Long time since last new PC but used to be experienced builder

[explicitlyrics]

The time has finally come to finally replace my Q6600 (with 8600GT GPU) which is creaking under the strain of various background processes (a few different servers and CCTV recording...etc) and Chrome sucking more and more RAM. I dont really game (certainly not anything major) but do a bit of photoshop work and occasional video editing, plus significant modelling and a fair bit of coding - and multiple users simultaneously logged on. I have two monitors and am tempted by a third but more likely to upgrade one of them to 4k.

Ive been researching different options but have struggled to get very far...

First decision is clearly AMD v.s. Intel:
1) Intel is a bit more power efficient which is good as the PC would probably need to stay on
2) I dont think I want an external GPU as I wont need it given how far things have come since the 8600GT! However, most AMD CPUs dont seem to have a GPU in them? Does that mean I either get 2400G or get an external graphics card?
3) Doesnt make much difference noise wise for silent running
4) Cost of Intel is higher, but Im not too concerned about it, aiming at <£300 CPU, <£150 MB and £160 RAM (plus new PSU and maybe case for USB-C)

I think Im roughly after a Ryzen 2700 or an Intel 8700? Does that sound reasonable, or do I need a GPU with that Ryzen chip (and need a G version).

Or should I just get a NAS/equivalent for the servers/CCTV and then worry less about the always-on requirement if that is more power efficient.

Any thoughts very much appreciated! Thanks!!

[scaryjim]

Well:

I'd imagine for the servers/NAS running and CCTV recording the CPU's going to be pretty much idle all the time, so energy efficiency isn't going to be a big concern. Currently AMD and Intel are actually pretty much on a par with each other there - Intel CPU's are still faster, but at the high end they actually draw a little more power than AMD. But, as mentioned, for the ongoing always-on scenario you're looking at they're going to be idle most of the time and drawing very little power (the power management has got A LOT better since the Q6600 days!).

The higher end AMD CPUs don't have a GPU baked in, so if you went AMD you would need to buy a dGPU as well. But, if you want to keep costs "sensible", you're comparing the £300+ Core i7 8700* (non-K) - that's a 6 core, 12 thread chip with base clock 3.2GHz and 65W TDP - against the £220 Ryzen 7 2700 - an 8 core, 16 thread chip with base clock 3.2GHz at 65W TDP. So going AMD would leave you £80 to budget for a dGPU and get you 2 extra physical cores. To me that's a bit of a no-brainer

I'd go for the 2700, a B450 motherboard, whatever DDR4 RAM you fancy, and probably an NVidia GT1030 GPU (which are around £65) - which you might find can be used to accelerate some of your video editing or modelling workloads.

* n.b. - if you go below the 8700 you're looking at 6 core CPUs without HT (so 6 threads) or quad core CPUs with HT (so 8 threads). Intel's CPU line up is pretty anaemic in the sub £300 space at the minute. By contrast, AMD offer 6C/12T (Ryzen 5 2600) at £150 - or 4C/8T plus a desktop-grade IGP (Ryzen 5 2400G) at £140. And, as mentioned, the Ryzen 7 2700 is currently £220 at ebuyer, and £210 at Scan. The value proposition is pretty astounding...

[DanceswithUnix]

Do you find your current PC lacking CPU power?

If you are at the stock 2.4GHz, then frankly anything modern is going to be a huge step up. By the sounds of your workloads, I suspect an AMD 2400G would be ample and avoids needing a GPU but make sure you find a motherboard with the right connectors for your monitors.

By "other users logged in" are you hosting storage on the machine or are they actually running programs?

Is your old box using mechanical hard drives?

[explicitlyrics]

Thanks both, yes I do find current CPU is lacking power and not very responsive. Would normally fix it with some extra RAM but the mobo that I have is limited at 8Gb of DDR3 and have long been on SSDs for extra speed. By other users logged in then yes there are multiple people using the PC and running Chrome/apps, though most of the time it is one person at a time (occasionally I RDP in and run in parallel).

I have more modern laptops with an i5 8350U and find them sluggish aswell sometimes hence thought I should go more high end, but perhaps its just because it is a mobile chip... I found the Nvidia GT1030 card in a silent version which is quite attractive and very similar to the current silent 8600GT (albeit much more modern). Im tempted by the 2400G but wasnt quite sure if it had enough oomph compared to the laptop CPU power....

Thanks again for advice so far!

[Millennium]

I recently bought parts for a system for the living room. This was my CPU choice (with IGPU):
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G 3.6GHz Quad Core AM4 CPU

[explicitlyrics]

I had a scan of upcoming releases, but couldn't see anything with a confirmed eta for new cpus with inbuilt graphics (that aren't terrible...). Is there anything I might have missed?

[DanceswithUnix]

No, I don't think you have missed anything. Predicting the future is hard, but I don't think the desktop APUs are going to shake up any time soon.

The 2700 sounds a fair bet, you would need a GPU with that. Note that we are expecting 3000 series CPUs to be announced within the next few months.

[badass]

Do you find your current PC lacking CPU power?

If you are at the stock 2.4GHz, then frankly anything modern is going to be a huge step up. By the sounds of your workloads, I suspect an AMD 2400G would be ample and avoids needing a GPU but make sure you find a motherboard with the right connectors for your monitors.

By "other users logged in" are you hosting storage on the machine or are they actually running programs?

Agreed. Even if the Q6600 was overclocked to the limit and water cooled, anything modern will be a huge step up. I upgraded my Q6600 to an I5-3570K because it was around double the performance on average. That was in 2012. I believe that any modern quad core (even bottom end) is now faster than my i5. The 2400G is probably noticeably faster.

[explicitlyrics]

Thanks. According to the benchmarks your i5 just about pips a 2400G but only slightly and there are other tests where it goes the other way. Perhaps that is the best way to go, I just can't help but feel it's far from a ground breaking cpu like the Q6600 was!

I think from an energy perspective I'd probably be better avoiding a separate GPU...

[DanceswithUnix]

Thanks. According to the benchmarks your i5 just about pips a 2400G but only slightly and there are other tests where it goes the other way. Perhaps that is the best way to go, I just can't help but feel it's far from a ground breaking cpu like the Q6600 was!

I think from an energy perspective I'd probably be better avoiding a separate GPU...

Again, an idle gpu draws very few watts. The problem with a discrete gpu is that there are nothing below £30 and at that level the silicon is all rather old so not far off using the legacy drivers (R5 230 might already be there given it doesn't use GCN, the GT710 can't be far off).

As for getting a 2400g, get a decent motherboard and the upgrade route from there to 2700X is always there and even the 3000 series when they are release in a couple of months.

[explicitlyrics]

Sounds like a good plan with the 2400G then! Is there any risk the new 3000 series wont be compatible with the motherboard?

Thanks again everybody! So great to be able to ask a few questions and get back to grips with the market!

[DanceswithUnix]

Sounds like a good plan with the 2400G then! Is there any risk the new 3000 series wont be compatible with the motherboard?

Thanks again everybody! So great to be able to ask a few questions and get back to grips with the market!

It's predicting the future, so although it seems the intention is for existing motherboards to be compatible there is always a risk. Seems fairly small though.

For example we don't know TDP values yet, so if 16 core CPUs need 125W then some lower end motherboards might not cope with that. Perhaps such boards would have to slum it with 12 cores/24 threads

The only thing we know the 500 series motherboards will have different is they should be PCIe 4 on the GPU slot. As PCIe 3 still seems adequate and you don't want a GPU anyway, that probably isn't on your issue list

[Zak33]

But, if you want to keep costs "sensible", you're comparing the £300+ Core i7 8700* (non-K) - that's a 6 core, 12 thread chip with base clock 3.2GHz and 65W TDP - against the £220 Ryzen 7 2700 - an 8 core, 16 thread chip with base clock 3.2GHz at 65W TDP. So going AMD would leave you £80 to budget for a dGPU and get you 2 extra physical cores. To me that's a bit of a no-brainer

I'd go for the 2700, a B450 motherboard, whatever DDR4 RAM you fancy, and probably an NVidia GT1030 GPU (which are around £65) - which you might find can be used to accelerate some of your video editing or modelling workloads.

* n.b. - if you go below the 8700 you're looking at 6 core CPUs without HT (so 6 threads) or quad core CPUs with HT (so 8 threads). Intel's CPU line up is pretty anaemic in the sub £300 space at the minute. By contrast, AMD offer 6C/12T (Ryzen 5 2600) at £150 - or 4C/8T plus a desktop-grade IGP (Ryzen 5 2400G) at £140. And, as mentioned, the Ryzen 7 2700 is currently £220 at ebuyer, and £210 at Scan. The value proposition is pretty astounding...

everypart of this is utterly on-point.

I had a Q6600 lobng ago... moved to a 6 core AMD Phenom II which kicked it's arse and now I'm on a Ryzen 1700 8/16 and the thing is astounding.

I'd get the Ryzen 2700 that scaryjim suggests with a board as per his suggestion. I'd suggest MINIMUM 16GB DDR4 and get minimum 2666 speed as the Ryzen like good bandwidth. Corsair 2666 2x8gb is a good place to start
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/16gb...-18-35-xmp20-1

But I'd also suggest a good cooler... the OEM is great on Ryzen, but a really big nearly silent job like a bequiet! Dark Rock 4 ...rocks.

Graphics come and go year by year... the board and CPU and ram will last you a long time.

[Porthos2020]

Yeah agreed, and just posted something very similar on another thread. Its much better to compromise on graphics as something you'll replace every 1-2 years than on a CPU, motherboard, PSU etc that could last you 4-5 years.