Upgrade advice

glennc · 24 Jun 2019

Currently leaning heavily on Intel.SATA iii seems significantly faster than what I have for the Crucial MX500 and compatible with my WD 500GB hard drives. So thats a plus.
This is sitting online now.

So I need a board for intel and sata iii with 8 GB DDR4 2666 Mhz. Beginning to become concerned if my psu will have appropriate connectors. Grrrrrrrrr!

CountMike · 24 Jun 2019

glennc said:

Currently leaning heavily on Intel.SATA iii seems significantly faster than what I have for the Crucial MX500 and compatible with my WD 500GB hard drives. So thats a plus.
This is sitting online now.

So I need a board for intel and sata iii with 8 GB DDR4 2666 Mhz. Beginning to become concerned if my psu will have appropriate connectors. Grrrrrrrrr!

Intel and all other SATA3 SSD work on any platform. Even on SATA2 just a bit slower than on SATA3.

glennc · 24 Jun 2019

CountMike said:

2400g is 4 cores with 8 threads (something like hyper threading in Intel). https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-5-2400g

Thank you Sir!

glennc · 24 Jun 2019

Excellent. Does anyone know the difference between the Crucial CT500MX500SSD1 and the CT500MX500SSD1(Z) ? Both show same size and price on the big A.Also not sure I need the 500GB. My data drives aren't half full with data!
In reference to the 4 Cores and 8 threads that would at least seem faster than a 4 Core without hyperthreading, yes?

CountMike · 24 Jun 2019

glennc said:

Excellent. Does anyone know the difference between the Crucial CT500MX500SSD1 and the As far as that SSD is concerned ? Both show same size and price on the big A.Also not sure I need the 500GB. My data drives aren't half full with data!
In reference to the 4 Cores and 8 threads that would at least seem faster than a 4 Core without hyperthreading, yes?

Yes, faster for multi threaded applications. As far as that SSD is concerned, I thing the are same and Cruical makes fine SSDs as they are also memory makers. If you are willing to install some programs on a HDD, 240GB should be more than enough for windows and most important programs. I'm getting by on one that size.
You should concentrate on main system. most SSDs are good enough nowadays and all are several times faster than spinner HDDs.

ignatzatsonic · 24 Jun 2019

glennc said:

Excellent. Does anyone know the difference between the Crucial CT500MX500SSD1 and the CT500MX500SSD1(Z) ? Both show same size and price on the big A.

https://www.amazon.com/ask/questions/Tx1N17UJ8XJNAEU/ref=ask_ql_ql_al_hza

You might benefit from a hardware specific forum re the Intel/AMD decision. You'll have to wade through a lot of fanboy drivel.

Have you rejected the newer i3-9100; $130; 3.6 ghz, 4 cores, 4 threads, 65 watts?

This is Intel's cheapest desktop quad core in the newest generation. Not sure why you wouldn't get it rather than the i3-8100. It is qualified for DDR4 2400.

Intel Core i3-9100 Coffee Lake 4-Core 3.6 GHz(4.2 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 (300 Series) 65W BX80684I39100 Desktop Processor Intel UHD Graphics 630 - Newegg.com

The cheapest i5 desktop CPU in the current generation is the i5-9400; 6 cores, 6 threads; 2.9 ghz; 65 watts; qualified for 2666 DDR4.

You might benefit from looking on Newegg or Amazon at the worst reviews (1 star) for any particular item. Some of them will be from doofuses and can be ignored, but you might pick up on a particular issue regarding compatibility, frustration, reliability, etc.

Yeah, 500 gb for an OS/programs only drive is likely to be more than you need, barring some unusual situation.

glennc · 24 Jun 2019

Okay, well I have the SSD narrowed down, thanks. I am awash with processors and specifications. I came across a video comparison of the i3-8100 vs i5-8400. The i5 was faster with the 6 cores. If I am correct the i3-9100 is a 4 Core with no hyperthreading? Seems to be 9th Generation i3-8100 is that kind of correct?
Unfortunately I've found a hurdle, motherboards 300 series, numerous also.
So lets hypothesis the correct M/B for a i3-9100 with uhd graphics and 8 MB DDR 4 2400 and a Crucial MX500 250GB drive. Does this sound like a sturdy system? Don't know how many cores I generally use of my AMD Phenom, to place a $70 premium on the i5-9400.
I do want the latest USB/sata and whatever else.

ignatzatsonic · 24 Jun 2019

see comments in line:

glennc said:

Okay, well I have the SSD narrowed down, thanks. I am awash with processors and specifications. I came across a video comparison of the i3-8100 vs i5-8400. The i5 was faster with the 6 cores.

I'd expect it to be faster in most tasks, whether single thread or multi-thread. The Passmark scores will give a decent indication of by how much. Not the perfect indicator, but you can't test fly all possible combinations.

If I am correct the i3-9100 is a 4 Core with no hyperthreading? Seems to be 9th Generation i3-8100 is that kind of correct?

Correct, neither has hyperthreading. If you want hyperthreading you have to go way up the chain to at least i7. The i3-8100 and the i3-9100 would be very close, but you may as well get the newest generation if near the same price. Not sure, but the 9100 may be exempt from all that hullabaloo about "Spectre" attacks. Intel may have fixed that vulnerability. Again, not positive.

I wouldn't get wound up about hyper-threading unless you are deeply involved in video encoding, for instance. Not just a couple of hours per week, but habitually like it was a primary task. It would save you time in that case, but you have to decide if the saved time is worth the extra money.

Unfortunately I've found a hurdle, motherboards 300 series, numerous also.

You may as well get a 390 series motherboard. I think 370s will often work, but I doubt if that will save you much money.

I'm not positive if an 8100 is OK on a 390 series board. Maybe you step back to 370?

If you aren't overclocking, you won't need a Z series board. Look at H series or B series or whatever the others are. I haven't checked lately. Look at mATX rather than ATX.

I'd look at the Gigabyte Z390 M. The last I checked, Gigabyte did not have an H series equivalent. It is mATX in the Z series; circa mid 140 bucks. There are fewer mATX boards than ATX. You may find it better to go with ATX or a Z series even though you don't need either of those features, but because it gives you more choices. It may be tough to find mATX with the features you want that isn't a Z series.

So lets hypothesis the correct M/B for a i3-9100 with uhd graphics and 8 MB DDR 4 2400 and a Crucial MX500 250GB drive. Does this sound like a sturdy system?

Yeah, given your budget. I wouldn't give up on AMD unless you've already crossed that bridge. If you go AMD, you have to have an opinion on their integrated graphics compared to Intel. I have no idea.

Consider both m2.2280 and standard 2.5 inch format on that Crucial drive. You may want to go m2.2280 for future drives if not for this drive, so you need to confirm how many, if any, m2.2280 ports your board has.

I would at least consider NVMe on the boot drive if your budget can tolerate it. If not, SATA is fine.

Don't know how many cores I generally use of my AMD Phenom, to place a $70 premium on the i5-9400.
I do want the latest USB/sata and whatever else.

Yeah, I wouldn't get in a lather over 4 cores versus 6 cores for your use case. Pretty good chance you wouldn't notice the difference if the 2 are in the same ballpark for price and Passmark scores. Yeah, 6 is a bigger number than 4, but you have to draw a line somewhere. I'd be tempted to go NVMe/4 core rather than SATA/6 core if the prices were the same.

CountMike · 25 Jun 2019

That's a problem with making a budget computer, actually it's same for everything else. Need to find something that would do one or some jobs you need and do them well. It would be easy to grab 9900K, big bad MB, 32GB of RAM and RTX 2080Ti with a 2GB NVMe M2 SSD and it will do anything you can throw at it and do it fast.
The thing is that whatever new stuff you use, you will get at least 4 times faster machine than you have now. There are also some absolute minimum from which nobody makes any smaller.
So 4/4 or 4/8 CPU, I don't think anybody makes anything less. Memory is now minimum 2133MHz with 2400MHz becoming a standard, there's nothing slower so even that is 3-4 times faster. 8GB is some minimum and 16GB is already "do it all" capacity, no worry to run out of memory capacity.
SSDs are at least 4 times faster than fastest HDDs in least important part (sequential read and write) 10+ times faster in small file R&W and 100 - 1000 times faster in seek time. So it's not as important for it to be 10 or 20 or 100 times faster and no need to pay for any faster SSD, just look at quality and capacity.
Except for some specific uses (and there are specialty cards for that), GPUs are mainly a gaming "thing", even cheapest and most basic ones will play HD movies, have large enough resolution and do anything graphics wise, maybe even play newest games although at low settings but will play them.
So any way you turn, you end up with 4 times faster computer for less money.

ignatzatsonic · 25 Jun 2019

At Newegg right now; rounded to the nearest dollar, excluding shipping and tax

i3-9100; 130

Crucial MX500, 250 gb; 40

Gigabyte Z390 M Gaming micro ATX; 140; features: DVI-D and HDMI video ports; Realtek 892 audio; 6 SATA 6 gb ports; 2 m2.2280 M key ports; support for RAID 0, 1, 5, and 10; 3 system fan headers; the specifications language implies that this board will boot from an NVMe drive, but I don't see that stated outright.

Compare Result | Motherboard | GIGABYTE

Crucial 8 gig RAM kit, 2 sticks of 4 gb; 1.2 volt, DDR4 2400; 38

Crucial 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR4 2400MHz DRAM (Desktop Memory) CL17 1.2V SR DIMM (288-pin) CT2K4G4DFS824A - Newegg.com

348 total, plus tax and shipping.

The m2.2280 version of the Crucial MX500 is not compatible with the m2.2280 ports on this motherboard.

There is a "non-gaming" version of this Gigabyte board, but I can't find it for sale. It differs very little from the gaming version. I think the non-gaming version has a Display Port video connector.