Building an HTPC (and light gaming) Machine??

[davidemel707]

Hi there! Im planning on getting the new Asrock DeskMini 5x5 form factor barebones kit as my new HT/Travel PC, and need a CPU to put into it with some RAM to pair with it.

I've been waffling the idea of just throwing an i3-6300 in and calling it a day, but with benchmarks I've seen the i5-6400 kicking the teeth in of the i3 when you are using (some) different CPU intensive tasks.

So I guess my question would be this: to make sure this little powerhouse works for as long as it can, would it be beneficial to spend just a little more and get the i5 (2C/4T vs 4C/4T)? Also, would 16GB of RAM be more optimal or just opt for 8GB and rebuy in the future?

Thanks so much in advance for anyone trying to help me with my decision.

 

[urbanj]

If you want to game on it, it's all about having the latest Intel graphics. The i5 6400 would be a much better option, but one step up from that would actually be just going for the Intel Skull Canyon NUC (NUC6i7KYK) which you could even get an external graphics card for at a later date if you so desired, thanks to its Thunderbolt 3 support.

 

[Ecky]

Broadwell's Iris Pro graphics are faster than Skylake's HD graphics. There is, of course, the Skull Canyon NUC:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10343/the-intel-skull-canyon-nuc6i7kyk-minipc-review

 

[davidemel707]

If you want to game on it, it's all about having the latest Intel graphics. The i5 6400 would be a much better option, but one step up from that would actually be just going for the Intel Skull Canyon NUC (NUC6i7KYK) which you could even get an external graphics card for at a later date if you so desired, thanks to its Thunderbolt 3 support.

The Skull canyon sounds awesome, but I like the idea of possible (desktop) CPU upgrades in the future and this thing doesn't need to be a "play every game" machine. Just some fun LAN titles and basic tasks on the computer. Not to mention the NUC is about $150 over a completed build with the Asrock mini, with an small yet reasonable m.2 SSD, 16GB of RAM and the i5. I could even shoot for the i7 6700K and still be under the barebones kit.

And as for the Intel graphics, both Skylake CPU's have the new 530 graphics. It's just a decision between 2C/4T vs 4C/4T and between 8GB of RAM or 16GB.

Again, thanks for the help

 

[Ecky]

The Skull Canyon NUC has Iris graphics though, which are in an entirely different league than the 530. But, if you think 530 will be adequate, you can certainly get something much cheaper.

 

[davidemel707]

The Skull Canyon NUC has Iris graphics though, which are in an entirely different league than the 530. But, if you think 530 will be adequate, you can certainly get something much cheaper.

Oh of course. I would love the Iris graphics (which are far superior), but it's kind of a price vs what I want to use it with. It will end up being more HTPC than anything and I might stream some games from my main rig or very lightly LAN from time to time. However nothing will get into the range of needing graphics settings higher than low to medium on easy to run titles.

Which is the reason why I want to really decide on the right processor and type/amount of RAM.

 

[jaguarskx]

If you are only to play games casually, then a dual core i3-6300 should be sufficient. For example, Skyrim and Fallout 4 can get better FPS on a quad core CPU when compared to a dual core CPU. But based on my experience playing those games on a laptop with a dual core i5-4200u and Radeon HD 8850m the performance is still pretty good. Though my desktop can crush my laptop. However, I need to point out that while Skyrim can be played using an Intel HD graphics core, Fallout 4 does not.

While I have seen Fallout 4 being played using an Intel HD 5500 / HD 520, the performance is pretty low, mostly below 20 FPS using low settings and that is not during combat. Strangely, I could never get Fallout 4 to run using only the Intel HD graphics either on my laptop or desktop.

As for RAM, unless you are doing some things that really requires a lot of RAM, then 16GB of RAM is more or less a waste. However, with 16GB of RAM you can disable the pagefile which can slightly improve performance even though it is mostly marginal with a standard HDD and likely unnoticeable if you use a SSD instead. That's assuming you are not using programs that eats a large chunk of the 16GB of RAM.

 

[urbanj]

The Skull Canyon NUC has Iris graphics though, which are in an entirely different league than the 530. But, if you think 530 will be adequate, you can certainly get something much cheaper.

Oh of course. I would love the Iris graphics (which are far superior), but it's kind of a price vs what I want to use it with. It will end up being more HTPC than anything and I might stream some games from my main rig or very lightly LAN from time to time. However nothing will get into the range of needing graphics settings higher than low to medium on easy to run titles.

Which is the reason why I want to really decide on the right processor and type/amount of RAM.

As you said, comes down to what you need.
I run an i5 6600k, without a discrete graphics card, and can play all kinds of titles at 60-80fps+ such as League, Smite, World of Tanks/Warships, etc.

Now, on some of those titles I sacrifice quality for frame rates, but to be honest, when gaming, I don't exactly have time to sit back and REALLY notice the difference in quality

 

[davidemel707]

If you are only to play games casually, then a dual core i3-6300 should be sufficient. For example, Skyrim and Fallout 4 can get better FPS on a quad core CPU when compared to a dual core CPU. But based on my experience playing those games on a laptop with a dual core i5-4200u and Radeon HD 8850m the performance is still pretty good. Though my desktop can crush my laptop. However, I need to point out that while Skyrim can be played using an Intel HD graphics core, Fallout 4 does not.

While I have seen Fallout 4 being played using an Intel HD 5500 / HD 520, the performance is pretty low, mostly below 20 FPS using low settings and that is not during combat. Strangely, I could never get Fallout 4 to run using only the Intel HD graphics either on my laptop or desktop.

As for RAM, unless you are doing some things that really requires a lot of RAM, then 16GB of RAM is more or less a waste. However, with 16GB of RAM you can disable the pagefile which can slightly improve performance even though it is mostly marginal with a standard HDD and likely unnoticeable if you use a SSD instead. That's assuming you are not using programs that eats a large chunk of the 16GB of RAM.

Oh you definitely over estimate what games I am going for. lol I want things like L4D, CS:GO, Diablo III, and that lot, though it's good to know I could run Skyrim. Which brings me to the question, would a 2C/4T CPU run worse than a 4C/4T CPU?

As for the RAM, I'll probably just stick with 8GB then to keep the costs down. And what do you mean "disable the pagefile"? I will be using a smaller m.2 SSD, though I would like to look into any help I can get to make the system run smooth as can be.

Thanks all!

 

[davidemel707]

The Skull Canyon NUC has Iris graphics though, which are in an entirely different league than the 530. But, if you think 530 will be adequate, you can certainly get something much cheaper.

Oh of course. I would love the Iris graphics (which are far superior), but it's kind of a price vs what I want to use it with. It will end up being more HTPC than anything and I might stream some games from my main rig or very lightly LAN from time to time. However nothing will get into the range of needing graphics settings higher than low to medium on easy to run titles.

Which is the reason why I want to really decide on the right processor and type/amount of RAM.

As you said, comes down to what you need.
I run an i5 6600k, without a discrete graphics card, and can play all kinds of titles at 60-80fps+ such as League, Smite, World of Tanks/Warships, etc.

Now, on some of those titles I sacrifice quality for frame rates, but to be honest, when gaming, I don't exactly have time to sit back and REALLY notice the difference in quality

And that is basically what I am looking for. I want it mainly to run my Netflix, Youtube, etc. with the option to pop it in my luggage and go game where ever with some smaller/older titles.

 

[jaguarskx]

Oh you definitely over estimate what games I am going for. lol I want things like L4D, CS:GO, Diablo III, and that lot, though it's good to know I could run Skyrim. Which brings me to the question, would a 2C/4T CPU run worse than a 4C/4T CPU?

As for the RAM, I'll probably just stick with 8GB then to keep the costs down. And what do you mean "disable the pagefile"? I will be using a smaller m.2 SSD, though I would like to look into any help I can get to make the system run smooth as can be.

Thanks all!

A 2C/4T CPU is generally less powerful compared to a 4C/4T CPU, but only for games and programs that can take advantage of more than 2 CPU cores. CS:GO and L4D don't take advantage of more than 2 cores. Not sure if Diablo III can take advantage of more than 2 cores, but whether or not it does, it should be able to play the game just fine.

The pagefile is a temporary file that Windows writes temporary data. Basically when Windows is running low on system RAM it writes the data that Windows / Programs are not currently using to the pagefile (a.k.a. swapfile in the past). If Windows or a program need data from the pagefile then it swaps the need data from the file with data in system RAM that is not being used. Most normal people do not use 16GB of RAM. That means whatever they do there is no real need for a pagefile. That slightly improves responsiveness of Windows, especially if reading / writing to a hard drive. If a SSD is use then better responsiveness is likely not noticeable since SSDs have very high read / write speeds. Though one benefit could be less wear and tear on the SSD, but that is a minor point.

The longevity of SSDs have come a long way since they were first introduced. Originally they had relatively short life spans because each sector can only be overwritten with data so many times before the sector simply fails. But now SSD life span is much better. Though not as good as HDDs. If you were to do continuous read / writes to a SSD and a HDD 24/7 for as long as possible. the SSD will likely fail first and that include the chance of an mechanical failure on the HDD. I think SSDs are estimated to have a life span of around 5 years.

 

[davidemel707]

A 2C/4T CPU is generally less powerful compared to a 4C/4T CPU, but only for games and programs that can take advantage of more than 2 CPU cores. CS:GO and L4D don't take advantage of more than 2 cores. Not sure if Diablo III can take advantage of more than 2 cores, but whether or not it does, it should be able to play the game just fine.

The pagefile is a temporary file that Windows writes temporary data. Basically when Windows is running low on system RAM it writes the data that Windows / Programs are not currently using to the pagefile (a.k.a. swapfile in the past). If Windows or a program need data from the pagefile then it swaps the need data from the file with data in system RAM that is not being used. Most normal people do not use 16GB of RAM. That means whatever they do there is no real need for a pagefile. That slightly improves responsiveness of Windows, especially if reading / writing to a hard drive. If a SSD is use then better responsiveness is likely not noticeable since SSDs have very high read / write speeds. Though one benefit could be less wear and tear on the SSD, but that is a minor point.

The longevity of SSDs have come a long way since they were first introduced. Originally they had relatively short life spans because each sector can only be overwritten with data so many times before the sector simply fails. But now SSD life span is much better. Though not as good as HDDs. If you were to do continuous read / writes to a SSD and a HDD 24/7 for as long as possible. the SSD will likely fail first and that include the chance of an mechanical failure on the HDD. I think SSDs are estimated to have a life span of around 5 years.

So maybe I will go with the 4C i5 just for longevity's sake, and lay back to 8GB of RAM since the cost will basically even out. And i might look into the pagefile disabling, but it'll basically be a moot point with the SSD anyways (especially an m.2 one) since this system will probably be in need of an upgrade or replacement by the time the SSD dies.

Thanks so much for the help!