HTPC - DDR3 1600 or DDR3 1866+?

[kaswyn]

Sup guys,

My first HTPC build involves the following:

1. i3-4330 $125 from Amazon (reviews say Haswell class i3 and above are capable of 4K easy)
2. GIGABYTE GA-H81M-HD3 1150 H81 SATA 6Gb/s MB (4K capable Gigabyte claims)
http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128662
3. ADATA Premier Pro SP900 ASP900S3-64GM-C 64GB SATA 6Gb/s SSD (for OS and apps)
4. Using Intel 4600 integrated graphics.

My dilemma: I have 4GB (2x2GB) G.Skill DDR3 1600 RAM laying around and would like to use that. But, I understand integrated graphics will use my system RAM. Is it really worth it for me to pay $50 give or take for 4GB DDR3 2000, or $70 for 8GB DDR3 1866?

I read that it may be 10% better performance only? Is that justifiable for $50 to $70?

I will NOT be gaming on this 'puter. I have another gaming rig.

Thanks ya'll's.

 

[ssddx]

the first thing i'd like to note is that intels onboard graphics are pretty weak. amds like up of A series chips (a6, a8, a10....) have much stronger graphics capabilities at the expense of being a little less on the cpu side of things. if you havent purchased anything yet you might want to take a look at them. intel hd should be fine for 1080p video but i cant really say about 4k as i havent read to much into intel HD 4600 testing at that resolution.

i can tell you that on amd apu systems using faster ram like 1866 or 2133 can make a huge difference in speed. this is because integrated graphics pulls memory from your system ram instead of from any onboard cache (like a graphics card has on it). now while completely true that using faster ram would benefit both the intel hd onboard and amd apu onboard graphics the intel graphics are rather weak as is so are really not going to benefit much from it while an apu can benefit enough to make the cost worthwhile.

i recently built a small computer for a relative.. http/postimg.org/gallery/78slmoca/ which uses an amd a10, pretty decent quality fm2 motherboard, 8gb of 1866mhz cas9 ram, a smaller ssd, budget level power supply and a copy of windows 7 for about $450. i managed to get the a10 for under $100 on ebay which was a steal and ripjaws 1866 was on sale for $72 on newegg

to answer your question in short: a 10% difference on intel HD graphics most likely isnt worth the cost however if you were using an amd APU it likely is.

for less than the cost of an i3 you could get a newer a10 chip which has quite a bit more to offer in the graphics department at the expense of not having as much in the processor department as the i3. however, i've used the a10 and it is no slouch and for a media center/htpc for watching videos or streaming its a very capable processor and when paired with fast ram and a ssd makes for a good low budget system for everything but gaming.

 

[kaswyn]

Thanks for your points. I knew about AMD APUs having better graphics and Intel only able to touch A6's, but I read up a few reviews where AMD APUs had to utilize the CPU as much as 90%+ to do 4K whereas Haswell CPUs were in the teens with CPU usage. I decided to go 4K to future proof, and for lower heat generation. I won't bother with the RAM unless I can sell mine for a good amount. That way it'll only cost me a few coins.

 

[ssddx]

would you mind linking me to those reviews?

 

[kaswyn]

http/www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-richland-intel-haswell-gpu_7.html

 

[ssddx]

interesting read. its always good to find a second source to compare results with though.

it looks like the problem is with amd's uvd3 engine which is used not just on their apus but also on their discrete cards as well. an article mentioning it http/www.anandtech.com/show/5541/amd-radeon-hd-7750-radeon-hd-7770-ghz-edition-review/9

i wouldnt be suprised in amd came out with an updated driver which completely fixed the issue as its not likely a hardware but instead a completely software based problem. once the uvd3 engine is fixed cpu usage should be back down in line where it should be.

-----

the i3 however is a nicer cpu all around... it runs cooler, quieter and faster but costs more than it should. graphics performance isnt stellar but as long as it handles 4k video thats all you really need i think.

i just noted the apus for their specs but it seems like they are having software issues right now that i wasnt aware of for 4k playback so perhaps its wise to pass up on them for at least the time being.