gonna stick with Intel, AND I'll still have the intergrated graphics.

If you want to do SSD, but want a decent price, get a hybrid drive, Seagate is the only manufacturer I know of that does it, but for $100 you can get a 8GB SSD 1-2TB HDD hybrid drive. It essentially uses the SSD section for caching, and achieves similar performance to straight SSD.

It wouldn't be worth it though since I don't have to buy a HDD. I'm reusing the 500GB SATA drive from the current PC. It's rather new, actually. 3 or 4 years old maybe. That being said, I see that I can get a (good brand name) SSD in the 80-120GB range for something like $75-125. This wasn't the story last time I checked the prices on SSDs (I think my 120GB SSD was closer to $200 when I bought it).

___________________________________________________

As of right now, my build is something like this:


CPU: i5-4440 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819116942

(or i3-4330 to cut cost http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6819116945 )

Mobo: Asus: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813132052

or Biostar: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813138384

RAM: 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600

PSU: Corsair 420w http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6817139048

... or reuse (free) for i3 build Enermax 300w http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6817194023

Case: (reusing) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6811121039

HDD (reusing) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6822136358

SDD (still haven't decided): Samsung: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820147192

or Crucial: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820148693