Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have a Intel G3258 running a box doing the same things you want. For the price it cant be beat. And it will do all this with ease, and use less power. If you do not have a board already, there is no reason to not consider the 3258Specifically steam in home streaming, or light gaming, streaming Netflix, media server, curious max resolution. Considering a Semp 3850. Do the AM1 boards only have 2 sata ports?
I have a Intel G3258 running a box doing the same things you want. For the price it cant be beat. And it will do all this with ease, and use less power. If you do not have a board already, there is no reason to not consider the 3258
Sorry not buying that for a second. Even did an Linux based HTPC out of one and it did remarkably well.I have an athlon 5350 for web browsing with 8GB of ram and ssd and it's still slow I regret not buying the pentium G3258 was only more 3€
For Plex it's fine.I had the athlon 5350 and had no issues converting and streaming 1080p media (from whatever I had to h264). Never gamed on the thing, but I have run serious sam 3 on a e-350 which got 10-ish frames per second in a pinch for a lan party.
I buy it. A Pentium G3258 is way faster, even with half the cores. If the price is close there is no question which is the better value. Sadly, like a lot of AMD platforms an AM1 is only attractive if it is significantly cheaper than the Intel alternative. I say this as someone who just built two FM2 boxes, an AM3+ box and anA10-7850k FM2+ box. All of those happened because I got each motherboard for less than $10 a piece.Sorry not buying that for a second. Even did an Linux based HTPC out of one and it did remarkably well.
I buy it. A Pentium G3258 is way faster, even with half the cores. If the price is close there is no question which is the better value. Sadly, like a lot of AMD platforms an AM1 is only attractive if it is significantly cheaper than the Intel alternative. I say this as someone who just built two FM2 boxes, an AM3+ box and anA10-7850k FM2+ box. All of those happened because I got each motherboard for less than $10 a piece.
I have an athlon 5350 for web browsing with 8GB of ram and ssd and it's still slow I regret not buying the pentium G3258 was only more 3€
I have a Intel G3258 running a box doing the same things you want. For the price it cant be beat. And it will do all this with ease, and use less power. If you do not have a board already, there is no reason to not consider the 3258
I don't agree with your conclusion. Flash is going away, slowly, but while it remains in use one needs some decent horsepower to surf the web. Also, pages load much faster on mid-level machines than on bottom tier ones. Maybe the use of struggling is hyperbole to you, but I think it is applicable. I certainly would not want to use such a weak system to surf the web with any kind of regularity.The point wasn't whether it was faster. There was no debate there. The person was saying that the chip was struggling with WEB BROWSING. Hyperbole is cool and all but a damn single core Celeron or Sempron for that matter of the lowest sku can do web browsing.
It's also like comparing apples and oranges.
Max tdp on the 3258 is like 53W. At idle it uses much less. I have two in 24/7 use, one is a htpc and the other is my wife's desktop. They are quite efficient and very powerful. As far as the Intel igpu and televisions, I have mine running Linux (Ubuntu). I don't experience the issues you described.Unless I'm mistaken the G3258's idle power draw is almost as high as the Athlon 5350 is at full load... my 5350 pulls 17w idle/36 load. I don't even have a fan on the CPU heatsink, the airflow from a single 120mm case fan at silent speeds is adequate for all situations. Video playback looks good on the 5350 and AMD iGPUs have much better support for older games you might want to run on such a machine. Web browsers can chug a little but it mostly feels like the snappy experience you'd expect from a desktop PC. It's the first low-power hardware I've been happy with.
I've had nothing but trouble connecting Intel iGPUs to televisions up through the 4th gen iX series. Video playback always looks a bit off even after turning off all the driver 'enhancements' and game support is bad regardless of what displays you use. Intel makes fast CPU's, but when I need a decent iGPU I go AMD.
Max tdp on the 3258 is like 53W. At idle it uses much less. I have two in 24/7 use, one is a htpc and the other is my wife's desktop. They are quite efficient and very powerful. As far as the Intel igpu and televisions, I have mine running Linux (Ubuntu). I don't experience the issues you described.
I don't think the power consumption is that different. Reviews of the 3258 show idle power just over 40W. Here's an example - linkhttp://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/pentium-20th-anniversary-series-g3258-processor-review,6.htmlMy entire system with a 5350 used less than half the TDP of just the G3258 (Before adding power draws of RAM, motherboard, drives, fans). I even tried to max out the load on it with P95 and Furmark, and I never got over 40C, even overclocked and on a passive cooler. The iGPU is decent as well, I've noticed no difference in video playback and gaming visual fidelity between the iGPUs on Intel and AMD processors.
I don't think the power consumption is that different. Reviews of the 3258 show idle power just over 40W. Here's an example - linkhttp://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/pentium-20th-anniversary-series-g3258-processor-review,6.html
So maybe the difference is $1 a month between the two, assuming both are always on.
Not that different? The 3258's idle wattage is at or above the max TDP for the 5350! You're comparing different categories of chips. The 5350 is comparable to an Atom with a decent iGPU while the 3258 is a low-end desktop CPU.I don't think the power consumption is that different. Reviews of the 3258 show idle power just over 40W.
So maybe the difference is $1 a month between the two, assuming both are always on.
Not that different? The 3258's idle wattage is at or above the max TDP for the 5350! You're comparing different categories of chips. The 5350 is comparable to an Atom with a decent iGPU while the 3258 is a low-end desktop CPU.
Yes and no. I've long argued that the high power consumption of AMD's FX line was no problem for the same reason. In this case however there's more to it than just the power cost: the very low TDP on the AM1 chips allows them to run in fanless or near-silent configurations while still being decent desktop PCs with the ability to play/stream 1080p video and play games.
I have the 5350 and it plays blu rays just fine. Its my garage PC. It is cool running which is good here in the Phoenix metro area.Anyone use one of these little quads? How capable are they really?
I don't know if this is possible but any of you guys able to clock your 5350's down to 1.3Ghz and try playing a game with steam home streaming for me. Tell me how it goes, for science! and SpongeBob! I'm assuming the only real difference between the two is basically clock speed. I'm just leery of the lack of balls this chip has but I can get it for $30 so it sounds like quite a bargain.
I've got a 3850 lying around, I might give it a try.
I don't know if this is possible but any of you guys able to clock your 5350's down to 1.3Ghz and try playing a game with steam home streaming for me. Tell me how it goes, for science! and SpongeBob! I'm assuming the only real difference between the two is basically clock speed. I'm just leery of the lack of balls this chip has but I can get it for $30 so it sounds like quite a bargain.
Good work! I have a 965BE with a 5450 passive cooled GPU and it streamed great, all wired in not wifi. Also having my 8350/290 PC using VSR in games looked real pretty streaming to my TV.Alright, I have some results.
I tested over a wired connection in an attempt to get the best performance. My gaming system ([email protected] and an R9 Fury@1100MHz) was used as the master system, streaming to the 3850 (3850@Stock, 8GB RAM) system. The CPU didn't seem to mind the streaming, settling in at about 12% usage during gaming. I did get some odd performance traits though. Framerate seems to be locked to 30fps in the stream, and I kept getting dropped frames and the occasional half-second of black screen. I retested with an R7 240 taking the GPU load and these occurrences happened far less often and the whole experience felt way smoother. That said, there still seemed to be rough patches in the stream and the occasional blackscreen, which I'm going to attribute to my crap home network and router.
Conclusion: The 3850's CPU portion appears to be sufficient for steam game streaming, apart from network issues (latency and sound oddities). However, a dedicated GPU is recommended for the best performance, even a basic one, as the integrated GPU appears to struggle some.
Good work! I have a 965BE with a 5450 passive cooled GPU and it streamed great, all wired in not wifi. Also having my 8350/290 PC using VSR in games looked real pretty streaming to my TV.
I didn't try it out a lot but initially using FFXIII it ran and looked awesome. 30Fps palying games like that are fine. I wouldn't even attempt MMOs streaming but single player games would be fine. I actually just thought it was nifty and cool. And like you I prefer my COmputer.Thanks, I like how the part that took the longest of this whole experiment was trying to get a Windows ISO to boot on the 3850 test bench, because the Windows media creation tool hates my flash drives.
I'm most likely not going to use the streaming in my house. Not only was the latency enough to make me nauseous, but I prefer being at my gaming system with its triple screens.
I use a 3850 with an intel quad nic as a pfsense box.
This is what I want to do with my 3850, mainly because I've gone through 3 routers that can't go half a day without having to be reset.