Desktop: i5 / Intel HD 4600 OR i3 + dedicated graphics?

[fruitninja12]

I'm building a desktop computer that will primarily be used for web browsing and YouTube (for my parents). Even though it won't be doing a whole lot, I want the experience be extremely smooth -- fast, responsive, quick, etc... I want it to be lightning fast, almost frivolously so!

I'm trying to decide whether the integrated is capable enough of handling this. Let's say my parents go to YouTube and fire up a 1080 video -- is it going to feel sluggish while the video is launching? What about during the decoding process, am I going to experiencing a hiccup here and there?

My preference would be to go with the i5 Haswell (~20% better single-core performance, ~70% multi-core performance), and that add a video card later if I'm not satisfied. The other option would be to go with an i3 and a dedicated video card around $100 or so. Ultimately, they would be comparable in price.

Please help me decide. For a basic desktop experience (browsing, HD Netflix/YouTube/etc, zero gaming), will I see any benefit at all to a dedicated video card, or would the difference be virtually indistinguishable?

By the way, I've also explored other options (i.e. cheaper Atom-based solutions) and I've decided against those.

 

[escrow4]

I have a 4770 non K here with HD 4600 that has zero problems with any desktop work iGPU wise. I'd second the i5 with an SSD, the box will fly and last and last and last. Assuming you put in a decent quality mobo + PSU in there too.

 

[fruitninja12]

I have a 4770 non K here with HD 4600 that has zero problems with any desktop work iGPU wise. I'd second the i5 with an SSD, the box will fly and last and last and last. Assuming you put in a decent quality mobo + PSU in there too.

Thanks, I was definitely planning on an SSD as well. This is the motherboard I had picked out: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128616

 

[nwo]

Have you considered an AMD APU?

I doubt that any Haswell iGPU will have issue with 1080p playback, but if you're worried about that then you can get an AMD 6800k or 7850k APU because they have much faster integrated graphics that are actually capable of gaming as well. Just about any system will feel snappy and lightning fast with an SSD. For the uses you listed, CPU will not matter that much.

I would either go with an i3 or AMD APU. I really do not see a reason to spend nearly an additional $100 on an i5 for the uses you have listed. Primary advantage of an i5 would be gaming, which won't be happening on this system according to what you said.

 

[Ken g6]

Let's say my parents go to YouTube and fire up a 1080 video -- is it going to feel sluggish while the video is launching? What about during the decoding process, am I going to experiencing a hiccup here and there?

That depends most on your parents' Internet speed. Then possibly on the SSD. Then on the CPU and graphics.

I would go with the i3, take the money saved, and upgrade your parents' Internet speed for a year.

 

[nwo]

You really do not need a superb internet speed for 1080p like 50+mb/s as advertised on TWC's latest commercial...

For instance, my TWC packages are either 2mb/s or 16mb/s followed by 50 or higher, but I could care less since 16 is more than enough for my household and 2mbs can barely play 480p smoothly so 2mbs doesn't really cut it for anything these days.

Anything over 6-8mbs should provide a smooth 1080p video playback.

 

[fruitninja12]

That depends most on your parents' Internet speed. Then possibly on the SSD. Then on the CPU and graphics.

They currently have 30Mbps, so I think they're fine in that regard.

Between CPU and graphics though, what do you think plays a larger role (everything else exactly equal)?

 

[Blue_Max]

I'd say your parents will likely be just fine with the i3 AND its own graphics - no need for the boost provided by the i5 -- they'll probably never notice!

 

[escrow4]

Thanks, I was definitely planning on an SSD as well. This is the motherboard I had picked out: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128616

I use that in my gaming box (seeing as I don't overclock anymore) and its been stable. If it has enough slots and ports for you than I'd say go for it. Even though you may not notice an i5, I like the extra insurance. If your parents want to start ripping DVD's with Handbrake and cranking up Photoshop in a year or three the i5 will have you covered, although if the usage is only basic and won't change an i3 will suffice.

 

[nwo]

They currently have 30Mbps, so I think they're fine in that regard.

Between CPU and graphics though, what do you think plays a larger role (everything else exactly equal)?

Graphics for sure, by a long shot. CPU somewhat important because you do need some CPU power for video playback, but not a lot. How do I know? Because when I fully stress my GPU with let's say mining, I cannot playback any videos smoothly. But when I stress the CPU with mining or something else, it might get a little choppy, but it is still watchable. You certainly do not need a quad core for HD videos though.

I'd say your parents will likely be just fine with the i3 AND its own graphics - no need for the boost provided by the i5 -- they'll probably never notice!

Agreed.

 

[Charlie98]

Hell, you guys are making me feel like a cheapskate.... I put a Pentium G3220 in my inlaw's build... It does fine, by the way, but it can struggle a little with 1080p playback, anything below that is cake. (...which may be because of crappy bandwith from their crappy internet provider.)

For that matter, I have a G620 Sandy Pentium in my HTPC... it did fine with 1080p playback, I added a GPU to try to fix a problem with Netflix streaming, otherwise I'd still be running it.

I say i3 and integrated graphics....

 

[Lisathedinosaur]

i3 and a $100 graphics card. Haswell i5s and i3s only have a speed difference of 2-3 seconds.

 

[Techhog]

I'd say your parents will likely be just fine with the i3 AND its own graphics - no need for the boost provided by the i5 -- they'll probably never notice!

This. Your parents have no need for a quad core, and even less a graphics card. My 2010 laptop with Arrendale can handle 1080p on the IGP without a hitch. The Haswell IGP won't even come close to breaking a sweat.

 

[mfenn]

Graphics for sure, by a long shot. CPU somewhat important because you do need some CPU power for video playback, but not a lot. How do I know? Because when I fully stress my GPU with let's say mining, I cannot playback any videos smoothly. But when I stress the CPU with mining or something else, it might get a little choppy, but it is still watchable. You certainly do not need a quad core for HD videos though.

That's because GPUs are really terrible at context switching compared to CPUs, not due to any inherent GPU bottleneck while decoding. The OP's parents aren't going to be doing anything GPU-intensive, so getting a fast GPU just to play back YouTube, Netflix, and Blu-Rays is kind of silly. Any i3 has enough power to do the decoding completely in software anyway.

If I absolutely had to overkill it, I would spend money on getting a really consistent SSD like the Seagate 600 or Sandisk Extreme II before the GPU.

 

[piasabird]

I have a system running with IGP only. I have a Gigabyte GA-Z87N-WIFI with 802.11ac. I used an i3 4330 3.5Ghz with a 4 Meg Cache and HD 4600, 8 Gigs of Ran and a 1TB HD. I am using DSL (3rd Tier) with wireless The only lag I detect would be from the Internet.

Having a good internet connection is probably going to be most important. We sometimes watch Korean Dramas and K-POP and I have not noticed any lag. Sometimes when you think you are seeing Lag it is often caused by Internet Explorer. I don't know how much I watch is really in Full HD.

I don't think an SSD will improve streaming video.

I chose the i3 because it runs with less watts. I am using a Cooler Master Case and a CX480 that I turned upside down to help push more air outside the case faster.

 

[MasterChuck]

That's because GPUs are really terrible at context switching compared to CPUs, not due to any inherent GPU bottleneck while decoding. The OP's parents aren't going to be doing anything GPU-intensive, so getting a fast GPU just to play back YouTube, Netflix, and Blu-Rays is kind of silly. Any i3 has enough power to do the decoding completely in software anyway.

If I absolutely had to overkill it, I would spend money on getting a really consistent SSD like the Seagate 600 or Sandisk Extreme II before the GPU.

+1

I would just get a bigger SSD just in case they want to keep a digital video/movie collection.

 

[Blue_Max]

Heck, I've noticed most people don't even truly appreciate the insane speed of SSD. I think the SSHD Hybrid drive is a great balance of speed, size and price.

I love mine! Maybe not as fast as pure SSD, but definitely snappier than any mechanical drive I've used, including a recent 10,000 RPM unit.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

My GF has an i3 laptop with hd4000 iGPU. Streams 1080 content just fine.

 

[mnewsham]

in case they want to keep a digital video/movie collection.

Who the hell keeps a movie collection on SSD? That would be such an expensive waste of space...

 

[nwo]

Who the hell keeps a movie collection on SSD? That would be such an expensive waste of space...

I certainly don't see the point either... You can run movies just fine off of an ancient HDD.

That's because GPUs are really terrible at context switching compared to CPUs, not due to any inherent GPU bottleneck while decoding. The OP's parents aren't going to be doing anything GPU-intensive, so getting a fast GPU just to play back YouTube, Netflix, and Blu-Rays is kind of silly. Any i3 has enough power to do the decoding completely in software anyway.

If I absolutely had to overkill it, I would spend money on getting a really consistent SSD like the Seagate 600 or Sandisk Extreme II before the GPU.

I agree. In this case, a faster SSD will make the system much more responsive than a faster CPU or GPU.

Going back to what I said in my previous post, I was simply trying to answer the OP's question that the GPU plays a more important role than the CPU in video playback. However, that certainly should not be taken out of context and misinterpreted as me saying that HD 4600 won't be adequate for smooth 1080p streaming. I have no troubles streaming 1080p on my Celeron G1620 which has much worse CPU performance and significantly worse graphics than any Haswell i3 or i5.