Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, JustAnEngineer
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
grantmeaname wrote:Could you reuse the case from the current workstation? That would put you under your budget immediately.
EJ257 wrote:I can't speak for you but if I was building that I would switch to a mini-ITX and go with this:
Case: Bitfenix Prodigy
MB: ASRock H77M-ITX
The case has enough room for a dual slot video card if you ever feel the need to add one later on.
grantmeaname wrote:Could you reuse the case from the current workstation? That would put you under your budget immediately.
just brew it! wrote:I think going with a Phenom II X4 and an AM3+ mobo will get you under your budget.
The potential downside is you're counting on AMD fixing the performance issues with the Bulldozer core if you want an upgrade path without replacing the mobo. But at least you'd be able to move up to a competent quad core for under $500 today.
just brew it! wrote:Good point. There are also some pretty reasonable cases you can get for less, like this one. Not enthusiast class, but quite functional with good ventilation, and not ugly or garish. The words "utilitarian" and "understated" come to mind. My current desktop system at work is in in one of these.
cynan wrote:Aside from the uncertain performance issues with the Bulldozers, I'm actually a little afraid that she's a bit too much of a snob to be satisfied with an AMD . And coming from one (Athlon x2), I think she wants to try some of the newer Intel goodness she's been hearing about and using in here laptop.
cynan wrote:Think I'm just going to go ahead as planned and secretly kick in a few more $.
just brew it! wrote:Yeah, that's certainly a concern from a perception standpoint. But the Phenom IIs are still solid performers, and quite affordable since they're last-gen tech. Up to you to decide whether the $ tradeoff is worthwhile; my take is that if you're on a budget AMD is still worth a look.
just brew it! wrote:Heh... I guess my only question here is why are you doing it secretly? I think you'd win some brownie points by *not* keeping in secret, unless there are some issues with your relationship I'm not grokking here...
Chrispy_ wrote:Another minor point is that the HD4000 in the 3470 supports one screen and wireless display tech, whilst the older sandy bridge i3 supports two displays with the IGP
DPete27 wrote:That seems counter-intuitive, I have a hard time believing that HD4000 only supports 1 monitor. Can you prove this statement?
Chrispy_ wrote:The official Intel ARK indicates that HD2500 IGPs do not support dual displays (halfway down the table under Graphics Specifications).
DPete27 wrote:Just because the i5-3450 doesn't have a checkbox for "Dual Display Capable" doesn't mean you can only run 1 monitor in my book....I may have to do a little experiment tonight...
Chrispy_ wrote:I said HD4000 earlier but actually the 3470 includes an HD2500 IGP. I don't think this matters though since the feature set is identical to the HD4000, it's just half the number of execution units.DPete27 wrote:That seems counter-intuitive, I have a hard time believing that HD4000 only supports 1 monitor. Can you prove this statement?
Unfortunately yes
The official Intel ARK indicates that HD2500 IGPs do not support dual displays (halfway down the table under Graphics Specifications).
The "up to three displays" involves using Intel's Wireless Display tech for the second and third screen, which ends up being far more expensive than a discrete graphics card; Pretty pointless unless you're desperate for wireless for some reason....
Now, It could just be that the table is plain wrong. There are enough reports of people running two screens off an HD4000.
However, most of those threads are people with problems using multiple monitors off an HD4000. I guess it depends on the drivers and how the motherboard manufacturer has chosen to implement the ports for the onboard graphics. My guess is that it's not officially supported but that motherboard manufacturers find workarounds that get the job done. This is the way it has always been with Intel and their vendors
Chrispy_ wrote:DPete27 wrote:
Just because the i5-3450 doesn't have a checkbox for "Dual Display Capable" doesn't mean you can only run 1 monitor in my book....I may have to do a little experiment tonight...
Ah well, if you have an Ivy Bridge on hand, then you can answer your own question
Krogoth wrote:Care to enlightenment me?
grantmeaname wrote:He said that they did that via a workaround and it wasn't officially supported, not that they were totally incapable
Chrispy_ wrote:It's really not a big deal....If it works, cool. If it doesn't work - $10 used graphics card from eBay will sort the issue.