Budget Home PC for simple web browsing and mail

[FrietSauce]

Hello,

I might be willing to build a PC for simple use, instead of simply buying a Mini PC.
The computer would be mostly used for mail, internet, a little bit of storage and Spider Solitaire (I know...). The computer will most likely run on Linux.
This is what I came up with:

Intel Celeron G1840 2.8GHz Dual-Core Processor - €39,80
MSI H81M-P33 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard - €42,80
Corsair 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1333 Memory - €27,80
A-Data Premier Pro SP600 64GB 2.5" Solid State Drive - €28,90
Zalman ZM-T3 MicroATX Mini Tower Case - €37,00
EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply - €37,00
Total - €221,30

PCPartPicker list: http://de.pcpartpicker.com/p/hPgcK8

I'm sure it isn't perfect, which is why I came here. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or improvements.

Please note that I live in the Netherlands, so not all components available in the US are available here. I used the German version of PCPartPicker because all components on there are available in the Netherlands, in my experience.

EDIT:
I missed some additional information, I just realized.
I will probably be buying from www.azerty.nl, because so far they have had almost every single product I needed at a good price.
I do not intend on using any parts I have laying around and I do not plan to overclock the build.
For budget PC's I do not have brand preference as long as it works and is affordable with the budget.
The budget would be €250.
The monitor resolution will be either 1360x768 or 1920x1080, the last one most likely.
I plan on building it the upcoming weeks.

Thanks in advance!

 

[mvbighead]

Try to find a site with a good deal on the Chromebox. The site you referenced appeared to be high, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more cost effective box for what you describe.

 

[Eug]

I assume that €250 price includes VAT. I don't know what the markup is in your area, but I've personally found that in that price range, you're often better off just buying a pre-built machine from an OEM. This is especially true if you want a legit copy of Windows, but I see that in your case you will likely run Linux.

The main difficulty with the pre-built machines is the drive, as most will come with a hard disk drive, so you'd have to add the SSD after the fact, evening out the cost. Some do come with SSD though. eg. The above mentioned Chromebox.

 

[FrietSauce]

Try to find a site with a good deal on the Chromebox. The site you referenced appeared to be high, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more cost effective box for what you describe.

I assume that €250 price includes VAT. I don't know what the markup is in your area, but I've personally found that in that price range, you're often better off just buying a pre-built machine from an OEM. This is especially true if you want a legit copy of Windows, but I see that in your case you will likely run Linux.

The main difficulty with the pre-built machines is the drive, as most will come with a hard disk drive, so you'd have to add the SSD after the fact, evening out the cost. Some do come with SSD though. eg. The above mentioned Chromebox.

Thanks for the advice. I looked at Chromboxes before, though if a chromebox has an SSD, it is 16 GB, rarely 32GB, so I would have to add one as you said.

The prices include VAT, as always in the Netherlands.

Also, what does 'the site appeared to be high' mean, if I may ask?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Also, what does 'the site appeared to be high' mean, if I may ask?

High prices. Expensive.

 

[FrietSauce]

High prices. Expensive.

Thanks. Though, Afuture is almost always one of the cheapest in the Netherlands. It's usually cheaper than amazon.de as well. I guess everything is expensive here?

 

[escrow4]

-> You want an i3 as a minimum. I had (have no one will buy it) a G1850. It was just sluggish.

-> A 64GB SSD is seriously small and slow compared to denser models. 10 and Office and updates will swallow at least 20GB. Ideally you'd want 256GB if its the only drive in the system.

-> 4GB will do it, but 8GB will give you breathing room.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Thanks. Though, Afuture is almost always one of the cheapest in the Netherlands. It's usually cheaper than amazon.de as well. I guess everything is expensive here?

Prices for consumer electronics in the US tend to be a bit lower than in Europe. Also, our companies generally advertise a price that doesn't include VAT (we call it "sales tax," and it's usually 5-8%, not 15-25% like in Europe.) So when we go shopping for computer parts in Europe, we get sticker shock.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

-> You want an i3 as a minimum. I had (have no one will buy it) a G1850. It was just sluggish.

-> A 64GB SSD is seriously small and slow compared to denser models. 10 and Office and updates will swallow at least 20GB. Ideally you'd want 256GB if its the only drive in the system.

-> 4GB will do it, but 8GB will give you breathing room.

All of this is truth.

 

[FrietSauce]

-> You want an i3 as a minimum. I had (have no one will buy it) a G1850. It was just sluggish.

-> A 64GB SSD is seriously small and slow compared to denser models. 10 and Office and updates will swallow at least 20GB. Ideally you'd want 256GB if its the only drive in the system.

-> 4GB will do it, but 8GB will give you breathing room.

True, though Windows 10 will most likely not be installed and I'm sure Office won't. A Google search brings up that Ubuntu only takes yp 4.5 GB, but even if it were to be 10GB there would still be plenty left for web browsing, mail and storing a few pictures.

I don't think I need 8GB of RAM, as this PC is purely for simple tasks.

If I can find a good deal on an i3, I will, but it is a significant amount more and I'm not sure if my family is willing to pay that.
Which Core i3 would you recommend?

Anyway, thanks for the advice.

 

[FrietSauce]

Prices for consumer electronics in the US tend to be a bit lower than in Europe. Also, our companies generally advertise a price that doesn't include VAT (we call it "sales tax," and it's usually 5-8%, not 15-25% like in Europe.) So when we go shopping for computer parts in Europe, we get sticker shock.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Ken g6]

I can see Firefox on a Celeron with 4GB working pretty well. It only uses one thread. If you want Chrome, though, an i3 with 8GB would probably be better.

 

[Yuriman]

I have a Celeron machine with 4GB of RAM and a small SSD, and I'm perfectly content with it.

Overall I think OP would be better served with a NUC though.

 

[VirtualLarry]

-> You want an i3 as a minimum. I had (have no one will buy it) a G1850. It was just sluggish.

-> A 64GB SSD is seriously small and slow compared to denser models. 10 and Office and updates will swallow at least 20GB. Ideally you'd want 256GB if its the only drive in the system.

-> 4GB will do it, but 8GB will give you breathing room.

I think he's on a budget.

Just DO NOT get a "MeegoPad T02 Compute Stick (Ubuntu version)". Massive waste of money. I did (Full PC for under $100?), and now I'm regretting it. Mostly the lack of support. (Drivers? What Drivers? We don't need no stinking drivers... LOL!)

Edit: I take that back. There now are Win10 32-bit drivers available, check x86pad.com and their forum for details.

I think OP's build is fine, for a "Mom box". SSD size shouldn't be an issue with Linux. (I bought some 32GB SSDs for my Linux-based "browser boxes" I'm building.)

 

[dealcorn]

Currently, I use the substantially less powerful J1800 (Atom Bay Trail dual core) with 4 GB DRAM and a SSD for almost exactly your planned use pattern, Linux based web browsing, email and Gnome's delightful Aisle Riot solitaire. I note that the 4.1 Linux kernel release offers better support for Atom graphics so an old graphics issue that dragging a column of Aisle Riot cards past the screen boarders caused distortion until drag release, is now fixed. First, I question whether more than 4GB of DRAM is required in your use pattern. Do you require multiple tabs streaming video open at the same time? Second, a G1850 is fully adequate to deliver satisfactory Linux performance in your use pattern. The I3 is a superior processor you do not require.

 

[FrietSauce]

I can see Firefox on a Celeron with 4GB working pretty well. It only uses one thread. If you want Chrome, though, an i3 with 8GB would probably be better.

For a budget PC for simple use I still think it'll be fine. It will not be used for any multitasking and probably not even multiple tabs at the same time.

I have a Celeron machine with 4GB of RAM and a small SSD, and I'm perfectly content with it.

Overall I think OP would be better served with a NUC though.

I was looking at an Intel NUC Kit DN2820FYKH, which has a Celeron N2820. The Celeron N2820 is used in a couple of budget Chromeboxes, so I'm guessing it's powerful enough? Adding a drive, RAM and network card will roughly equal out the costs.

I think he's on a budget.

Just DO NOT get a "MeegoPad T02 Compute Stick (Ubuntu version)". Massive waste of money. I did (Full PC for under $100?), and now I'm regretting it. Mostly the lack of support. (Drivers? What Drivers? We don't need no stinking drivers... LOL!)

I think OP's build is fine, for a "Mom box". SSD size shouldn't be an issue with Linux. (I bought some 32GB SSDs for my Linux-based "browser boxes" I'm building.)

I won't get the Meegopad T02 Compute Stick for sure! I wasn't really planning on getting a compute stick in the first place, but still.

Currently, I use the substantially less powerful J1800 (Atom Bay Trail dual core) with 4 GB DRAM and a SSD for almost exactly your planned use pattern, Linux based web browsing, email and Gnome's delightful Aisle Riot solitaire. I note that the 4.1 Linux kernel release offers better support for Atom graphics so an old graphics issue that dragging a column of Aisle Riot cards past the screen boarders caused distortion until drag release, is now fixed. First, I question whether more than 4GB of DRAM is required in your use pattern. Do you require multiple tabs streaming video open at the same time? Second, a G1850 is fully adequate to deliver satisfactory Linux performance in your use pattern. The I3 is a superior processor you do not require.

As said before, it will most likely not even have multiple tabs open at the same time, and will rarely be used for watching a video.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

 

[Charlie98]

Given the limited use your machine is intended for, I think your build is fine... I see no reason for an i3 and a 256GB SSD. The only thing I might change would be going from a Celeron to a Pentium, and perhaps going to 2x 2GB RAM sticks instead of just a single 4GB stick (unless you plan to upgrade the RAM soon, and I don't think you are.)

 

[sm625]

64GB is fine. I have several web surfing machines with intel 40GB SSDs, and they all have several GB of free space. You just gotta keep em clean. (windirstat is your money-saving friend.) I'd be more worried about the CPU. If you're going two threaded, you want them well over 3GHz. (Ideally 4.0-4.2GHz on a G3258). Consider a used PC with a 1st or 2nd generation high clocked i5.

 

[FrietSauce]

Given the limited use your machine is intended for, I think your build is fine... I see no reason for an i3 and a 256GB SSD. The only thing I might change would be going from a Celeron to a Pentium, and perhaps going to 2x 2GB RAM sticks instead of just a single 4GB stick (unless you plan to upgrade the RAM soon, and I don't think you are.)

What Pentium would you recommend, as there are quite a few that could fit in the system in its current state (according to PCPartPicker)?
And is 2x2GB worth the extra money?

64GB is fine. I have several web surfing machines with intel 40GB SSDs, and they all have several GB of free space. You just gotta keep em clean. (windirstat is your money-saving friend.) I'd be more worried about the CPU. If you're going two threaded, you want them well over 3GHz. (Ideally 4.0-4.2GHz on a G3258). Consider a used PC with a 1st or 2nd generation high clocked i5.

If you mean I'd be better off buying a used i5, I do not have a used i5 laying around and I'm not sure if I want to buy one online.

Thanks for your advice (I just can't stop saying that ), to both of you.

 

[FrietSauce]

I'm not sure if I should edit the main post or just post it here, but I was wondering about something.

The current laptop used has lasted for 9 whole years. It was mid-range at the time, but is really slow now. I'm wondering if this build will last 5 years, if not more? Since the current specifications are not mid-range, would it be worth investing a little more right now on, for instance, an i3 or should I simply upgrade the PC when it gets slow?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'm not sure if I should edit the main post or just post it here, but I was wondering about something.

The current laptop used has lasted for 9 whole years. It was mid-range at the time, but is really slow now. I'm wondering if this build will last 5 years, if not more? Since the current specifications are not mid-range, would it be worth investing a little more right now on, for instance, an i3 or should I simply upgrade the PC when it gets slow?

Generally, it's very rare that an application will come along that renders, say, all the lower end CPUs of a given generation obsolete, which wouldn't still be pretty painful on the high-end CPUs of the same generation. And a Pentium Dual vs. an i3 is a slim difference anyway.

I'd say your best bet financially is to get the minimum system you need to do the job (with a comfortable margin for error) and bank the money to pay for upgrades when (and only when) you need them.

There's a little bit of fortune-telling involved, though, since you kinda have to consider what you'll be using the computer for, what you might start using it for that you're not doing now/yet, and how that might effect your satisfaction with the computer.

Also, it's a minor quibble, but when you have a 9 year old computer that "got slow," that's incorrect. Computers don't get slower, we just ask them to do more.

From a multitasking/threading standpoint, given the way I use my computer even just to search the web, I'd say that an i3 will probably feel better, faster, and generally more awesome, for longer than a simple Dualie would. But when MS Office 2025 requires a 6GHz decacore i9 CPU just to interface with your cerebellum (let alone run spell check), the i3 won't be any less obsolete.

 

[FrietSauce]

Generally, it's very rare that an application will come along that renders, say, all the lower end CPUs of a given generation obsolete, which wouldn't still be pretty painful on the high-end CPUs of the same generation. And a Pentium Dual vs. an i3 is a slim difference anyway.

I'd say your best bet financially is to get the minimum system you need to do the job (with a comfortable margin for error) and bank the money to pay for upgrades when (and only when) you need them.

There's a little bit of fortune-telling involved, though, since you kinda have to consider what you'll be using the computer for, what you might start using it for that you're not doing now/yet, and how that might effect your satisfaction with the computer.

Also, it's a minor quibble, but when you have a 9 year old computer that "got slow," that's incorrect. Computers don't get slower, we just ask them to do more.

From a multitasking/threading standpoint, given the way I use my computer even just to search the web, I'd say that an i3 will probably feel better, faster, and generally more awesome, for longer than a simple Dualie would. But when MS Office 2025 requires a 6GHz decacore i9 CPU just to interface with your cerebellum (let alone run spell check), the i3 won't be any less obsolete.

Thanks for the detailed information. Say I would get replace the Celeron with an i3, will it work well with the specs I have at the moment or will this result in any sort of bottleneck?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Thanks for the detailed information. Say I would get replace the Celeron with an i3, will it work well with the specs I have at the moment or will this result in any sort of bottleneck?

The build in your first post?

CPUs are, generally speaking, bottlenecked by everything. But in general, an i3 wouldn't be throttled by that build any worse than a Pentium/Celeron dual core. The trick is, most software is written in such a way as to minimize those bottlenecks overall effect on the CPU, which means that most of the time, your CPU will be able to "show its stuff" regardless of what you plug it into.

With regards to the i3 vs. the Pentium, hyperthreading will generally make the computer "feel" smoother in multithreading situations. (Like, say, you're surfing the web while watching netflix while downloading windows updates and your virus scanner is running. None of those things are crushing your CPU individually, but managing all that is easier for the i3 than for the Pentium.)

If I were going to modify that parts list to alleviate (never eliminate! impossible!) as many bottlenecks as possible, I would:

1) get 2x 2GB DIMMs instead of a single 4GB, so I could have dual channel RAM. (Dual channel RAM isn't a big benefit in normal use, but it will help the CPU's onboard graphics work better.

2) Related to #1, get a motherboard with four RAM slots so you can add more RAM later without having to ditch your old stuff.

3) get a 120GB or larger SSD - they tend to be faster because they have more NAND channels populated. The AData SP600 is slow, even for a 64GB SSD.

Otherwise, there's not a lot there that's really a liability - or at least nothing that can be addressed within your budget. (I mean, who doesn't want an X99 platform with 8 cores, quad-channel RAM, and a PCI-E SSD? But who can afford it?)

 

[FrietSauce]

The build in your first post?

CPUs are, generally speaking, bottlenecked by everything. But in general, an i3 wouldn't be throttled by that build any worse than a Pentium/Celeron dual core. The trick is, most software is written in such a way as to minimize those bottlenecks overall effect on the CPU, which means that most of the time, your CPU will be able to "show its stuff" regardless of what you plug it into.

With regards to the i3 vs. the Pentium, hyperthreading will generally make the computer "feel" smoother in multithreading situations. (Like, say, you're surfing the web while watching netflix while downloading windows updates and your virus scanner is running. None of those things are crushing your CPU individually, but managing all that is easier for the i3 than for the Pentium.)

If I were going to modify that parts list to alleviate (never eliminate! impossible!) as many bottlenecks as possible, I would:

1) get 2x 2GB DIMMs instead of a single 4GB, so I could have dual channel RAM. (Dual channel RAM isn't a big benefit in normal use, but it will help the CPU's onboard graphics work better.

2) Related to #1, get a motherboard with four RAM slots so you can add more RAM later without having to ditch your old stuff.

3) get a 120GB or larger SSD - they tend to be faster because they have more NAND channels populated. The AData SP600 is slow, even for a 64GB SSD.

Otherwise, there's not a lot there that's really a liability - or at least nothing that can be addressed within your budget. (I mean, who doesn't want an X99 platform with 8 cores, quad-channel RAM, and a PCI-E SSD? But who can afford it?)

Thanks once again , I will change the RAM to 2x2GB, as it's only a small price difference.

About the motherboard, the next cheapest motherboard would be around 20 euros more (keeping Micro ATX) and an extra 2x2GB costs around 30 euros. A 2X4GB costs around 50 euros, so it would equal out the costs. I'm guessing the advantage of 4X2GB is more performace, but if I replaced the RAM with 2X4GB I might be able to sell the 2X2GB still or it's always nice to have it around.

For a 120GB SSD I was looking at the Mushkin Chronos G2 120GB (€56,50)

 

[dave_the_nerd]

4x2GB isn't going to be any faster than 2x4GB - the benefit comes from using more than one DIMM.

The Mushkin Chronos is kinda old, and the Sandforce controllers have a reputation for being somewhat wonky (whether that reputation is deserved or not is debatable, but you're still talking about a ~4 year old SSD.)

I'd probably want one of the Crucial M550 derivatives (BX100, MX100, MX200). Although the 850 EVO is nice.

Just try to get something from the top half of the pack on anandtech's benchmark list. The Marvell and Silicon Motion controllers that make up a lot of the upper tiers are quite a bit more capable than the old JMicron and Sandforce 2281 controllers, and the SSDs that use them are only marginally pricier - there's little sense in paying almost as much for something that's noticeably inferior, if you can help it.

http://anandtech.com/bench/SSD/730