New build questions

[Mark]

I am looking to build (or buy) a new desktop. It will be a general
purpose machine. The most demanding tasks will be some games and a
bit of video editing. I also need to run one or more VMs so will need
plenty of memory. I don't need the fastest spec as I am quite happy
to run games on medium settings. My current PC (C2D, P965) is almost
adequate but the 32 bit OS means I can't use enough memory.

Most important to me is good quality components which will be stable
and last a long time. Also I want a very quiet PC. That doesn't mean
no fans but all fans must be controllable.

I was leaning towards an Intel i5 and I'm not sure about the
motherboard chipset. The OS will be Linux or Win7/8, not yet decided
on that.

Useful advice welcome. It's a while since I built a PC.
I am in the UK so please don't recommend components not available
here.

 

[Paul]

I am looking to build (or buy) a new desktop. It will be a general
purpose machine. The most demanding tasks will be some games and a
bit of video editing. I also need to run one or more VMs so will need
plenty of memory. I don't need the fastest spec as I am quite happy
to run games on medium settings. My current PC (C2D, P965) is almost
adequate but the 32 bit OS means I can't use enough memory.

Most important to me is good quality components which will be stable
and last a long time. Also I want a very quiet PC. That doesn't mean
no fans but all fans must be controllable.

I was leaning towards an Intel i5 and I'm not sure about the
motherboard chipset. The OS will be Linux or Win7/8, not yet decided
on that.

Useful advice welcome. It's a while since I built a PC.
I am in the UK so please don't recommend components not available
here.

If you're going to run VMs, I would get a processor with
VT-X (easy) and one with EPT (Extended Page Tables). That would
then make the machine a candidate for the desktop version of
Hyper-V, if the need ever arises. It's basically a matter
of making your hardware as "VM friendly" as possible. Sure,
you can dream up a single software solution, that doesn't
need anything, but you could be restricted by your hardware
choice later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Page_Table#Extended_Page_Tables

You can start shopping here.

http://ark.intel.com/

OK, here is a 65W i5, four core, with EPT and VT-X.

http://ark.intel.com/products/75037/Intel-Core-i5-4430S-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz

The Passmark rating is 6004 at 2.7GHz, for 4430S.
Compared to a little over 10000 for a 4770K. My E8400
dual core 3GHz, is 2100, so these processors are three
to five times faster than mine. Passmark is a multithreaded
benchmark (giving some idea how much faster video transcoding
or rendering might be).

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

*******

You can do a "Search by CPU" here. To get some idea
how many motherboards take a 4430S. The product names
all seem to have Z87 in them. Like "Z87 Deluxe".

http://support.asus.com/cpu.aspx?SLanguage=en

And here's an example of a Z87 based board. There is also
a version of this, that includes a Wifi adapter built-in.
But costs you $25 more, so it's not exactly a bargain.
This is the one without Wifi.

http://www.etstore.co.uk/itemdesc.asp?ic=109039&eq=&Tp=

And there is an example of a 4430S. It's a Haswell processor,
which means one stage of voltage regulation is inside the
processor. The portion on the motherboard, that looks
like a VCore regulator, really isn't a VCore regulator, and
is all for show. The regulator around the CPU socket, converts
+12V from the power supply, into +2.4V. That enters the CPU, where
a switching converter (thin film type technology), makes the 1.0V
or lower for the core. I'm not really sure what all the flap-doodle
around the socket is for any more. It doesn't need to be quite
as fancy (like, the VCore circuit no longer needs to support
multiple voltages, and can just output a steady 2.4V - and since
the CPU regulator takes care of things, there is not even a need
for tight regulation).

http://www.netstoredirect.com/intel-processors/206855-intel-core-i5-4430s-0675901217804.html

Now, when I look up CM8064601465803 on ark.intel.com, it says "Tray",
so that particular store won't be providing a heatsink/fan with
the CPU purchase. It won't be coming in a big blue box. There is no
boxed part number for the processor, implying it was intended
for OEM computer builds. Not home builders.

It turns out, finding a decent cooler could be the hard
part. This one is cheap, but doesn't have good hold-downs.
There is one for three times the price, that has better
mechanical design. But then you're paying roughly
half the price of the motherboard, for a cooler.

RR-VTPS-28PK-R1 Cooler Master Vortex Plus

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cooler-Master-RR-VTPS-28PK-R1-CPU/dp/B003OEMMBO

Cooler Master used to have a couple nice properties. Mine
has a backing plate and screw based installation. That one
doesn't. Mine also had a "standard" cooling fan, so when the
fan broke while I was cleaning it, an ordinary case fan
could be substituted. That one also appears to use
a standard fan.

If you were to buy the 4430 CPU, instead of the 4430S,
the 4430 comes in a boxed configuration, and includes
the Intel push-pin style cooler. But the 4430 is rated
84W TDP, versus the 65W TDP of the 4430S. I picked the
65W one, to save power and require less fan to cool it.

You might also be able to get an Intel cooler off Ebay.
But for the push-pin ones, if the previous owner abused
them, one of the pins could be bent and relatively hard
to use. The plastic pins aren't really meant for a lot
of mount and unmount cycles.

This is an example of an Intel push pin cooler, the kind
that would be in a 4430 84W boxed processor. Anyone using
a third-party cooler, might have one of these to sell.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Heats...ans_Heatsinks&hash=item43c495f077#ht_18wt_884

Have fun,
Paul

 

[Mark]

-- snip long and useful post --

Thanks for the info. I was still thinking of Ivy Bridge as, last time
I checked, Haswell kit was much more expensive. Now it's about the
same or cheaper so it looks good.

If anyone has suggestions for cases and PSUs I would be interested
too. I usually go for midi tower (cos I like the room) and full size
ATX mobos.

 

[Paul]

-- snip long and useful post --

Thanks for the info. I was still thinking of Ivy Bridge as, last time
I checked, Haswell kit was much more expensive. Now it's about the
same or cheaper so it looks good.

If anyone has suggestions for cases and PSUs I would be interested
too. I usually go for midi tower (cos I like the room) and full size
ATX mobos.

I haven't bought a case in a while. To keep me from building
more computers, I force myself to recycle the cases. So I have
to throw away a motherboard, before I can install a new one

My last case was an Antec, a case that looks like the successor
to the Sonata. It was OK, but the metal wasn't as heavy as the older
ones I've got.

For power supplies, I just sort them by reputation on Newegg,
to get some idea. (I.e. Use the customer reviews, to spot
the lemons.) Once you see a model you like, you can buy it
somewhere else.

I always buy "case without supply" and buy a supply separately.
That allows shopping for something half decent.

Paul

 

[shellyf_DELETE_]

I am looking to build (or buy) a new desktop. It will be a general
purpose machine. The most demanding tasks will be some games and a
bit of video editing. I also need to run one or more VMs so will need
plenty of memory. I don't need the fastest spec as I am quite happy
to run games on medium settings. My current PC (C2D, P965) is almost
adequate but the 32 bit OS means I can't use enough memory.

Most important to me is good quality components which will be stable
and last a long time. Also I want a very quiet PC. That doesn't mean
no fans but all fans must be controllable.

I was leaning towards an Intel i5 and I'm not sure about the
motherboard chipset. The OS will be Linux or Win7/8, not yet decided
on that.

Useful advice welcome. It's a while since I built a PC.
I am in the UK so please don't recommend components not available
here.

For components including cases and power supplies, I usually look at
Maximum PC for up to date info...............

 

[generic name]

For components including cases and power supplies, I usually look at
Maximum PC for up to date info...............

I have an Antec 280 with my z77 mb which replaced a 3 gen old mb
& Antec sonata. Hd planned to get a Corsair but it had a "hump"
at the top for the controls/buttons; I needed a flat top so that my
Mac Mini can sit on top & not use up any desk space.

Love these new cases that don't need tools for install of components,
with the exception of the motherboard. Whatever case you get, look
carefully at the usb 3 connector for the front plugs & any cable that
came with the "usb3" front plugs preinstalled. My usb3 front is
useless for usb3 as I had bent some pins on the motherboard part since
it was facing horizontally in plane with the mb; only way for me to
fix was to remove the mb from the case, rebend the pins then plug in
the front usb3 cable prior to installing the mb onto the case! Still
worked for usb2 tho & "some day....".

Got a Corsair 650 single rail ps as I had thought that I needed to
figure out what to connect for the multi-rail type ps to "even" things
out, which wasn't true......

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Thanks for the info. I was still thinking of Ivy Bridge as, last time
I checked, Haswell kit was much more expensive. Now it's about the
same or cheaper so it looks good.

If anyone has suggestions for cases and PSUs I would be interested
too. I usually go for midi tower (cos I like the room) and full size
ATX mobos.

You should set a budget for yourself and build the system around the
component or components that you absolutely need, and save money on the
parts that you don't. This site below helps to buy components:

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/

Also don't reject AMD processors, they're more than powerful enough, and
you really need more memory than processor power to run virtual machines
properly.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Mark]

You should set a budget for yourself and build the system around the
component or components that you absolutely need, and save money on the
parts that you don't. This site below helps to buy components:

http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/

Thanks. I'll check this out. BTW: I don't usually set myself a
budget until later. I generally decide what I want and then see how
much it would cost. If it's too much I either compromise or wait
until prices drop.

Also don't reject AMD processors, they're more than powerful enough, and
you really need more memory than processor power to run virtual machines
properly.

I am not rejecting AMD processors. I just know less about them. How
are they on power consumption vs performance, for example?

 

[Flasherly]

Thanks. I'll check this out. BTW: I don't usually set myself a
budget until later. I generally decide what I want and then see how
much it would cost. If it's too much I either compromise or wait
until prices drop.


I am not rejecting AMD processors. I just know less about them. How
are they on power consumption vs performance, for example?

Start by looking over the options within a budget. They're very
obvious on Newegg, a starter, to cross check on Amazon, if you want,
even though the hardware site are more comprehensive for somewhat an
impartial skew if not commercial endorsement accorded all. There's,
besides, really so many personal user-reviews available to cursorily
skim among popular choices for a valid impression if not clearer
pertinence. Start then building up your parts list in columnar
format, perhaps with options such as a few processors to narrow into;-
however, at that point, also do a quick cross-reference to MBs for a
ballpark idea of costs and widest reflected availability on a consumer
consumption bases. Better to work with what's there, in point of
fact, than to project costs that may not be a realistic expectation.
Aim for quality of construct, the more telling for potential among
select components as they tend to fade out of production and into
obsolescence.

MB and CPU. The rest are from the perspective of computing,
ancillary. A first focus, although don't nonetheless skimp on an
ancillary aspect of quality;- less in-depth and easier assessed, over
the hill, once the MB/CPU are established.

Think of it as dollar-cost-averaging across and into an integral of
reputability/quality, factoring out, objectively, any current
production processor from an expository assessment from specialised
instances, off from a skew as most generally applicable.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Thanks. I'll check this out. BTW: I don't usually set myself a
budget until later. I generally decide what I want and then see how
much it would cost. If it's too much I either compromise or wait
until prices drop.

Yeah, that's how I normally used to do it too, but this is a much better
way of doing it. With the Pcpartpicker site, you can choose a particular
processor, and this site will present you with only a list of
motherboards that are compatible with this chip. For example if you
choose a Core i7 that operates on the Socket 1156 interface, it won't
present any motherboards for Socket 2011 for example. Similarly if you
choose an AMD processor for Socket AM3+ interface, it won't present any
FM3+ sockets to you.

You can build your system around any components you feel that you must
have, and then just choose from a list of supporting components. If you
choose a specific case for example, you can build all of the rest around
stuff that's compatible with that case. For example, you choose an ITX
case, then it'll only present you with ITX mobos, and their compatible
CPUs.

I am not rejecting AMD processors. I just know less about them. How
are they on power consumption vs performance, for example?

Well there are two major lines of AMD processors, their traditional
CPU's, which are represented by their FX-line of processors, which don't
have built-in GPU's, and their A-series APU's which do have GPU's
built-in. The FX-line will go from 4 to 8 cores. The A-series will go
from 2 to 4 cores, but have the advantage of not needing any sort of
separate video card to be installed. The A-series have GPU's that are
mid- to upper-level gaming quality, especially the A8 and A10 series. If
you go with an A-series you will save on the cost and power consumption
of an entire video card. With Intel processors, even though they may
have GPU's built-in, few of them are gaming-quality, so you're going to
have to buy separate video cards for them anyways.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Mark]

Yeah, that's how I normally used to do it too, but this is a much better
way of doing it. With the Pcpartpicker site, you can choose a particular
processor, and this site will present you with only a list of
motherboards that are compatible with this chip. For example if you
choose a Core i7 that operates on the Socket 1156 interface, it won't
present any motherboards for Socket 2011 for example. Similarly if you
choose an AMD processor for Socket AM3+ interface, it won't present any
FM3+ sockets to you.

You can build your system around any components you feel that you must
have, and then just choose from a list of supporting components. If you
choose a specific case for example, you can build all of the rest around
stuff that's compatible with that case. For example, you choose an ITX
case, then it'll only present you with ITX mobos, and their compatible
CPUs.

I can see that site /will/ be useful. However, as yet, I haven't
chosen a single component. I am more interested in reliability and
longevity than the best peformance possible and it's not easy to get
this information. Right now I think I will get a Haswell i5 but not
sure which MB to go for. I have had decent boards from Gigabyte & MSI
in the past, but the Asus boards look good value.

Well there are two major lines of AMD processors, their traditional
CPU's, which are represented by their FX-line of processors, which don't
have built-in GPU's, and their A-series APU's which do have GPU's
built-in. The FX-line will go from 4 to 8 cores. The A-series will go
from 2 to 4 cores, but have the advantage of not needing any sort of
separate video card to be installed. The A-series have GPU's that are
mid- to upper-level gaming quality, especially the A8 and A10 series. If
you go with an A-series you will save on the cost and power consumption
of an entire video card. With Intel processors, even though they may
have GPU's built-in, few of them are gaming-quality, so you're going to
have to buy separate video cards for them anyways.

My understanding is that the A-series processors have the best
integrated graphics but the Intel CPUs leave them behind in single and
multithreaded performance. TBH I am quite impressed with the i5
integrated graphics since I bought a prebuilt PC for the family and I
haven't needed to fit a separate graphics card yet. However the kids
don't run many games and have moved more to consoles for this.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I can see that site /will/ be useful. However, as yet, I haven't
chosen a single component. I am more interested in reliability and
longevity than the best peformance possible and it's not easy to get
this information. Right now I think I will get a Haswell i5 but not
sure which MB to go for. I have had decent boards from Gigabyte & MSI
in the past, but the Asus boards look good value.

I wouldn't worry about the reliability of either CPU's or motherboards.
The biggest reliability issues come from either power supplies or hard
drives. With power supplies the best way to ensure some reliability is
not to go for the absolute bargain basement no-name PSU's, but go with
the lowest price branded PSU's. Also make sure that you choose PSU's
that have a chance of powering all of the components that you feel you
are going to need today and into the near future.

As for Haswell i5, choose the one you're looking for, and then build the
system around that. Motherboards don't really matter. My last 5
motherboards were from Asus. I wouldn't say that they were all
spectacular, but they did have a good online forum for helping out with
issues. My latest motherboard is from Gigabyte, because I wanted a
little change. There's not much difference in price or quality.

My understanding is that the A-series processors have the best
integrated graphics but the Intel CPUs leave them behind in single and
multithreaded performance. TBH I am quite impressed with the i5
integrated graphics since I bought a prebuilt PC for the family and I
haven't needed to fit a separate graphics card yet. However the kids
don't run many games and have moved more to consoles for this.

Yes, the Intel processors do leave them behind in single-threaded
performance. In multi-threaded performance it's not as clear cut:
Intel's single-threaded performance gives it an automatic edge in
multi-threaded workloads too, but it depends on whether you're comparing
true cores vs. Hyperthreaded cores; Hyperthreaded cores are at best only
1/4 of a core. AMD also provides you with more true cores than Intel,
it's not uncommon to see six or eight-core AMD processors, vs. four to
six core Intels; but highly multithreaded apps (more than two threads)
are not really that common yet, even with games. As you can see from
this site below, the latest i7-4770K is only slightly better than the
latest FX-9590 from AMD, 9.3 vs. 8.8:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

Those are the highest performing parts, but this site will let you
compare many processors that are the close to each other. So you can
choose one example processor, and it'll list other processors near it in
performance.

As for performance of the integrated GPU's, if you really don't need to
play games, then yes you can get by quite easily with Intel integrated
graphics. However, the game situation is AMD's biggest value proposition
now. As you may or may not know, AMD is now the processor supplier for
both Xbox One and Playstation 4, and it's the GPU supplier for the Wii
U, so it's in all of the game consoles. As a result of this monopoly,
AMD has introduced a new gaming API for the PC called Mantle which
usurps Microsoft's DirectX graphics, while at the same time riding on
top of DirectX for other functions. It's a shameless attempt at
leveraging their game console monopoly for gain in the PC industry, but
it seems to be working. The Mantle API has much better multi-threading
than DirectX, and turns previously CPU-bound games into GPU-bound games,
thus equalizing low-end and high-end processors. A lot of game
developers have signed on to the API, such as the guys behind
Battlefield 4.

http://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedi...ith-an-amd-cpu/index.html#PMSYv7VgOl5ivdmz.99

Interestingly, Mantle benefits both Intel and AMD processors, because it
pretty much removes the CPU from having to feed the GPU with data, the
GPU feeds itself. But it doesn't benefit Nvidia GPU's because it makes
use of aspects of AMD's own GPU architecture. A lot of times AMD has
been on the wrong end of the benchmarks because Intel was the one that
created the compilers, which they designed to showcase their own
processors. Now this is AMD's own unfair advantage, something that Intel
has no control over, and neither does Nvidia.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Paul]

As you can see from
this site below, the latest i7-4770K is only slightly better than the
latest FX-9590 from AMD, 9.3 vs. 8.8:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-9590

Those are the highest performing parts, but this site will let you
compare many processors that are the close to each other. So you can
choose one example processor, and it'll list other processors near it in
performance.

The only problem with the FX-9590, is the TDP.

http://products.amd.com/en-ca/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=840

4.7GHz 220W

That's going to make the room a bit warm, in summer.

The 9590 does well on Povray.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-i7-4930k-i7-4820k-ivy-bridge-e-review-7.html

It's possible, in some of the benchmarks on that page, the
software really isn't getting the best out of the hardware.
I don't really know what percentage of Cinebench and Povray,
are floating point or integer. It's interesting how
the two processors swap places here.

http://i59.tinypic.com/152hmhz.gif

Paul

 

[Yousuf Khan]

The only problem with the FX-9590, is the TDP.

http://products.amd.com/en-ca/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=840

4.7GHz 220W

That's going to make the room a bit warm, in summer.

Yeah, that's definitely a problem with that particular model, but I
believe that model comes equipped with a water-cooling kit right off the
bat, so it may not get too bad temperature-wise.

I think this particular processor is just AMD's halo product, it's not
really too serious about selling a lot of them, just that it wants to
show that it can come up with hardware that's nearly as fast as Intel's
best, if it wanted to, if its fab partners could've matched Intel's
fabs. When AMD was manufacturing its own processors, it was often just
six months behind Intel's process tech. After it sold its fabs, it has
to rely on Global Foundry's and TSMC, neither of which can afford to
keep up with Intel, and they're perennially 1.5 years behind Intel
nowadays.

However, the economics of the time are now going against Intel. Intel's
constant search for more miniaturization may not be helping it anymore,
and it's now having to shutter some of its plants, and it's looking like
it's delaying its next process tech. With more computing being done
through devices that don't use Intel-compatible processors, such as
smartphones or tablets, Intel can no longer afford to keep turning up
the process tech heat.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Paul]

Yeah, that's definitely a problem with that particular model, but I
believe that model comes equipped with a water-cooling kit right off the
bat, so it may not get too bad temperature-wise.

I think this particular processor is just AMD's halo product, it's not
really too serious about selling a lot of them, just that it wants to
show that it can come up with hardware that's nearly as fast as Intel's
best, if it wanted to, if its fab partners could've matched Intel's
fabs. When AMD was manufacturing its own processors, it was often just
six months behind Intel's process tech. After it sold its fabs, it has
to rely on Global Foundry's and TSMC, neither of which can afford to
keep up with Intel, and they're perennially 1.5 years behind Intel
nowadays.

However, the economics of the time are now going against Intel. Intel's
constant search for more miniaturization may not be helping it anymore,
and it's now having to shutter some of its plants, and it's looking like
it's delaying its next process tech. With more computing being done
through devices that don't use Intel-compatible processors, such as
smartphones or tablets, Intel can no longer afford to keep turning up
the process tech heat.

Yousuf Khan

Actually, Intel is selling some capacity to third parties.
So if you want to make chips, Intel is interested. That's
better than shuttering plants.

I doubt that's going to make a dent in the spare capacity.

That's the scary part about boom and bust when you own fabs.
They cost a fortune to build. You do your projections on
what kind of business to expect. And it doesn't take much
to leave you in serious trouble. Almost as bad a model as
buying hashing boxes to mine Bitcoins

Maybe Intel should make memory chips, with the left-over
capacity. So the price of memories will get pushed down
again Win-win. Intel likes to "make all the parts
in the computer", they make the chipsets, why not do
memories as well?

Paul

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Actually, Intel is selling some capacity to third parties.
So if you want to make chips, Intel is interested. That's
better than shuttering plants.

I doubt that's going to make a dent in the spare capacity.

That's the scary part about boom and bust when you own fabs.
They cost a fortune to build. You do your projections on
what kind of business to expect. And it doesn't take much
to leave you in serious trouble. Almost as bad a model as
buying hashing boxes to mine Bitcoins

Maybe Intel should make memory chips, with the left-over
capacity. So the price of memories will get pushed down
again Win-win. Intel likes to "make all the parts
in the computer", they make the chipsets, why not do
memories as well?

Probably because I doubt that most firms will trust Intel not to start
competing against them. If any particular product starts doing well for
another company using Intel's fabs, Intel will come in and start making
a version of the product itself. Right now, they're accepting low-volume
products like FPGA's, which isn't worth Intel's time to make a version
of itself. Memory chips on the other hand, is worth plenty of Intel's
time to make itself. It actually used to make RAM chips before it made
microprocessors, and then most recently it was making flash ram chips
too, which it spun off to Micron. If they find that any of these
products are heating up again, then it'll be in them again, pushing
aside its own customers.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Paul]

Probably because I doubt that most firms will trust Intel not to start
competing against them. If any particular product starts doing well for
another company using Intel's fabs, Intel will come in and start making
a version of the product itself. Right now, they're accepting low-volume
products like FPGA's, which isn't worth Intel's time to make a version
of itself. Memory chips on the other hand, is worth plenty of Intel's
time to make itself. It actually used to make RAM chips before it made
microprocessors, and then most recently it was making flash ram chips
too, which it spun off to Micron. If they find that any of these
products are heating up again, then it'll be in them again, pushing
aside its own customers.

Yousuf Khan

It would be quicker to buy Altera or Xilinx, and take over
Just to dodge the patents.

Also, I wonder if Intel is playing with memristors at all. Still
haven't seen anything approach retail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor

"In April 2010, HP labs announced that they had practical
memristors working at 1 ns (~1 GHz) switching times and
3 nm by 3 nm sizes, which bodes well for the future of the
technology. At these densities it could easily rival the
current sub-25 nm flash memory technology."

It's interesting that the article spends more time discussing
the patent aspect of it, than the tech. Which might never
deliver commercially (except as future patent troll material).

Paul

 

[Mark]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:39:11 -0500, Yousuf Khan

Thanks again for the useful and interesting post

I wouldn't worry about the reliability of either CPU's or motherboards.

Well I have had trouble with ECS motherboards. They haven't
completely failed but generally have BIOS issues. I had an Abit
motherboard DOA and one that took ages to get working.

The biggest reliability issues come from either power supplies or hard
drives. With power supplies the best way to ensure some reliability is
not to go for the absolute bargain basement no-name PSU's, but go with
the lowest price branded PSU's. Also make sure that you choose PSU's
that have a chance of powering all of the components that you feel you
are going to need today and into the near future.

I've always bought decent branded PSUs. They all worked but sometimes
they are excessively noisy, like an Antec one I got recently. I
really *hate* noisy PSUs.

As for Haswell i5, choose the one you're looking for, and then build the
system around that. Motherboards don't really matter. My last 5
motherboards were from Asus. I wouldn't say that they were all
spectacular, but they did have a good online forum for helping out with
issues.

I am hoping that there won't be any 'issues' that I might need a forum
for ;-)

My latest motherboard is from Gigabyte, because I wanted a
little change. There's not much difference in price or quality.
--snip--

As for performance of the integrated GPU's, if you really don't need to
play games, then yes you can get by quite easily with Intel integrated
graphics.

I do play some games but any mid-range card will do me fine. Right
now I have a Asus HD6670 and I could just get another exactly the
same. I may go for a similar one in the 7000 series. I am not yet
familiar with their more recent chipsets (R7 etc).

However, the game situation is AMD's biggest value proposition
now. As you may or may not know, AMD is now the processor supplier for
both Xbox One and Playstation 4, and it's the GPU supplier for the Wii
U, so it's in all of the game consoles. As a result of this monopoly,
AMD has introduced a new gaming API for the PC called Mantle which
usurps Microsoft's DirectX graphics, while at the same time riding on
top of DirectX for other functions. It's a shameless attempt at
leveraging their game console monopoly for gain in the PC industry, but
it seems to be working. The Mantle API has much better multi-threading
than DirectX, and turns previously CPU-bound games into GPU-bound games,
thus equalizing low-end and high-end processors. A lot of game
developers have signed on to the API, such as the guys behind
Battlefield 4.

Interesting. I had assumed that the PS4/XB1 were using Intel CPUs.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Interesting. I had assumed that the PS4/XB1 were using Intel CPUs.

No, and in fact they even settled on using AMD's low-end tablet APU's,
that came with the Jaguar cores (Atom competitors) rather than their
higher-end Bulldozer-cored processors (Core competitors). Mind you, both
the XBone and PS4 have 8 Jaguar cores, but still their single-threaded
performance would be much less than the Bulldozer cores. Yet, both
manufacturers felt it was sufficient performance from the Jaguar cores.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I have been looking more at AMD processors recently. The new "Kaveri"
ones look very good, although they don't seem to be on sale here yet.
Do you think it's worth the wait?

Only if you're looking to go cheap and get an APU. You should go with
what you're already planning to go with, there's no point in waiting on
any upcoming processor. If the processor is already out and on sale,
then you can go for it.

Looking at the specs of the "Richland" APUs, they seem to have a
slower GPU than my current card and I don't want to risk this.

Richland and any other APU's are only to be compared with other APU's.
So compared to an i3 or i5 APU, with no video card, the Richland's APU
will look good. Compared to a dedicated video card, it won't.

Yousuf Khan