Value System Build

[Ron AKA]

I see lots of well informed discussion about a rather high end build. I would really appreciate some input on a more value oriented build. My current Intel E4300 overclocked CPU running XP at nearly 7 years of age is nearing end of useful life. My use is general desktop home applications, Open Office, Explorer, Google Chrome, Photoshop Elements, and probably in the future Lightroom 5. I currently can't run it on XP, and seeing some of the performance issues reported, probably the hardware is not up to it either. I will absolutely never see a game run on it, unless I do it for a test of stability. I will likely do a mild overclock, but nothing more than the minimum extra free performance for a no pain auto overclock selection. Nothing is cast in stone at this point, and I'm open to all suggestions (except a fire breathing, water cooled, flashing LED, gamer setup).

I will reuse my existing Sonata II case, and upgraded 550 watt power supply, SATA DVD (x2) drives. Backup remains with my WD MyBook 3T Live.

New stuff, common to all options

Monitor: Asus PA248Q 1920x1200 IPS

Data Drive: Seagate SSHD Hybrid drive, 1 TB

Boot Drive: Samsung SSD 128 GB 840 Pro

RAM: 16MB DDR-3 2133 Patriot Viper 3 Series, Black Mamba

$300 Option 1 - Integrated graphics processor

CPU: AMD A10-6800K

Motherboard: Asus F2A85-V Pro

$450 Option 2 - FX CPU & Dedicated Graphics

CPU: AMD FX-8350

Motherboard: Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0

Graphics: HIS Radeon HD 7770

$480 Option 3 - i5 & Dedicated graphics Processor

CPU: Intel i5-3570K

Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-V LX

Graphics: HIS Radeon HD 7770

Prices are Canadian, and I'm sure are higher than in the US. So which option, and what changes? Was originally not going to do the SSD, but I've moved on that. Option 1 is cheapest and simplest, and I wonder if there is really any practical benefit in either of the two higher priced options give my intended use? I want it to last another 7 years, or more...

 

[malch]

Ron AKA wrote:

Data Drive: Seagate SSHD Hybrid drive, 1 TB

Boot Drive: Samsung SSD 128 GB 840 Pro

The SSD is a tough call on a value system but I would go it.

However, if you have a SSD system drive I'd forgo the hybrid and go with a regular spinner. You've spec'ed a generous 16GB of RAM and Windows will cache a useful amount of data there anyway.

 

[Ron AKA]

Yes the hybrid drive is currently $117 at Amazon in the US. Expecting it will be available soon in Canada at a similar price.... And a plain jane Seagate Barracuda 1TB is on sale at $65 currently here.

So over the base of a Barracuda standard it is about $50 to go SSD Hybrid. The hybrid only has 8 GB of SSD, so not much. To add the SSD over the base is $150. To do both is $200. Not sure what the biggest bang for the buck is. I do want the operating system and apps to open smartly. I think that is a big part of the sense of faster.

 

[Tom_N]

Ron AKA wrote:

I want it to last another 7 years, or more...

That may be asking a bit much of a mid-range build, let alone a value build.

As far as CPUs go, I would select the Intel Core i5 over the AMD CPUs, whether or not you also get a dedicated graphics processor to go with it. I pulled up one page for the AMD-FX-8350 CPU ("option 2") vs. the Intel i5-3570K CPU ("option 3"). Despite having twice as many cores, the AMD CPU had significantly slower per-core performance (relative to the tested clock speeds).

CPU Boss - Intel Core i5 3570K vs AMD FX 8350

Since you are building a desktop system, I assume that there will be at least one 16-lane PCI-E slot, so that there would be very little cost involved to going with integrated graphics (or a very low-end dedicated graphics card) now, and upgrading the graphics later, if you had to do that to afford the better CPU.

 

[Ron AKA]

Tom_N wrote:

Ron AKA wrote:

I want it to last another 7 years, or more...

That may be asking a bit much of a mid-range build, let alone a value build.

I will hold my nose and go with Windows 8.1. I find in the end Bill Gates wanting more money is usually what forces the upgrade. 7 years? Perhaps wishful thinking.

As far as CPUs go, I would select the Intel Core i5 over the AMD CPUs, whether or not you also get a dedicated graphics processor to go with it. I pulled up one page for the AMD-FX-8350 CPU ("option 2") vs. the Intel i5-3570K CPU ("option 3"). Despite having twice as many cores, the AMD CPU had significantly slower per-core performance (relative to the tested clock speeds).

CPU Boss - Intel Core i5 3570K vs AMD FX 8350

That comparison puts a real heavy weighting on single core computing performance. The FX pretty much beats it in every other measure. How do you think single core performance will show up as real world value?

Since you are building a desktop system, I assume that there will be at least one 16-lane PCI-E slot, so that there would be very little cost involved to going with integrated graphics (or a very low-end dedicated graphics card) now, and upgrading the graphics later, if you had to do that to afford the better CPU.

I hear what you are saying. From everything I see the integrated graphics are not great on the Intel, especially the older ones. Don't think I would be satisfied with that. To be clear I'm not on a budget, and could afford any of the options, or even the fire breathing dragon version. It is just that I've built a number of computers, and they all quite predictably depreciate to zero value in about 5 years or less. It is more a case that I don't want to throw money away for nothing. If I see value in it, I will spend the $$'s.

 

[RedFox88]

Why are you looking to build a low end value system?

I see it as buy a low end/value system (as they can sell for less than you can buy the parts for and it's all together, windows installed and running) or build a high end system. Now you build a computer to get the parts you want not necessarily build to save money. If it's a value system you most concerned about price and you won't build it for less than you can buy it.

 

[Ron AKA]

I hear what you are saying. However, I don't think I can buy anything preassembled like any of the three options I have detailed. If you know of any readily available in Canada, I am all ears...

 

[malch]

Ron AKA wrote:
I hear what you are saying. From everything I see the integrated graphics are not great on the Intel, especially the older ones.

I don't think any of the software you mentioned makes any use of the GPU except maybe some browsers but their use is very limited. If you want to save money, run with the integrated graphics or buy a very basic ($50) card.

 

[Ron AKA]

What about working with 20 MB RAW files in Lightroom 5? Right now the Sony Image Data Converter brings my existing computer to its knees working with RAW files. Also I forgot to mention Qimage Pro that I use for printing. It interpolates the final print file up to the native printer resolution of the printer, which in my HP at max resolution is 1200 dpi. For a larger print (printer can do up to 13x19) this can be hundreds of MB it has to produce for each image. The printer is much slower of course, but it does not start printing until the file processing is complete, so it adds on.

Plus I think in general photo editing software is going to make more and more use of the graphic card with OpenGL and OpenCL. The integrated AMD A10 processor, and the Radeon HD 7770 graphics card support that. The 7770 uses up to Open GL 4.2. and OpenCL 1.2. I think the A10 is the same.

I'm thinking you cannot get away with weak graphics for photo editing over the next 7 years?

 

[Tom_N]

Ron AKA wrote:

As far as CPUs go, I would select the Intel Core i5 over the AMD CPUs, whether or not you also get a dedicated graphics processor to go with it. I pulled up one page for the AMD-FX-8350 CPU ("option 2") vs. the Intel i5-3570K CPU ("option 3"). Despite having twice as many cores, the AMD CPU had significantly slower per-core performance (relative to the tested clock speeds).

CPU Boss - Intel Core i5 3570K vs AMD FX 8350

That comparison puts a real heavy weighting on single core computing performance. The FX pretty much beats it in every other measure. How do you think single core performance will show up as real world value?

How do you think that eight cores will show up as "real world value" for someone whose self-described applications are "general desktop home applications, Open Office, Explorer, Google Chrome, Photoshop Elements, and probably in the future Lightroom 5"?

Applications don't always divide themselves into enough threads to keep every CPU core busy. One that keeps four cores busy will run slower on the AMD CPU than on the Intel one.

 

[Tom_N]

Ron AKA wrote:

I hear what you are saying. However, I don't think I can buy anything preassembled like any of the three options I have detailed. If you know of any readily available in Canada, I am all ears...

If what you are looking for is a custom "white-box" build, I'm sure that there are several white-box vendors who ship to Canada.

For instance, there is Puget Systems, whose FAQ says they can "can ship to any address in the US or Canada that can be confirmed by a credit card or checking account issued in either of those countries." They have been in business a long time and offer many build options, although their prices are not especially cheap.

Puget Systems

Another white-box vendor I've seen mentioned on this site is CyberPower PC. However, their site is now heavily oriented towards flashy gaming PCs and their FAQ says they do not ship internationally.

 

[Ron AKA]

Puget prices are more than out of this country. They are out of this world! There are a number of local vendors who will put a system together. However they just add up the current selling price of the components and add $50 or so. There are some advantages to it, not a lower price.

Some will install the memory, the cpu, check to see that it posts, and update the bios, at no charge. They do it more to cover their own butt.

 

[Tom_N]

Ron AKA wrote:

There are a number of local vendors who will put a system together. However they just add up the current selling price of the components and add $50 or so. There are some advantages to it, not a lower price.

Are vendors supposed to sell systems to you at a loss, just so that you can have "a lower price"?

A $50 markup is less than what repair shops typically charge for one hour of a technician's time. Even a local store operating out of a "hole in the wall" in a strip mall has to pay the rent, the utility bills, and the employees, or it will cease to exist.

 

[Ron AKA]

Some good points.

I ran a few programs with Windows Task Manager open. Open Office with spreadsheets is very light. Can't even detect processor use when recalculating. However, I don't use very complex spreadsheets now that I'm retired. Photoshop Elements using Adobe Camera Raw does load the CPU pretty good, but not to 100% consistently. It does seem to share the load almost equally between the two cores on my E4300. The Sony Image Data converter does use both cores, and flat lines the CPU at 100% when you do just about anything. It is easy to make a few adjustments then see the CPU sit and cook for long periods of time. The code must be very inefficient in this program. Makes you wonder how they code Playstation. Google Earth also makes quite heavy use of both cores. Qimage Pro that I have does not officially support multi core multi threads. A later version does. However, I observed that it does quite equally share the load between the two cores. Lightroom, I don't have, so no idea...

I guess what is unknown is how these apps would use 4 cores or 8 cores. The trend seems to be to use more and more. When I bought the current machine, most PC's were single core. 7 years later much has changed. Following is the count of processors stocked at our local store by core count:

1 core - 0

2 core - 10

3 core - 1

4 core - 30

6 core - 6

8 core - 5

12 core - 1

One would think software developers would be forced to code for multi core as they improve (bloat) each subsequent version of their code.

4 or 8, kind of a hard call. 4 is probably the sweet spot for today...

 

[malch]

Ron AKA wrote:

What about working with 20 MB RAW files in Lightroom 5? Right now the Sony Image Data Converter brings my existing computer to its knees working with RAW files. Also I forgot to mention Qimage Pro that I use for printing.

I'm thinking you cannot get away with weak graphics for photo editing over the next 7 years?

It's likely more software will use the GPU over time. But today, very little of it does and certainly not Lightroom.

So, yes, I strongly recommend buying/building a system that is capable of accepting a GPU later. Then in 2 or 3 years, you can add a GPU and enjoy the benefits. Chances are GPUs will be faster and cheaper by the time you need one.

Why buy one before your software can use it? It makes no sense.

 

[Ron AKA]

You certainly can easily find conflicting information on how well Lightroom uses multi cores/threads. Some saying it is a single core program, to others finding it can use up to 12 cores or more.

After reading quite a few articles and tests, I think it is safe to conclude Lightroom really does utilize multi core/threads. However, it may not utilize them as well as it could. i.e. going from 2 to four cores, does not scale up performance proportionally, as would going from 4 to 8. However, I don't see any evidence it would go down, and for certain aspects of the program (like batch image exports) it may speed up with more cores. For sure it is not a single core only program.

I found this article on LR4 a thorough and interesting read. He has a later version where he tests LR5 for multi core use and comes to the conclusion that core usage has not changed from LR4 to LR5.

 

[Ron AKA]

The comments and some further thinking about this build has brought me to a slightly different base configuration:

Data Drive: Instead of using one Seagate Hybrid drive, I'm now thinking of using two less costly Seagate Barracuda 1TB drives configured in Raid 0. This would effectively double the data transfer rate, and double the drive capacity. Yes, I know that will double the chances of a hard drive failure, but I do full backup of all data, so I think I would survive that with little to no damage. I understand hardware Raid is faster than software Raid. There are some complications on doing this on an Asus board. First the native HDD controller (AMD SB950) has some limitations where if you configure for raid, then all drives on the controller are configured for Raid. And the add on controller (ASMedia), does not support Raid. If I go to Gigabyte, then both the Southbridge and JMicron controllers support hardware Raid. Simplest is probably just using Windows to configure Raid. Any thoughts on hardware vs software Raid? Two Barracuda drives are essentially the same price as Hybrid SSD drive, so no change in cost, but should get better performance?

Operating System: I thought Microsoft was going to release 8.1 later this month. However that is only to manufacturers. Although I would like to do a clean install of 8.1, it looks like the upgrade will be no more painful than a service pack. So, I will buy 8.0 and update once it is clear 8.1 is stable.

 

[SushiEater]

Tom_N wrote:

Ron AKA wrote:

There are a number of local vendors who will put a system together. However they just add up the current selling price of the components and add $50 or so. There are some advantages to it, not a lower price.

Are vendors supposed to sell systems to you at a loss, just so that you can have "a lower price"?

A $50 markup is less than what repair shops typically charge for one hour of a technician's time. Even a local store operating out of a "hole in the wall" in a strip mall has to pay the rent, the utility bills, and the employees, or it will cease to exist.

Newegg is one of the cheapest retailers in the country now. How do you think they make money by selling so cheap?

Now, those mom-an-pop shops pay for the parts as much as Newegg. But instead of selling parts like Newegg one by one they sell them as computer tacking $50 for the labor of putting it all together.

They also build more than one computer at the time so while assembler is waiting for Windows to install he/she is building another computer or two or three and maybe four. I have seen them do it. So now it is more like $200 per hour, not $50. And obviously they make money on parts too. Not to mention that they cheat you out of the warranty giving 1 year parts and labor while most parts have longer warranties. Though that does not make much money now because QC has increased quite a bit since the days I used to do it.

And with the low prices like that they get plenty of business.

 

[Tom_N]

SushiEater wrote:

Newegg is one of the cheapest retailers in the country now. How do you think they make money by selling so cheap?

Newegg and Amazon don't have the cost of maintaining retail storefronts, and they don't put your PC together for you either.

 

[Tom_N]

By the way, NewEgg is privately held, and while they were profitable in 2009, it is not clear exactly what the situation is now. The company apparently is not into disclosing profit or loss figures.

Forbes - Geek-Favorite Electronics Retailer Newegg Hatches New Billionaire On Rising Sales