Media PC build project

I dunno, I still prefer AMD.

Anyway, I strongly recommend full ATX in case you plan on gaming on the machine to be built. I'm not sure what you meant by media center, as if you just mean for it to play videos and music, it won't require that much.

Reason: Full ATX has better cooling and better potential for expanding the machine with peripherals, should the need arise (VR, for example). As in, more ports for all kinds of devices or more slot for expansion cards (including video and sound controllers).
As for a case, I recommend Thermaltake cases, as they are pretty well-designed and cool in both meanings of the word.

Also, I recommend you to buy an air pump and blow the insides of your computer from time to time (I'm serious, it works way better than vacuuming it and dust is computer's worst enemy). As for oiling coolers and changing thermal paste, you probably know it yourself.

Also, as you will probably want a dedicated video card anyway, there is no need for mainboard HDMI port nor an APU (when will you use that? emergencies?).

You sure? I mean, a pure CPU without a graphics core saves money just enough for a mediocre video card. Or are you planning to upgrade for a proper one later, perhaps?

Right now, for my imaginary PC build project that will never get off the ground, I have set my sights on this Silverstone (GD08B) casing.

www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=331

Might as well have a real aluminum front panel instead of a faux aluminum plastic one. Also the case can fit any motherboard so it'll probably never have to be replaced in the future.



As for a motherboard, I have been researching this all over again and have so far concluded that the Gigabyte GA-Z170X-UDT TH would be a nice fit for the project.

uk.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5479&kw=GA-Z170X-UD5%20TH1.0#ov

Looking back at my first post I already mentioned this motherboard so that sort of affirms to me that it would be a good choice.



As for a processor I find myself in a bit of a jam. The ones I am interested in don't appear to be available for some reason. I copied some information from the Intel website regarding Skylake models that are available and put it into a spreadsheet. Here's the file for anyone who's interested.

intel.xlsx (23.65 KB)

The most interesting models are the ones that use the Intel Iris Graphics 540 and Intel Iris Graphics 550 as those have the best built in graphics capabilities. Actually the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 would be even more interesting but there aren't even any in the list. In any case, all of these models are out of my budget as far as I'm concerned so I will probably be looking at something with an Intel HD Graphics 530 instead.

Here's some information I found on Wikipedia regarding the different built in graphics configurations for Skylake processors. (link to article - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD_and_Iris_Graphics)

• HD Graphics 510, GT1 – 12 execution units, up to 182.4 GFLOPS at 950 MHz
• HD Graphics 515, GT2 – 24 execution units, up to 384 GFLOPS at 1 GHz
• HD Graphics 520, GT2 – 24 execution units, up to 403.2 GFLOPS at 1.05 GHz
• HD Graphics 530, GT2 – 24 execution units, up to 441.6 GFLOPS at 1.15 GHz
• Iris Graphics 540, GT3e – 48 execution units with 64 MB of eDRAM, up to 806.4 GFLOPS at 1.05 GHz
• Iris Graphics 550, GT3e – 48 execution units with 64 MB of eDRAM (the same as 540 but with a higher maximum clock and TDP), up to 844.8 GFLOPS at 1.1 GHz
• Iris Pro Graphics 580, GT4e – 72 execution units with 64 or 128 MB of eDRAM, 1152 GFLOPS at 1 GHz

Looking at this list the only type that is really unappealing is HD Graphics 510. The performance of it is much lower than the other models and I don't expect there would even be a huge difference in the price of the processors. The HD Graphics 515 on the other hand delivers interesting performance in comparison, but that type is apparently only for a select few mobile processors.

This leaves the HD Graphics G20 and HD Graphics 530. According to the article the 530 would deliver approximately 10% more performance than the 520. Let's look at the difference in price. Mind you, these prices are based on the Intel suggested retail price. I have already noticed though that some processors are sold for quite a bit more than the suggested price, which I honestly find quite odd as usually things are sold for less than the suggested price.

Intel® Core™ i3-6100U Processor (3M Cache, 2.30 GHz) - Intel® HD Graphics 520 - TRAY: $281.00
Intel® Core™ i3-6100 Processor (3M Cache, 3.70 GHz) - Intel® HD Graphics 530 - TRAY: $117.00

What?!

Am I missing something here? Why would someone pay 140% more for a processor that appears to offer far worse performance? I suspect the reason can be found somewhere in the fact that there's a "U" at the end of the processor name but as of yet I do not know what this means. It doesn't appear to be a very interesting processor for me though. In fact the processors with the 520 graphics all have a suggested price of either $281 or $393, so I think I'm going to scrap all of those as potentials.

I created a new and more condensed version of the spreadsheet.

intel2.xlsx (16.22 KB)

Now it's possible to sort the sheet on various aspects in order to see which models are most interesting in certain regards.

For example, sorting by TDP and then by price, the lowest TDP value appears to be 15 Watt. The TDP value as I understand it has something to do with the amount of heat the processor generates when running at the nominal speed for that processor. So I guess lower TDP values are better because it'll be easier to cool the system and keep the processor operating at healthy temperatures.

The ones with a TDP value of 15 Watt all have the letter "U" at the end of their name, they all have 2 cores and they all have Intel Iris Graphics 540 built in. Prices are either $304 or $415, so not exactly healthy for the budget. The graphics capabilities are nice though and the low heat dispersal values are sweet. For $304 though there are several processors available with Intel Iris Graphics 550 built in that have a TDP value of 28 Watt, which is still quite low.

Looking at the low TDP values from the budget side of things, the cheapest processor in the list comes in at $117 at a TDP value of 35 Watt. That's a nice compromise, a little more heat for a lot less money. It has Intel HD Graphics 530 and 2 cores.

Sorting the sheet on the number of cores and then on price gives a different view. All processors in the list have either 2 cores or 4 cores. It's nice to have 4 cores. The cheapest processors with 4 cores come in at $182 and have a TDP value of 65 or 35. The latter being of more interest in my opinion. There are also some models with a TDP of 35 with prices of $192 and $213 which I think are close enough to be of interest.

Sorting the sheet on processor family and then clock speed I see no other i3 models are interesting to me besides the one I've already highlighted. I am adding one i5 model to my pre-selection because it has a high clock speed at a relatively modest pricing level, the TDP however is 65 which is higher than the other models but not the highest it could go. Likewise for the i7 range I'm adding one model to the pre-selection for the same reason and because it is one of the only ones that comes in at a price that could be considered at least a little bit in the direction of a lower budget, still $303 though, ouch.

So, after all this, I have distilled the potentials down to 12 models of processor, all of them have Intel HD Graphics 530 built in. Prices vary from $117 up to $303, clock speeds from 2.7 GHz up to 4.0 GHz and TDP from 25 Watt up to 65 Watt. Here's a list of the contenders.



All 3 of the i3 models have the same price of $117. One of them is less interesting because of the lower clock speed. Two of the remaining i5 models appear more interesting than the others to me and looking at the i7 there is only one left.

This leaves only the following:
Core™ i3-6100
Core™ i3-6100T
Core™ i5-6500TE
Core™ i5-6600T
Core™ i7-6700T

Hmmm... Now what?

Here's two virtual builds I made on PCPartPicker.

Build 1 - pcpartpicker.com/p/8HhfNG
Build 2 - pcpartpicker.com/p/bcLvpg

Hybrids??

Yup. Hybrid hard drives, combining magnetic and solid-state technologies.

SSHD: Fast, big and easy on your budget

[a href="http://www.howtogeek.com/195262/hybrid-hard-drives-explained-why-you-might-want-one-instead-of-an-ssd/
"]Hybrid Hard Drives Explained: Why You Might Want One Instead of an SSD[/a]


*Aargh. My effing tablet sucks ass sometimes - especially in the areas of trying to place code or with spelling correction.

I'm going to watch this thread with great interest. I've been doing way more 4K video editing than I thought I'd ever do and I'm starting to hit the limits of what my machine can do and am looking at building my first computer from scratch. Yeah, I know it's a bit of a cardinal sin to not have made my own computer this many years into my geekdom, but it's something I never set aside the time to thoroughly learn. Anyway, reading this thread and taking notes!

Welcome to the fold. Building your own rig is an experience - an experience that is simultaneously enlightening, invigorating, and self-actualizing, as well as frustrating, nerve-wracking, and tumultuous. You haven't lived until you've accidentally seated a CPU without thermal grease, or literally cut your knuckles on fan blades and circuit components. If you survive and still have dreams of collating your sata cables into a neat bundle of braided bliss, there's no going back. Seriously you either come out the other side with self-confidence, or with the vomitous desire to never, ever see a computer case so long as you live; hiding the soon-to-be dust-addled beast under your desk is the only cure. Sure, you may wake on occasion screaming from fever dreams of RAM form factors, or suddenly realise during coitus that you forgot to attach the case fan to the control board, but those are small prices to pay for joining the PC Master Race Guild of Builders. Stand tall and be proud. You made it! If not, getoutn00b!!1!!

It becomes a part of who you are, and you are granted the rights to brag about it in forums and on voice-chat to 10yr olds kicking your ads at CoD; avoid mentioning it at.family gatherings, bar mitzvahs, high school reunions, or any social activity with people that know you by name (in fact, don't even mention computer, tell them you sell phonebook or something).

In all seriousness, its an enjoyable side hobby. Besides that, having the satisfaction that you made something and it works (most of the time) feels good.

Anyhow... that was fun.

Besides upgrading my CPU (and, consequently, my Motherboard if necessary), I need to work on learning better cable management, and start looking into a cooling unit as well.

Great advice Ba'al.

My husband is a rig-building fiend (I think he posted a picture of his gaming machine at one point). He enjoys it enough that he started an LLC and builds custom machines for locals.

Matthew, If you are brand new to PC building, this thread will be a great resource.
Just keep your objective in mind and focus on including parts that will achieve that objective. It's easy to get carried away.

Also, Lifehacker has a running article that is updated from time to time which is a good starting point and uses a wide variety of feedback. The Best PC you can build for $300 - $600 - $1200