• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

PC build for family computer

Hi Cat-The-Fifth, thanks for your input, very interesting. Where did you find those graphs?

Before I opened this thread I thought my budget might be a bit tight, mainly because I'd been browsing a number of websites selling ready-made PCs and they tended to be quite expensive. I didn't consider including a discrete GPU because I was trying to save money and thought I could manage without one. However after looking around this morning, and seeing boomstick's suggestions, I think my budget is enough to include a graphics card. Then I could also use 1600MHz RAM which is a bit cheaper.

I reckon I have two choices: keep the cost as low as possible, or spend £600+ for an i5 build.

For example I could go for a 7850K/4330 build with a graphics card and a B85 board (as suggested by Martini) and still come in around £450. Something like this:

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor (or 7850K?)
Motherboard: MSI B85I Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard (or AMD equivalent?)
Memory: Crucial Ballistix Sport 8GB (1 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 2.5" Solid State Disk
Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB Video Card
Case: Cooler Master Elite 130 Mini ITX Tower Case

This wouldn't use much power so I could probably use the stock cooler (Intel's are ok, right? - I'd get a separate cooler for an AMD)

Or I could go for an i5 build similar to boomstick's suggestion, with a Z87 motherboard and 250GB SSD. I could overclock it (if I learn how to do this!) which would require an aftermarket cooler. I reckon this would cost around £650; a £200 difference.

I'm now wondering whether the difference in performance between an i5/Z87 motherboard, and a 4330/B85 setup is really worth the difference in price? Would I notice a marked increase in the speed of everyday operations such as opening/closing tabs, switching between tabs, using apps/programs and watching iplayer, etc? Are the core i5 4 cores so much better than the i3 dual core and AMD 4 cores (like the 8750K)?

Are there any other factors I should be taking into account?
 
My mate has a pair of Elite 130 rigs himself(in addIition to his main one). One is a server using an A85X mini-ITX motherboard and the A10 5800K. The other is a LAN box with an X4 760K and a HD7770. The latter one seems to run Minecraft fine too. He is using a SFF 300W PSU for the latter,so that indicates how much power it uses.

The graph is from Anandtech.

High speed RAM is around the same price as 1600MHZ DDR3. You can get 1866MHZ to 2400MHZ DIMMs for between £60 to £65.

Out of interest what PSU do you have??

BTW,regarding general performance,here is my own evaluation of a Core i3 2100 against an old A6-3670K:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=22602051

Both the Core i3 2100 and A6 3670K were perfectly fine running dozens of tabs,watching HD video,etc.

The newer AMD and Intel CPUs are faster overall than either. The IGPs are far better now on top of this.

Like I said my mate built two A10 5800K based general purpose rigs for some people he knew. They were pretty much general purpose rigs which could run Minecraft and sometimes LoL and DOTA2 since their children played the game. They were built early last year,and they still seem fine.

Plus,also the GTX750TI is a tad pricey for what it is IMHO. The GTX660 and R9 270 are much faster,and still for MC all of them are OTT. Also,the charts seem to indicate AMD has a performance edge in the game anyway.

I run a GTX660 in a mini-ITX rig for example. It is perfectly fine. I ran a higher TDP HD5850 1GB in a Shuttle chassis which is smaller than an Elite 130 case. As you might realise,I tend to use SFF PCs. My SB Xeon E3 1220(Core i5) and a GTX660 draws around 135W to 195W at the wall when gaming.

However,like I said an HD7770 would be fine,as would be the A10 5800K IGP.

Edit!!

Unless you are in a big hurry,you might want to wait until the A8 7600 is released at around £90.

Plus I would go for the Crucial M500 over the Samsung 840 EVO. Its cheaper,uses MLC NAND and has greater built-in redundancy.
 
Last edited:
The graph is from Anandtech.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

High speed RAM is around the same price as 1600MHZ DDR3. You can get 1866MHZ to 2400MHZ DIMMs for between £60 to £65.

Didn't know that, in that case why not use the faster ones? I'll just have to check the motherboard is compatible.

Out of interest what PSU do you have??

I bought the EVGA 650W SuperNOVA NEX650G Gold Fully Modular PSU, only because it was a bargain at £64 and I thought I'd be able to use it when I eventually upgrade my pc. It's obviously way more than I need for this build, but hopefully it will last for years and as it's modular I can squeeze it into a smaller case without worrying about having wires everywhere.

BTW,regarding general performance,here is my own evaluation of a Core i3 2100 against an old A6-3670K:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=22602051

Both the Core i3 2100 and A6 3670K were perfectly fine running dozens of tabs,watching HD video,etc.

The newer AMD and Intel CPUs are faster overall than either. The IGPs are far better now on top of this.

A very interesting and detailed comparison, thanks. It's encouraging to hear that even these older processors have no problem managing lots of tabs, etc., and it makes me lean towards spending less money (which is always a good thing in my book!)

Plus,also the GTX750TI is a tad pricey for what it is IMHO. The GTX660 and R9 270 are much faster,and still for MC all of them are OTT. Also,the charts seem to indicate AMD has a performance edge in the game anyway.

I'll have a look at those, thanks.

I run a GTX660 in a mini-ITX rig for example. It is perfectly fine. I ran a higher TDP HD5850 1GB in a Shuttle chassis which is smaller than an Elite 130 case. As you might realise,I tend to use SFF PCs. My SB Xeon E3 1220(Core i5) and a GTX660 draws around 135W to 195W at the wall when gaming.

SFF = "small form factor"? Am I right? Damn, I'm getting good at this!

Yes I find the idea of a smaller build which uses less power quite appealing, particularly as my old pc is really noisy and I assume smaller rigs will be quieter? Or is that down to the quality of your fans?

Unless you are in a big hurry,you might want to wait until the A8 7600 is released at around £90.

This would be a new AMD processor would it? Do you know the release date? I have to mark two exam papers (on my pc) this summer, starting at the end of May, so I have to order the parts and build it before then. My old pc is actually quite fast but is constantly crashing, so I can't really use it for work purposes.

Plus I would go for the Crucial M500 over the Samsung 840 EVO. Its cheaper,uses MLC NAND and has greater built-in redundancy.

I don't know what 'MLC NAND' means, nor 'greater built-in redundancy' but I'll take your word for it! Thanks for taking the time to help me out.
 
Yes I find the idea of a smaller build which uses less power quite appealing, particularly as my old pc is really noisy and I assume smaller rigs will be quieter? Or is that down to the quality of your fans?

Often the opposite... a good amount of space inside the case means you can have a larger heatsink and bigger diameter fan which will spin slower to shift the same amount of air. Tiny cases might constrain you to 90 or 80mm fans which will have to spin a lot faster and kick out more noise at a higher pitch. Whichever you opt for however, there are quieter (more expensive) fans available than the generic ones that tend to be pre-fitted in cases. I've become a fan of Gentle Typhoons myself - extremely quiet indeed :)

May be worth mentioning that modded Minecraft can be a different ballgame to vanilla. If the you have any desire to run one of the big modpacks, e.g. Feed the Beast, Hexxit, or Galacticraft, (as made popular by Yogscast), then the CPU load may be higher than others have suggested in this thread.

The game doesn't use multiple CPU cores well, but I'd consider looking for an i5 with a good turbo, over an i3 (with no turbo?), if modpacks might ever be wanted. GPU is largely irrelevant to any Minecraft mod however; I have to run my game over 3 monitors to get close to 100% utilisation on my (old) AMD 6870. The nVidia 750 Ti you suggested two posts up is better than that :)
 
Hi eddie, thanks for your reply.

Often the opposite... a good amount of space inside the case means you can have a larger heatsink and bigger diameter fan which will spin slower to shift the same amount of air. Tiny cases might constrain you to 90 or 80mm fans which will have to spin a lot faster and kick out more noise at a higher pitch.

Ahh, ok, that makes sense. "Gentle Typhoon" sounds like a strange contradiction in terms, but I'll definitely check them out :)

May be worth mentioning that modded Minecraft can be a different ballgame to vanilla. If the you have any desire to run one of the big modpacks, e.g. Feed the Beast, Hexxit, or Galacticraft, (as made popular by Yogscast), then the CPU load may be higher than others have suggested in this thread.

I'm glad you mentioned that. My son has a TON of mods on his account. I don't know about the first two you mentioned, but I know for a fact he uses the Galacticraft mod because he's mentioned it to me before. I've never played the game myself but he's obsessed with it, and I know for sure he's modded the crap out of it. This amazes me as he's only 10 years old!

The game doesn't use multiple CPU cores well, but I'd consider looking for an i5 with a good turbo, over an i3 (with no turbo?), if modpacks might ever be wanted. GPU is largely irrelevant to any Minecraft mod however; I have to run my game over 3 monitors to get close to 100% utilisation on my (old) AMD 6870. The nVidia 750 Ti you suggested two posts up is better than that :)

Ha, that's really surprising. I just assumed that all pc-based games would benefit significantly from a better graphics card. I do have the budget (just) to go for an i5 with turbo boost, so maybe this is something I should be taking into account.
 
It's easy to get sucked in and overspend, so as you have PSU already I'd advise something like this:

YOUR BASKET
1 x AMD Kaveri 7850K 12 Compute Core APU w/ Radeon R7 Graphics (4 CPU + 8 GPU Compute Cores) - Retail £127.99
1 x TeamGroup Vulcan ORANGE 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-19200C11 2400MHz Dual Channel Kit (TLAD38G2400HC11CDC01) £55.99
1 x Gigabyte F2A88XM-HD3 AMD A88X (Socket FM2+) DDR3 Micro ATX Motherboard £49.99
1 x Western Digital Caviar Green 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB Cache - OEM (WD10EZRX) **SINGLE PLATTER** HDD £43.99
1 x Kingston 60GB SSDNow V300 Drive SATA 6Gb/s 3 2.5" (7mm height) Solid State Hard Drive - (SV300S37A/60G) £37.99
1 x Cooler Master N200 NSE-200-KKN1 Midi-Tower - Black £36.95
Total : £362.51 (includes shipping : £8.00).



You can use the supplied cooler. Bump the SSD up if needed but I did a Windows 8.1 install on this exact drive a few weeks ago and forsee no problems for office type work. If the minecraft install is very large it might be worth getting a larger SSD to make loading really snappy.

Spending £600 over £360, or 65% more, will not make anything run 65% faster. Good luck and keep asking questions.
 
I just had a word with my mate about his MC server(BTW he runs the Hexus MC server IIRC).He runs the following on his A10 5800K based server:FTB Unhinged, ATLauncher Moonquest and Vanilla MC.

He said he tried out FTB Unhinged on another A10 5800K PC,and he said it was fine. His Athlon II X4 760 and HD7770 LAN box seems OK as I mentioned earlier.

Maybe,get a list of the mods being run??
 
Last edited:
Hi Joey, thanks for your comment.

It's easy to get sucked in and overspend,...

Ha ha, yes you can say that again :) I'm definitely guilty of this. I think I've decided on something, then I read an article about the latest RAM or whatever and think to myself "Mmm, I should probably get that then."

Spending £600 over £360, or 65% more, will not make anything run 65% faster.

This is exactly the kind of advice I need to hear, thanks.



I like the look of this, thanks. I presume the intention is to boot from the SSD and use the hard drive for saving files? That RAM is a really good price. I notice the motherboard has only two dimm slots. Is 8GB of RAM as much as I'd need, even if I decide to upgrade to a better processor in a few years?

If the minecraft install is very large it might be worth getting a larger SSD to make loading really snappy.

I'm tempted to get a larger SSD anyway, and just not bother with the HDD. My old pc is 5 years old and I've only used 84GB of the hard drive (lol), so a 250GB SSD would be more than enough for my purposes. I could probably get away with a 120GB one to be honest. I barely download anything, just a bit of poker and chess. I use Google Drive so all my documents etc. are saved in the cloud.
 
I just had a word with my mate about his MC server(BTW he runs the Hexus MC server IIRC).He runs the following on his A10 5800K based server:FTB Unhinged, ATLauncher Moonquest and Vanilla MC.

Sounds like these AMD processors are really impressive when it comes to gaming. My kids don't use other people's servers, they're too young for that. One of them just hosts the other over our wifi and they play together in the same 'world'. So clearly something like the 5800k or similar would be more than adequate for that.

Maybe,get a list of the mods being run??

Ha, this would be a long list, since his home screen is completely full of icons, each representing a different mod. He has dozens of them, although I'm not sure how many he uses. I know he asked me to download something called 'Forge' I think, and he has to log in under this account to use his mods.

He's so obsessed with Minecraft that he watches OTHER people playing the game on YouTube. I must admit though, I've been very impressed with some of the things he's managed to build.
 
Hi eddie, thanks for your reply.
Ha, that's really surprising. I just assumed that all pc-based games would benefit significantly from a better graphics card. I do have the budget (just) to go for an i5 with turbo boost, so maybe this is something I should be taking into account.

When it comes down to it, Minecraft is graphically simple; it uses no advanced shading, shadows, lighting, blurs, or other effects. On a single 1920x1200 screen, my modded MC on "max" details (still not a lot) uses about 30% of my aging 6870 GPU while maxing one core of my i5 @ 4.5GHz. My i5 laptop, turbo'ing up to 3.1GHz, is just not as smooth as the beefier desktop, even when neither use their GPUs fully.

Thing about the modded game is automation; you set up things to happen for you, with basically limitless complexity. Item transport pipes of length N blocks, automated mines, processing facilities, automated inventory management and crafting - it all takes it's toll, and towards "end game" you can generate an awful lot of non-graphics calculation, which obviously lands on the CPU. In one thread, because the game isn't optimised properly.

That's my 2p anyway; I'm sure the newest AMDs are pretty decent CPUs in general, but for single threaded work Intel seems to remain the king. I'm probably debating the difference between a good-enough framerate and a very-good framerate however, so ultimately I'm sure either system would be fine :)
 
I'm sure the newest AMDs are pretty decent CPUs in general, but for single threaded work Intel seems to remain the king. I'm probably debating the difference between a good-enough framerate and a very-good framerate however, so ultimately I'm sure either system would be fine :)

Yes I think this sums it up very well, based on the stuff I've read about these processors recently. The integrated GPU on the AMD processors seem clearly better than on the Intel CPUs such as the 4330, but the multi-tasking benchmarks and stuff like image editing always seem to heavily favour Intel. (There's an article in February's CustomPC magazine for example). I can certainly understand now why budget gaming builds almost always use AMD.

But as you say, even the HD4600 on the Intel CPUs is almost certainly good enough to give 'good-enough' framerates on a game like Minecraft. My kids are only 8 and 10 years old, so they're really not that fussy as long as they can play without the game stuttering too much.

Given that my family PC is mostly going to be used for home/office 'multi-tasking' type tasks and a bit of Minecraft, I think I'm leaning towards using an Intel processor. I might see if it can handle my son's Minecraft account without a discrete GPU initially, and if not then I'll add a card. That might be the best compromise, given what I'll be using it for.

EDIT:
This is part of the conclusion to a review of the 7850K (and others) vs Intel:


"Conclusion
As ever, there are a number of conclusions that can be drawn when it comes to AMD's latest APUs. Firstly, while our testing shows that Kaveri's instructions per clock and performance per watt are definitely improved over Richland, the lower clock speed and TDP rating mean that the A10-7850K offers little in the way of x86 improvements over the A10-6800K. We did occasionally see large improvements (wPrime), but these are likely to be limited, and overall CPU performance is the same or only a little bit better. As such, Intel is still the victor here, often by a large margin, so if hefty CPU tasks are a priority for you (e.g. high resolution and complex image editing, video encoding, lots of file compression, etc.), you'll want an Intel CPU powering your rig. Even if your budget is constrained, a £90 Core i3 processor will offer you much more than the £125 A10-7850K.

On the flipside, the GCN GPU in the A10-7850K is without doubt the best integrated GPU available for socketed processors. It's therefore a fantastic choice for a budget gaming PC that's still a capable all rounder, as its CPU performance is still appropriate for this segment of the market. As we said, Intel is better in this regard, but for general office applications, basic image editing and surfing the net (which covers a significant amount of users), the differences will be all but meaningless"

The final line is probably the most pertinent for me. I'm not going to be doing those complex, CPU intensive tasks, so it probably isn't going to matter too much which processor I use.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom