Ugh, the sad state of big-box pre-built desktops. (Atom / Kabini)

[VirtualLarry]

I was at my local Staples store, and there is a coupon for $100 off clearance computers until Aug 30. They had two desktop PCs listed, one for $249.99, one for $279.99.

Edit: Those were the CLEARANCE prices, list prices stated on the sign was $399.99 ea, I believe.

I was surprised that no-one picked them up for $100 off already. Then I googled the specs.

The $249.99 Dell was a J1800 Celeron (Bay Trail-D Atom). The $279.99 one was an HP, I think, with an A4 in it (small core).

Although both were quad-cores, they just didn't seem powerful enough to waste $150-170 on.

The "race to the bottom", including the introduction of Atom / Kabini into desktop PCs, sold for as much as $400 list (4GB / 500GB), is also partially what is killing the desktop market.

Along with the stagnation of the higher-end Core CPUs as far as absolute performance goes (and how much does 10W of power consumption matter on the desktop? Not a whit, to most people).

If I were an average desktop user, and my PC was five years old, and I went into a store and purchased a brand-new budget-class PC, and found out that it was in fact SLOWER than my five-year-old PC, I think that I would be turned off of desktop PCs forever.

I can understand Atom and Kabini / Beema in laptops. Power-consumption is king there, as long as you have adequate or better performance. I don't fault Intel or AMD for pushing their small-core lines there.

But desktops? What garbage!

I would rather have a five-year-old Walmart-special desktop, with 4GB of RAM (removable, not soldered in), and an AMD Athlonn II X2 250 rig, than a modern Atom rig, even with quad-core. (Because the Athlon II has superior single-threaded performance.)

 

[Abwx]

The $249.99 Dell was a J1800 Celeron (Bay Trail-D Atom). The $279.99 one was an HP, I think, with an A4 in it (small core).

Although both were quad-cores, they just didn't seem powerful enough to waste $150-170 on.

J1800 is a 2C, the A4 could be a 2C A4 4000 Trinity, unless it was a Temash 4C although it would be surprising for a DT, but who knows...

 

[dave_the_nerd]

$250 Desktop PCs didn't exist five years ago. Your hypothetical Athlon was probably four or five hundred dollars in 2009.

Reasonable i3 Rig For $440

FX-8300 Rig with discrete midrange GPU for $750

The decent desktops are the same price they've always been - $500 and up.

 

[witeken]

I don't really see the point either, but you get what you pay for...

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It's a bit like people who buy a screwdriver for $0.25, and then are surprised when the screwdriver shaft bends, when they try to tighten a screw. Or who buy some batteries for $0.10 each, who find they run out after only 2 days, and then find the battery has leaked all inside the device, when they eventually try to change it.
I guess you get what you pay for.
It is sad, but for people who mainly only surf the web, and other light duties, it is not the end of the world.
Many/some people can't afford the extra to get a decent desktop PC.

 

[evident]

as someone who's been shopping for a desktop the last two weeks, i totally agree. J1900 is a joke for desktops especially at $300. It's essentially the same as the original atom netbooks that came out a few years ago. everyone was ranting and raving about how good they were, except that they sucked for what they were trying to do.

I can understand it's use in small form factor machines and HTPC and think it's a great solution for those, and I think they're fast enough for opening up windows media center and streaming TV and 720P. but seing them sold in mid-atx case big boxes is a ridiculous cash grab, especially when it's just as fast (slow) as the core 2 duo E5300 box i'm replacing. I do admit i'm looking out for them when they sell a fully refurb J1900 machine for <$100 to set up as another HTPC though.

Nowadays, it's all about getting the Dell Outlet desktops and waiting for a coupon if you want a reasonable Core I3/I5 for < $500. yesterday I picked up a haswell based I5-4660 machine w/ 8gb RAM and 1TB HD for $360 shipped. (see my thread about my parents in OT )

 

[VirtualLarry]

Maybe I'm just spoiled, because I was able to pick up a 19.5" AIO with E1-2500 Kabini dual-core 1.4Ghz, and a Sandy Bridge desktop i3 3.4Ghz w/4GB and 1TB, each for less than $200 after one of those $100 off clearance PCs coupons.

If I had it to do over again, I would have likely skipped the AIO with the Kabini, it was pretty slow.

But the fact that they are using such low-end CPUs in the first place, is sad. List price for that AIO was $499.99. You would think that for such a price, they could use a LV Haswell Celeron or something other than a Kabini.

Edit: IOW, for $399.99 list price, I expect a PC with an i3, or better. Not an Atom.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

If I were an average desktop user, and my PC was five years old, and I went into a store and purchased a brand-new budget-class PC, and found out that it was in fact SLOWER than my five-year-old PC, I think that I would be turned off of desktop PCs forever.

My GF's parents did exactly this. They were very excited about their new all-in-one unit with a touch screen. After the newness wore off they thought it was infected with something because it was slow. They asked me to take a look at it. I hated being the messenger.... "Sorry your brand new computer is a piece of crap".

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I bet when Windows 9 comes out, it will make such computers run so slow (speculation), that they have to consider getting a new one. Like the good old days, except there was no real need for them to get such a low spec computer, in the first place.
Many people that I encounter, have absolutely no clue, what the specific computer specs actually mean.

 

[sm625]

The goal is to make PCs so unbearable to use that people will rush out and drop $600 on a smartphone and $60 a month on a data plan.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I bet when Windows 9 comes out, it will make such computers run so slow (speculation), that they have to consider getting a new one. Like the good old days, except there was no real need for them to get such a low spec computer, in the first place.

I think that if Microsoft did that, it would make Intel and AMD really upset at them. They count on being able to sell millions of these "small core" CPUs.

Many people that I encounter, have absolutely no clue, what the specific computer specs actually mean.

But you practically need a computer-science degree to interpret modern PC CPU specs and how they relate to performance. It's not like they put the Passmark score of CPUs on labels and signs.

(I almost miss the iComp index, except for the fact that it was totally Intel-centric.)

Edit: At the very least though, it seems like all shipping CPUs that would be potentially used in an Intel-compatible desktop PC, can run 64-bit code. Thank God for that.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

But you practically need a computer-science degree to interpret modern PC CPU specs and how they relate to performance. It's not like they put the Passmark score of CPUs on labels and signs.

(I almost miss the iComp index, except for the fact that it was totally Intel-centric.)

I agree. For example, us so called computer experts, are probably still not 100% sure, if it is better to get an FX-8370 or FX-8370E, as it is not fully clear yet (to me at least), what the differences will be, in performance, between them.

Intel chop off so many features (like TSX, Hyper-threading, instruction sets etc), as you get cheaper and cheaper Intel cpus. Making it NOT obvious what will work well with software, in the coming next 2 to 8 years.

E.g. Is TSX important for consumer PCs, in five years time.

It is quite possible, that Windows 9 (or 10+ in the future) may/will need certain things, such as quad core, 8 Gb or 16 Gb (min Ram), etc etc, to work reasonably well.

It is getting quite a minefield. There seems to be little/no advanced information about Skylake (except the odd thing here and there), so it might begin to introduce stuff (like AVX3), which may be needed, by software in the future.

Also most/many/some consumers probably don't even know what an SSD is, let alone realize its potential speed benefits, even for a modestly priced/speced computer.

(What annoys me, but it is reasonable behaviour in all fairness), is that many consumers, don't even have the patience to let me explain about what the different things are, in a computer.

 

[cbn]

The "race to the bottom", including the introduction of Atom / Kabini into desktop PCs, sold for as much as $400 list (4GB / 500GB), is also partially what is killing the desktop market.

Along with the stagnation of the higher-end Core CPUs as far as absolute performance goes (and how much does 10W of power consumption matter on the desktop? Not a whit, to most people).

If I were an average desktop user, and my PC was five years old, and I went into a store and purchased a brand-new budget-class PC, and found out that it was in fact SLOWER than my five-year-old PC, I think that I would be turned off of desktop PCs forever.

I can understand Atom and Kabini / Beema in laptops. Power-consumption is king there, as long as you have adequate or better performance. I don't fault Intel or AMD for pushing their small-core lines there.

But desktops? What garbage!

Yes, I can see quad core SOC making sense in a mobile form factor (for power and space reasons), but in a SFF desktop this size:

I don't think the integration is warranted.

I'd rather have two large cores and a separate PCH in that scenario.

P.S. It will be interesting to see what happens at 14nm for Intel.

Do OEMs put in 14nm quad core atom SOCs with 16EUs? Or do they go with 14nm Dual core (core series cpu) GT1 with a separate PCH. (I have to wonder if the die size on the atom quad cores will be too large now that the iGPU has increased in size.)

 

[witeken]

That's why those companies have marketing teams. Generally, higher number = higher performance. If you see specs, they want you to think i3 = meh, i7 = good, etc. It also doesn't hurt to read reviews.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's why those companies have marketing teams.

Puh-leez. Intel's Marketing Teams seek to confuse, not to clarify. Why else do you think that they renamed Atom to Pentium and Celeron.

It also doesn't hurt to read reviews.

True dat. But Newegg reviews should be taken with a big grain of salt, and I don't know of any professional sites reviewing OEM budget desktop PCs. Maybe ComputerWorld will publish a press release, with pictures, but that's about as far as they go.

 

[witeken]

What about AnandTech?

 

[NTMBK]

Yes, I can see quad core SOC making sense in a mobile form factor (for power and space reasons), but in a SFF desktop this size:

I don't think the integration is warranted.

Definitely agreed. My parents have a PC that size- bought pretty cheaply from Packard Bell, not some water-cooled boutique job- and it fit an i5-2320 in!

(Nice bit of an upgrade from their Pentium 4 they had before :awe: )

EDIT: Not that I am against low-power CPUs like Kabini and Bay Trail. But they need to come in an appropriate form factor. If you want to sell me a processor like that, it damn well better be in a tiny thing like this:

Don't try to sell me a tablet CPU in a gigantic box full of warm air and dust.

 

[VirtualLarry]

EDIT: Not that I am against low-power CPUs like Kabini and Bay Trail. But they need to come in an appropriate form factor. If you want to sell me a processor like that, it damn well better be in a tiny thing like this:
Don't try to sell me a tablet CPU in a gigantic box full of warm air and dust.

I hear you. I like the Asus VivoPC, myself. Compact, yet can use a full-size 3.5" HDD.

Got a link for that device? Haven't see that one before, and it looks interesting.

 

[cbn]

I don't know of any professional sites reviewing OEM budget desktop PCs.

.....And that is sad too.

And probably a sign of the poor value we see in budget desktop these days.

But I think change is looming on the horizon. (Pentium G3258 is an encouraging sign of progress for value chips)

A8-7600 is not a bad concept for Pre-built either, though DDR3 1600 will hurt performance. I only wish the price would drop on those. (Too bad the GDDR5 thing fell through for AMD and they got stuck with such a large die for Kaveri)

 

[VirtualLarry]

But I think change is looming on the horizon. (Pentium G3258 is an encouraging sign of progress for value chips)

Do you think that with the appearance of the G3258, and non-Z overclocking, that we will see OEM boxes with H81 chipsets, and G3258 CPUs, that are either pre-overclocked (4.0Ghz should be a walk in the park), or advertised as overclockable?

Or do you think Intel intended that part to be an enthusiast / retail-only part, not for OEMs, and that if OEMs started to offer pre-overclocked systems (I'm talking major brand OEMs, not boutique system-builders), that Intel would scale back their selection of overclocking / overclockable CPUs?

 

[NTMBK]

I hear you. I like the Asus VivoPC, myself. Compact, yet can use a full-size 3.5" HDD.

Got a link for that device? Haven't see that one before, and it looks interesting.

Literally got announced today http://techreport.com/news/26982/zotac-pico-pc-runs-windows-slips-into-a-pocket

 

[crashtech]

Tablet CPUs in desktop form factors are a travesty, and as the go-to tech guy for a lot of people, it just makes my job that much harder when it comes to helping people make good decisions.

 

[NTMBK]

Tablet CPUs in desktop form factors are a travesty, and as the go-to tech guy for a lot of people, it just makes my job that much harder when it comes to helping people make good decisions.

"But it says Pentium on the box! Pentium is a good brand, right?"

 

[cbn]

Do you think that with the appearance of the G3258, and non-Z overclocking, that we will see OEM boxes with H81 chipsets, and G3258 CPUs, that are either pre-overclocked (4.0Ghz should be a walk in the park), or advertised as overclockable?

Or do you think Intel intended that part to be an enthusiast / retail-only part, not for OEMs, and that if OEMs started to offer pre-overclocked systems (I'm talking major brand OEMs, not boutique system-builders), that Intel would scale back their selection of overclocking / overclockable CPUs?

I don't think we will ever see overclockable G3258s with Non-Z boards from the likes of Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer etc but it might be that Intel is warming up to the idea of giving us faster stock clocked chips on the low end (ie, dual core without hyperthreading). Hopefully they are planning more unlocked budget dual cores as well.

With regard to iGPU on the Intel side, maybe we will finally see a Pentium with a GT2 for the first time also? With Haswell, Intel made all the i3s GT2, so maybe we will see a GT2 on Pentium next? (If it is only on one Pentium I will be happy enough....but so much the better if we see it on a Celeron as well )

 

[VirtualLarry]

Literally got announced today http://techreport.com/news/26982/zotac-pico-pc-runs-windows-slips-into-a-pocket

So cute! I'll take two, please. Hopefully, they will prove to be faster than the C-70 NanoPCs.
Wonder how slow the eMMC is? Or if you can boot off of the SD card slot? (Put Linux Mint 17 on an SD card, and boot if that way, and leave Win8.1 on the eMMC dormant.)