new 'puter - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2019, 04:55:17 pm
content: So, after more than 9 years, I just did a new Windows computer build. I was hoping I'd never have to do it again, but a few CAD tools and photo editing keep me absolutely tied to needing a "real computer" and, unfortunately, a windows computer.Anyway, I thought it would be fun to compare the systems:Old:~$1000 new (HPE-450t)1st gen i7 (i7-870) 90W TDP12 GiB DDR3500 GB sata HDD, upgraded to 400 GB SSD + 2TB HD over timemotherboard graphics, upgraded to nVidia something something 330lots of USB2 ports, USB3 ports added laterreplaced PSU more than oncesize: 16" x 16" x 7"new:~$1000 new (NUC8i7BEH)8th gen i7 (i7-9559U) 28W TDP32 GiB DDR4500 GB NVM.e SSD + 2 TB 2.5" spinning drivemotherboard graphicsa few USB3 ports, one USB-C portexternal 19V PSUsize: 2" x 4.5" x 4.5"I haven't measured actual power use, but I expect the new one to use less than a third. Benchmark sites tell me the processor is about 65%-85% faster. Noise is reduced. Volume is reduced to about 1/45th of the old, but that is more about switching to "laptop" design style from box (Also have no slots and limited upgradability.)Overall, everything is nicer about the new little box but I do not expect it to last 9 years or be upgradable to be semi-modern for any length of time. OTOH, Moore's Law is obviously pooping out. I'm a bit disappointed about how little the processor has improved. The new and old processors have similar top-line specs: 4 cores / 8 threads, ~2.7-9 GHz, 8MiB L2. The new one gets more done per tick, but not breathakingly so.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2019, 10:22:14 pm
content: Cheap = unreliable (lots of crashes and weird problems). A good PC can run troublefree for 5 years or more. Unless you are running games PCs don't get outdated within a year like they used to do 15 years ago.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2019, 10:38:20 pm
content: It's not like it used to be. Most games these days are made for consoles and Xbox One has been around since 2013, though they have improved the graphics performance since then. I'm still using a PC I built in 2012 for games

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2019, 10:45:54 pm
content: It should be noted that the NUC chips are designed to be frugal and efficient. Your old chip was essentially one of the best consumer chips money could buy at that point. They're hard to compare, but that there's still a massive difference says a lot.Somehow it seems terribly hard to get specifics on that new chip. Intel isn't even listing it in its ARK, which seems silly.

author: rdl
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2019, 11:34:52 pm
content: Typo I think, should be i7-8559u ("8th gen i7")

author: a59d1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2019, 11:39:58 pm
content: Which brand of RAM?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 12:38:21 am
content: Quote from: a59d1 on January 10, 2019, 11:39:58 pmRAM brand really doesn't matter all that much, just avoid the bargain basement Chinese garbage.My recommendation with RAM is check what the motherboard manufacturer recommends for any given board. Most board manufacturers will thoroughly test and certify that certain makes/model of RAM sticks will work flawlessly on their boards. That's not to stay others won't, but it's a good starting point.Also, massive heat sinks and LEDs on RAM sticks are all just for show. Just stick with the specs you want/need and are supported by the motherboard, regardless of what the RAM physically looks like. Also, if your motherboard supports dual-channel (almost all of them do), then go with two smaller sticks as opposed to a single large one.When building a PC, I usually decide on the CPU first (how fast, Xeon or not etc...) then choose a board to suit, then RAM, then everything else (in that order).

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 12:41:23 am
content: Yes it was a typo: i7-8559U. Memory is G.Skill.Clearly, these machines are apples and oranges. I think that reflects my changing tastes and preferences, so that confounds my attempt to compare them directly.Back then, I was interested in high performance and upgradability. Today I'm interested in adequate performance and small footprint and quiet. I'm not a gamer, but I have limited space. I like that the NUC can VESA mount to the back of my monitor.I thought the NUC form factor would be interesting, knowing that I was paying a bit more than I could for big mobo in a cheap box.Honestly, I'm a bit nervous that lack of expandability or repairability will mean this system will be short lived. I guess I'll see.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 02:41:17 am
content: Quote from: rdl on January 10, 2019, 11:34:52 pmWeird, I copied the number out of the NUC specifications. I must have messed something up.

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 03:09:04 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on January 11, 2019, 02:41:17 amNo, you are right. I was wrong.

author: mariush
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 03:46:09 am
content: You could have done much better.For example,see below... all but the case for $900 ($35 in mail-in rebates lowers to $865):PCPartPicker part list/Price breakdown by merchantCPU:AMD - Ryzen 7 1700 3 GHz 8-Core Processor($169.89 @ OutletPC)Motherboard:ASRock - B450M PRO4 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard($59.99 @ Newegg)Memory:G.Skill - Ripjaws V Series 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3000 Memory($224.99 @ Newegg)Storage:Samsung - 860 Evo 500 GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive($94.63 @ OutletPC)Storage:Hitachi - Deskstar NAS 4 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive($129.99 @ Newegg)Video Card:ASRock - Radeon RX 570 4 GB Phantom Gaming D Video Card($130.98 @ Newegg)Power Supply:SeaSonic - FOCUS Gold 450 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply($54.99 @ Newegg)Total:$865.46Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when availableGenerated by PCPartPicker 2019-01-10 22:43 EST-0500

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 03:47:32 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2019, 01:27:28 amNo, I correctly said DDR4 for the new box. DDR3 was the old one.Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2019, 01:27:28 amNot seeing it. For $1100 you get a 6 core i5 with 8GiB RAM and 256 GB SSD.The processor is great. It's a beefier one than my new NUC, and outperforms is generally, though not by all that much. However, it does so about twice the power. Still, I'd rather have 6 real cores than 4 real cores and 4 HT.Also, the extra ports are great.But the drawbacks: The RAM and SSD are both paltry, the RAM is especially galling. So I'd have to buy those over again, so this is actually a way more expensive option, doubly if I pay Apple for it. (And from some quick googling I can't even tell if I can upgrade the SSD myself at all.)Overall, the Mini looks like a better but also substantially more expensive machine.Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2019, 01:27:28 amMac fans often say but I dunno. What I observe is that if you want ALL of the high-end features that Apple put in and do NOT want ANY other different high-end features that you can't get from Apple for reasonable cost, or maybe, at all, THEN the Apple product is an overall win.I've never paid for any Apple product, but I use them almost exclusively at work and have for a long time. When I'm not paying, I like them a lot, but somehow when it's time for me to buy a computer, I never seem to want one. I've also noticed that they seem to fail just as much as any other computer I've ever owned -- I do not see a consistent quality advantage which Apple fans also talk about a lot. (Luis Rossman tells me that they're junk inside, but... shrug).I do know that I have a personal ASUS laptop contemporaneous with the late 2015 MBPro I use at work that is half as much and way faster. Battery life was worse than the MBP when new but since I upgraded the MBP's SSD from ~60GB to ~400GB that situation has reversed.

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 03:55:47 am
content: Quote from: mariush on January 11, 2019, 03:46:09 amYeah.RAM and SSD are same as what I got, HDD is similar.This is definitely a much better system performance-wise. It is much bigger and more power hungry, too. I could add a cheap case and have a working system, but I did want something that "felt" a little nicer, if that makes any sense. Something sort of 1/2 way between a slapped together PC in a commodity box and an Apple product. :-)

author: djacobow
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2019, 03:58:34 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2019, 03:55:14 amI suspected as much. Didn't know if the upgrades weren't coming up in search because the machine is too new or because it cannot be upgraded. Bummer.Quote from: blueskull on January 11, 2019, 03:55:14 amNow that sounds interesting. What is that about?