# Ryzen 5 3400G or 2600



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

Lol those RX cards devalue like luxury cars but worse, I got agp cards in my collection that are easily worth at least two or three rx 570s. I would get either a 6 core or an 8 core paired with a half way decent or better board that affords some level of overclocking. If the rig isn't on 24/7 power consumption isn't going to show on the bill much especially if he is working a 60-80 hour work hell.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

The Edwardian Spirit said:


> Lol those RX cards devalue like luxury cars but worse, I got agp cards in my collection that are easily worth at least two or three rx 570s. I would get either a 6 core or an 8 core paired with a half way decent or better board that affords some level of overclocking. If the rig isn't on 24/7 power consumption isn't going to show on the bill much especially if he is working a 60-80 hour work hell.


I would also go with a 1700 over a 2600. It might not be useful now but the CPU will last alot longer than the GPU

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

DrEquine said:


> I would also go with a 1700 over a 2600. It might not be useful now but the CPU will last alot longer than the GPU
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


Yea I would know when it comes to making the most of older procs, the oldest I've had was a 286 but sold it summer before last. Now days core count goes a long ways provided the single threaded performance isn't too bad. Those 1366 and 2011 Xeons are good deals on the cheap when the boards are not too costly.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DrEquine said:


> I would also go with a 1700 over a 2600. It might not be useful now but the CPU will last alot longer than the GPU


Can you even tell a single task, which needs so many threads?


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> Can you even tell a single task, which needs so many threads?


Video rendering. It greatly benefits from more cores. Plus it won't be long before all applications become multithreaded, but that only matters if he doesn't plan to sell his computer in the next year or two. Why stay stuck in the past when you can have 8 cores for not much more than 6. Think for the future, not right now.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DrEquine said:


> Video rendering. It greatly benefits from more cores. Plus it won't be long before all applications become multithreaded, but that only matters if he doesn't plan to sell his computer in the next year or two. Why stay stuck in the past when you can have 8 cores for not much more than 6. Think for the future, not right now.


I thought for future with FX 6300. Many useless cores, which are only being started to be utilized now, when whole system is becoming obsolete. If you are brutally "today" with PC building, your choice would be something like Pentium G5400. It's enough for games and occasional other task. On AMD side, it's more or less equal to R3 1200. Something like R5 1400 has 4C/8T configuration that's already somewhat more threads that needed. It's a perfect sweat spot for anyone, too bad it was cannibalized by R5 1600. Which offers more future-proofing. 6C/12T is way more than any game can utilize. Realistically, it has almost 3 times more threads than needed. 2000 series Ryzens are significantly improved processors with higher IPC. "It won't be long before all applications become multithreaded" this is similar to what people said when FX processors were new. Same words were head in 2012 and probably even earlier. It's obvious that developers are very reluctant to make multithreaded software. Some moved and made software to utilize 4 cores. Barely anyone remade their software to work with more cores. Also certain tasks can't be multithreaded at all. "That only matters if he doesn't plan to sell his computer in the next year or two" It will last at least 6 years with R5 2600 and longer if expectations could be lowered. The first thing in this computer that will become obsolete is RX 570. Just because graphics cards don't tend to stay competitive for long and buying faster GPU is just a bad financial strategy, when getting cheaper GPUs twice or trice is more reasonable. And by the time R5 2600 will become obsolete, it will be uncompetitive in IPC or even in core count. So stretching budget to get R7 1700 instead will be at best a very marginal upgrade. Even then, it's already rather weak in IPC and has low clock speed, which cannot be increased much without spending too much on aftermarket cooler. With that done, potential user of this PC doesn't look like he knows how to overclock and overclocking isn't exactly for newbies. Knowing that user is newbie and main requirement for this PC being video gaming, it's unlikely that video rendering software will be used. Even if it will be, R5 2600 is decent at that.


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> I thought for future with FX 6300. Many useless cores, which are only being started to be utilized now, when whole system is becoming obsolete. If you are brutally "today" with PC building, your choice would be something like Pentium G5400. It's enough for games and occasional other task. On AMD side, it's more or less equal to R3 1200. Something like R5 1400 has 4C/8T configuration that's already somewhat more threads that needed. It's a perfect sweat spot for anyone, too bad it was cannibalized by R5 1600. Which offers more future-proofing. 6C/12T is way more than any game can utilize. Realistically, it has almost 3 times more threads than needed. 2000 series Ryzens are significantly improved processors with higher IPC. "It won't be long before all applications become multithreaded" this is similar to what people said when FX processors were new. Same words were head in 2012 and probably even earlier. It's obvious that developers are very reluctant to make multithreaded software. Some moved and made software to utilize 4 cores. Barely anyone remade their software to work with more cores. Also certain tasks can't be multithreaded at all. "That only matters if he doesn't plan to sell his computer in the next year or two" It will last at least 6 years with R5 2600 and longer if expectations could be lowered. The first thing in this computer that will become obsolete is RX 570. Just because graphics cards don't tend to stay competitive for long and buying faster GPU is just a bad financial strategy, when getting cheaper GPUs twice or trice is more reasonable. And by the time R5 2600 will become obsolete, it will be uncompetitive in IPC or even in core count. So stretching budget to get R7 1700 instead will be at best a very marginal upgrade. Even then, it's already rather weak in IPC and has low clock speed, which cannot be increased much without spending too much on aftermarket cooler. With that done, potential user of this PC doesn't look like he knows how to overclock and overclocking isn't exactly for newbies. Knowing that user is newbie and main requirement for this PC being video gaming, it's unlikely that video rendering software will be used. Even if it will be, R5 2600 is decent at that.


I don't have time to read all of this but all I'll say is the FX line was absolutely terrible and couldn't even come close to competing with Intel, whereas the Ryzen platform is just as good if not better than Intel in many ways.

Based on the fact that it seems video cards get obsolete quicker than processors do, I'd rather spend slightly more on a better processor and plan on upgrading the GPU later.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

I vote for 2600


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

Whippit said:


> I vote for 2600


I personally vote for a Commodore 64.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DrEquine said:


> I don't have time to read all of this


What's the point of replying if you don't even read the post?


----------



## Dr Whoresy (Nov 7, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> What's the point of replying if you don't even read the post?


Because my input on what he should get does not depend on your opinion. I simply gave a counterpoint to your first point.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

DrEquine said:


> Because my input on what he should get does not depend on your opinion. I simply gave a counterpoint to your first point.


You pretty much said that you didn't even read my post, what counter you can have when you don't know what to counter? As result I got your "answer" which was about nothing I was actually writing about.


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

@The red spirit

Ended up going with the Thermaltake Versa H15. Brother-in-law liked it, and it looks like it'll have excellent air flow since there are minimal drive bays mounted at the front to block the intake fans. Has reasonable cable management too and the mATX size will have its advantages with respect to his desk. I hadn't realised how massive the Cooler Master case was.

The parts will take a while to arrive, but I'll let you know how it all goes once built.

Cheers for the help  !


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

DrEquine said:


> Because my input on what he should get does not depend on your opinion. I simply gave a counterpoint to your first point.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


I checked out the 1700 as well, especially after having found this video during the research:





I suspect this test is not perfect, although, if nothing else, it let me see that 4c (without HT) should be ruled out. The difference between 4core and 6core was particularly noticeable (also saw this in some other videos). 8core added a little more and seemed to offer a 'sweet spot'. 

But it is still much more expensive than the 2600 where I am so blew the budget I've been given. I have at least managed to squeeze in the B450 motherboard - I was never particularly comfortable with the A320 option.

In an ideal world, at this level, its the 3600/3600x I would have wanted to use, but it too was way too expensive and it was hard to ignore the great deals available where I am on the 2600 (which is currently a good bit cheaper than a 3400g).

Cheers for your input too. This is my first venture in AMD processors (and AMD graphics cards) so any advice was welcomed.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

orion83uk said:


> Cheers for your input too. This is my first venture in AMD processors (and AMD graphics cards) so any advice was welcomed.


You should check out Radeon Chill, Anti-lag, Sharpening, Virtual Super Resolution (VSR) in Radeon settings. If you are running less demanding games and your are feeling adventures, click on gaming section and explore all additional graphics settings there. They can enhance graphics quality a bit.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

So are you not getting a discrete GPU, are you trying to use just the integrated on the CPU?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

orion83uk said:


> My original plan was to build something around the following hardware:
> 
> Ryzen 5 3400G
> B450 series motherboard
> 16GB RAM (3000MHz)


I'd go with the 3400g, I don't care about big video cards anymore, the only downside is that it uses (or used to) the cpu RAM instead of a dedicaded one, but with 16gb ram you should be good.


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

@The red spirit
@DrEquine

FINALLY! Parts took friggin' ages to arrive, but it's built, and running:



















I have 2 more fans I'll install later if required.

One thing I would say is I don't recommend this motherboard. The placement of the SATA ports is crap! With a graphics card the length of the RX 570 installed, 2 of the 4 SATA ports are now unusable. Thankfully not an issue on this build, but annoying none the less:


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

Lucan1010 said:


> So are you not getting a discrete GPU, are you trying to use just the integrated on the CPU?


Hi @Lucan1010. Ended up going down the discrete GPU route and we got an RX 570. The original plan had been to use the 3400g and, temporarily, use the integrated graphics while my brother in law saved for a discrete GPU, however, part thanks to the deals on the 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs, we managed to squeeze the RX 570 into his budget.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

orion83uk said:


> Hi @Lucan1010. Ended up going down the discrete GPU route and we got an RX 570. The original plan had been to use the 3400g and, temporarily, use the integrated graphics while my brother in law saved for a discrete GPU, however, part thanks to the deals on the 2nd gen Ryzen CPUs, we managed to squeeze the RX 570 into his budget.


Awesome, looks like he'll have a great budget rig!


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

orion83uk said:


> @The red spirit
> @DrEquine
> 
> FINALLY! Parts took friggin' ages to arrive, but it's built, and running:
> ...


Good job, but I wouldn't say that SATA port placement is bad. At least it doesn't interfere (nevermind, I just looked closer) with anything or isn't put near CPU (back in early 2000s someone thought it was a good idea). There are some worse motherboard abominations like putting a capacitor just 0.1mm away from PCI-E locking mechanism or having 20 pin power connector on top of motherboard.

I know that it's off-topic, but I would like to show some stupid motherboard designs:

























































Now that's awful. Imagine having the last board, if you want to insert PCI card, you lose all SATA and IDE ports. Also dat 20 pin connector placement is stuff of nightmares


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

I hope that's Gigabyte SSD is NVME. Nice.

My 9 year gigabyte am3 motherboard is already using angled and stacked sata ports on it's end, how a new one do not use this kind of arrangement is quite baffling for me. Anyway, i don't know whether it will fit but there are angled sata cables too, you may try.


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

Felipe said:


> I'd go with the 3400g, I don't care about big video cards anymore, the only downside is that it uses (or used to) the cpu RAM instead of a dedicaded one, but with 16gb ram you should be good.


Go with a low cost card like a second hand firepro for peanuts plus they have rock solid drivers and don't hog the system unlike a IGP.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

The Edwardian Spirit said:


> Go with a low cost card like a second hand firepro for peanuts plus they have rock solid drivers and don't hog the system unlike a IGP.


Do you realize that system is already built?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

@orion83uk

BTW what kind of games does your brother-in-law play? I would recommend installing him UT2004, but not Steam version. GOG version is better. Games like this separate noobs from skilled players. It's cheap, old, but to this day gameplay and graphics do hold up. Generally, it runs great on modern hardware without any glitches, though there may be some minor bugs. I almost wanted to recommend installing UT99, but now it feels archaic and on pretty much any modern system it needs intense troubleshooting to make it work.


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> I hope that's Gigabyte SSD is NVME. Nice.
> 
> My 9 year gigabyte am3 motherboard is already using angled and stacked sata ports on it's end, how a new one do not use this kind of arrangement is quite baffling for me. Anyway, i don't know whether it will fit but there are angled sata cables too, you may try.


It is indeedy 

Admittedly not the fastest NVMe out there (only a x2 rather than a x4), but still twice as fast (according to the numbers quoted) than an equivalent size/price standard SSD.

Sadly the angled type of connector won't work here. One port is just slightly obscured (as per the photo) and the other is literally hard up covered by the GPU. A little lesson learnt for myself when picking future motherboards.


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> @orion83uk
> 
> BTW what kind of games does your brother-in-law play? I would recommend installing him UT2004, but not Steam version. GOG version is better. Games like this separate noobs from skilled players. It's cheap, old, but to this day gameplay and graphics do hold up. Generally, it runs great on modern hardware without any glitches, though there may be some minor bugs. I almost wanted to recommend installing UT99, but now it feels archaic and on pretty much any modern system it needs intense troubleshooting to make it work.


At the moment most his games are fairly old - he's going to start getting new stuff over the coming months. The 2013 Tomb Raider title is about the newest he currently has. His previous PC was a hideous Compaq desktop, with an Athlon II x2 with integrated ATi 3000 graphics. The motherboard had NO PCIe x16 port (you could see where is was meant to go on the board, but Compaq has rather nicely didn't bother to attach one), so games beyond 2013 were basically impossible.

I play the old Descent games (Descent 1, 1994 and 2, 1996) via DOS box which I got from GOG games. I quite like their selection. And yeah, the games run flawlessly. I use to play UT99 way back in the day. My first custom build has a Voodoo 3 3000 and that game ran fantastically on it.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

orion83uk said:


> At the moment most his games are fairly old - he's going to start getting new stuff over the coming months. The 2013 Tomb Raider title is about the newest he currently has. His previous PC was a hideous Compaq desktop, with an Athlon II x2 with integrated ATi 3000 graphics. The motherboard had NO PCIe x16 port (you could see where is was meant to go on the board, but Compaq has rather nicely didn't bother to attach one), so games beyond 2013 were basically impossible.


Actually I have some experience with that exact integrated GPU. My first AM3+ board had 760G chipset and it was integrated in it. I'm not gonna call it absolute peace of shit, because it's pretty good at its wattage, but obviously it's super low end. I still remember trying to run ETS 2 and CS Go on it. Both ran at around 30-45 fps on average at 640x480 resolution and lowest settings. Such results even make the infamous GeForce FX 5200 look good. At least that nVidia card could run UT 2004 better. As weird as it is, I have seen worse than ATi integrated graphics, the nVidia 6150 Go. Oh boy, did that thing suck. Imagine being barely able to run UT 2004 at lowest settings and 640x480 resolution and scoring only 1800 points in 3DMark 2001 SE. That is just awful. Just from scores alone, it appears that VooDoo 3 and GeForce 1 SDR are as fast as that thing, but I think that those cards are way better than it. 

Now, not having PCI-E connector really sucks. I tested Poopeon IGP just for fun, but I couldn't live with such awful thing. On the bright side, he probably learned to adjust graphics settings and he will probably gonna react brilliantly to this PC.



orion83uk said:


> I play the old Descent games (Descent 1, 1994 and 2, 1996) via DOS box which I got from GOG games. I quite like their selection. And yeah, the games run flawlessly. I use to play UT99 way back in the day. My first custom build has a Voodoo 3 3000 and that game ran fantastically on it.


Gotta confess myself, my main PC only has UT2004 and Crysis (I'm forcing myself to discover it further than just testing if I can run it) currently installed. I barely ever play with it. Ever since childhood I was fascinated with primitive 3D capabilities of FX 5200. I didn't really need more and I'm quite okay with that card. I mostly play games, that are newer than FX 5200 era, but I find myself barely ever attempting to play anything made later than 2010s. I'm not going to say that games suck nowadays, but I think that too many AA titles focus on mimicking reality. As result many games are simply unappealing and feel somewhat similar to doing a household chore. Many modern games also feel heavy, clunky, overly stylized (shit filter of the 00s for example) or too long. I tried to play Far Cry 5, because I have played 1st, 3rd and 4th. I just gave up soon. Progression was too slow and it wasn't a fun game to play. Lately, I found something different in terms of modern games. It was Yakuza 0. Once I started to play it, I was hooked hard. Sadly, after the end of story I felt that there was nothing to do, so I started to play Yakuza Kiwami. This one was slightly worse game, but I think that it still was descent and entertaining. I certainly enjoyed less messy story and it having shorter missions. These two games seriously restored hope in modern games for me. Too bad, I often see old series getting continually worse. Here are some examples:
DiRT
Call of Duty
Unreal Tournament (the fuck happened to 4th one? Ah, Epic Games turned into Fortnite Games)
GTA
Forza Motorsport
Gran Turismo
Tokyo Extreme Racer (I couldn't believe that Import Tuner Challenge was made after Tokyo Xtreme Racer for Dreamcast, that game was worse in every single way, it's like they fucked it up on purpose)
Juiced (From NFS killer to Chav and Whore simulator)
Far Cry (4th was just good, but unremarkable, but 5th one completely dropped the ball. Sadly, Far Cry 1 is still the most fun to play Far Cry to date)
NFS (Pretty much after Porsche Unleashed it just started to go downhill)
Pokemon (After 3rd gen it just got worse and worse)
Sims and Simcity 
Fallout (76? Why not F.U. edition?)
The Older Scrolls
Age of Empires
Asphalt 
Doom (I'm probably the only one, who thinks that 4th one serves no purpose and isn't as fun or interesting to play as 3rd or 1st one)

Anyway, I'm still exploring some new games. Maybe one day there will be a game that will genuinely is going to surprise me, so you never know.


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

Excuse the delay in responding - was away for a few days.



The red spirit said:


> ...Now, not having PCI-E connector really sucks. I tested Poopeon IGP just for fun, but I couldn't live with such awful thing. On the bright side, he probably learned to adjust graphics settings and he will probably gonna react brilliantly to this PC....


That was my main gripe with his old machine. Yet, weirdly, they felt the need to provide 6 sata ports (in a case which only had space for 2 hard drives a single DVD drive). OEM computers can be funny sometimes.

Had a PCIe x 16 port been available, it probably could have been upgraded back in 2013 with something like a GTX 650Ti (or equivalent) and an Athlon II 640 and given some form of gaming experience for a few more years. 

No matter now.

About to build another machine now (which will be for office use) using the 2200g (it didn't cost much more than an Athlon 240GE). And this time I'm using a Corsair Carbide 100R - the version without the window which is meant to be a 'quiet' case. Being a total hypocrite though to my above post and using the same Gigabyte motherboard again. The people it's for are currently using an old Core 2 Duo with Windows Vista, so I'm sure they'll appreciate the performance boost ha-ha.

I'm intrigued to see what this processor will be like. If nothing else, value for money wise, it's a total winner over Intel put it that way.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

orion83uk said:


> That was my main gripe with his old machine. Yet, weirdly, they felt the need to provide 6 sata ports (in a case which only had space for 2 hard drives a single DVD drive). OEM computers can be funny sometimes.
> 
> Had a PCIe x 16 port been available, it probably could have been upgraded back in 2013 with something like a GTX 650Ti (or equivalent) and an Athlon II 640 and given some form of gaming experience for a few more years.
> 
> No matter now.


In 2013 Radeon was a better choice. Particularly 7850, I think.




orion83uk said:


> About to build another machine now (which will be for office use) using the 2200g (it didn't cost much more than an Athlon 240GE). And this time I'm using a Corsair Carbide 100R - the version without the window which is meant to be a 'quiet' case. Being a total hypocrite though to my above post and using the same Gigabyte motherboard again. The people it's for are currently using an old Core 2 Duo with Windows Vista, so I'm sure they'll appreciate the performance boost ha-ha.
> 
> I'm intrigued to see what this processor will be like. If nothing else, value for money wise, it's a total winner over Intel put it that way.


That case is really overkill for a PC with 2200G. Also if office tasks are the only thing that PC will be doing, then Pentium processors are still competitive. Anyway, the most cost effective upgrade fro old s775 PC would be Core 2 Quad, SSD and low end GPU for video HW acceleration, but obviously this isn't the best path. Anyway, why not 200GE? It's still decently faster than Core 2 Duo, is cheap and is very power efficient. Pretty much ideal office PC. GPU after all, doesn't matter for anything work related as GPU accelerated tasks are still very rare (highly parallel tasks with simple instruction usage). Only special offices actually need a decent GPU.


----------



## orion83uk (Mar 13, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> That case is really overkill for a PC with 2200G. Also if office tasks are the only thing that PC will be doing, then Pentium processors are still competitive. Anyway, the most cost effective upgrade fro old s775 PC would be Core 2 Quad, SSD and low end GPU for video HW acceleration, but obviously this isn't the best path. Anyway, why not 200GE? It's still decently faster than Core 2 Duo, is cheap and is very power efficient. Pretty much ideal office PC. GPU after all, doesn't matter for anything work related as GPU accelerated tasks are still very rare (highly parallel tasks with simple instruction usage). Only special offices actually need a decent GPU.


Bare with me... there was method to the overkill.

I agree too - shove an SSD, 4GB total RAM, and a GT610/710 (you can pick up a GT610 here for the equivalent of €12 used) and a mid spec core 2 duo (or even Athlon II x3/x4) will still sing happily at basic tasks, while simultaneously playing a YouTube video at 1080p on a 2nd screen. I know this because it just so happens I have an Athlon II x3 460 with a GT610 sitting next to me (a rebuild + upgrade of an old Asus desktop we acquired which needed a new case), however I digress... their current machine is on its way out in various ways, and they wanted a new clean new computer.

The Corsair case they actually liked. They especially liked the idea of it being a quiet type case (which this case is meant to be). I just wish the 88R (an mATX version) windowless version was still available here. The windowed 88R, which is available, is weirdly, and notably, more expensive than the 100R.

As for the 2200g... yes agreed again, the 200GE could have coped perfectly, however, given how old their current machine is (over 10 years), they wanted another computer that would last like that one. I suspect this computer, after being setup, will never ever be upgraded or tweaked in its life, so having some extra power for 6 years down the line can't be a bad thing. The 2200g is also fantastic value just now.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

orion83uk said:


> I agree too - shove an SSD, 4GB total RAM, and a GT610/710 (you can pick up a GT610 here for the equivalent of €12 used) and a mid spec core 2 duo (or even Athlon II x3/x4) will still sing happily at basic tasks, while simultaneously playing a YouTube video at 1080p on a 2nd screen. I know this because it just so happens I have an Athlon II x3 460 with a GT610 sitting next to me (a rebuild + upgrade of an old Asus desktop we acquired which needed a new case), however I digress... their current machine is on its way out in various ways, and they wanted a new clean new computer.


No joke, but I'm using Athlon X4 870K now. I know that these and AM3 Athlons are fine. Just that there are things like SSE 5 and older AM3 socket stuff just doesn't have support for that. Same with Core 2 stuff. Also after this much time all parts will be heavily worn out, so it's better to just replace them. That's why just upgrading wouldn't cut it in professional environment. Otherwise, that would have been good enough. 



orion83uk said:


> The Corsair case they actually liked. They especially liked the idea of it being a quiet type case (which this case is meant to be). I just wish the 88R (an mATX version) windowless version was still available here. The windowed 88R, which is available, is weirdly, and notably, more expensive than the 100R.


There's nothing really wrong with it, but it's really weird to see a "gamer" brand in some kind of office. It's just weird, nothing technically wrong. I never really saw anything else other than some no brand case in such environments. 




orion83uk said:


> As for the 2200g... yes agreed again, the 200GE could have coped perfectly, however, given how old their current machine is (over 10 years), they wanted another computer that would last like that one. I suspect this computer, after being setup, will never ever be upgraded or tweaked in its life, so having some extra power for 6 years down the line can't be a bad thing. The 2200g is also fantastic value just now.


Depends on how much you want to spend. 200GE and 2200G are similar in CPU speed as they have 4 threads. A significant step up would be 2400G, because 8 threads. That's probably too expensive.


----------

