I'm looking to build a sub-£400 desktop (already have monitor etc and HD Radeon 7770 GPU). It will be for day to to day stuff and really just a replacement for a 10 year old Pentium 4 Dell laptop which has always been used as a desktop.

My initial plan was to use an AMD FX-6300 but after much research, luckily, I realised in the expected lifetime of the build it would have running costs so high it would negate it's low purchase price.

My attention was next drawn to the new Intel i5-4440: better than the FX-6300 in all the benchmarks, on board graphics and much lower power consumption in typical use despite its TDP 84W rating. But then I noticed the i3-4340........

I'd dissmissed the older i3s during my earlier researches on the FX-6300 but this new one seems much more like what I'm looking for. £20+ cheaper than the i5-4440, same on board graphics and dramatically lower TDP at 54W.

I know there is a thread here poo-pooing some of the comparison benchmarks you can find for the i3 but as my interest is not OCing or HD gaming I'm not that bothered. I just want the cheapest, best performing/lowest daily running costs CPU I can afford which is going to be useable for years to come.

So the question is really do I go for the i5-4440 with a cheap MB (<£50) or the i3-4340 and something better. With the RAM (2 x 2GB) to include as well ie. CPU, MB and RAM, I can only afford to dedicate around £220 of the build cost to these components if I'm going to bring the total in at under £400, preferably much less.

Any opinions, alternative CPU and MB suggestions welcome.

if you don't want FX6300, then 4440 for sure.

50-60 quid board will do for these locked CPUs. tbh if I was you, I'd pick the CPU from bay for ~90 quid. that's a good 40-50 saving over retail.

Yes I've been looking for cheap deals and I've found both the i5 and i3 with good prices. It is really only because of this I can consider the i5 because much higher than £140 and it would bust my budget.

I hadn't tried eBay so thanks for reminding me to do that.

So that's one vote for the i5-4440.

Edit

Just looked on eBay and the prices there are all over the place and in fact my previous researches seems to have turned up the some of the best current deals already.

However I would like some specific suggestions on the best MB for either mentioned CPUs ie. >£75 for the i3 and >£50 for the i5.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-241-MS

mATX version of the same board is about 10 cheaper.

just before christmas i was looking at 1155 CPUs on bay and 3470 was going for about 80-85 in auctions. i picked up i3 2100 for 32 quid though, as I'm looking to get another Xeon asap. if you buy a used CPU and it works, it will work most likely forever (you got 45 day paypal protection which is plenty time to stress test it).

because these are locked, you don't enter the lottery of it being good or bad overclocker too. i picked up plenty CPUs from bay and never had a dud. it saved me good chunk of cash over the time.

fallenangle said:

My initial plan was to use an AMD FX-6300 but after much research, luckily, I realised in the expected lifetime of the build it would have running costs so high it would negate it's low purchase price.

Click to expand...

You do realise that an FX8350 at stock consumes around 35W to 95W more at the wall when running a game when compared to a IB or Haswell Core i5 or Core i7?? An FX6300 is likely to probably have the same variation(or probably less than a Core i3) when compared to a Core i3.

To put it in context at 16P a KWH,gaming for 20 hours a week,EVERY week for an entire year that works out at around £5.80 to £15.80 extra over a year. But whats the chance you might take a month off over a year not gaming?? That drops to £5.31 to £14.48 or thereabouts.

Moreover the AMD CPUs are reviewed in 990FX motherboards which are not efficient. The 990FX motherboards have a huge amount of PCI-E lanes which chipsets like the 970 do not have.

Motherboards don't affect socket 1150 as much,as most of the functionality is in the CPU,not the motherboards. AM3+ will have a bigger variation between chipsets as a result.

Even then you still need to do some research regarding the motherboards. Certain power phase arrangements and designs can increase power consumption.

The lifetime costs are just not really that significant.

An FX6300 costs £90 on OcUK:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-338-AM

The Core i5 4440 costs £140:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-495-IN

So with a £50 premium it will take you a few years to make up the price difference.

However,an FX6300 consumes less than an FX8350 so I expect the maximum difference will be less than 95W at the wall.

You do realise if you do not choose other parts like your PSU and monitor properly you could wasting another 20W to 50W easily,and that is a fixed addition to any power your CPU and GPU is consuming already.

Can i ask what tasks exactly will you be doing with the PC now ? Id like to give you the best answer for your needs and keeping within your price range.

McT

McstylisT said:

Can i ask what tasks exactly will you be doing with the PC now ? Id like to give you the best answer for your needs and keeping within your price range.

McT

Click to expand...

Everything except serious gaming. I have a so far unfinished gaming desktop build based around a i5-3550 and IGB Radeon 7850 but I need something cheaper to run for everyday use. My 10 year old Dell laptop (used as a desktop) with Win XP is showing signs of its age and will need to be retired to backup when MS XP support ends.

I thought about just buying a new laptop but you've got to spend at least £350 to get something decent new and as I had a Radeon 7770 GPU from the initial build of the gaming rig it just seemq stupid not to use it. So really I want to put together the best performance /cheapest running cost build I can get at the same sort of price.

CAT-THE-FIFTH

Your calculations look good and I had come to a figure of around £12/year extra cost using the FX-6300. You'd also have to factor in the GPU power consumption on top as for the day to day stuff I'd use the i5's or i3's integrated graphics instead of the 7770.

Monitor is a 35W max Dell VGA only 5:4 LCD which I use with my current laptop and the PSU for the build will be a Coolermaster Elite 330U case/500W PSU package.

Lets call it £15 extra a year for the FX-6300 and I expect it would actually be more than that as the "Active Idle" power figures I've seen suggest that the AMD CPU uses twice as much power as an i5.

Now if I'm going to be using the rig for three years at least (I'd hope to be able to use it for much longer) and almost certain electricity prices rise it is not unreasonable to think that £50 initial cost price difference between the FX-6300 and i5-4440 will have evaporated, In other words because of the higher running costs, small as they may seem, over such a period they mean at that point the real cost is actually very similar. After this the i5 becomes increasingly cheaper in comparison.

If you accept the figures then why would anyone want to use the FX-6300 in a build like this? Similar cost over the minimum time period expected but the i5-4440 performs better in almost every benchmark.

The similar priced FX-8350 performs significantly better only when OCed and even at stock uses 41W more than the i5-4440 (125W againts 84W) so that rules itself out without even having to do the calculations.

It is the i3-4340 that is still interesting me. Undoubtedly it is cheaper initially and over time too but does it provide a significantly better overall build cost to performance ratio solution than the i5-4440?

fallenangle said:

Everything except serious gaming. I have a so far unfinished gaming desktop build based around a i5-3550 and IGB Radeon 7850 but I need something cheaper to run for everyday use. My 10 year old Dell laptop (used as a desktop) with Win XP is showing signs of its age and will need to be retired to backup when MS XP support ends.

I thought about just buying a new laptop but you've got to spend at least £350 to get something decent new and as I had a Radeon 7770 GPU from the initial build of the gaming rig it just seemq stupid not to use it. So really I want to put together the best performance /cheapest running cost build I can get at the same sort of price.

CAT-THE-FIFTH

Your calculations look good and I had come to a figure of around £12/year extra cost using the FX-6300. You'd also have to factor in the GPU power consumption on top as for the day to day stuff I'd use the i5's or i3's integrated graphics instead of the 7770.

Monitor is a 35W max Dell VGA only 5:4 LCD which I use with my current laptop and the PSU for the build will be a Coolermaster Elite 330U case/500W PSU package.

Lets call it £15 extra a year for the FX-6300 and I expect it would actually be more than that as the "Active Idle" power figures I've seen suggest that the AMD CPU uses twice as much power as an i5.

Now if I'm going to be using the rig for three years at least (I'd hope to be able to use it for much longer) and almost certain electricity prices rise it is not unreasonable to think that £50 initial cost price difference between the FX-6300 and i5-4440 will have evaporated, In other words because of the higher running costs, small as they may seem, over such a period they mean at that point the real cost is actually very similar. After this the i5 becomes increasingly cheaper in comparison.

If you accept the figures then why would anyone want to use the FX-6300 in a build like this? Similar cost over the minimum time period expected but the i5-4440 performs better in almost every benchmark.

The similar priced FX-8350 performs significantly better only when OCed and even at stock uses 41W more than the i5-4440 (125W againts 84W) so that rules itself out without even having to do the calculations.

It is the i3-4340 that is still interesting me. Undoubtedly it is cheaper initially and over time too but does it provide a significantly better overall build cost to performance ratio solution than the i5-4440?

Click to expand...

Loads of people I know use the FX6300. I only see your reasoning in justifying a more expensive CPU upfront. So a more expensive CPU performs better than a cheaper one. For most people on a budget getting a FX6300 and spending the extra on a better graphics card makes more sense. It costs you less in the long term.

My power consumption figures are based on gaming power consumption figures from reviews which tested games and not rubbish like LinX testing.

Moreover,what about games when the power consumption difference is less,it will take something like a decade?

Also,I am assuming the power consumption difference between a Core i3 and a FX6300,not a Core i5 which will consume more power than a Core i3.

So its probably less than £10 a year.

That is assuming you are using a 990FX motherboard,not a lower end more energy efficient 970 based one.

You do realise you could save more money plonking on a jumper more often,not boiling too much water in your kettle,or simply not using the oven too much??

Moreover,you need to really look at usage habits too. Keeping your PC on idle 24/7 or for longer than needed will add to you power consumption more over time.

Also,if you already have a main rig why are you just wasting money on another rig then??

Just stick with your Core i5 3350P rig and HD7850 1GB.

In fact better still. Sell your HD7770 and HD7850 1GB while they have value still. The 1GB VRAM on both is a limitation already and will be over the next two years. Get a better card and use it with your Core i5 3350P.

Forget about secondary rigs to save power.

My Xeon E3 1220 and a GTX660 based rig which is a mini-ITX system consumes around 50W to 70W at idle and low load,which matches an HD7850 2GB I had in for a while. That is with an old Corsair HX520W.

There is no real point in getting another rig,since another Core i5 and an HD7770 will consume about the same.

You are saving no more.

Only a rig with an IGP will save money and even then it would be something like one of the AMD chips which have a decent IGP and quite decent low load and idle power consumption.

An A6 3670K based rig I built with a £20 FSP 400W jobbie(not the most efficient at low loads),consumes between 35W to 47W at the wall when idling and when web browsing.

Even if you were to buy or build a rig which you got the idle and low load power consumption down to 25W to 35W it would only save you £12 to £21 a year.

So if you even only spent £300 to £400 on a secondary rig it would take at least 15 years to get the money back if you have your rig on for 8 hours each day,every day of the year.

Even some of those Intel and AMD nettops which probably consume 10W to 15W at the wall in low load conditions,will only save you £19 to £28 a year. They cost around £200 if you include Windows so again it will take at least 5 years or more to get the upfront purchase cost back in energy savings.

Also,switchable graphics only is available on some Intel motherboards and they are pricier than normal anyway.

So again what is the point??

You are spending pounds to save pennies.

If it is making you worried so much,then just get a tablet.

Yes,a tablet.

They consume mere watts(even less than a watt) and NO desktop or normal laptop can match them.

They are also portable too.

Edit!!

The Coolermaster Elite 500W is a horrible power supply. That is the PSU bundled with the 330 cases.

Its Solytech rubbish:

http://www.realhardtechx.com/index_archivos/Page364.htm

It does not even have 80+ certification which is worrying and it is under 80% efficient:

http://www.coolermaster.com/powersupply/office-home-elite-power/elite-power-v2-550w/

However,more importantly it probably uses crap capacitors and a cheap cooling fan.

That is why I would ditch it.

That under £20 FSP jobbie its more efficient and is probably better made.

Use part of that £350 budget towards a better quality PSU.

I would sell both your current graphics cards. Get something with more VRAM and which is a bit faster.

Pocket the rest of the cash and it will mean the electricity bill for your PC is paid for a few years.

Sorted.

IMHO of course.

Second Edit!!

I looked around for reviews comparing the FX6300 and a Haswell Core i5.

Pcgameshardware has some figures.

The difference between an FX6300 and a Core i5 4570 is around 15W to 45W at the wall,dependent on the conditions,ie,idle,video encoding,image editing and running Crysis3.

The 45W figure is when running Crysis3 which will use upto six threads. A more lightly threaded game will see even less of a difference.

The FX6300 consumes around 14W to 83W more at the wall than a Core i3 3220 under similar conditions,but is 25% faster in the game.

Funnily it seems the 45W Core i5 4570T dual core(runs upto 3.6GHZ),consumes more power than the Core i3 3220. Its faster(its only 11% slower than the FX6300) but the power consumption difference under Crysis3 is around 67W at the wall. It makes me wonder if the bog standard Core i3 which has a higher TDP will consume a bit more.

This is not surprising as there seems to be know 2C GT2 die,only a 2C GT3 die. So it means the Haswell Core i3 CPUs are salvage parts of either,most likely the 4C GT2 parts instead of custom parts like with IB.

Thanks, helpful and interesting but I think you're wrong in you conclusions.

1). Sure plenty of people are likely using the FX-6300 not caring about its power consumption in comparison to anything else. But what are those power use figures there for if not to give at least a guide to their comparative consumption? You can argue all you like about the specifics and practical considerations but how else are you going to work out running costs except by using the figures provided and checking out reviews of real world rigs using each CPU?

Your argument seems to be that in practice due to the large number of variables the likely differences in power consumption are either so small it doesn't matter and/or unknowable unless you built two rigs and tested them against each other.

Yet at the same time we do have to make purchase decisions based on expected power consumption ie. the PSU. We tot up the total, bung it into a PSU calculator and buy the PSU based on that or, which a lot of people do apparently, spend more money on an over-spec supply.

If I put my FX-6300 build into such a calculator the recommended PSU is almost 100W higher than an otherwise identical i5-4440 build. That is to a large extent down to having to use a separate GPU. You can't ignore that. Of course it doesn't mean it will be using 100W extra power all the time but it does mean the FX-6300 is, without question, going to be more expensive to run.

I don't think we're going to agree about how significant that difference is so I'll leave it there.


2). I've had the 7770 up for sale at £25 less than I paid for it (£100) for six months and no takers despite it being a genuine clean pull.

3). Thirdly, if you have one PC you MUST have a spare. It should be the law. If something goes wrong with one how else are you going to find out how or if it can be fixed quickly and easily except online?

I've been breaking that law for over a year. My first BSOD was only sorted out because I could get online using a dial-up TV browser. That option is gone and yet I've become, like most of us, more and more reliant on online services and facilities. Every time my laptop throws a wobbly I start worrying in case I lose access to the internet and can't sort it out.

I need a safety net backup machine and I need one that isn't going to be much more expesive to run than my laptop. So getting both my neglected gaming rig build and this new cheaper build up and running is my priority for the new year.

4). Fourthly, as for your other alternative energy saving suggestions: I already do all that. I'm sitting here in a room with a temperature below 10 degrees C in four layers of clothing. Amongst many other energy saving things I measure out my kettle water in a jug before boiling it and I haven't run the central heating in my house for three years. It is why my total dual fuel costs are consistently under £650/year. It is also why a £12/year saving is significant to me.

fallenangle said:

Thanks, helpful and interesting but I think you're wrong in you conclusions.

1). Sure plenty of people are likely using the FX-6300 not caring about its power consumption in comparison to anything else. But what are those power use figures there for if not to give at least a guide to their comparative consumption? You can argue all you like about the specifics and practical considerations but how else are you going to work out running costs except by using the figures provided and checking out reviews of real world rigs using each CPU?

Your argument seems to be that in practice due to the large number of variables the likely differences in power consumption are either so small it doesn't matter and/or unknowable unless you built two rigs and tested them against each other.

Yet at the same time we do have to make purchase decisions based on expected power consumption ie. the PSU. We tot up the total, bung it into a PSU calculator and buy the PSU based on that or, which a lot of people do apparently, spend more money on an over-spec supply.

If I put my FX-6300 build into such a calculator the recommended PSU is almost 100W higher than an otherwise identical i5-4440 build. That is to a large extent down to having to use a separate GPU. You can't ignore that. Of course it doesn't mean it will be using 100W extra power all the time but it does mean the FX-6300 is, without question, going to be more expensive to run.

I don't think we're going to agree about how significant that difference is so I'll leave it there.

Click to expand...

So you are basing it on a PSU calculator?? Really?? Nobody puts stock into PSU calculators and pcgameshardware tested the FX6300 and Core i5 4570. A massive 15W to 45W difference at the wall. I have given you plenty figures already,based on reviews testing power consumption under realworld software, and I have done loads of builds for friends and families. If you think LinX and PSU calculators are accurate estimations of power consumption then you are only fooling yourself.

I helped out hundreds online with specs and builds. I am into SFF PCs,so I have done measurements for loads of builds so I can get a good viewpoint of what kinds of PSUs are needed for them. Examples included a pico-PSU based build I did a year ago.

fallenangle said:

2). I've had the 7770 up for sale at £25 less than I paid for it (£100) for six months and no takers despite it being a genuine clean pull.

Click to expand...

You also bought an HD7850 1GB. Both are limited by the amount of VRAM and as time progresses they will need replacing quicker. If you have had got the 2GB version or a GTX660 2GB they would have cost less in the long term,as they would last longer,especially if you get a higher resolution monitor. VRAM limitations hit my previous card,and then tessellation limitations after that.

If you really want to spend less, getting one single faster card to replace both will mean a longer upgrade cycle. VRAM limited cards like the HD7850 1GB are a way for companies to fleece people.

fallenangle said:

3). Thirdly, if you have one PC you MUST have a spare. It should be the law. If something goes wrong with one how else are you going to find out how or if it can be fixed quickly and easily except online?

I've been breaking that law for three years. My first BSOD was only sorted out because I could get online using a dial-up TV browser. That option is now long gone and yet I've become, like most of us, more and more reliant on online services and facilities. Every time my laptop throws a wobbly I start worrying in case I lose access to the internet and can't sort it out.

I need a safety net backup machine and I need one that isn't going to be much more expesive to run than my laptop. So getting both my neglected gaming rig build and this new cheaper build up and running is my priority for the new year.

Click to expand...

Or you could just spend money on making sure one rig is built with a decent PSU,case and GPU and put the rest of the money in the bank.

In the end you are ending up with two mediocre PCs for more than the price of one decent one.

You say you have a laptop. That is your backup.

Even a £100 tablet is one,since you can order new parts if the old one has an issue.

You seem to be just trying to justify spending more on an expensive build you will never use. You are spending pounds to save pennies.

fallenangle said:

4). Fourthly, as for your other alternative energy saving suggestions: I already do all that. I'm sitting here in a room with a temperature below 10 degrees C in four layers of clothing. Amongst many other energy saving things I measure out my kettle water in a jug before boiling it and I haven't run the central heating in my house for three years. It is why my total dual fuel costs are consistently under £650/year. It is also why a £12/year saving is significant to me.

Click to expand...

Yet you are spending £300 to £400 on a PC you won't save you any money over your other one,regarding energy costs.

Really?

Personally I think you are wrong in your conclusions. You are not only overestimating the power consumption costs,but more importantly trying to save money on energy,buying a second rig,but not really saving any money at all.

If you are really that concerned with a backup PC - you can get Celeron dual core based nettops for as little as £110 to £130 if you check HUKD. They consume very little power. A Core i5 and HD7700 will double(or maybe even triple) the idle/low load power consumption of a nettop.

But if you were really that concern about effiency you would not be using a CM Elite Power 500W which has horrible effiency.

The thing is if you are that tight for spending on energy costs,it seems daft to spending hundreds more on another PC which gains you nothing over another one.

I would build your first PC to a decent level,and keep the extra money in case you need to upgrade or get new parts.

If you want to get some spare parts,it is usually an extra PSU which is the most important extra and you can get perfectly functional FSP OEM PSUs for around £15 to £20,which are ideal for testing purposes.

It does look like we will have to agree to disagree.

This feels like trying to explain to a work colleague about it not being worthwhile him driving an extra 10 miles to save 2p per litre on fuel. Banging head against the wall.

cheesyboy said:

This feels like trying to explain to a work colleague about it not being worthwhile him driving an extra 10 miles to save 2p per litre on fuel. Banging head against the wall.

Click to expand...

lmao that made me LOL.

But it's true. I personally fall back to a line out of Adam & the ants Stand and deliver.

It's kind of tough to tell a scruff the big mistake he's making.

It always makes me laugh when people turn all hippy and start banging on about power consumption, without realising that they're talking about a couple of pence a week. Then when you explain it they get all defensive.

I dunno...... *shrugs*

But it isn't a couple of pence a week that's the point.

It seems to have been misunderstood that it is the fact that when you include those, basically agreed on, running costs in the calculations over a 3 year period the FX-6300 and i5-4440 will likely work out roughly the same in total. The question is therefore more one of performance and any other practical advantages of one over the other, not the cost.

The i5-4440 has better performance, yes? Built in graphics also means that if the 7770 GPU failed I wouldn't have to shell out on another just to keep the rig working like I would with the FX-6300.

As I indicated, I'm not sold on the i5-4440 yet either, the £25 cheaper i3-4340 option still looks attractive, With that being cheaper to buy and run I could possibly fit the better PSU suggested or more RAM at the same overall cost.

As regards the gaming oriented rig: the 7850 IGB was bought over a year ago. The reason it was chosen is because it was being sold cheap <£125 after the 2GB version was released and unlike the 7770 it would give 30+fps in most games at 1080p. Also the 1GB actually gave better fps in some games than the 2GB version in the comparison tests I found. My idea was to sell the 7770 to part fund the upgrade but that didn't work out because nobody wanted it.

Now if you'd read my first post you'd also know that the Win XP laptop I referred to is getting dodgy that's the main reason I'm having to go for a new rig. I don't want to spend the money but I need to get a reliable second PC. But, as I explained I still want the best overall performance at the build price point I've set. That's all I've been asking about.

Sure I could go for an ultra cheap CPU or buy secondhand or a Chrome Netbook or something like that and use that as backup to the 'gaming' PC. But I've done that, been there and bought the T-Shirt.

I've been using old and redundant tech exclusively to get online since 2000; my laptop is 10 years old and I only got that 3 years ago after 7 years regular home and business use by the previous owner. Now I just want something new and better for a change, something I'm likely to be using for years to come and without having to upgrade. That's what the 'gaming' PC is for: upgrading when and if I can afford it.

Hell I bet some of you guys here have been through thousands of pounds of kit in the same period and you're lecturing me who, prior to the 'gaming' rig (which I had to fund intermitently over the course of a year), had never spent more than £90 to get online and was still on dial-up less than a year ago.

There's also nothing "hippy" about being concerned about running costs, far from it. It is all about simple economics for me. Why should I pay the power companies even £12 more than I need to when they're making millions of pounds in profits but still threatening us with higher bills and energy shortfall? Just this week I had them questioning me on my low energy use because it "didn't match their predictions" !!!!!!!

fallenangle said:

But it isn't a couple of pence a week that's the point.

Click to expand...

It's £15 a year. that's £1 something a month, that's around 4p per day, if you game for X hours.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proces...cessor-Review-Vishera-Breaks-Cover/Conclusion


Again, we get a nice $50 discount for essentially the same performance. In these cases though, expect the AMD CPU to consume more power. Would it be enough to make one nervous about energy bills? Not really.

Seriously, if saving £15 per year in electricity worries you then I think you need to seek help.

Why not just say "I don't want AMD and am set on Intel" instead of making excuses that don't wash? it's fine if you are partial to one brand.

It's just the more you go on the more you are digging a really big hole.

You think I have some ridiculous anti-AMD CPU agenda?

I'm just looking for the best performing, best value build components at the £350 - £400 price point I specified. I don't care if it's AMD or Intel and if you'd read my first post you'd see my original concept was based around the FX-6300. It was only because of my further researches that I started to question that solution and came here hoping for, and getting some advice and alternative ideas.

I'm not ignoring that advice either I'm just questioning it. I've showed that the running cost issue IS important over the time minimum period I mentioned. I would also point out that the average cost of a kilowatthour in the UK (14p/22 cents) is 75% more than the US (12.3 cents/8p).

The performance figures and costs are from other experts, not my own, I've reduced them down to the bare essentials but they were derived from extensive review testing sources of the CPUs I've been talking about, So if I've dug a hole for myself it is with tools provided by other experts.

Just humour me and take a look at this review, in this case for the i3-4340, one of many for all the CPUs I've looked at:-

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130.html

Look particularly at the extensive benchmark testing against the FX-6350. Ask yourself why, for under £30 more than the lower spec FX-6300, particularly when that purchase cost difference is going to negated by the running costs over time, a sensible potential buyer reading that review would not choose the i3-4340 in preference?

Also, if they could cut back on other elements of the build, ie. not affecting performance or reliabilty but maybe reducing available facilities or storage space, they wouldn't also consider spending an additional £20 on a quad cored i5 as alternative solution instead?

We're talking about exactly the same amount of money in the long run but I'm still not sure. Nobody has even mentioned the RAM. My plan was for 2x2GB but if I went for more eg. 2x4GB with the i3 or 2x8GB with the FX-6300 would that be a better solution?

fallenangle said:

You think I have some ridiculous anti-AMD CPU agenda?

I'm just looking for the best performing, best value build components at the £350 - £400 price point I specified. I don't care if it's AMD or Intel and if you'd read my first post you'd see my original concept was based around the FX-6300. It was only because of my further researches that I started to question that solution and came here hoping for, and getting some advice and alternative ideas.

I'm not ignoring that advice either I'm just questioning it. I've showed that the running cost issue IS important over the time minimum period I mentioned. I would also point out that the average cost of a kilowatthour in the UK (14p/22 cents) is 75% more than the US (12.3 cents/8p).

The performance figures and costs are from other experts, not my own, I've reduced them down to the bare essentials but they were derived from extensive review testing sources of the CPUs I've been talking about, So if I've dug a hole for myself it is with tools provided by other experts.

Just humour me and take a look at this review, in this case for the i3-4340, one of many for all the CPUs I've looked at:-

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130.html

Look particularly at the extensive benchmark testing against the FX-6300. Ask yourself why, for under £30 more, particularly when that purchase cost difference is going to negated by the running costs over time, a sensible potential buyer reading that review would not choose the i3-4340 in preference?

[snip]

Click to expand...

Worth looking at the "application tests" in that review, since this is a general purpose PC. The FX63 wins nearly all of those, unlike the "general performance" page, which exclusively uses the Intel-favouring SYSmark.

The opposition in this thread has mostly been reflective of the irrationality of spending £300 on a secondary "efficient" PC, which will save you maybe £10 a year on using your "inefficient" and only slightly higher-specced main PC. You are, however, seemingly an energy saving enthusiast - so your motivations are different to most people you find on a PC enthusiast forum (who don't care about energy efficiency beyond its related heat and overclocking issues)

That all said, for an energy saving enthusiast who already owns, and wants to use, a 7770 (otherwise I'd be recommending one of the low TDP AMD APUs) the i3 is the choice.

Thanks.

I should point out that the comparison on that web site was with the higher spec FX-6350 not the FX-6300 and so reduces those specific application advantages.

But I used this review also which does have direct comparisons with the FX-6300:-

http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/15/



My laptop is 10 years old and running WinXP I thought it very sensible to have an alternative in place by April. I just don't get why a build like this is thought irrational when most people I know own laptops or tablets, internet connected 'phones and at least one desktop as well. Many replace them regularly so who knows how many working machines they actually have available.

I doubt anyone here relies on just one machine either.

Maybe the 'gaming' rig is so little different in power usage that it'll make no significant difference which I use for the day to day stuff. The point is to have that alternative, so why not another slightly lower spec desktop? The build will be interesting to do and I should end up with a machine better than anything I could get off the shelf at the same price.

The power saving issue is purely one of economics so even if the new build saves only £10/year I'm not going to spurn it.

I know CAT suggested it further up, but have you considered a tablet?

Personally, my household only really has one desktop PC (two presently as I recently replaced my 11-year old unit and haven't transferred everything over yet); an android tablet; a really crappy barely-usable netbook; and smartphones. The tablet isn't any use for productivity, but it's great for internet browsing and it would give you a different way of consuming content (you can even watch youtube while taking a dump).

Plus, energy consumption is minimal and purchase cost is low (a £120 Hudl from tesco is perfectly adequate)

It would give you more funds to sink into your main rig

For a budget gaming build I would go for the Intel Core i5-4570 and cheap motherboard and stock cooler. It seems great in gaming benchmarks up there with the best of them and nice lower power usage.

The 4340/4440 do seem slightly behind the other intels due to the lower clocks.

If you had a bit more budget I would go for a z87 motherboard with decent cooler and 4670k but this is a fair chunk more money.

I had thought seriously about the tablet/cheap laptop solution and I'd probably find it useful. But it would be a limited luxury bit of tech rather than something I need.

The screen size is also a big issue for me as even with glasses I simply cannot use a 15.6" 4:3 let alone a <14" WS for any length of time without eye strain. It is why I use a Dell 19" 5:4 monitor with my existing laptop and I think mentioned I required VGA output, something that many laptops now don't include.

^I'll have a look at the other i5 alternatives so thanks for the suggestions but again I'd point out that the benchmarks are secondary to the overall cost. I really don't think that going for an even better and more costly CPU is going to be possible within the budget without some severe compromises in the other hardware.

I've been looking at the Intel MB options and the Z87s do exclude themselves due to their cost and the fact is many of their features would be unecessary luxuries. H87s too seem to be at the upper cost limit ie. around £75 if I chose the i3 and £55 if I go for an i5. So I've been sifting through the B85s and H81s mostly m-ATX boards.

Any advice about specific LGA 1150 MBs welcome.