Consensus on suitability of i3-8100 for non-gaming builds? Entry-level gaming?

Aug 25, 2001
42,427
208
126
#1
Or are most builders using the Ryzen 2200G, which can be overclocked, and has a better / faster iGPU (Vega 8)?

Or has all below-six-core Intel CPUs, been consigned to the "scrap heap", for desktop PCs? (After all, there's probably plenty of i5-7400 refurb PCs out there, why build with an i3-8100?)
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,317
2
106
#2
Still using a 7600 non K since early 2017. If I was building now I'd pick an 8100. No BIOS updates, stable platform, no need for faster RAM, HEVC + H.264 + VP9 decoding all works out of the box (and interestingly you can now use Task Manager in Win 10 to see video decode load). Shame about the price, those increases are a cop out. Has gone up at least $30 here.

EDIT: Nothing supports the upcoming AV1 codec though.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,723
16
106
#3
Still using a 7600 non K since early 2017. If I was building now I'd pick an 8100. No BIOS updates, stable platform, no need for faster RAM, HEVC + H.264 + VP9 decoding all works out of the box (and interestingly you can now use Task Manager in Win 10 to see video decode load). Shame about the price, those increases are a cop out. Has gone up at least $30 here.

EDIT: Nothing supports the upcoming AV1 codec though.
if you buy 2200G + b450 now it's probably a very trouble free experience with no bios updates required or anything else.

the 8100 is faster, but for regular use I think the 2200G is close enough, and it's a bit cheaper nowadays, I don't see why not...

as far as I know the 2200G IGP also works with VP9, HEVC
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
3,364
40
126
#4
Or has all below-six-core Intel CPUs, been consigned to the "scrap heap", for desktop PCs? (After all, there's probably plenty of i5-7400 refurb PCs out there, why build with an i3-8100?)
No. Just moved down a notch. Quadcores are entry level mainstream now, hexcores are new mainstream and duals have been relegated to the real entry level and budget segments.

SKL/KBL/CFL quads are more then most users will need for the foreseeable future.

Oh, and Vega decodes HEVC and VP9 just fine. Image quality is very good too.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,022
194
96
#5
Considering that the Ryzen 3 2200 only cost ~$100 and the i3-8100 just a bit more, why would anyone buy/build a system with anything less?
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,085
40
126
#6
Considering that the Ryzen 3 2200 only cost ~$100 and the i3-8100 just a bit more, why would anyone buy/build a system with anything less?
Some people are always looking for the cheaper "deal." Even when they're just shooting themselves in the foot.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,022
194
96
#7
Some people are always looking for the cheaper "deal." Even when they're just shooting themselves in the foot.
Given that at least CPU wise, computers are lasting longer without needing to be replaced every three years, it pays off to spend more get a a decent CPU from the start instead of buying a dirt cheap one.

I built my current rig five years ago and have no plans to build another one even if I had yhe money and could afford to spend it.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,085
40
126
#8
Given that at least CPU wise, computers are lasting longer without needing to be replaced every three years, it pays off to spend more get a a decent CPU from the start instead of buying a dirt cheap one.

I built my current rig five years ago and have no plans to build another one even if I had yhe money and could afford to spend it.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying humans gonna human.

Read some of VirtualLarry's old E1-1200 build threads. Or the stories about some of the "friends" he builds systems for.

And TBH, if you have severely limited finances, the $50 difference between a nearly useless CPU and a pretty darn good CPU is the difference between having a computer and not having a computer.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,022
194
96
#9
And TBH, if you have severely limited finances, the $50 difference between a nearly useless CPU and a pretty darn good CPU is the difference between having a computer and not having a computer.
This doesn't apply to all of them but I knew/know quite few people in that boat who have costly bad habits....
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,427
208
126
#10
Read some of VirtualLarry's old E1-1200 build threads.
Ehh, please point me to some of those... I don't think that I've ever gone THAT LOW on the CPU side. Sure that you're not confusing my E-350 builds, and my later Ryzen 3 1200 builds? E1-1200 is pretty darn low-end.

I did fiddle with some C-60 nano-PC units, for personal usage / HTPC / internet radio. They kept eating my SATA SSDs installed in the chassis, due to high temps, due to passive cooling of a 10W APU.

Edit: Are we talking about that Gateway 21.5" AIO I bought on clearance at Staples for like $100 or something, used for six months, tried to pawn off on someone, got it back, installed a 500GB Samsung EVO SATA SSD in it, and gave it away to one of my neighbors? (Whom I think is still using it.) Since that was a pre-built OEM rig, I don't really consider it to be one of my "builds".

Edit: And for the record, I don't build anything lower than a quad-core these days. Well, except for the little stock of prior parts I have on hand, like an A4-6300 FM2 APU that I've got NIB to use on an FM2+ board I've also got NIB, and a 4GB stick of DDR3 to throw in. Trash machine to give away.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
3,364
40
126
#11
I did fiddle with some C-60 nano-PC units, for personal usage / HTPC / internet radio.
Well, my "NAS" is still based on an Asus C60M1-I. But it's a complete purpose built custom system, and runs Linux. With 8GB RAM.

I wouldn't try and run Windows on it. In any shape or form. XP -might- be able to scrape by, but since its obsolete...
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,085
40
126
#12
Ehh, please point me to some of those... I don't think that I've ever gone THAT LOW on the CPU side. Sure that you're not confusing my E-350 builds, and my later Ryzen 3 1200 builds? E1-1200 is pretty darn low-end.

I did fiddle with some C-60 nano-PC units, for personal usage / HTPC / internet radio. They kept eating my SATA SSDs installed in the chassis, due to high temps, due to passive cooling of a 10W APU.

Edit: Are we talking about that Gateway 21.5" AIO I bought on clearance at Staples for like $100 or something, used for six months, tried to pawn off on someone, got it back, installed a 500GB Samsung EVO SATA SSD in it, and gave it away to one of my neighbors? (Whom I think is still using it.) Since that was a pre-built OEM rig, I don't really consider it to be one of my "builds".

Edit: And for the record, I don't build anything lower than a quad-core these days. Well, except for the little stock of prior parts I have on hand, like an A4-6300 FM2 APU that I've got NIB to use on an FM2+ board I've also got NIB, and a 4GB stick of DDR3 to throw in. Trash machine to give away.
I was probably thinking of the C-60s or E-350s.

And yes, I know you're better now. :) It's just an interesting case study.
 
Feb 25, 2011
16,085
40
126
#13
This doesn't apply to all of them but I knew/know quite few people in that boat who have costly bad habits....
Assigning blame doesn't magically increase the CPU budget. *shrug*
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,194
2
91
#14
A 2200g with a B450 board would get my vote. More upgrade path and the extra savings can go toward a better SSD where more non-gaming people will notice.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,022
194
96
#15
A 2200g with a B450 board would get my vote. More upgrade path and the extra savings can go toward a better SSD where more non-gaming people will notice.
I agree and that is something that I would build for my dad.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,975
39
126
#16
I think the i3 8100 is too much for a non gaming rig.
My i3 6100 2 cores, 4 threads was more than enough with a sutable amount of ram and a ssd.

I vote Pentium gold 5400 for about $65. Why waste money on performance you will not need?
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,427
208
126
#18
I think the i3 8100 is too much for a non gaming rig.
I don't really know about that. 2 cores is too little. 2 Cores / 4 Threads is minimally useful, but 4 Cores is where the more-effective multi-tasking action starts, IMHO.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,022
194
96
#19
I don't really know about that. 2 cores is too little. 2 Cores / 4 Threads is minimally useful, but 4 Cores is where the more-effective multi-tasking action starts, IMHO.
Give the price of the Ryzen 2200G and Intel i3-8100, why would anyone buy in 2018 buy anything less.
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,427
208
126
#21
I vote Pentium gold 5400 for about $65. Why waste money on performance you will not need?
Forgot to mention, when Windows 10's Windows Update feature, slams 1-2 Cores doing updates in the background, and your Anti-Virus taking another, trust me, most users are better off with a real quad-core.

Sure, some enthusiasts like yourself and myself (I have several DeskMini units with 2C/4T CPUs), can manage to run Windows 10 "lean and mean", and don't really need a quad-core, but even Firefox can utilize one these days.
 
Jun 8, 2003
13,975
39
126
#22
Forgot to mention, when Windows 10's Windows Update feature, slams 1-2 Cores doing updates in the background, and your Anti-Virus taking another, trust me, most users are better off with a real quad-core.

Sure, some enthusiasts like yourself and myself (I have several DeskMini units with 2C/4T CPUs), can manage to run Windows 10 "lean and mean", and don't really need a quad-core, but even Firefox can utilize one these days.
It never hit my CPU hard, it hit my hard drive and ram.
My CPU would be in the 20's and still easily surfed the web, played videos ECT.ect.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
3,364
40
126
#23
It never hit my CPU hard, it hit my hard drive and ram.
When you have an SSD (particularly a high-end NVMe drive) in the system, it can get data on and off fast enough to put quite a load on 1-2 cores.

With such a drive however, it is thankfully a fairly quick operation. If you're stuck on a slow 2.5" HDD, Windows Update can literally mean hours of disk thrashing... :(
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,022
194
96
#24
When you have an SSD (particularly a high-end NVMe drive) in the system, it can get data on and off fast enough to put quite a load on 1-2 cores.

With such a drive however, it is thankfully a fairly quick operation. If you're stuck on a slow 2.5" HDD, Windows Update can literally mean hours of disk thrashing... :(
Give the prices of 500GB SATA SSDs right now, and they getting lower, why buy a HDD for boot/OS/application drive instead of an SSD?
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
3,364
40
126
#25
Give the prices of 500GB SATA SSDs right now, and they getting lower, why buy a HDD for boot/OS/application drive instead of an SSD?
In principle, I agree completely. Heck, 120GB SSDs (BX500) recently broke the 200DKK (USD $30, though not directly comparable) marker, which is cheaper then a HDD. So there is absolutely no reason to use HDDs for anything but bulk storage. There is always a -but- however...

Legacy PCs. Plenty of older laptops still use 2.5" 5400RPM drives.

Unfortunately, plenty of people hang on to their laptops for 5-10 years. Basically, use-until-death. Most people treat their PC as an appliance today. Which unfortunately mean you can still find Brazos-era (2011) systems with 5400RPM spinners out there... slow isn't the word to describe such...
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY