A build for my Dad/Home office computer

[DominionSeraph]

The key is that you have to assume what the OP meant. Given the vague OP, some people decided that the OP had an idea of what budget was needed to meet his dad's needs.

Actually, I just used the budget to cover for the assumptions I had to make.

"Will i3 be enough?"
Budget allows for i5 2500k, which is over 2x the processor for less than 2x the price. Spec i5.

"Will Gen2 SSD speeds be enough?"
Budget allows for Gen3. Spec Gen3

"Will 64GB SSD be enough?"
Budget allows for 120GB. Budget does not allow for 240GB no matter how much we cut down on anything else. So no point in trying to skimp on everything else to try to fit in a 240GB on the assumption that he needs all that space -- just spec the 120GB.

"Does OP want to mess around with HDMI/VGA adapters, and is there no chance whatsoever for gaming?"
Budget allows for GT 430, which would be 2-4x faster than HD3000/2000 if OP's dad decided he wanted to load up a game on his brand-new PC. The Gigabyte board with the great combo with the RAM also requires a discrete graphics card -- going with a Asus/Gigabyte board with dual-monitor capabilities with the IGP would've been at least $25 more, counting losing out on the combo, which is only $25 away from the GT 430 (after rebate). So spec GT430.


I saw no outstanding price/performance champ with minimal downsides under what I specced (like the i5 2500k is in relation to the i7 2600k) so I was not comfortable with making the decision to downgrade on my own just in the interest of price. You'd have to lose half the cores, half the SSD space, half the SSD performance (worst would be halving the RAM considering how little money it saves.)
While it's possible that a $650 i3/IGP/4GB/64GB Gen2 SSD machine would've sufficed, a $900 i5/GT430/8GB/120GB Gen3 SSD machine is just so much more. Given that the budget was $1000 and OP said he wanted "fast", there was no way to make the decision for the OP that any of the downgrades was appropriate simply in the name of price.

 

[mnewsham]

So you over did the entire build because it was within budget? Just because OP doesnt know what he wants and isnt sure he needs something doesnt mean you need to give him more, he wouldnt be asking if he knew he need more (Core i5 vs i3 for example). TBH the i3 is and was more then enough for his needs, the i5 while a good CPU is not needed in this build.

 

[JWVT]

After all that I am afraid to even elaborate on specifics of his business use for fear of ridicule. Entertaining though. Lets just say it is more than typical office use (excel, access, quick books etc.) but no it probably does not approach astrophysics, etc.

The problem is this. He has a budget in mind. If I were not going to build a computer for him what would he buy? He is going to configure a Dell that puts him at that mark. So are we overshooting a bit for his use? Maybe (Or you might say probably). I say better than undershooting even if you may think that is unlikely. I didn't ask for a budget build, I asked/implied for a build that would suit his minimum needs and get him the best equipment he could for what he is going to spend. I think I got those suggestions and am happy with that.

 

[mnewsham]

Next get him to decide on a monitor

 

[DominionSeraph]

So you over did the entire build because it was within budget?

OP wanted "fast". The build I specced would be "fast" under the widest set of circumstances.

TBH the i3 is and was more then enough for his needs,

You do not KNOW that, though. OP was not specific.
I am not going to spec a P4 with 1GB running Linux off a 512MB Flash drive just because perhaps it is sufficient, and expect OP to lead me upwards in every category. It is far more fail-safe to spec the best system at a given price point and then have OP shave off areas that HE knows he doesn't need.
Better overspecced in an area out of ignorance than underspecced.

I could "right-size" a computer for myself down to the dollar. I cannot do this for someone else, and the difference is going to be in dollars. I am going to use money in the budget to purchase hardware that'll best cover the spread of uncertainty.

 

[mnewsham]

so instead of asking for clarification you over did it? Oh okay i got you...

 

[DominionSeraph]

I think I got those suggestions and am happy with that.

You did, and I'm glad you're happy!

A $1000 Dell would NOT have been as good. Those look like the XPS 9100, with a i7 930, 6GB, and G310.

i5 2500k with 8GB, GT430, and 120GB Gen3 SSD is just superior in every way.

so instead of asking for clarification you over did it?

The sticky has "budget" for a reason. We are not expected to teach each and every person the ins and outs of each computer subsection so that they can elucidate their exact requirements so that we can right-size them a computer down to the dollar.

Pay me $300 and I'll give you a parts list tailor-made to your exact needs. Want advice for free? I'm going to paint with broader strokes. And the safe side of those strokes is on the high end.

 

[mnewsham]

You did, and I'm glad you're happy!

A $1000 Dell would NOT have been as good. Those look like the XPS 9100, with a i7 930, 6GB, and G310.

i5 2500k with 8GB, GT430, and 120GB Gen3 SSD is just superior in every way.

actually it is the XPS 8300 with i5-2310, 6GB of RAM, GT420, and a 23" monitor... not far from what you gave.

 

[DominionSeraph]

actually it is the XPS 8300 with i5-2310, 6GB of RAM, GT420, and a 23" monitor... not far from what you gave.

Or it's the Precision T3500 with dual dual-core Xeon W3503's, 2GB, ATI FireMV 2260, and 22 inch monitor, which is quite a ways away.

With high-end Dell's you have to know what you're buying.

 

[mnewsham]

I was only stating your example of a 1k machine from dell wasnt as close to yours as the one i posted (for $999)

 

[mvbighead]

The sticky has "budget" for a reason. We are not expected to teach each and every person the ins and outs of each computer subsection so that they can elucidate their exact requirements so that we can right-size them a computer down to the dollar.

This is the part I don't get from some of you. The sticky has budget listed because typically, someone has an exact idea of what they want to spend. And they often have no clue what they are going to be able to due with that budget.

In this case, the OP provided a legitimate budget that would get the job done. Unlike some asking for Winders, a monitor, and a full build to play Crysis on with all settings set to high, and at a price under $600. The OP's budget was realistic, and even allowed for optimizations in a lot of areas, which would provide a much better user experience.

I tend to agree with a lot of what Dominion has suggested, though I would be inclined to go a slightly different route and implement SSD caching using the Z68, and get a smaller SSD, but that is just me. All of his suggestions fit within the budget, and will very likely provide noticeable improvement for the OP.

But no, the OP gets told to reduce the budget. Why? So he can upgrade it later? He's not spending $3000 on an office build. He's spending $1000. And with that $1000, he can get close to the highest tier of processor, a good amount of RAM, an SSD, and oodles of other stuff. And it will all affect the end user's experience. Should he one day decide to encode video, he won't need to run out and upgrade his processor or RAM, as he's already spec'd out to do it. To me, if the OP is building this for his dad, he may not want to be called upon in 1-2 years to upgrade the CPU. And given the price point, he should just install the I5 2500k and be done with it.

 

[mvbighead]

actually it is the XPS 8300 with i5-2310, 6GB of RAM, GT420, and a 23" monitor... not far from what you gave.

I'd bet, dollars to doughnuts, that it doesn't have an SSD. Low and behold, I'm right:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...el_id=xps-8300

It also has 6gb of RAM, and with 4 sticks, you're going to be giving up RAM to perform an upgrade in the future, or you can "just" spend the $60 to add 2GB to push it up to 8GB.

I agree with Dominion here, with a Dell, you have to know the specs you're looking for. In this case, you are actually pretty far off of Dominions build based solely on the SSD.

 

[mnewsham]

I'd bet, dollars to doughnuts, that it doesn't have an SSD. Low and behold, I'm right:

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...el_id=xps-8300

It also has 6gb of RAM, and with 4 sticks, you're going to be giving up RAM to perform an upgrade in the future, or you can "just" spend the $60 to add 2GB to push it up to 8GB.

I agree with Dominion here, with a Dell, you have to know the specs you're looking for. In this case, you are actually pretty far off of Dominions build based solely on the SSD.

Agreed, but dominions example of a dell XPS 9100 was even further off. That had an i7-930, 6gb RAM, and a G310 GPU. Mine was at least 2nd gen Core series and a 400 series GPU with a monitor. Going with dell was never a good option and i was never recommending it

 

[mvbighead]

You're either not reading what I'm writing, you're trolling, or you're not very bright. OP said $1,000 is the limit, and then described tasks that can be performed on a $500 machine.

This is the problem with soliciting advice from enthusiasts. They're sometimes so far out of touch with what regular users do, or they're so enamored with flagellating their higher-end consumer electronics that they forget most people don't do much other than check their email and browse the web on a computer. OP said "Office tasks mostly. Will be working with large data files with picture attachments." Aside from the vaguery of the second sentence, yeah, that does sound like a mom and pop internet cruiser to me. Large data files with picture attachments could mean anything from a 10MB Access DB with 1GB of pics attached to 50GB flat text files linked to 1TB+ of pics. Sure, I like having an i7-2600K to analyze genetic data, but I sure as hell don't need it to run my small business's finances.

Also, Intel HD 2000 and 3000 iGPUs support dual monitors. I don't know if all LGA 1155 boards support them as well, but I know some do, so if you're willing to hook one up to the VGA port (and at 19", that's not going to make much of a difference) and one up to either the HDMI or DVI port, you will not need a discrete GPU to run dual monitors if you are not gaming.

Meh, I know that if the guy spends lots of time in front of it, giving him a $500 machine is a poor idea. To me, your $500 build is indicative of a 1-2 hour per day machine that my mom uses to check email and surf the web. The machine the OP is requesting sounds like something the guy will spend lots of time on. Regardless of the tasks, a little more horsepower will make his experience better, and he'll get a benefit out of his investment.

About the only area I disagree with Dominion is on the discrete graphics card. I sit in front of a machine all day long with an Intel HD graphics controller. I can watch HD, should I choose to, and do any number of things without issue. Since mine is on a laptop, I have little upgrade paths. For the OP, should his pop actually need more graphics horsepower than the HD3000 in the 2500k, it can be added later to pretty much any board. And a little money could've been saved going that route, even based on the excellent combos he provided. But the discrete card will be a better card, no question.

I just have a hard time seeing how the HD3000 chip has any purpose when we're recommending discrete cards for people who don't do anything graphically intense.

 

[mvbighead]

Agreed, but dominions example of a dell XPS 9100 was even further off. That had an i7-930, 6gb RAM, and a G310 GPU. Mine was at least 2nd gen Core series and a 400 series GPU with a monitor. Going with dell was never a good option and i was never recommending it

Oh I gotcha. Guess I was just throwing that tid-bit out there in case that was an actual suggestion, which Dells tend to come up all the time for "office machines."

 

[jaydee]

Meh, I know that if the guy spends lots of time in front of it, giving him a $500 machine is a poor idea. To me, your $500 build is indicative of a 1-2 hour per day machine that my mom uses to check email and surf the web. The machine the OP is requesting sounds like something the guy will spend lots of time on. Regardless of the tasks, a little more horsepower will make his experience better, and he'll get a benefit out of his investment.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that if you're not going anything cpu intensive (3D rendering, media encoding, file compression/decompression, gaming, etc), the difference between an i3-2100 and a i5-2500k is nil. In fact, I guaruntee that you put a fresh 2100 build and a fresh 2500k build side-by-side and the average non-gaming person will not be able to figure out which one is which by using them with their daily tasks. When people say something is "twice as fast", you've got to realize, that it's that much faster at very specific CPU intensive tasks, not loading applications or booting up the computer. The same could be said with SSD's.

You're better off pocketing the $100 difference between i5 and i3 and the $140 difference between Vertex3 120GB and Agility3 60GB. That $240 could get you a new CPU/Mobo 3-4 years from now that WILL be a noticable upgrade.

But who knows, we don't know the true nature of what he's doing with this computer. Maybe this guy is really into bragging about sythetic benchmarks. In that case, the choice is clear, go with the more expensive setup.

 

[mvbighead]

You don't seem to grasp the fact that if you're not going anything cpu intensive (3D rendering, media encoding, file compression/decompression, gaming, etc), the difference between an i3-2100 and a i5-2500k is nil. In fact, I guaruntee that you put a fresh 2100 build and a fresh 2500k build side-by-side and the average non-gaming person will not be able to figure out which one is which by using them with their daily tasks. When people say something is "twice as fast", you've got to realize, that it's that much faster at very specific CPU intensive tasks, not loading applications or booting up the computer. The same could be said with SSD's.

You're better off pocketing the $100 difference between i5 and i3 and the $140 difference between Vertex3 120GB and Agility3 60GB. That $240 could get you a new CPU/Mobo 3-4 years from now that WILL be a noticable upgrade.

But who knows, we don't know the true nature of what he's doing with this computer. Maybe this guy is really into bragging about sythetic benchmarks. In that case, the choice is clear, go with the more expensive setup.

Not entirely true. If the guy is do a lot of different thing, all at once, he may well encounter a bit of sluggishness on a dual core setup. Hell, my wife has a TV Tuner in her system, and from time to time she gets some issues just with that software alone.

Pocketing $100 just so you'll have something to upgrade later is a poor idea.

The question is, if a 2500k fits the budget, and can alleviate some stress on the system or upgrade need in the future, why not go with it?

We're not talking about a top tier, $300+ dollar processor. $300 for board and processor that scores just a notch below top tier systems is an easy justification, in my opinion. Especially for a $1000 system. You're suggesting allocating 20% of the budget to the MB/CPU, which is the core part of every system.

The 2500k will run circles around the i3 in a number of scenarios. Hell, Antivirus programs (McAfee in my office's case) can take a toll on a system. The point is, as processor architecture improves, the applications tend to increase their requirements along with it. Instead of rendering 480p video, we're rendering 1080p video. Instead of having a 10mb virus dat file, we have a 150mb virus data file. In any case, the more horse power you throw at it, the less of that toll you'll see as a user.

Again, with the OP's budget, a 2500k fits and will likely give him a system that will last a number of years without the need to look for an upgrade. If he were to go I3, he could be looking at needing a processor upgrade when he decides he wants to start encoding video, or whatever he ends up looking into. Come that time, he says, "Hey son, I said 1000, and you spent 900. Would I be in need of an upgrade had you spent the 1000?" My mom is not big on tinkering with her computer once it is configured. An upgrade down the line is not something she or I look forward to as, if it affects her machine in anyway, it's "my fault" and she's not happy. Do what you can with the budget given, and leave it alone for as long as you can. In this case, the i5 2500k is easily attainable and will last longer than the i3.

I simply don't agree with the point of getting something that will be enough, when something that will be awesome is just 10% of the budget given. Not to mention, this system will do pretty much everything the OP's dad throws at it with ease.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're better off pocketing the $100 difference between i5 and i3 and the $140 difference between Vertex3 120GB and Agility3 60GB. That $240 could get you a new CPU/Mobo 3-4 years from now that WILL be a noticable upgrade.

So the i3 2100 ($230 with mobo) would be a noticeable upgrade over an i7 920? Funny how the benchmarks don't show that.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=47

And that's at stock clocks. The i7 920 (and the i5 2500k) aren't locked to stock clocks like Intel's budget processors now are.

Buying a C2D to upgrade to an i3 now rather than simply buying an i7 920 and letting it ride would not have been a smart choice.
Intel is unlikely to put out any budget processor in the next 3 years that'll vastly outdo a 4GHz i5 2500k. Even if they do, there probably won't be any software relevant to OP's dad that'll in any way need it.

There was really no point in going ultra-budget system here. It was $100 more for 3x the processor, and I played it safe speccing size for the SSD (which, after windows, leaves 2.5x the capacity), and still came in $100 under budget (after rebates).

 

[jaydee]

So the i3 2100 ($230 with mobo) would be a noticeable upgrade over an i7 920? Funny how the benchmarks don't show that.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=47

And that's at stock clocks. The i7 920 (and the i5 2500k) aren't locked to stock clocks like Intel's budget processors now are.

Buying a C2D to upgrade to an i3 now rather than simply buying an i7 920 and letting it ride would not have been a smart choice.

And that's at stock clocks. The i7 920 (and the i5 2500k) aren't locked to stock clocks like Intel's budget processors now are.

Buying a C2D to upgrade to an i3 now rather than simply buying an i7 920 and letting it ride would not have been a smart choice.

First of all, the i7-920 was a high end chip, exclusive to a high end motherboard chipset. You couldn't buy a Bloomfield/x58 CPU/Mobo combo for much less than $500 within the last two years. Your comparison is absurd.

The i5-2500k is in the pricerange of i5-750, which was released Fall of 2009, less than two years ago. If you're going to nitpick, the midrange processors in the 3-4 year ago timeframe actually encompasses C2D line.

Let's take a look at today's "low end" CPU (i3-2100) compared to a "mid-range" CPU 3-4 years ago (E8400):
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/57?vs=289

Oh wait, you really shot your wad on a "high end" CPU (E8400Q) instead:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/89?vs=289

You're also ignoring the fact that 3-4 years ago, the processor didn't include a GPU, nor was it nearly as power efficient, thus adding significant value to the i3-2100 line, because you no longer have to buy an external video card and upsize your PSU.

Intel is unlikely to put out any budget processor in the next 3 years that'll vastly outdo a 4GHz i5 2500k. Even if they do, there probably won't be any software relevant to OP's dad that'll in any way need it.

You mean... it's kind of like how there's no software relavent to OP's dad today that would need a 2500k over a 2100?

 

[JWVT]

Wow, wish I would have read all the Newegg reviews before going with the recommended SSD. It worked for a day. Note sure if it is dead or is just the firmware problem people have reported. Not recognized by bios, cant boot from it, not recognized by the firmware updating tool. Anyone else gotten through this problem? RMA?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

It looks like the OP already bought the parts, no?

Sorry to say, but some of the recommendations here are just... *sigh* Let's just say they're not good for the machine's intended use.

You DO NOT buy OCZ SSDs when other competing brands are at competitive prices. They're the most unreliable, as shown by recent return rates, and OCZ's RMA department is lacking, to say the least. If you want a good, reliable SSD and/or a company that can decently handle issues, you go with Crucial/Micron, Corsair, or Intel. Get either a Crucial Real SSD C300 128GB or 64GB or an Intel 320 80GB.

Hitachi HDDs themselves are reliable, but many have problems being DOA. If you want a good HDD with less chances of being DOA, stick with Samsung F3/F4, Seagate 7200.12, or Western Digital Blue/Black.

As for the CPU, a 2500K is completely unneccesary for this. An i5 2400 costs $25 less and can be decently OCed. I wouldn't recommend running an office machine's CPU at raised voltage. The i5 2400 will be extremely fast for these tasks now and in the future.

Also, I've said this a million times:

Core i7 and Core i5: Performance (high-end)
Core i3: Mainstream
Pentium/Celeron: Essential (low-end)

As for the graphics card, the GeForce GT 430 is an absolute rip-off at $70. At that price you can get a Radeon HD 5670, a card with much higher performance and similar power consumption.

 

[jaydee]

Wow, wish I would have read all the Newegg reviews before going with the recommended SSD. It worked for a day. Note sure if it is dead or is just the firmware problem people have reported. Not recognized by bios, cant boot from it, not recognized by the firmware updating tool. Anyone else gotten through this problem? RMA?

SSD's are kind of a crapshoot. I've had two OCZ SSD's and they've been fine, countless more have had great success. Others have had terrible times and will never buy one again. It does seem that OCZ has more failures than everyone else, but it's also fair to say that they probably sell more than everyone else.

Don't think you have any other choice but to RMA it and hope you get a better one next time.

 

[mvbighead]

SSD's are kind of a crapshoot. I've had two OCZ SSD's and they've been fine, countless more have had great success. Others have had terrible times and will never buy one again. It does seem that OCZ has more failures than everyone else, but it's also fair to say that they probably sell more than everyone else.

Don't think you have any other choice but to RMA it and hope you get a better one next time.

I have an OCZ that I put in my work laptop... and a Corsair that went into my home computer. Had several issues with the Corsair before it finally up and died, and needed to be RMA'd. The OCZ is still going strong.

Personally, if I were buying today... I would look to Crucial or Intel. Just seems like they have less issues than everyone else.

 

[mfenn]

Wow, wish I would have read all the Newegg reviews before going with the recommended SSD. It worked for a day. Note sure if it is dead or is just the firmware problem people have reported. Not recognized by bios, cant boot from it, not recognized by the firmware updating tool. Anyone else gotten through this problem? RMA?

Yeah, you need to RMA it.