• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A tale of two possible mini-ITX builds

VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Usage: Web browsing, listening to internet radio, some Skype video-chatting, no gaming per se (no discrete card needed).

Budget: Let's say $300 ea, max. Looking at two of them. The cheaper, the better.

I have DDR3 desktop RAM and 2.5" SSDs to re-use. OS is not necessary, I will take care of that separately.

Purchase window: Maybe this month, maybe next month, depends on finances.

Location: USA, Newegg, TD, and MC are fine for me.

Here's what I've specced out thus far:

Case + PSU:
iStarUSA mini-ITX case + 120W PSU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...05&ignorebbr=1
$55.99 + $6 ship

Non-overclocked build (cheapest, $109):

Motherboard:
ECS H61H2-I v1.1
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813135341
$35.99

CPU:
Intel G2030 3.0Ghz IB dual-core
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116924
$59.99

Tenda N300 USB wifi
$12.99 + tax at MC, can be ordered as well
http://www.microcenter.com/product/378691/W322U_Wireless_N_300Mbps_USB_20_Adapter
(I'm using one of these right now, and I get great signal with them. Installs OOB in Win7 without driver disk too.)

Overclocked build ($181):

Mobo:
Gigabyte B85N Phoenix WIFI ITX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128735
$99.99 + $6 ship
(Has mSATA and comes with dual-stream AC wifi.)

CPU:
Intel G3258 / Pentium-AE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819117374
$74.99 ($59.99 + tax @ MC)

Thoughts:
The Phoenix wifi / Pentium-AE, assuming that I can get to 4.5Ghz, with a 120W laptop PSU and without overheating the mini-ITX case, would be a bit faster. I wouldn't have to OC right away either.

But the other build is cheaper. My current HTPC is using the same iStarUSA case, and the ECS H61 ITX board, and a G1610. I have had some minor stability problems with it, but I don't think that they have to do with temps, because under OCCT PSU Test load, the CPU only got to 62C.
 
My current HTPC is using the same iStarUSA case, and the ECS H61 ITX board, and a G1610. I have had some minor stability problems with it, but I don't think that they have to do with temps, because under OCCT PSU Test load, the CPU only got to 62C.
Click to expand...

So will this new build be swapping in for HTPC duties?

If you're using igpu for hardware decoding, I would think you'd def want to go Haswell to avoid Sandy/Ivy's 23.96 FPS glitch.

Plus OC'ing later sounds like more longterm fun 😛
 
Essence_of_War said:
So will this new build be swapping in for HTPC duties?
Click to expand...
No, these are for my living room as "NEF PCs", for myself and friends to use. Plus might do some DC on them (especially on the overclocked config).
If you're using igpu for hardware decoding, I would think you'd def want to go Haswell to avoid Sandy/Ivy's 23.96 FPS glitch.
Plus OC'ing later sounds like more longterm fun 😛
Click to expand...
Not a lot of 2hr movie watching on these, more Skype and the occasional YouTube video.

But that's a point in favor of the Haswell-based config.

One other thing, if I bought the Phoenix Wifi boards, with 802.11ac, I would want to upgrade to an AC-capable router.
 
I'll second the Haswell config. Everything else being equal, it should have slightly lower power consumption at idle.

You still might want to at least consider an i3 for future proofing. Perhaps even a 35W T-series for optimum efficiency.
 
If they're nef boxes that you'll be using for DC, I'd probably do a $200 build with, say, a 1037U motherboard (or the newer 2955 - just avoid the Atom-based ones, the lower single-threaded performance will kill you), and then a $400 build with a low-voltage i5 or something. For general use on the web and stuff with an SSD you won't notice a difference, and the i5 will pwn on DC projects because of the cores and bigger cache.

I have a 4670T in one of my machines that is... yes. Yes.
 
Biostar 1037U ITX mobo+CPU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...93&ignorebbr=1
$70

ASRock AM1B-ITX AM1 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI Mini ITX AMD Motherboard
bundled with:
1x AMD Athlon 5350 Kabini Quad-Core 2.05GHz Socket
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...=Combo.1759335
$95

Would either of these be a better choice?
For web browsing?
Distributed computing? (I'm sure I could use the GCN cores to do something with.)
Media consumption / Blu-ray rips
Skype? (It's at least dual-threaded.)

Edit: I have some experience with the E1-2500 Kabini CPU. It was too slow at 1.4Ghz dual-core for Skype and web browsing.

Whereas, the 1007U in my netbook can handle both easily.

Edit: As much as I want to support AMD, I just have to say that from hard experience, I think that their lower-powered cores are just too slow. No matter how many of them that you throw at a task.

I think that my choice is now down to between the 1037U board from Biostar, and the H61 ITX board from ECS and a G2030. I wouldn't mind using a desktop chip. I know that the power consumption is higher than the Celeron under load, but it would be nice to have that kind of CPU headroom.
 
Last edited:
VirtualLarry said:
Would either of these be a better choice?
For web browsing?
Distributed computing? (I'm sure I could use the GCN cores to do something with.)
Media consumption / Blu-ray rips
Skype? (It's at least dual-threaded.)

Edit: I have some experience with the E1-2500 Kabini CPU. It was too slow at 1.4Ghz dual-core for Skype and web browsing.

Whereas, the 1007U in my netbook can handle both easily.

Edit: As much as I want to support AMD, I just have to say that from hard experience, I think that their lower-powered cores are just too slow. No matter how many of them that you throw at a task.
Click to expand...

The quad-core Kabinis are quite nice if you don't expect too much from them. Their IPC is slightly better then a K8 core to give some reference.

BTW, you've tried a dual-core K8-equivenlent at 1.4GHz. What did you expect? For Kabini the minimum on the desktop should be the quad-cores, except the Sempron 2850...

VirtualLarry said:
I think that my choice is now down to between the 1037U board from Biostar, and the H61 ITX board from ECS and a G2030. I wouldn't mind using a desktop chip. I know that the power consumption is higher than the Celeron under load, but it would be nice to have that kind of CPU headroom.
Click to expand...

If you want real CPU headroom, a T-series i3 is still the way to go. I wouldn't use anything less for a daily-driver machine. For the ultimate performance/W, you should be looking at the 35W 4765T/4785T (or even the 4770T/4790T). They'll blow the socks of anything else "low-power"...

If you want even lower power, Intel does have the highly interesting Xeon E3-1220LV3 at a 13W TDP. Its kind of expensive though...

http://ark.intel.com/products/75051/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1220L-v3-4M-Cache-1_10-GHz

(Essentially an i3 wrapped in a 13W TDP)
 
Insert_Nickname said:
If you want real CPU headroom, a T-series i3 is still the way to go. I wouldn't use anything less for a daily-driver machine. For the ultimate performance/W, you should be looking at the 35W 4765T/4785T (or even the 4770T/4790T). They'll blow the socks of anything else "low-power"...

If you want even lower power, Intel does have the highly interesting Xeon E3-1220LV3 at a 13W TDP. Its kind of expensive though...

http://ark.intel.com/products/75051/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1220L-v3-4M-Cache-1_10-GHz

(Essentially an i3 wrapped in a 13W TDP)
Click to expand...

Interesting, but it sounds like those would blow the budget. Thanks though.
 
Several months ago, there was a combo deal (for about $12 after rebate) on an MSI H81 mATX board. Combined with an i3-4130 or similar Haswell CPU, you'd also get onboard Intel HD 4400 video. There could be some of those MSI boards available from resellers via eBay or elsewhere. Also: easily Hackintosh-able, if that's of any interest.
One of many listed on eBay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/MSI-H81M-P3...-H81-Chipset-Socket-H3-LGA-1150-/400747912169
 
Last edited:
VirtualLarry said:
Biostar 1037U ITX mobo+CPU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...93&ignorebbr=1
$70

ASRock AM1B-ITX AM1 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 HDMI Mini ITX AMD Motherboard
bundled with:
1x AMD Athlon 5350 Kabini Quad-Core 2.05GHz Socket
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboD...=Combo.1759335
$95

Would either of these be a better choice?
For web browsing?
Distributed computing? (I'm sure I could use the GCN cores to do something with.)
Media consumption / Blu-ray rips
Skype? (It's at least dual-threaded.)

Edit: I have some experience with the E1-2500 Kabini CPU. It was too slow at 1.4Ghz dual-core for Skype and web browsing.

Whereas, the 1007U in my netbook can handle both easily.

Edit: As much as I want to support AMD, I just have to say that from hard experience, I think that their lower-powered cores are just too slow. No matter how many of them that you throw at a task.

I think that my choice is now down to between the 1037U board from Biostar, and the H61 ITX board from ECS and a G2030. I wouldn't mind using a desktop chip. I know that the power consumption is higher than the Celeron under load, but it would be nice to have that kind of CPU headroom.
Click to expand...

I would suspect the 1037 vs. 5350 would follow the typical Intel vs. AMD pattern: the Intel will have much higher single-threaded performance, and will probably feel snappier. The 5350 will spank it in multi-threaded benchmarks and for certain applications like video encoding. There's also the GPU that might have some use, as you pointed out.

I'd expect the 1037U to "feel" snappier just surfing the web and running Windows. But that said, your inability to surf the web on the E1-2500 is probably for a software problem. If you're not using NoScript and FlashBlock, you're going to have hangs and stuff even on a full-blown i7 desktop. Netflix on lower-end hardware comes down to quality settings and HTML5/Silverlight. And so on. You know the drill.

But if the cost of the H61/G2030 is close enough (and it looks like you can get those for around $90) then I'd go with that. It'll pwn.
 
Last edited:
VirtualLarry said:
Interesting, but it sounds like those would blow the budget. Thanks though.
Click to expand...

Actually, because of a recent encounter with an i7-4790T (see thread in CPU/OC), I'm seriously considering if my next desktop will contain an S or T-series CPU. They're offer serious performance for the power they consume. That 4790T was faster then a 2600(properly the K-edition too), a 3770K and could even almost match a 4770K@stock. Pretty impressive for a 45W chip if you ask me.

dave_the_nerd said:
I would suspect the 1037 vs. 5350 would follow the typical Intel vs. AMD pattern: the Intel will have much higher single-threaded performance, and will probably feel snappier. The 5350 will spank it in multi-threaded benchmarks and for certain applications like video encoding. There's also the GPU that might have some use, as you pointed out.

I'd expect the 1037U to "feel" snappier just surfing the web and running Windows. But that said, your inability to surf the web on the E1-2500 is probably for a software problem. If you're not using NoScript and FlashBlock, you're going to have hangs and stuff even on a full-blown i7 desktop. Netflix on lower-end hardware comes down to quality settings and HTML5/Silverlight. And so on. You know the drill.
Click to expand...

^^What he said.
 
vailr said:
Lowest priced "new" socket 1150 miniITX board is ~$60 on Newegg:
ASRock H81M-ITX LGA 1150 Intel H81 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Mini ITX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157451
For an added $26, a newer chipset + WiFi:
ASRock H97M-ITX/ac LGA 1150 Intel H97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 Mini ITX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157526
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if you're looking for a "good enough" system, $36 for a motherboard is hard to beat. A G1620 for $43 means a motherboard and CPU for less than the cost of that H97 motherboard.
 
Insert_Nickname said:
Actually, because of a recent encounter with an i7-4790T (see thread in CPU/OC), I'm seriously considering if my next desktop will contain an S or T-series CPU. They're offer serious performance for the power they consume. That 4790T was faster then a 2600(properly the K-edition too), a 3770K and could even almost match a 4770K@stock. Pretty impressive for a 45W chip if you ask me.
Click to expand...

You have to consider that a T, S, or full power CPU will use the same amount of power at idle (+/- 5%), and that's where a PC spends the bulk of its time.

When looking at load power consumption, you also have to consider the race-to-idle principle. Given equal workloads, the faster chip will be able to complete its task more quickly, and thus get back to its idle state faster. This will lead to more or less the same overall power consumption than the reduced-power chip, but of course that it got the job done more quickly in the first place (i.e. higher performance).

S and T series chips are designed for scenarios where heat dissipation is limited, thus the chip cannot be run over a certain wattage for a sustained length of time. Your typical desktop machine (anything other than a slim-ITX) doesn't fall into the category of TDP-limited.
 
VirtualLarry said:
Case + PSU:
iStarUSA mini-ITX case + 120W PSU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...05&ignorebbr=1
$55.99 + $6 ship

My current HTPC is using the same iStarUSA case, and the ECS H61 ITX board, and a G1610. I have had some minor stability problems with it, but I don't think that they have to do with temps, because under OCCT PSU Test load, the CPU only got to 62C.
Click to expand...

mfenn said:
S and T series chips are designed for scenarios where heat dissipation is limited, thus the chip cannot be run over a certain wattage for a sustained length of time. Your typical desktop machine (anything other than a slim-ITX) doesn't fall into the category of TDP-limited.
Click to expand...

But I do want a very tiny ITX case. It has vent holes, but no fan.

I also want to do some DC with them, if it's feasible.
 
mfenn said:
S and T series chips are designed for scenarios where heat dissipation is limited, thus the chip cannot be run over a certain wattage for a sustained length of time. Your typical desktop machine (anything other than a slim-ITX) doesn't fall into the category of TDP-limited.
Click to expand...

While you make perfect sense that wasn't the point. The point was to put a big fat clamp on CPU power-consumption while f.x. gaming. With current power prices, I'm not willing to burn f.x. 60W vs 45W if the end result is an extra 1-2FPS...

63285.png


63291.png


^^ Notice the 4765T is getting almost the same FPS as a 4790, while having a a 35W vs 84W TDP.

When you play strategy titles like Rome2, where a single turn can take an hour+, extra power consumed adds up. Besides at least the T's have significantly lower power consumption when idle/low-loads, because of their much lower vCore...

You're welcome to agree or disagree with the above. But once you start paying $0.40-0.45c per KWh, you start to take efficiency seriously... :ninja:

With the new windfarms our government decided on, electricity will cost ~1DKK per KWh, which after taxes will approach 3-4DKK per KWh ($0.55-0.75c per KWh)...
 
Insert_Nickname said:
When you play strategy titles like Rome2, where a single turn can take an hour+, extra power consumed adds up. Besides at least the T's have significantly lower power consumption when idle/low-loads, because of their much lower vCore...
Click to expand...

If that's the problem, you need to check your GPU, not your CPU.

I've spent plenty of time playing Rome2, and believe me - the GPU is way more loaded than the CPU most of the time.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
If that's the problem, you need to check your GPU, not your CPU.
Click to expand...

My point was more that with a single GPU you'll be CPU limited far before then you're GPU limited. I see no reason to burn more power for a very limited, if any, gain.

For general performance, the difference between even the 4765T and 4790 is measured in a few seconds for most tasks. Is the 4790 faster? Without question, but I think I can live with that...

You also don't need to go as extreme as the 4765T, the 4790T looks like a good compromise at 45W. It's still faster then any laptop CPU out-there...

dave_the_nerd said:
I've spent plenty of time playing Rome2, and believe me - the GPU is way more loaded than the CPU most of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm already running an 80+ platinum PSU, for that very reason. My HD7870 was pretty much the best power/performance card when I got it, and its still keeping up quite well. Though it'll be retired with the release of the "big" Maxwells.

There is absolute performance and there is adequate performance. I'm not trying to castrate my gaming system, I'm chasing the later, while making it as efficient as possible...

(This isn't really about money, but I can't really justify running a 500W+ quad-SLI system for obvious reasons. Money still has to come from -somewhere-...)
 
Insert_Nickname said:
My point was more that with a single GPU you'll be CPU limited far before then you're GPU limited. I see no reason to burn more power for a very limited, if any, gain.

For general performance, the difference between even the 4765T and 4790 is measured in a few seconds for most tasks. Is the 4790 faster? Without question, but I think I can live with that...

You also don't need to go as extreme as the 4765T, the 4790T looks like a good compromise at 45W. It's still faster then any laptop CPU out-there...
Click to expand...

The Anandtech article the you reference is (uncharacteristically) incomplete, they didn't test power usage of the T-series at all! Actually, I did some searching, and reputable reviews of the Haswell S and T series are really thin on the ground (read: nonexistent). So I'll have to qualify my statements that this is what has held true in the past given the lack of data on Haswell in particular.

Intel has invested quite a lot of engineering resources into making sure that their processors are able to enter and leave sleep states very quickly. I believe that it's somewhere on the order of a few microseconds to go from deep sleep to full power. In a workload that's not CPU-limited, the CPU must be spending time waiting on other components (by definition). It's able to go to sleep during the micro time intervals while it's waiting on the other component (GPU, disk, etc) to complete it's work.

As Dave mentioned, for GPU-limited gaming, you need to look at the power efficiency of your GPU, the CPU plays a very small overall role in power consumption. If you're getting over 60 FPS, then you should also enable Vsync (or other framerate limiter as appropriate) in order to cap the total power draw of the CPU and GPU.
 
With the Haswell core there are a limited number of T series processors. I usually dont use these lower-end pentium cores. I am using a 4330 with 4 meg cache and 4600hd graphics.

There is a new i3 coming out in 35 watt. Intel 4360T. It was suppose to be available July 20, 2014. I did not see it on Newegg so I dont know how much it will sell for when it is available:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i3/Intel-Core i3-4360T.html

Looks interesting but it might be more than you want to spend. Might need a H97 MB to use it. I dont know if it will run on a cheaper motherboard or not.
 
mfenn said:
The Anandtech article the you reference is (uncharacteristically) incomplete, they didn't test power usage of the T-series at all! Actually, I did some searching, and reputable reviews of the Haswell S and T series are really thin on the ground (read: nonexistent). So I'll have to qualify my statements that this is what has held true in the past given the lack of data on Haswell in particular.

Intel has invested quite a lot of engineering resources into making sure that their processors are able to enter and leave sleep states very quickly. I believe that it's somewhere on the order of a few microseconds to go from deep sleep to full power. In a workload that's not CPU-limited, the CPU must be spending time waiting on other components (by definition). It's able to go to sleep during the micro time intervals while it's waiting on the other component (GPU, disk, etc) to complete it's work.
Click to expand...

I think we're somehow talking past each other. Lets worst-case and simplify it. If you have a CPU that uses 35W full-load for an hour, you'll have used 0.035KWh. If you have an 84W TDP you'll have used 0.084KWh. A difference of 0.049KWh. Since you're billed per KWh, the 35W TDP will cost you ~7"øre" (1/100 of a Danish Krone) per hour to run, the 84W will cost you ~18"øre" per hour to run. Over twice the cost for a best-case extremely minimal increase in performance.

We have a saying in Danish, that freely translated reads "A lot of little creeks make a very big river..."

It is a gross over-simplification, but am I making myself clear...? 🙂

Even under light loads the S/T should come out ahead because of their -much- lower vCore. You can properly achieve the same by under-volting a regular CPU, but then you have to factor in time to test stability and the fact that the S/T's are guaranteed to run at lower voltages. I'm slightly paranoid about my system being stable...

mfenn said:
As Dave mentioned, for GPU-limited gaming, you need to look at the power efficiency of your GPU, the CPU plays a very small overall role in power consumption. If you're getting over 60 FPS, then you should also enable Vsync (or other framerate limiter as appropriate) in order to cap the total power draw of the CPU and GPU.
Click to expand...

Already done. Every power-saving feature you can think of is already implemented. Even to the point of turning down AMD's Power-Tune to -20%.
 
^^ Notice the 4765T is getting almost the same FPS as a 4790, while having a a 35W vs 84W TDP.
Click to expand...

If you have a CPU that uses 35W full-load for an hour, you'll have used 0.035KWh. If you have an 84W TDP you'll have used 0.084KWh.
Click to expand...

It is a gross over-simplification, but am I making myself clear...?
Click to expand...

I hear you, but without actual platform power consumption benchmarks, I think doing your rough calculations by TDP is likely to be strongly overstating your actual power savings. You simply do not know the actual platform power draws in the 4765 vs. 4790. As you point out, if the S/T ARE undervolted compared with the 4790, it will likely be SOME power savings, but I am highly suspicious of it being 50W worth.

So while I would agree that your best case scenario (power-virus loads that cause both to run at or near TDP!) may be correct, the suspicion is that in real workloads, they're closer than their TDPs might suggest.
 
Essence_of_War said:
I hear you, but without actual platform power consumption benchmarks, I think doing your rough calculations by TDP is likely to be strongly overstating your actual power savings. You simply do not know the actual platform power draws in the 4765 vs. 4790. As you point out, if the S/T ARE undervolted compared with the 4790, it will likely be SOME power savings, but I am highly suspicious of it being 50W worth.
Click to expand...

Obviously real-world numbers will be be different. I can however confirm the S/T's are under-volted. It just bugs me I didn't remember to take a CPU-Z screenshot to prove it. At full load the 4790T@3.3GHz only receives 0.990V, while if you load an AVX2 test it receives 1.045V. While at idle voltage is 0.675V.

I can also indirectly confirm the 4790T doesn't use more then 45W according to the PCU readout, so obviously the PCU is working as intended, limiting power-draw.

(Actually the CPU package uses precisely 51W including uncore and memory, but the IA cores are pegged at precisely 45W)

Essence_of_War said:
So while I would agree that your best case scenario (power-virus loads that cause both to run at or near TDP!) may be correct, the suspicion is that in real workloads, they're closer than their TDPs might suggest.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't have to go as "extreme" as the 4765T (4C/8T@2.0GHz-3.0GHz Turbo). Now I don't know how well you know the specifications of the S/T's, but these CPU have a pretty aggressive turbo scheme, f.x. the 4790T might have a base frequency of 2700MHz, but the turbo for all 4 cores is 3300MHz, 3 cores is 3600MHz, 2 cores is 3800MHz and single core turbo is 3900MHz. That's almost 4770K-level performance at 45W, I've seen plenty of 4770K's use more then 45W running full load. As far as I can tell, so long as you don't load up the IGP, the chip has zero issues staying at maximum turbo. Since it would potentially be used with a discrete card, the IGP power-draw is a non-issue.

Even at a worst case with the CPU only running at 2700MHz, we're still talking far more performance then an i7-920 at stock.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top