Technology New Desktop computer

[THEV1LL4N]

I wanted a good AMD Ryzen 3 PC from Currys, but it costs more than a Ryzen 5 PC that is currently on sale.

This is the Ryzen 5:
https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/compu...720-18asu-desktop-pc-silver-10164119-pdt.html

But then it got me thinking, that I'd like an SSD and maybe I wouldn't need those specs as I'm not going to be hardcore gaming or using it as a main console.
I will be playing games such as Sonic 4, Sonic Racing, and maybe Sonic Mania. Nothing like a FPS where I need cutting edge tech.

I found this for £20 cheaper than the Ryzen 5 PC above:
https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/compu...ilion-570-p016na-desktop-pc-10159070-pdt.html

It has a 128GB SSD which should keep it running smooth but it comes with an AMD A10 processor. Would this suffice for everyday usage and the occasional gaming without hindrance to performance for the above games on Steam?

 

[masta247]

Did you end up getting a PC already? Sorry, I was away for a while but I could help out!

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Not yet.

I think I'll wait for the 2nd gen Ryzen 3 or Ryzen 5 desktops to come out. I read yesterday that Acer have announced a lineup of Ryzen PCs due out later this year.

I am not a gamer, I just use a desktop casually now but would like to play the occasional game (All the Sonic games from Steam, Sega, Playstation and Nintendo emulators). So I think a Ryzen 3 would suffice.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

Why does the Ryzen 3 1st gen have 8MB L3 cache and the 2nd gen has 4MB L3 cache?

 

[masta247]

Why does the Ryzen 3 1st gen have 8MB L3 cache and the 2nd gen has 4MB L3 cache?

Regular Ryzen chips (without graphics) consist of two quad-core CPU modules, with 4MB of L3 cache each (resulting in 8MB of L3 cache in total). Standard Ryzen 3 chips still use two quad-core CPU modules, but with only 2 cores active on each module, resulting in 4 cores being active in total - each active core still has access to all the cache attached to both modules.

Ryzen 2200G and 2400G are special chips in a way that there is only a single quad-core module, while the second module is replaced by a Vega graphics module instead, so you have one 4 core CPU module with 4MB of L3 cache with all CPU cores active, and the second module with Vega GPU with its own memory reserved for the GPU only. In the end, cutting the L3 cache reduces its performance a bit, but not that much, as each core has the same amount of L1 and L2 cache regardless of the configuration, and those caches are more important.

If you don't care about modern games at all, then go ahead and get the Ryzen 2400G, or even the 2200G. The 2400G would be better due to simultaneous multithreading, which makes it pack some extra punch when you do need the extra CPU performance. The GPU is a bit faster on it too. The value on both is great, just don't expect miracles in modern 3D games - it's still an integrated GPU ;-)

It will be a while until a new generation of Ryzen with GPU comes out, as the above are technically already second gen (at least marketing-wise). If you want a huge upgrade you would have to get a combo of a 6-core Ryzen 5 (like the 2600) and a stand-alone GPU (depending on your needs) - that would be an all-around mid-range set up that also games really well, but is going to be much more expensive due to discrete GPUs being expensive.

If I didn't care about demanding games at all, I would get the 2400G (the extra threads make it more future-proof while it's still just 169$). If I wanted to consider gaming and making a really decent PC, I'd use the 2600 and a discrete GPU, maybe even something like the entry-level RX460 if I was on a budget. You would still get substantially more CPU performance and much better graphics performance that would allow you to play the occasional modern game comfortably. Most importantly, don't get anything that has less than 8GB of RAM.
And while I'm not following the pre-built market, in terms of components I think it's a good time to buy - I don't think a new successor to the 2400G/2200G would be out anytime soon - most likely not this year.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

What do you think of this? It is now £150 off - £100 cheaper than the sale price that was on last time. I wanted something with a SSD but not sure if the next gen ones will have SSDs for the RRP they'll be selling at. Installing a SSD from Currys could be anything around £50 for labour plus the cost of a 120GB SSD, which would probably take the price back up to around the £550-£580 mark.

 

[Rukas]

How much would something to edit video (not 4K) and audio set me back nowadays?

 

[masta247]

What do you think of this? It is now £150 off - £100 cheaper than the sale price that was on last time. I wanted something with a SSD but not sure if the next gen ones will have SSDs for the RRP they'll be selling at. Installing a SSD from Currys could be anything around £50 for labour plus the cost of a 120GB SSD, which would probably take the price back up to around the £550-£580 mark.

I think you didn't paste the link!

How much would something to edit video (not 4K) and audio set me back nowadays?

Depends on how serious you are. No idea about audio, but for video editing, if you use Adobe Premiere, for instance, a high-end on a consumer platform would be around 1000-1100USD. That would give you an 8-core, 4ghz Ryzen 7 chip with 32gb of ram and a mid-range GPU, in case anything you use is GPU accelerated. That's more power than you could get from a 4k$ platform just 2 years ago. Something more reasonable but still great could be had for ~700USD, if you dropped to a 6-core CPU, 16GB of ram and lowlier GPU. The only difference would frankly be maybe 30% longer rendering time. The preview would be equally fast on both, both could edit 4K too, just would take longer. Anything cheaper than that and you'd be making more serious sacrifices, that are probably not worth it, but you could technically get by on something for 500-ish$ and still have a significantly faster computer than a decent laptop.

That excludes the monitor, of course.

 

[Rukas]

Meh. Just gonna buy a new MacBook Pro when the new ones are released.

 

[masta247]

With the regular mobile i7 chips you'd be getting a third of the processing power of a desktop, but it might just be good enough. If those Macs get the Intel hexa-core "i9" chips it might be even more than good enough, as they perform almost as well as full desktop i7s did before last year's CPU revolution. While we have much better desktop chips now, some pros still edit even 4k videos on older i7s, and it's not like they became any weaker just because faster ones became available.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

What do you think of this? It is now £150 off - £100 cheaper than the sale price that was on last time. I wanted something with a SSD but not sure if the next gen ones will have SSDs for the RRP they'll be selling at. Installing a SSD from Currys could be anything around £50 for labour plus the cost of a 120GB SSD, which would probably take the price back up to around the £550-£580 mark.

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/compu...720-18asu-desktop-pc-silver-10164119-pdt.html

 

[dilla]

Meh. Just gonna buy a new MacBook Pro when the new ones are released.

Do you have a preference on what software you use?

Final Cut Pro vs Adobe vs the rest?

 

[Casey]

I render video on a 2017 i7 ASUS Zenbook with 16GB of RAM and it's super fast.

Faster than my late 2016 Macbook Pro, for sure.

 

[masta247]

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/compu...720-18asu-desktop-pc-silver-10164119-pdt.html

I don't think they still have it or at least I can't see it. They have it on clearance for 600$ at Best Buy over here, and it comes with Ryzen 7, 16 gigs of ram and a RX 560 discrete GPU, which is a really neat deal.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lenovo...1tb-hard-drive-silver/5887604.p?skuId=5887604

 

[Rukas]

Do you have a preference on what software you use?

Final Cut Pro vs Adobe vs the rest?

Adobe.

 

[dilla]

Adobe.

I think for the best results, you'd want to use FCP on Apple vs Adobe. I think Masta schooled me on this some time back in another thread but you literally want to do Apples to Apples, hardware to software. Seems like Windows runs Adobe better and Apple runs its own, native programs better.

Double-check the benchmarks.

Of course, it's not always about speed of these programs; you care about the OS when you're not doing work on it. I prefer macOS to Windows and the only time I wish for Windows is when gaming. And I'm not that big a gamer but a lot of my "wants" would be done away with a custom build or a machine from Razer.

 

[Rukas]

I think for the best results, you'd want to use FCP on Apple vs Adobe. I think Masta schooled me on this some time back in another thread but you literally want to do Apples to Apples, hardware to software. Seems like Windows runs Adobe better and Apple runs its own, native programs better.

Nope. Adobe is much better. And the majority of the industry uses Adobe on oSX.

What you're saying was true maybe 5-6 years go.

 

[dilla]

Nope. Adobe is much better. And the majority of the industry uses Adobe on oSX.

What you're saying was true maybe 5-6 years go.

I mean, you're the professional and know what all you do with these programs but plenty say that it's still FCP over Adobe

https://www.uscreen.tv/blog/adobe-premiere-vs-final-cut-pro-practical-comparison/

https://www.pcmag.com/feature/359857/adobe-premiere-pro-vs-apple-final-cut-pro-x-what-s-the-diffe

And this is the oldest source, still less than 3 years old https://www.macprovideo.com/hub/final-cut/final-cut-pro-x-vs-adobe-premiere-pro-performance-test

Complete with benchmark graphs for comparison

 

[masta247]

I think for the best results, you'd want to use FCP on Apple vs Adobe. I think Masta schooled me on this some time back in another thread but you literally want to do Apples to Apples, hardware to software. Seems like Windows runs Adobe better and Apple runs its own, native programs better.

Double-check the benchmarks.

Of course, it's not always about speed of these programs; you care about the OS when you're not doing work on it. I prefer macOS to Windows and the only time I wish for Windows is when gaming. And I'm not that big a gamer but a lot of my "wants" would be done away with a custom build or a machine from Razer.

The problem with that is I don't think anyone is still using FCP. The Adobe suite at this point is more alike on both platforms than it ever was, as it is by far the most popular and used on Mac and Windows. In terms of Premiere, you are likely to see people use it on PCs more due to the sheer hardware processing power and higher popularity of PCs in general, but it is pretty much the "go to" tool for video editing on both platforms at this point. Most of the performance gains on Windows are related to the machines running physically faster hardware - you can build a 1000$ editing PC that will be as fast as the fastest desktop Mac, and if you spend more then the sky is the limit, as there is simply no Apple alternative to truly high-end PCs.

 

[Rukas]

When you work professionally there is more to consider than benchmarks, like what your clients and partners use. Adobe Suite is the standard, FCP isn't even in the discussion at the moment to be honest (it was for a second because it handled 4K a lot better on the same machine than Premiere did, but that has since been resolved).