Office PC specifications. How to choose a computer? office, home, gaming

  • 1. Processor and RAM
  • 2. Hard drive
  • 3. Graphics
  • 4. Potential for upgrade
  • 5. Monoblock
  • 6. Compact and ultra-compact PCs
  • 7. Conclusion

Personal computers for business tasks rarely become objects of colorful advertising and reviews by top bloggers, but nevertheless they occupy a very significant share of the computer equipment market, which means instructions on how to choose a computer for the office are necessary for a significant number of users. Today we will talk about how to choose the most reliable and least maintenance-friendly components, because these are the features that, as a rule, interest buyers of such equipment.

Processor and RAM

Assembling a machine for absolutely any purpose begins with selecting these very elements. If in the case of a home gaming computer the principle of the more expensive is often the better, then for an office PC the price/quality ratio, ease of everyday use, and the durability of the assembled kit come to the fore. If your company's tasks are not related to high-tech areas that require serious computing power, then purchasing a processor based on an Intel Core i7, much less the incredibly expensive Intel Core i9, is unlikely to be a rational waste of money.
If the equipment is needed to perform very primitive tasks such as checking almost everything and accepting orders, then you can limit yourself to very budget dual-core CPUs Celeron and Pentium, moreover, they have a common base with the “cores” and can also boast of Skylake or Kaby Lake technologies.

If the tasks are not so simple, and workers often have to multitask, then it makes sense to purchase a faster processor; i3 and i5 can cope with serious calculations in Excel or work in engineering software, but for graphic artists or data analysts it is still advisable to have Under the hood is a modern quad-core Core i7.
With RAM, everything is extremely simple - the quantity here certainly translates into the quality of the system, and therefore if the budget for the purchase of equipment is not too strictly limited, it is better to take a little more with prospects for the future. If you plan to install the latest version of Windows on your work machines, then it simply doesn’t make sense to buy less than 4 gigabytes, and for full multitasking with resource-intensive applications it is advisable to have 8-16 GB.

HDD

If you do not take into account server equipment, then a standard office PC, as a rule, does not have large requirements for storage space - it is unlikely to house a collection of videos and music worth hundreds of gigabytes. If the computer will be used exclusively for working in office programs like Word, Excel or PowerPoint, then a hundred gigabytes will be enough for it to store all work documents, which means there is a considerable temptation to use a not very capacious, but extremely fast SSD.

For resource-intensive tasks, the speed of which largely determines the results of work, it also makes sense to purchase a solid-state drive, but we must remember that models with a terabyte of memory and above cost a lot of money, which means the price of the machine will increase by several hundred dollars.
It is worth mentioning optical drives, which have become a thing of the past with the advent of broadband Internet on home PCs, but for business purposes, some companies still prefer to use CDs and DVDs, and therefore it makes sense to equip your computer with such a device. They are not expensive, which means that such a purchase is unlikely to have a dramatic impact on the overall budget for 2019.

Graphic arts

When assembling a computer for games, this item is the most important, but for office equipment, on the contrary, it comes towards the end of the list. Most business computers have integrated graphics, meaning the graphics card is built into the processor itself. If you don’t play modern 3D games, and the workstation doesn’t involve such use, then this solution should be quite enough.

If the work is related to graphic software, architectural design and similar areas of activity, then most likely you will need a discrete card, but at the moment, due to the incredible hype around top cards, it is almost impossible to make a profitable purchase of a good card - cryptocurrency mining has raised their prices to the skies .
If you decide to buy equipment of a compact or ultra-thin form factor for your office, then an integrated card will in any case be the only option available to you - modern components have quite considerable dimensions.

Potential for upgrade

Even if you decide that you can get by with integrated graphics or one SSD of modest capacity, it would be nice to be able, if necessary, to add the components that are missing for optimal operation. Even small system units of the “minitower” class provide this opportunity, having in their arsenal an additional slot for a hard drive and a slot for a video card. The presence of DIMM slots will help you add RAM without replacing the existing one with a more modern one.
All elements require power, and the newer and more powerful the board, the more power it consumes, which means the power supply plays an important role. If you have equipped your system with a weak unit of up to 300 W, then even if you have the financial ability to insert a video card, you will not be able to do this, because it simply will not have enough power. Expert advice on choosing the right battery varies, but if you are not sure what functions a particular PC will carry in 1-2 years, then it is better to have some margin of safety.

Monoblock

Having confidence that you will not need additional components, you can take a closer look at the candy bar category. Such systems, which fit into the monitor itself, can have both fairly powerful processors and energy-saving components of average performance. In portable all-in-one PCs, you will usually find an Intel Core M chipset that does not require additional cooling.
Technology still tends to become obsolete, and therefore the equipment used even for the most primitive tasks will eventually need to be updated. To ensure that your monoblock does not lose all value, you should look for HDMI and DisplayPort models with interfaces that allow you to use this device as a regular monitor. Most PCs of this format have a touch screen, which means all-in-one PCs are perfect for working in touch-oriented applications.

Compact and ultra-compact PCs

If previously any system, regardless of its power, had approximately the same dimensions, then in recent years mini-computers, which are small in size and capabilities, but in turn are inexpensive, have become widespread. At their core, they are similar to laptops, as they also use energy-saving components in compact dimensions. This option is suitable for those who do not require more from their machine than browsing websites and working in an office software package.
If you want to save money and hope that an ultra-compact PC will still be able to perform tasks more complex than checking email and writing reports, we still do not recommend purchasing such a model; many professionals around the world have seen through their own example how inconvenient it is to try to carry out quick and voluminous tasks. calculations using equipment not intended for this purpose.

A more modern format is the new stick-PC, which is slightly larger in size than a standard flash drive. Such devices connect to monitors using an HDMI connector, and you can also use external peripherals like a keyboard and mouse with them. It makes sense to use such a gadget for the simplest tasks and in terms of functionality it is close to that same flash drive, but with its help you can not only store a presentation, but also, if necessary, correct it on the go.

Conclusion

Many employers are tempted to purchase the cheapest equipment in the hope that this will not ultimately affect the results of the work of the organization's employees. Saving is good, but it should not be detrimental to the work process, especially since purchasing the cheapest and, accordingly, weaker option, there is a high probability that in a year such a system will not be able to perform the functions required of it, which means the investment will not pay off.

By paying a little more and getting more power, expansion options, and a long warranty and support, you'll save a lot more over the long haul. You need to select components so that the elements you select have some reserve for the future, and are not outdated today.

It's 2017 and almost all the main components for processors from Intel are already on sale! So, it's time to collect the next hardware for the office. This article will not yet present assemblies on processors from AMD, since Advanced Micro Devices has not yet released anything new in the processor world in recent years. According to AMD itself, new processors should appear this year and if nothing changes, they will be available for free sale in March. True, there is another important event from Microsoft - the emergence of a “joint agreement” in which full driver support for the operating systems “Microsoft Windows (XP-8.1)” of all previous editions was officially stopped, to the version “Microsoft Windows 10” for all modern ones processors from Intel and AMD released this year 2017.

Selection of components:

When choosing components in this article, the emphasis will be on energy efficiency while maintaining performance for an office computer. We will collect everything on the LGA1151 platform since it will still be relevant for several years!

Let's consider several processor options: Intel Pentium G4400T (BOX), Intel Core i3-6100T (BOX), Intel Core i3-6300T (BOX), Intel Celeron G3930T (BOX), Intel Pentium G4600T (BOX), Intel Core i3-7100T (BOX), Intel Core i3-7300T (BOX), all of the processors listed have a stated power consumption of no more than 35 watts. The first three appeared on the market in 2015, and the rest came out at the beginning of 2017. To say that Intel has released new processors or next-generation processors, I think, is lying to myself. No matter how sad it sounds, but apart from cosmetic changes - new “next” names, slightly increased frequencies and changes in the characteristics of some cheap processors - nothing happened! The only positive exception is the increase in integrated graphics performance, and this will most likely be more noticeable on the older i5 and i7 models. Now a little more about these processors: Intel Pentium G4400T, Intel Core i3-6100T and Intel Core i3-6300T - 2015 models. The advanced integrated graphics core of these processors has a maximum clock frequency of 950 MHz, while the maximum amount of memory taken from the RAM depends on the total amount of installed memory of the entire system and the directly installed driver. Intel Celeron G3930T, Intel Pentium G4600T, Intel Core i3-7100T and Intel Core i3-7300T- 2017 models Like the previous generation, there are no fundamental changes, the frequency of the processors themselves and the graphics core has been slightly increased, see the table below. Any of the These processors will allow us to work comfortably with all office applications, and more expensive models will allow us to work quite comfortably with modern graphics applications (in this case, I recommend purchasing at least 8 GB of RAM). When purchasing Intel processors, you should not think about choosing air cooling, but install what is recommended by the manufacturer (this boxed processor with standard cooling is labeled as “BOX” example (Intel Core i3-4330 BOX))!

Kernel/Threads Cache Frequency Video Memory DDR3/DDR4 Performance TDP Price ≈ $
Intel Pentium G4400T 2/2 3 2.9 GHz 510/350-950 GHz 1600/2133 12.30% 35W 64
Intel Core i3-6100T 2/4 3 3.2 GHz 530/350-950 GHz 1600/2133 19.20%
35W 117
Intel Core i3-6300T 2/4 4 3.3 GHz 530/350-950 GHz
1600/2133 20% 35W 147
Intel Celeron G3930T 2/2 2 2.7 GHz 610/350-1000 GHz
1600/2400 11.40% 35W 42
Intel Pentium G4600T 2/4 3 3.0 GHz 630/350-1050 GHz
1600/2400 13.60%
35W 75
Intel Core i3-7100T 2/4 3 3.4 GHz 630/350-1100 GHz 1600/2400 20.40% 35W 117
Intel Core i3-7300T 2/4 4 3.5 GHz 630/350-1100 GHz 1600/2400 21.20% 35W 147

As mentioned earlier, it is not necessary to buy an expensive motherboard; you can simply choose one that supports all the latest interfaces, such as Sata 3.0 and USB 3.0. By looking at the specification of our processor, we can determine what type of memory it can work with. Therefore, the motherboard must support these characteristics - socket LGA1151 dual-channel memory type with a clock frequency of 2400 MHz. We choose, for example, ASRock B250M-HDV.
This board has a wide selection of interfaces, which are quite enough to connect office equipment.

The choice of memory should also dictate to us our processor, namely, at what maximum “RAM” frequency it can operate (in our case, 2400 MHz). I chose Kingston HyperX FURY HX424C15FB/4
Do not forget that our processor and motherboard support dual-channel memory types, which means that if necessary, we need to choose dual-channel RAM. Why if necessary? Everything is very simple - for an office computer, 4 GB of RAM is enough, and all modern DDR4 memory has a minimum capacity of 4 GB, therefore, if this is not enough for you!!!, then it is advisable to immediately buy two 4 GB modules from the same manufacturer (identical to each other) (then there will be no questions about the stable operation of the OS).

The Toshiba DT01ACA 500GB hard drive (HDD) was selected according to the following criteria:
- spindle rotation speed 7200 rpm,
- SATA3/6Gbps connection interface,
- buffer (cache) for data exchange with HDD 32 MB
- number of plates 1.
The smaller the number of platters per volume of information, the higher the recording density, which increases HDD performance. To accommodate and store data on a simple office computer, 500 GB is enough.

As for the computer case and power supply, you can purchase a fairly inexpensive case with a power supply. Let's consider one of the cheapest solutions on the market - STC Ecom 4125 Ultimate 450W.
A 450W power supply is installed in the case. It is possible to equip it with an additional 120x120 mm cooling system in the rear part of the case (this will improve heat removal from the case). One of the most basic advantages is the ability to connect various devices with USB 3.0 interfaces on the front panel. Now you don't have to move the case or connect an additional cable to a convenient location for the sake of high speed USB Flash 3.0. This computer case has another advantage - it is low price compared to analogues (low price category).

The cost of this assembly with an Intel Core i-3 7300T processor will be approximately $320-350 depending on the place of purchase...

When it comes to choosing a computer for office purposes, everything is not as simple as it seems at first glance. Very often you can come across the opinion that “for office plankton, a laptop on some Celeron or Pentium is enough and that’s it.”

Well, in principle, if the tasks of a particular “plankton” include only answering calls, smiling sweetly at visitors and periodically communicating with them - no question, a 15-inch laptop with a Celeron and a minimum of RAM (usually 2 GB) will be for eyes for spending time on Facebook/VK and periodically simply entering text into simple documents and printing them out. Any laptop with an Intel Celeron N3060 or Intel Celeron 2957U supplemented with 2 GB of RAM for $250 will do just fine.

But everything becomes much more interesting if you need a computer for people who work in the financial/economic/legal/accounting departments of an enterprise.

For some reason, a specialist in the information technology department had the erroneous opinion that this category, as a rule, needs the most simple laptop or desktop computer, which will last for a long time. Nope. Will not be enough.

Let me give you an example: right now the author is typing this text on an ASUS X551MA laptop - this is a fairly budget machine, with an Intel Celeron N2830 (the same one that is renamed Atom with Bay Trail architecture) and 4 GB of RAM on board. The OS used is Windows 10 (Windows 8 came out of the box, but was updated for free to ten with subsequent complete reset to factory settings), with additional software: Microsoft Office 2016, CCleaner, Opera, League of Law (boxed Standalone version) and sound improver from ASUS, which itself arrives with system updates.

There are 8 tabs open in the browser, one medium-complexity document is open in Excel and an RDP connection is running - in this mode, the system resource monitor shows the CPU load (during the period of inactivity and typing) at 20-30%, and RAM at 60-70 %. Those. the work is quite comfortable until you have to launch the League of Law package - when working with it, you feel like throwing the laptop out the window, because the brakes and stutters apply to the entire system.

And at the same time, it also saves that all the main work happens on the server (via RDP) - there is mail, and 1C, and work with documents (including shoveling heavy scans into .pdf into a hundred or two pages). The RDP window is displayed on a connected old Dell E197FPb monitor. If there had not been this remote connection, the work would have turned into hell with switching between windows lasting 10-20 seconds - one day the server “got down” and I had to work in this mode for three days. I don’t think it’s worth saying how productive these three days were. Therefore, more and more often people are thinking about replacing the “workhorse” with something more powerful, because in two years, an Intel Celeron N2830 with 4 GB of RAM will no longer be enough for the Internet (there are already such heavy sites that are drawn in constant jerks and on which, unfortunately, due to the main work, the author has to sit).

It is for these reasons that we will consider assembling a desktop computer, and not choosing a laptop for the office - this would be too long and ambiguous a topic. And also, for these same reasons, we will consider two possible options for assembly, based on whether the company uses RDP or not (and in the realities of the CIS countries, 99% of accounting departments work with RDP). I don’t think it’s worth explaining that to constantly work with RDP, you don’t need a super-powerful computer - in general, thin clients have long been invented for similar purposes, but we will still be assembling a stationary PC with an eye to further modernization and the ability to work in a mode untethered from the server. And that is why the configuration “Without RDP” will be compiled with an eye to the maximum possible further upgrade as the need to increase computing power, and the configuration “With RDP” will also provide for the possibility of an upgrade, but for the purpose of further transferring such a computer to the reception, secretaries or managers “on the phone”, which usually require only one or two active windows on the screen. At the same time, we will specifically discard the issue of choosing a monitor, keyboard and mouse.

We set the assembly budget at $250 for both configurations - this is the average cost of a 15-inch laptop based on budget Intel Celeron CPUs supplemented by 4 GB of RAM (the same workhorses that are actively purchased for working with text and the Internet). The calculation, as already mentioned, does not include the cost of the monitor, keyboard and mouse - this is the same overpayment that will ensure the functionality of our assembled configuration over the next 8-10 years. No matter what anyone says, but as a rule, this is how long a stationary PC lives in offices, turning by the end of its life into a Frankinstein monster, supplemented by RAM strips and hard drives from failed counterparts, or even having replaced the case and power supply, which took a long time live (and, by a lucky chance, didn’t burn anything).

So, we’ve sorted out the introductions, let’s get down to business. We analyzed the offers presented in the online catalogs hotline.ua and ek.ua - the sample turns out to be representative for Ukraine, but given the not particularly large dispersion in prices for components in neighboring CIS countries (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.), we can safely say that the price list below is quite relevant for their residents.

Office PC build (March 2017)
CPU Without RDP Intel Pentium G4560 $65,00
With RDP AMD Sempron 3850 $35,00
Motherboard Without RDP Based on Intel H110 (examples):
Biostar H110MHV3
ASRock H110M-DGS
MSI H110M Pro-D		 $50,00
With RDP For Socket AM1 (examples):
ASRock AM1B-ITX
MSI AM1I
ASUS AM1I-A		 $35,00
RAM Without RDP 1 × 8 GB DDR4-2400 $55,00
With RDP 1 × 4 GB DDR3-1600 $30,00
Storage device HDD 1 TB, 7200 rpm, SATA 3.0 $50,00
Frame Any inexpensive one without power supply $20,00
power unit DeepCool DE380 250W $20,00
Total (without RDP): $260,00
Total (with RDP): $190,00

Processor "No RDP":

For a “No RDP” computer, you need maximum performance for little money on a platform that can be later retrained for other needs. Here, Intel is doing well in the market with its new Celeron and Pentium based on the Kaby Lake architecture, and especially the best-selling Pentium G4560 - the company's first processor in many years with Hyper Threading support in the office and entry-level PC segment. But the truth is that the price of the latter is very expensive for our budget - $65 is the minimum that we could find and it won’t be cheaper, because... Intel's own recommended price tag is set at $64.

From the AMD camp, choosing a worthwhile APU with sufficient processor unit performance, and at the same time keeping within the budget, turned out to be problematic. Yes, AMD in this segment offers good solutions in terms of integrated graphics, but there are obvious problems with processor power. To be fair, let's say that the A6-7400K and Athlon 5370 fit into the budget normally - the first does not really fit into our concept due to 2 cores, i.e. one module (accordingly, we get 2 ALU blocks at the output with 1 FPU block - more details), and the second due to low frequencies, albeit with 4 cores (4 ALU blocks with 4 FPU blocks, because it is based on the microarchitecture Jaguar, which does not support the cluster multi-threading (CMT) mechanism, which means that the computational units are not shared among the cores, as in ).

Therefore, in the “Without RDP” category, it was decided to choose the Intel Pentium G4560, as the most optimal option in terms of performance level and capabilities of the LGA 1151 platform - these two indicators are directly proportional to the longevity of our computer.

Processor for configuration “With RDP”:

For a computer “With RDP” you also need maximum performance for little money to increase the lifespan of the finished computer without much pursuit of radical retraining of hardware. And Intel is doing well in this segment with its new Celeron based on the Kaby Lake architecture - at the moment the choice lies between the Celeron G3950, Celeron G3930 and Celeron G3930T. The first is the “top” in this segment, offering 2 cores with 2 threads (alas, Hyper Threading is not supported) at a frequency of 3.0 GHz for $55. The next Celeron G3930 offers everything the same, but a slightly lower (100MHz) frequency - 2.9 GHz, but is already $10 cheaper - for $45. The younger Celeron G3930T is a more economical version of its namesake without the “T” prefix. Reduced frequencies, TDP at 35 W, but the price remains unchanged - $45. Of the three listed, the most interesting is the older Celeron G3950, but the price tag of $55 (only $10 less than the Pentium G4560 used in the “No RDP” configuration) and the minimum cost of motherboards for LGA 1151 makes us think about alternative options that allow us to squeeze the most out of our budget .

And there is such an alternative in the Red camp. AMD offers a good, highly integrated AM1 platform - the central processor (essentially a full-fledged SoC) includes all the necessary blocks for the operation of all equipment, so the motherboard acts only as a carrier of interface connectors, a network chip and an audio codec, as well as a carrier of the power circuit. Therefore, AM1 motherboards have the most attractive price tag. Separately, it is worth noting that all processors for AM1 support AVX instructions, which all processors from Intel Celeron and Pentium lines lack. At the same time, quad-core models for socket AM1 in conjunction with a motherboard are completely within our budget.

Only five processors are offered for AM1: Sempron 2650, Sempron 3850, Athlon 5150, Athlon 5350, Athlon 5370. The first one is not interesting to us due to its extremely low performance, and the Athlon 5350 model is becoming less and less common on sale, because it was replaced by the Athlon 5370. The latter is a very interesting and top-end solution for this platform, with a price difference of $4-$5 compared to the Athlon 5150, which offers 25% lower clock speeds. But we will discard this too and make a choice in favor of the Sempron 3850 for $35 - with a cost gap of 50% compared to the top Athlon 5370, the selected processor offers a more than twofold drop in frequencies, but carries all the same functionality as and his older brother. Moreover, the performance of the Sempron 3850 is sufficient for our target build “With RDP” (especially in comparison with the notebook Celerons discussed at the very beginning of the article), which means we have achieved the goal of saving as much as possible on this component while maintaining a sufficient level of performance.

Motherboard for "No RDP" configuration:

For the Intel LGA 1151 platform, the choice of motherboards is extremely large - both due to their prevalence and due to the different chipset options that dictate a certain set of functionality. But we will focus on models built on the younger set of system logic, namely Intel H110. Intel H110 motherboards support both Skylake and Kaby Lake processors. But it is necessary to take into account that support for the latter can only be implemented in the latest revisions of motherboards or with the help of a BIOS update - the one that comes out of the box is guaranteed to run the CPU on Skylake, but may not run Kaby Lake, so you should immediately check when purchasing about the possibility of updating the firmware directly in the store or at the service center without additional payment.

As examples, we chose three models:

  • Biostar H110MHV3
  • ASRock H110M-DGS
  • MSI H110M Pro-D

These are fairly budget solutions, but they will be quite sufficient for the purposes we face. All three boards are made in the Micro ATX form factor and offer approximately the same functionality, but to be fair, we will go over the main differences between the models.

Biostar H110MHV3 It differs from the ASRock offer only in the presence of D-Sub and HDMI video outputs (ASRock only has DVI-D), which will be useful for connecting older monitors. Also on the rear panel there are only two USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 ports.

ASRock H110M-DGS offers two more USB 2.0 ports (four versus two for the solution from Biostar), an additional 4-pin connector for powering the CPU (in our case, not a critical difference at all) and VRM cooling in the form of a simple radiator.

MSI H110M Pro-D the most sophisticated in our list and offers the ability to connect an additional COM port (connector on the board), has the same set of USB 3.0 and USB 2.0 connectors as the solution from ASRock, but the USB 3.0 ports are Gen 2 (USB 3.1). The set of video outputs is similar to the ASRock solution - only DVI-D.

The three models offered are only guidelines for selection, so you should pay attention to the characteristics suitable for your specific needs and consider options from other manufacturers. It is especially worth paying attention to the set of video outputs, because... Assembling a computer and realizing that it cannot be connected to your monitor is quite unpleasant. Nevertheless, all three options involve a further upgrade of the system up to the top Core i7, but without the “K” prefix, incl. In this regard, the configuration of the platform turned out to be successful.

Motherboard for configuration “With RDP”:

On the AM1 platform, you don’t have to go to extremes when choosing a motherboard, because... Such boards are only a “trim” for the SoC, differing mainly only in the color of the PCB and the set of video outputs. The standard form factor for this platform is Mini ITX, which allows you to assemble a very compact box and compact system unit. We chose three models (in the standard Mini ITX form factor for this platform):

  • ASRock AM1B-ITX
  • MSI AM1I
  • ASUS AM1I-A

All three candidates offer approximately the same capabilities - for example, a choice of one D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI (1.4) connector, only solid-state capacitors are used, two connectors for RAM, three audio connectors and one LAN GbE. But let's go over the key differences.

ASRock AM1B-ITX stands out for the presence of two additional SATA 3.0 ports (additional ASMedia ASM1061 controller), three fan connectors (competitors have two), a slightly more budget Realtek ALC662 (5.1) audio codec and two additional USB 3.1 Gen 1 (USB 3.0) ports on the board (for connecting external connectors) implemented using additional controller ASMedia ASM1042A. There is also an external LPT port for connecting legacy peripherals. The PCI Express slot is designed in full size (as for video cards - 16x), but the speed is limited to four lines.

MSI AM1I offers only two SATA 3.0 connectors, only two fan connectors, a slightly higher quality Realtek ALC887 (7.1) audio codec than ASRock, and also has the ability to connect an additional COM port (connector on the board), there is a connector for a TPM module, and also There is a Mini-PCIe slot that can be used to connect a WiFi adapter. The PCI Express slot, similar to the solution from ASRock, is made in a full-sized format (as for video cards - 16x), but the speed is also limited to four lines.

ASUS AM1I-A In terms of modern connectors, it turned out to be the poorest of the entire trio, but it also stands out for its Realtek ALC887-VD (7.1) audio codec, which is slightly higher quality than ASRock’s, with two USB 3.0 ports and four USB 2.0 ports on the rear panel (competitors have two of them) , and it is also possible to connect an additional COM port (a connector on the board in addition to the external COM port on the rear panel) and an additional LPT port.

These three models are only guidelines, so you yourself have the right to choose options from other manufacturers that are more suitable for your specific needs.

RAM for “No RDP” configuration:

The decision about the amount and characteristics of RAM is simple. According to the characteristics - we look at the processor specifications, look for the maximum supported frequency and take memory with that frequency. For Intel Pentium G4560 this is DDR4-2400. Why not take the cheaper DDR4-2133? It's simple: we already don't have the most productive processor (even if we're assembling it for the office, we still need to squeeze all the juice out of the available hardware), plus the price difference between DDR4-2400 and DDR4-2133 is not that significant (on average around $2 -$4 on entry-level sticks of the volume we need), but the theoretical possibility in the future, in a few years, to look for a pair for DDR4-2133 is depressing (from personal experience, finding both used and new memory sticks of a dying standard is much more It’s easier if the bar you’re looking for has high frequencies).

But on the issue of determining the volume, I propose to return to the beginning of this article and look at the memory load on a system with 4 GB when working exclusively with Standalone applications. I think I won’t be mistaken if we install one 8 GB stick for $55 and forget about this issue for 6-7 years. If you want to save money - ok, you can stop at 4 GB, cross out $20 from the final calculation and return to the same issue after just a couple of years - with the current increase in software's appetite for RAM and overloaded sites, in 2-4 years the browser with 10-15 tabs (office workers usually keep this amount open) and a couple of open specialized or office applications will barely fit into 4 GB.

RAM for configuration “With RDP”:

Here everything is even simpler - again we return to the beginning of the article, we see that 4 GB is still enough and, due to the transfer of work from special. Software for a remote server will be sufficient for the next 3-5 years for now. Let's stop at this volume.

In terms of characteristics, look similarly at the technical specifications of the AMD Sempron 3850. A 4 GB DDR3-1600 or DDR3L-1600 memory stick costs about $30. We’ll take anything within this monetary limit.

Storage device:

The recommendations for choosing a drive for both configurations are the same - we take any time-tested one for 1 TB. The choice on the market is large and you can rely on user reviews. There is no point in taking a smaller volume, because... for the “Without RDP” system, a volume of less than 500 GB will fill up very quickly (for the author, in two years, only the size of the mailbox has grown from zero to 183 GB - and these are just letters with text documents and scans of these same documents in signed form), and the difference is the price between 1 TB and 500 GB falls within the limit of about $10. Although I don’t reject the idea of ​​saving on this component, especially in the “With RDP” configuration option, and putting them into the same mouse and keyboard.

Case and power supply:

I have a feeling that these two points will become the most controversial in the assembled configurations, because it is proposed to abandon the case with a built-in noname power supply, and take a noname case without it, but purchase an inexpensive power supply from a mid-range manufacturer - something like DeepCool DE380 250W, which, as it were, it seems more reliable (unlike the poop and sticks in the nameless blocks of nameless buildings).

If you have doubts about such a need, then just ask the bearded administrator to count how many times in his memory a cheap unit carried away good computers into oblivion and how much time and money was lost because of this - do you need such happiness? So we think not.

Conclusions:

These are the ambiguous office computer builds of the month - March 2017.

In assembling an office PC used exclusively as a standalone, we were $10 out of budget - this can be made up by reasonable savings on the hard drive or by abandoning a separately purchased power supply. But we don’t like either the first or the second option, incl. If you have the opportunity to shell out that $10, then it’s better to do just that. Particularly successful for this platform is the fact that in the future this assembly will have room for development - the maximum memory size is limited to 32 GB, and processors are supported up to and including Core i7 of the sixth and seventh generations, incl. if something happens, there will be something to replace/increase/increase.

Assembling an office PC, which will often be used as a connection point for RDP sessions, turned out to be extremely budget-friendly - we spent $190, which can be reduced to $180 using the same methods as indicated in the previous paragraph. Yes, this is not even the level of performance that can be expected from the “No RDP” build, but it will be quite enough for us. However, what else could you expect from a platform that is reaching its end? But, nevertheless, for a difference of $60-$70, you can try (not without difficulty, of course, but it is possible) to find even a good monitor for work.

That's all. In other issues we will look at configurations for completely different purposes.

There is an opinion that for an office PC, which mainly uses applications from the package of the same name from Microsoft, it does not matter what processor, how much memory and what other components will be installed. In reality, this is, of course, not the case. You can only neglect performance, even for a computer that really uses nothing but Word and an email client, to a certain extent. Otherwise, a seemingly simple spell checking operation will “unexpectedly” turn out to be quite noticeably slow, and while the mail database is being compressed, you will have to take a smoke break. And this, by the way, is by no means typical only for the so-called “nettops” (computers in which, due to some misunderstanding, or rather a fashion that arose at some point, they installed a processor that is poorly suitable even for laptops, not to mention about desktop computers). But also for full-size PCs on single-core processors 4-5 years old. Of course, you can get used to it and use all this (even nettops on Atom processors) somehow in your work. But if we are talking about a new computer, then, of course, it is worth paying attention to at least the younger representatives of modern processors for desktop PCs, which are now very inexpensive. And if the software you regularly use includes graphics, multimedia and other applications, then it probably makes sense to raise the productivity bar a little higher.

After all, even in not the most developed countries, the working time of employees (at least those who must use computers) is paid clearly higher than what can be gained from virtually saved electricity. In reality, there may be no difference: modern desktop computers in an office configuration, when working in a text editor or other similar load, consume several tens of watts, without taking into account the consumption of the monitor.

However, the specificity of choosing an office configuration, in contrast, for example, to a gaming PC assembled by an enthusiast himself, is the need to focus on universal and, as a rule, ready-made benchmarks. Creating a special set of tests that accurately simulates the work environment for each user is too labor-intensive, and the choice of choice usually needs to be made quickly. As practice shows, the most adequate office-oriented tests common today are SYSMark 2007 and PCMark Vantage. We decided to collect the results in these tests, demonstrated by configurations with different processors, video cards and memory amounts. And according to tradition, we have provided the article with an interactive “calculator”.

Configuration and software

Processors:

  • AMD Sempron LE-1300 (1 core, 2.3 GHz, 512 KB L2 cache, HT1600, N/A());
  • AMD Sempron X2 2100 (2 cores, 1.8 GHz, 2 x 256 KB L2 cache, HT1600, N/A(0));
  • AMD Athlon X2 4850e (2 cores, 2.5 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2 cache, HT2000, N/A(0));
  • AMD Athlon X2 5200B (2 cores, 2.7 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2 cache, HT2000, N/A());
  • AMD Athlon X2 7750 (2 cores, 2.7 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2 cache, 2 MB L3 cache, HT3600, N/A(0));
  • AMD Athlon X2 7850 (2 cores, 2.8 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2 cache, 2 MB L3 cache, HT3600, N/A(0));
  • AMD Athlon II X2 250 (2 cores, 3.0 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2 cache, HT4000, N/A(0));
  • AMD Phenom II X2 550 (2 cores, 3.1 GHz, 2 x 512 KB L2 cache, 6 MB L3 cache, HT4000, N/A(0));
  • AMD Phenom II X3 710 (3 cores, 2.6 GHz, 3 x 512 KB L2 cache, 6 MB L3 cache, HT4000, N/A(0));
  • AMD Phenom II X4 805 (4 cores, 2.5 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2 cache, 4 MB L3 cache, HT4000, N/A(0));
  • AMD Phenom II X4 810 (4 cores, 2.6 GHz, 4 x 512 KB L2 cache, 4 MB L3 cache, HT4000, N/A(0));
  • Intel Celeron E1400 (2 cores, 2.0 GHz, 512 KB L2 cache, FSB800, N/A());
  • Intel Pentium E5300 (2 cores, 2.6 GHz, 2 MB L2 cache, FSB800, N/A());
  • Intel Pentium E6300 (2 cores, 2.8 GHz, 2 MB L2 cache, FSB800, $11() );
  • Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 (2 cores, 2.8 GHz, 3 MB L2 cache, FSB1066, $110() );
  • Intel Core 2 Duo E7600 (2 cores, 3.06 GHz, 3 MB L2 cache, FSB1066, N/A(0));
  • Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 (4 cores, 2.66 GHz, 2 x 2 MB L2 cache, FSB1066, N/A()).

System boards:

  • ASRock A780LM (AMD 760G);
  • FOXCONN A7VA rev 1.0 (AMD 780V);
  • Gigabyte MA770-UD3 (AMD 770);
  • Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 (AMD 790X);
  • Intel DG43NB (Intel G43);
  • ASUS P5Q-VM (Intel G45);
  • MSI P45 NEO1 (Intel P45).

Video cards:

  • ATI Radeon HD3450;
  • ATI Radeon HD4350;
  • ATI Radeon HD4650.

Other components:

  • RAM: 2 x 1 GB DDR2-1066 AENEON, 2 x 512 MB DDR2-800 Kingston;
  • hard drive: 250 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATA, 7200 rpm.

Software:

  • OS Windows Vista Ultimate (32 bit), ATI Catalyst 9.5 drivers;
  • PCMark Vantage (standard test with 3 repetitions);
  • SYSMark 2007 Preview (3 runs with a calibration run, the result of which is not taken into account).

Screen resolution: 1280x1024, 32 bit, 60 Hz.

Testing

SYSMark 2007

The SYSMark 2007 test package includes applications quite common in office practice: Microsoft Office components, Adobe graphics tools, video processing and 3D modeling programs. The complete list is as follows:

  • Adobe After Effects 7
  • Adobe Illustrator CS2
  • Adobe Photoshop CS2
  • AutoDesk 3ds Max 8
  • Macromedia Flash 8
  • Microsoft Excel 2003
  • Microsoft Outlook 2003
  • Microsoft PowerPoint 2003
  • Microsoft Word 2003
  • Microsoft Project 2003
  • Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9
  • Sony Vegas 7
  • SketchUp 5
  • WinZip® 10.0

Looking at this list, we can assume minimal dependence on the installed video card; what will be important, first of all, is the processor’s own performance. The result will also be affected by the amount and performance of memory (in our tests we used 2 x 1 GB DDR2-1066 AENEON for all processors, with the exception of Sempron and Celeron, which were provided with a set of 2 x 512 MB DDR2-800 Kingston to better suit the especially budget segment ). Finally, another component to pay attention to is the hard drive, the performance of which also contributes to the final score (and, accordingly, to correctly compare different configurations, it is necessary to use the same drives).

Noteworthy is the fact that the test package does not contain the latest software versions to date, so a certain conservatism is likely in relation to multi-core processors. Most likely, the presence of additional cores will slightly increase the final score, while a processor with fewer cores running at a higher frequency may be in an advantageous situation.

This table clearly demonstrates the absence of any influence of the installed video card on the test results. Both the final score and the results in individual subtests are practically the same when using both the AMD 780V core integrated into the chipset and two video cards based on Radeon HD3450 and HD4350 GPUs.

The balance of power in the row of processors illustrates the theory well: indeed, if the only single-core processor (Sempron LE-1300) in this selection is clearly lagging behind, then numerous dual-core processors are inferior to processors with O a larger number of cores only in tests related to video processing. However, given that newer versions of applications make greater use of additional cores, an interesting option is the triple-core Phenom II X3 710, which is relatively inexpensive and has a balanced result, on average, in subtests, as well as headroom for the future.

The greatest competition is observed in the range of 135-145 points - this is precisely the level of performance that the dual-core Athlon X2 7000 series and Pentium E have. The new Athlon II X2 250 also looks confident in this class. Apparently, this segment accounts for the maximum performance in office software for your own money.

Finally, powerful dual-core processors (Phenom II X2 550 and Core 2 Duo E7600) score maximum points, performing on equal terms and even surpassing the results of quad-core processors from the Phenom II X4 800-series family and Core 2 Quad Q8400 in a number of subtests. However, if the X4 810 was not so much inferior to the E7600, then the result of the Q8400 looks like a failure. After all, this processor is in a higher category in terms of positioning and price (in particular, from the Phenom II family, the 920/940 models are more likely to correspond to it). But it is difficult to say how adequately the performance of processors of this level can be assessed using a set of applications from SYSMark 2007. Rather, it should be recognized that quad-core processors are not a justified choice for the average office PC, which (like the SYSMark 2007 package) usually uses not the most new versions of applications.

PCMark Vantage

Unlike the previous test, PCMark is Futuremark's own development, and although it is stated that the tests are based on program code fragments typical of real applications, this test still does not pretend to be transparent in the final assessment. However, it is also very popular and can be a good help when comparing different configurations when time is short. In addition, the test is completely focused on Windows Vista and uses multithreading much more actively, as a result of which it takes advantage of the additional cores of multi-core processors. The test also puts a higher load on the graphics subsystem, so it is very indicative to compare the results of configurations with different video cards. The test also includes some good tools for comparing the performance of hard drives.

Of course, there is no linear dependence of the final score on the number of cores in processors, because other factors also influence the result, and not all tests are multi-threaded. But in front are, indeed, quad-core processors, followed by the only three-core processor in our testing, which, however, only slightly overtook the undisputed leader among dual-core processors: the Phenom II X2 550. In turn, the result of the Core 2 Duo E7600, which could, if not catch up with a competitor, then at least fill the gap; in this test it consistently turned out to be lower than that of the E7400. This, of course, is difficult to justify with any rational arguments, because, according to formal criteria, this processor is more powerful. But since it was released quite recently, most likely the problem is in the BIOS (but the problem is quite global - we tried several boards).

The dependence on the video card in this test is observed, because it even contains test fragments from 3DMark - a well-known package for testing based on 3D gaming graphics, however, in general, the test is more focused on assessing the performance of the processor, memory and hard drive. As a result, the configuration with a more powerful processor almost always scored higher, even when using a video card of a lower class.

To make it easier to compare configurations, we suggest using our interactive “calculator”:

conclusions

General recommendations for choosing a configuration for an office PC can be given only with reservations for specific circumstances: in some cases you have to proceed from the budget and the required number of workstations, and in others the basic level of performance is important. If we proceed from the minimum requirements for sufficient response speed of the operating system and a minimum set of office software (text editor with spell check, email program, Internet browser and the necessary security tools (antivirus/antispyware, firewall), then as a processor with a task quite even the representatives of the top of the list can cope: dual-core Sempron and Celeron. And processors that score more than 100 points in SYSMark will be subjectively perceived as fast. In fact, a further increase in system response speed, if the user understands by this the time of loading programs, moving through folders with files and disk search is more related to the performance of the hard drive than the processor. If the user works with graphic data, documents of the order of several dozen Word pages, archived data, configurations that score 135-145 points look optimal. Finally, for those who have When dealing with three-dimensional modeling (even simple ones, such as the manager of a furniture showroom) or video editing, you need to take care of a processor that receives 145 points or more, and a 3-4 core model would be a more adequate choice.

As for the remaining components, even an entry-level computer requires 1 GB of RAM. But when working under Windows Vista, 2 GB should be taken as a minimum, which is also the “optimum” for almost any office PC. With the exception of workstations engaged in professional 3D rendering or CAD modeling (which are not usually included in this category, although, in general, they are also classified as “office” by their location). An obvious way to save money is a video card, which there is simply no particular need to install; just choose a motherboard with integrated video. Moreover, in the case of chipsets such as AMD 780V/780G, the user also receives good basic functionality in tasks that require hardware calculation of 3D graphics.

Finally, if you still purchase a discrete video card, and the board, accordingly, is selected without its own video, then there is no reason to choose a board on an expensive chipset with several graphics ports, such as, for example, boards based on the AMD 790FX. The older chipset, the motherboards on which it makes sense to consider when equipping any office computer, even if a powerful three- or four-core model is installed as a processor, is AMD 770 for the AMD platform, and P45 for Intel. This may seem obvious, but for some reason you can often come across configurations that are planned to be tested in SYSMark/PCMark and aimed at office use, but which use motherboards on older chipsets. It is clear that with a fixed budget for a computer, in this case there will be less money left for the processor, and such a computer will show low results in tests and will indeed turn out to be weaker and inferior to a computer in which the emphasis is on the most powerful processor, and the board is inexpensive. The actual scope of application of chipsets such as the 790FX or Intel X48 is limited to gaming computers and specific professional applications that can use multiple video cards or other high-speed peripherals installed in PCI Express x16 slots.

We present to your attention second part research on the topic “Office PC configuration”.