New Mini iTX System - what CPU?

[Cov]

Hi, I want to build a new system for using the internet, word processing, audio and video editing, for programs like cubase, fraps and Sony Vegas.
Here are the parts I have chosen to get:


Mainboard » Intel DH67CF B3

• Form factor = Mini iTX
• Dimensions = 170 x 170 mm
• CPU = Core i3 Core i5 Core i7
• 2 x 240 pin DDR3 SDRAM DIMM 1066 / 1333MHz up to 16 GB
• Power = 24 pin ATX
• PCIe 2.0 x 16
• Gigabit 10/100/1000 Mb/s Ethernet _ Intel 82579V
• Realtec ALC892 audio codec
• 2 x S/PDIF = 1 Toslink backpannel + 1 internal header
• 2 x SATA 3GB/s
• 2 x SATA 6GB/s
• 1 x eSATA 3GB/s backpanel + 1 eSATA 3GB/s internal
• 2 x USB3
• 4 x USB2 back panel
• 6 x USB2 internal
• HDMI
• DVI-I
• Display Port
• 2 x PWM (4-pin)





• Still uses liquid electrolytic over solid capacitors
• Capacitors with polymeric electrolyte for critical knots such as processor voltage regulator circuitry
• AMI BIOS with standard text interface
• Extensive option for configuring and adjusting rotation speed of the two 4-pin fans:
-» Specify parameters describing the dependence of fan rotation speed on the teperature
-» Determin which temperature should affect the fan rotation speed
• Four (!) thermal diodes: CPU, RAM, CPU voltage regulator and chipset
• Allows under- and overclocking the Intel HD Graphics core but not (!) the processor core voltage





CPU cooler » Titan

• Speed = 700 to 2600 RPM (PWR)
• Outline dimensions = 96 x 96 x 61.5 mm ─► DC-156B925B/RPW1
• Outline dimensions = 96 x 96 x 48.5 mm ─► DC-156D925B/RPW1
• Airflow = 12.83 to 47.62 CFM / 21.80 to 80.91 m³/h
• Noise level = 8 to 33 dB
• Voltage = 12 V DC
• Current = 300 mA
• Power consumption = 3.6 W
• Life time = 35.000 hours





RAM » G.Skill F3-10600CL9D-8GBNT

• CAS Latency 9-9-9-24
• 2 x 4GB = 8GB
• Speed = DDR3-1333 (PC3 10666)
• DDR3 240-pin DIMM
• 1.5V





SSD » Cruicial m4 CT128M4SSD2

• MLC
• Size = 128 GB
• Form factor = 2.5 "
• SATA III = up to 600 MB/s
• Average Disk Rating = 2.065
• Weight = 75 grams
• Lithography = 25 nm
• MTBF = 1.2 Mio hours





HDD » Western Digital WD20EARX

• Massive capacity
• Reduced power consumption
• Variable speed system (IntelliPower)
• Average Disk Rating = 724
• Runs cool & quiet, even under heavy load
• Ideal for secondary storage or backup drive





PSU » 500W Silverstone SST-ST50F-P

• Modular cables
• Efficiency 82%~85% at 20%~100% loading
• Silent running 120mm fan
• PCI-E connectors support
• MTBF = 100,000 hours at 25°C, full load
• Weight = 1.8 Kg





PC case » Lian Li PC-Q25

• Weight = 3.1 Kg
• Material = Aluminium
• Maximum video card size = 320 mm
• System fans = 140 mm (front) and 120 mm (top)
• Dimensions = 199 (w) x 280 (h) x 366 (d) mm
• » Review




What really gets on my nerves is the decision reg the CPU. On one hand I would like the system to run cool and efficient and on the other hand I like power when needed.
I don't mind the price difference between dual and quad core, but in order to avoid buying both CPUs I have to make my mind up which I seem to be unable to.
If I just decide for one I will regret not to have gotten the other one and vice versa.

Here are the candidates:


CPU » Intel i5 2500K

• Release date = Jan 2011
• Cores = 4
• Die size = 216 mm²
• Socket = LGA 1155
• Frequency = 3.3 GHz
• Lythography = 32 nm
• Transistors = 995 Mio
• Cache = L1: 4x 32KB _ L2: 4x 256KB _ L3: 6MB
• GPU = HD3000 _ 12 PP _ 850 to 1100 Mhz
• Memory support = DDR3 up to 1333 MHz
• Average CPU Mark = 7365
• Vcore = 1.15V
• TDP = 95W


CPU » Intel i3 2125

• Release date = Sep 2011
• Cores = 2
• Die size = 149 mm²
• Socket = LGA 1155
• Frequency = 3.3 GHz
• Lythography = 32 nm
• Transistors = 624 Mio
• Cache = L1: 2x 32KB _ L2: 2x 256KB _ L3: 3MB
• GPU = HD3000 _ 12 PP _ 850 to 1100 Mhz
• Memory support = DDR3 up to 1333 MHz
• Average CPU Mark = 4103 (2120)
• Vcore = ?V
• TDP = 65W


What's your opinion on that pls ?
Thanks

[Biscuit]

I would stick with the 2500 purely for the fact you are doing cubase and vegas work which require use quite a lot of CPU power, especially if its HD work. Its still a pretty efficient CPU and you shouldn't have too many issues with noise or heat. You haven't mentioned graphics card though?

[Cov]

I would stick with the 2500

Cheers dude, that gives me some reassurance

You haven't mentioned graphics card though?

Well, my intention is to leave my old system (Q9550) for PC games only.
It still has a GeForce 8800GT, but it may get an upgrade one day soon.
Was thinking of either of these:


Graphics card » Radeon HD 6950

• RAM = 2.048 MB GDDR5
• Leistungsindex (Chip) = 59.5
• Chiptakt = 800 MHz
• Shadertakt = ───
• Speichertakt = 5.000 MHz
• Speicheranbindung = 256 Bit
• Unified Shader = 1.408
• Fertigungsprozess = 40 nm
• Transistoren = 2.640 Mio
• Average G3D Mark = 3250
• Max Verlustleistung (TDP) = 200W
• 3DMark Vantage Extreme DX10 = 9.675



Graphics card » nVidia GeForce GTX 560 ti

• RAM = 1.024 MB GDDR5
• Leistungsindex (Chip) = 53.5
• Chiptakt = 823 MHz
• Shadertakt = 1.645
• Speichertakt = 4.008 MHz
• Speicheranbindung = 256 Bit
• Unified Shader =384
• Fertigungsprozess = 40 nm
• Transistoren = 1.950 Mio
• Average G3D Mark = 2972
• Max Verlustleistung (TDP) = 180W
• 3DMark Vantage Extreme DX10 = 9.364

[scaryjim]

If you're set on the H67 board then you may as well save yourself a tenner and get the i5 2500 (n.b., no K!) as you won't be able to adjust the multiplier on that motherboard anyway.

The other option (if you're worried about power draw) would be something like an i5 2400S which trades off 800MHz of clock speed for 30W of TDP...

[MSIC]

I have a G620 for my mini itx system, it's sandy bridge and works well at media playing duties, but I agree that for video editing work it's worth the extra for quad core.
Given that your motherboard doesnt allow for overclocking (which is probably a good thing anyway in a small enclosure), i'd be inclined to recommend the cheapest quad core CPU, which is
Core i5 2310 for £139.
It's listed at 2.9 Ghz, but of course this is more of a mid-point speed for reference, given how the CPUs can turbo up or throttle down these days.
Similarly, the stated 95W TDP is more marketing than fact, as the Sandy Bridge's are very cool running on the whole. Read more (if you want) here at Xbit Labs

[Cov]

If you're set on the H67 board then you may as well save yourself a tenner and get the i5 2500 ...

Hm, yeah the tenner doesn't hurt me but just imagine I ever get a mainboard with different chipset.
And reg the 2400S, well it has the HD2000 while the 2500 has the HD3000 (IGP).

... i'd be inclined to recommend the cheapest quad core CPU, ...

Nice one, but it has the HD2000 as well.

Read more (if you want) here at Xbit Labs

Very interesting, thank you!

[scaryjim]

Hm, yeah the tenner doesn't hurt me but just imagine I ever get a mainboard with different chipset.

True, but you didn't specify you wanted a chip you could transfer to a later build

And reg the 2400S, well it has the HD2000 while the 2500 has the HD3000 (IGP).

Very true, but how much difference to your anticipated workload do you think that's going to make? You can always add a low-end discreet card (e.g. Radeon 6450) if you find you need more graphical oomph (because, as improved as Intel graphics are, they're still very much low end). Or, if you're spending the extra tenner anyway, you could go for the i5 2405S instead

[Cov]

... but how much difference to your anticipated workload do you think that's going to make?

I read somewhere that the HD3000 is about double as fast as Intel's old IGPs and about 30% faster than HD2000.

[...] Or, if you're spending the extra tenner anyway, you could go for the i5 2405S instead

The i5-2500K is an absolute demon of a CPU. It will run at low speed, low energy if that's what you require but it will equally blaze along at an aircooled 4.8GHz on almost any motherboard. The Core i5-2405S has the low energy bit handled like a champ, but it barely overclocks and at stock is pretty damn slow. So you save almost nothing by buying a much slower CPU for the same amount of money.

Source

I've got the sneaky feeling that the 2500 and me are meant to be together

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The Intel motherboard seems to have a three phase VRM section so I would get a different motherboard TBH if you are using a 95W TDP CPU.

These motherboards have 4 phase VRMs:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/gigab...phics-on-board

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/asus-...cs-on-board-mi

Also,it seems pointless getting a Q25,a 500W PSU and NOT getting a graphics card. On top of this with a 500W PSU,will be in the lower sections of its wattage range too meaning that it will be quite inefficient too. If you intend to use the IGP get a smaller case.

The Q25 can actually take an HD6950.

The PSU is also average in performance too. There are much better PSUs which are similarly priced.

I would get this 80W socket 1155 Xeon:

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel...tio-80w-retail

It has the IGP disabled but it is essentially a Core i7 2600K running at 3.2GHZ and if you are not overclocking is far better value than a Core i5 2500 IMHO.

[scaryjim]

I read somewhere that the HD3000 is about double as fast as Intel's old IGPs and about 30% faster than HD2000.

You read right - but how much difference to your workload will that make? It doesn't sound like you'll be doing anything that can be accelerated on an Intel IGP - any Sandy Bridge CPU has video encoding / recoding sorted thanks to QuickSync. So I don't think a slightly better IGP which is still, relatively speaking, poor is a good reason to choose the i5 2500K.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the i5 2500K is the wrong choice for you - I just don't think the HD3000 graphics is a reason to buy it

[Cov]

Sorry for the delay, was busy

... any Sandy Bridge CPU has video encoding / recoding sorted thanks to QuickSync. So I don't think a slightly better IGP which is still, relatively speaking, poor is a good reason to choose the i5 2500K.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the i5 2500K is the wrong choice for you - I just don't think the HD3000 graphics is a reason to buy it.

Hi, I was thinking a lot about this whole HD2000 vs HD3000 thing, then I found this ...

HD 2000 is far less impressive than HD 3000, providing a more incremental 3D upgrade from GMA HD.

Our HD 2000 test results reinforces our puzzlement at why HD 3000 was paired only with the "K" series processors. If Intel truly wants to a piece of the low-end discrete graphics market, putting HD 3000 on all their new processors would have been the way to go. It seems a waste that many HD 3000s will sit idle in overclocked systems with P67 motherboards and discrete graphics cards.

In our tests, the performance jump over GMA HD was more than 100%, and GMA HD3000 also just managed to slide past the Radeon HD5450.

source

The Intel HD Graphics 3000 enabled chips are able to outpace the Radeon HD 5450 by at least 5%. The 2000 model isn't able to do as well, ...

source





However, MikeC from SPCR said ...

There is NO performance difference between HD 2000 and 3000 in 2D. It's only in 3D that the 3000 shows its better performance.

However, ...

One very common 3D app is Windows Aero interface.

The Intel motherboard seems to have a three phase VRM section so I would get a different motherboard TBH if you are using a 95W TDP CPU.

Hm, have never looked into that but just found there's another Intel Mini iTX Motherboard I never heard about, ...

DQ67EP


source

The big deal with this board is a) it supports vPro and Intel's Active Management Technology 7.0 which lets IT departments remotely control the BIOS or, say, wipe the hard drive and b) the Q67 Chipset is an Intel Embedded product so it will be available for 7 years whereas the H67 could (and probably will) be replaced next year.

So if you're doing an Embedded PC style project and you've put a lot of work into the software side of it and don't want to repeat it all over again in a year, you go for the Q67. I was at the Intel booth at Embedded World in Germany earlier this month and vPro is really aimed at the medical market where you have thousands of computers (some mobile on trolleys) and a centralized IT department.

source

This totaly confuses me.


Regarding the DH67CF, someone posted some interesting info ► Intel Support Comunity:

The board doesn't have voltage control of the CPU Vcore, unless they added it recently, only DRAM and GPU are present, but both do nothing at all, because all motherboards share same bios but not all the PCB components needed for the voltage change to occur. Mine H61WW can only control DRAM but not GPU, and there are reports that H67CF can't control dram.

The 2500K default is 1.2660V, measured 1.200-1.232 depending the load. and that is way to much, the CPU only needs 1.05V. Be prepared, not possible to undervolt. Please contact the department of bios writers to add this simple bios module while compiling the bios as it is common to all motherboards but is considered overclock, so it didn't see light for cheaper models initially. It is still not too late to add this option to control CPU Vcore Down from default many people will appreciate it.

If you intend to use Dual channel, expect problems, look for the latest revision of the board that adds a capacitor to stabilize Dram.

These motherboards have 4 phase VRMs:

► Gigabyte GA-H67N-USB3-B3

I heard about problems with that board. As soon as people installed the graphics driver, the display went bezerk.

► Asus P8H67-I

There's a version with SO-DIMM sockets? Hm, ...

Also, it seems pointless getting a Q25, a 500W PSU and NOT getting a graphics card. On top of this with a 500W PSU,will be in the lower sections of its wattage range too meaning that it will be quite inefficient too. If you intend to use the IGP get a smaller case.

Because I like the look of the PC-Q25, I rather use a PicoPSU instead ...

The Q25 can actually take an HD6950.

Yes, that's right.

The PSU is also average in performance too. There are much better PSUs which are similarly priced.

Hm, how would you define performance of a PSU?

I would get this 80W socket 1155 Xeon: ...

Oh dear, I somehow got confused completely now.

[peterb]

The pico PSU is very good, but the mfr recommends that you use some form of forced air cooling if you are operating it at high output powers (the mobo end that contains the regulators that is) A chassis fan near the connectors would be fine (and I used one without that without problem, but the heatsink did get hot)

But if you do use the pico unit, your are limited in what you can add to the system.

Performance of a PSU is based in how well it meets the ATX specifications for voltage output, regulation and ripple. However a PSU can meet those specs while exhibiting overall poor performance. A good PSU will provided the design current on al, the outputs simultaneously, or at least state what the limitations will be. It will also have overload protection, be well designed and manufactured, and use quality components.

Unfortunately assessing a PSU requires some expensive test equipment, and the knowledge to use it, so you have to rely on technical reviews and/or other users' experiences. But a cheap PSU will be built down to a price, a good one built up to a specification.

[MSIC]

Morning, am keen to help although you've asked a mouthful and i dont have time to go in to detail on most of the points.

Hm, how would you define performance of a PSU?

On a most basic level, nearly any PSU will allow a computer to turn on a run, however the more components that you have in the PC, and the more er... pieces of electricity ( ) that you ask it to deliver, the higher strain on a PSU; therefore a better quality one wont go pop or indeed take the rest of the components with it :/
(This isnt the most technical explanation, I think that the board at IEEE talk about chunks of electric instead of pieces.)

Oh dear, I somehow got confused completely now

The Xeon CPU mentioned seems to be better from a CPU-perspective, in terms of value for money.
I know that the trend is for integrated CPU / GPU chips, but it sounds overall like alot of the advice for your needs might be better aimed at letting a CPU be a CPU (and a good one), and getting a GPU to do a GPU job.

Edit: See this benchmark chart to see how the Xeon is very broadly better than the 2500K, at stock speeds:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?...30+%40+3.20GHz
(The graph called "CPU mark Relative to Top 10 Common CPUs")

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I heard about problems with that board. As soon as people installed the graphics driver, the display went bezerk.

It sounds like PEBKAC to me. I have had that motherboard for around 6 months and used the IGP for a while too. I did not have an issue with the IGP and it was running a 1680X1050 display. I even ran a few games on the HD2000 IGP which my Core i3 2100 contains.

Because I like the look of the PC-Q25, I rather use a PicoPSU instead ...

It seems daft to get a case which is designed to take a full sized PSU,over 4 hard drives and a high end graphics card though. You can use a larger PSU anyway like the Seasonic X series which run semi-passively at low load.

I would get a smaller case as you don't need a large graphics card. Maybe of these would do the job:

http://www.lian-li.com/v2/en/product...ndex=63&g=spec

http://www.fractal-design.com/?view=product&prod=42

Have you considered on of the Wesena or Vialko cases?? IIRC,Vialko makes the Wesena cases.

Hm, how would you define performance of a PSU?

If you look at the reviews the PSU does not have great voltage regulation.

Oh dear, I somehow got confused completely now.

The Xeon is very close to a Core i7 2600 but is around £40 to £50 cheaper in the UK. It lacks an IGP but since it has an 80W TDP and not a 95W one it will be easier to cool.

I would get a low end card like an HD6450 as it will be for media uses than the HD3000 IGP.