cheap Linux system

[jtrier1]

Considering building a small, inexpensive PC to run Linux on. Not looking to play games on it or do anything major. Just to play around with Linux OS and get to know it. Yes, I am well aware of Virtual Box, but I'd prefer this route so I can possibly sell it later on. Any input would be helpful. Thanks.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ELEu
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ELEu/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ELEu/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD A8-5600K 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($98.12 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A55M-HD2 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard  ($44.99 @ Micro Center)
Memory: A-Data Plus Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($42.26 @ Amazon)
Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 240GB 2.5" Solid State Disk  ($109.99 @ Micro Center)
Case: Rosewill R379-M MicroATX Slim Case w/300W Power Supply  ($49.99 @ Amazon)
Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer  ($14.99 @ Newegg)
Monitor: Samsung E1920X 18.5" Monitor  ($74.99 @ Mac Mall)
Keyboard: Logitech MK120 Wired Slim Keyboard w/Optical Mouse  ($14.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $450.31
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-05-06 00:19 EDT-0400)

[Sheldon_King]

Honestly, unless you are going to turn it into a media server, you won't need a 240GB drive. It is nearly impossible for most to fill up even 60GB on most Linux distros (without gaming that is. I personally have never exceeded 100GB and I store tons of music on my linux systems.)

 

Everything else looks good to me. You may look into getting a single 4GB DIMM just to leave your options open in the future (could go to 8 or 16GB without removing your first stick, whereas you are limited to 18GB with teh set you choose). 

 

Edit, forgot to tag you. @jtrier1

[MrBucket101]

Why not buy a Sunday sale item, or a used PC and put Linux on that. Seems cheaper

Or you could get a chromebook or similar, those are dirt cheap

OR...why not just partition your HDD and run windows and Linux on the same machine.

[JAKEBAB]

Honestly, unless you are going to turn it into a media server, you won't need a 240GB drive. It is nearly impossible for most to fill up even 60GB on most Linux distros (without gaming that is. I personally have never exceeded 100GB and I store tons of music on my linux systems.)

 

Everything else looks good to me. You may look into getting a single 4GB DIMM just to leave your options open in the future (could go to 8 or 16GB without removing your first stick, whereas you are limited to 18GB with teh set you choose). 

 

Edit, forgot to tag you. @jtrier1

I payed $95 for my 120gb an extra $10 for 120gb is deff worth it.

 

Op Why not use socket fm1? would be alot cheaper.

[Createinator]

An Intel NUC will be cheaper, compact and ideal for a Linux Machine.

[Sheldon_King]

I payed $95 for my 120gb an extra $10 for 120gb is deff worth it.

 

Op Why not use socket fm1? would be alot cheaper.

It is not always a matter of price though.  Would you buy a 3 exabyte drive if one existed and was say $99 at this very minute? probably not, because it would never be even 1% full.

 

Either way, the point of the original comment was more to say it is unneeded, not to say he should not get it.

[JAKEBAB]

It is not always a matter of price though.  Would you buy a 3 exabyte drive if one existed and was say $99 at this very minute? probably not, because it would never be even 1% full.

 

Either way, the point of the original comment was more to say it is unneeded, not to say he should not get it.

Im sorry but u would have to be an idiot not to buy a 3 exabyte drive for $99 when a 1tb is that who wouldnt get the one with more storage no matter how long it will take u to fill.

[Sheldon_King]

Im sorry but u would have to be an idiot not to buy a 3 exabyte drive for $99 when a 1tb is that who wouldnt get the one with more storage no matter how long it will take u to fill.

I'm sorry, but that is a very bad way to be. Getting more than you need in that kind of excess would just be wasting money (along with the data security issues it would carry. At 3 exabytes you would need 524,288 6TB drives to back up that kind of data.) That is asuming that you even had 6TB of data to backup.  (and also, people with ideas like that are why we have people driving 1 ton trucks when the heaviest thing they ever haul is themselves (not talking fat people).)

 

on a 120GB vs 240GB level, assuming  price is the same more or less is fine, but still having too much is not a good thing. It is better than not enough, but still not the best idea.

[JAKEBAB]

I'm sorry, but that is a very bad way to be. Getting more than you need in that kind of excess would just be wasting money (along with the data security issues it would carry. At 3 exabytes you would need 524,288 6TB drives to back up that kind of data.) That is asuming that you even had 6TB of data to backup.  (and also, people with ideas like that are why we have people driving 1 ton trucks when the heaviest thing they ever haul is themselves (not talking fat people).)

 

on a 120GB vs 240GB level, assuming  price is the same more or less is fine, but still having too much is not a good thing. It is better than not enough, but still not the best idea.

Did u read what u just wrote? to back it up buy another 2 drives.... by your logic u are saying if you have a 1080p monitor and the 770 and 780 is the same price u should get a 770 because u dont need a 780 even tho u are getting more for the exact same price im sorry but where is the logic in that?

[Opcode]

Honestly if all you're going to use the machine for is surfing the web and generally learning Linux. I don't see the reason to spend a lot into this machine. Linux is a light weight and fast operating system as is. It doesn't take a whole lot to run it seamlessly. I personally would build a AM1 platform and buy a Athlon 5350 (but that's just me). You can build a complete machine for less than $350. Plus you could always use it as a HTPC after, or a home file server. The machine consumes only 50 watts at full load. The ASRock AM1H-ITX motherboard has a DC power input (no power supply needed), so if you can find a decent heatsink that will mount to that socket. You will have a cheap, fan less, and completely silent Linux machine. Sure it wont be as fast as the build you already have planned. Tho the size, power consumption, and the fact that it can be easily made noiseless is where the machine benefits. Tho you wont notice the speed difference for basic every day tasks.

 

Here => http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3EOey

Total: $455.91 (after mail in rebates etc)

 

You can snag a 19v DC power adapter for like $10-20. It costs pretty much the same, tho with a few more reliable pieces of hardware (240 GB Kingston v300 -> 250 GB Samsung EVO, 4 GB ADATA -> 8 GB Crucial).

[Sheldon_King]

Did u read what u just wrote? to back it up buy another 2 drives.... by your logic u are saying if you have a 1080p monitor and the 770 and 780 is the same price u should get a 770 because u dont need a 780 even tho u are getting more for the exact same price im sorry but where is the logic in that?

We are not talking about GPUs, we are talking about storage. And by the same logic there is value to the 780, as you can do more with a GPU than GAME! (Shocker I know). Given that, I would go for the 780, but if you are ONLY gaming and on 1080p or less, the 770 is the better option even if the 780 is the same exact price. There is little value in overbuilding the system. (but also you could save money on that and just go for a used GTX480/GTX570/GTX580 and get good enough performance anyway at 1080p, even with newer games).

[JAKEBAB]

We are not talking about GPUs, we are talking about storage. And by the same logic there is value to the 780, as you can do more with a GPU than GAME! (Shocker I know). Given that, I would go for the 780, but if you are ONLY gaming and on 1080p or less, the 770 is the better option even if the 780 is the same exact price. There is little value in overbuilding the system. (but also you could save money on that and just go for a used GTX480/GTX570/GTX580 and get good enough performance anyway at 1080p, even with newer games).

How is the 770 a better option in any way if they are the same god damn price? WTF ARE U SMOKING!!!!!

[Sheldon_King]

How is the 770 a better option in any way if they are the same god damn price? WTF ARE U SMOKING!!!!!

I don't smoke ANYTHING. Chokes me. But that is not what we are talking about.

 

If they are the same price, and you are Gaming on 1080p or less, you are just wasting money on the 780, as you are going to get 0 effective gain from the 780. Will you get more FPS? Of coarse, but you are already going to be above 40FPS and in no way limited by the lower card.  If you were to render off of it, r use it for mining, folding, BOINC, or the like, then get the 780 as you will SEE the difference even on a 800x400 screen. Gaming however, you are just wasting the extra power, unless you run 1080p in more than one screen (eyefinity, or whatever Nvidia has for the same purpose).

 

Either way, lets stop derailing the OPs page  If he wants a 240GB drive, that is all well and good, but he could get away with 120GB or 64GB in most cases. (or even just a plain old HDD).

[JAKEBAB]

I don't smoke ANYTHING. Chokes me. But that is not what we are talking about.

 

If they are the same price, and you are Gaming on 1080p or less, you are just wasting money on the 780, as you are going to get 0 effective gain from the 780. Will you get more FPS? Of coarse, but you are already going to be above 40FPS and in no way limited by the lower card.  If you were to render off of it, r use it for mining, folding, BOINC, or the like, then get the 780 as you will SEE the difference even on a 800x400 screen. Gaming however, you are just wasting the extra power, unless you run 1080p in more than one screen (eyefinity, or whatever Nvidia has for the same purpose).

 

Either way, lets stop derailing the OPs page  If he wants a 240GB drive, that is all well and good, but he could get away with 120GB or 64GB in most cases. (or even just a plain old HDD).

Im still not understanding how u are wasting money on something that is the same price as something lower.

[Sheldon_King]

Im still not understanding how u are wasting money on something that is the same price as something lower.

It is not necessarily wasting money, but in general (this is just a generalization, so it is not always true) the higher end card is going to use more power, and thus you are wasting money on gpu performance you don't need. Agreed we are talking maybe a quarter a year difference, but still. 

 

Also, It is more using more than you need. It is no different than anything. Would you buy 1000 gallons of gas if you only need a gallon if both were the same price? Probably, but then you have to hire a hazmat driver to get it home (at least in NC).  Would you buy a million hamburgers if it were 99 cents total (and a publically available deal so not to think about profiting from it)?  How about buying a 747 to carry 3 people 1000 miles if it cost $20,000? Cheaper than most cars, but really? Really, would you do it because it is the same price for more performance?

I would always just rather buy what I need instead of wasting on more. If I want a soft drink, I buy one can, not 24, not 2 liters. No use in buying more than one needs. 

[Silver Knight]

It is not necessarily wasting money, but in general (this is just a generalization, so it is not always true) the higher end card is going to use more power, and thus you are wasting money on gpu performance you don't need. Agreed we are talking maybe a quarter a year difference, but still. 

 

Also, It is more using more than you need. It is no different than anything. Would you buy 1000 gallons of gas if you only need a gallon if both were the same price? Probably, but then you have to hire a hazmat driver to get it home (at least in NC).  Would you buy a million hamburgers if it were 99 cents total (and a publically available deal so not to think about profiting from it)?  How about buying a 747 to carry 3 people 1000 miles if it cost $20,000? Cheaper than most cars, but really? Really, would you do it because it is the same price for more performance?

I would always just rather buy what I need instead of wasting on more. If I want a soft drink, I buy one can, not 24, not 2 liters. No use in buying more than one needs.

I won't argue, but on this matter, i wholeheartedly agree with @JAKEBAB. If 780 and 770 are the same price, then why wouldn't i go with 780? Electricity bills They're negligible because i'd have to pay those same bills every month anyway, and a few $, in your case, isn't a lot more (if it is even a few $!)!

 

Gas and electricity isn't the same thing, because you buy gas specifically for your car, but you don't pay electric bill specifically for your PC. Maybe i used AC a little more than usual, maybe i went out to eat many time this month and i didn't use the kitchen as much... That all influences your bill, so your statement that in the future it'll be cheaper to buy 770 is inaccurate ((It actually might be true, but you would probably save only around 10$ for one year, and you'd sacrifice future performance for 10$ per year(don't forget that more and more games are demanding better graphics today, so 780 would be pretty handy for it, also i'm pretty sure that 780 in the future will have higher re-sale value than 770!!!)!!!

 

Sorry about derailing your thread Jtrier1

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about Linux, but as far as SSD goes, i'd take that 250Gb! I currently have 120Gb one in my laptop, and believe me, the difference between 1Tb and 1 Exabyte is not the same as the difference between 120Gb and 250Gb

 

Over time that SSD will probably start filling up, and even when you decide to sell off that machine (or give it to someone), you can keep that SSD and use it in another PC

[Sheldon_King]

I won't argue, but on this matter, i wholeheartedly agree with @AKEBAB. If 780 and 770 are the same price, then why wouldn't i go with 780? Electricity bills It's negligible because i'd have to pay those same bills every month anyway, and a few $, in your case, isn't a lot more (if it is even a few $!)!

 

Gas and electricity isn't the same thing, because you buy gas specifically for your car, but you don't pay electric bill specifically for your PC. Maybe i used AC a little more than usual, maybe i went out to eat many time this month and i didn't use the kitchen as much... That all influences your bill, so your statement that in the future it'll be cheaper to buy 770 is inaccurate ((It actually might be true, but you would probably save only around 10$ for one year, and you'd sacrifice future performance for 10$ per year(don't forget that more and more games are demanding better graphics today, so 780 would be pretty handy for it, also i'm pretty sure that 780 in the future will have higher re-sale value than 770!!!)!!!

 

Sorry about derailing your thread Jtrier1

 

I'm not very knowledgeable about Linux, but as far as SSD goes, i'd take that 250Gb! I currently have 120Gb one in my laptop, and believe me, the difference between 1Tb and 1 Exabyte is not the same as the difference between 120Gb and 250Gb

 

Over time that SSD will probably start filling up, and even when you decide to sell off that machine (or give it to someone), you can keep that SSD and use it in another PC

I will give you that electricity is definitely cheap, and that gas and electricity are not the same thing. However, I still would not get a card that is more power than needed, even at the same price. It is wasteful, especially if you are not going to make full use of it anyway. 

 

As for you not being knowledgeable about linux, that is fine, however you are missing the one part that actually matters to the storage space problem at hand. A fresh install of Ubuntu runs under 5GB iirc (I have not ran my Linux partition for over a month, so sorry if I am overestimating it). If you use a lighter weight distro like Crunchbang, you can get away with 2GB taken up.  If you are not gaming, your main data usage is going to be docs, music, pictures, or other data you choose to put on it. It is easy to get by with a small drive for linux, especially if you are not using it for a daily driver machine. 

[Silver Knight]

I will give you that electricity is definitely cheap, and that gas and electricity are not the same thing. However, I still would not get a card that is more power than needed, even at the same price. It is wasteful, especially if you are not going to make full use of it anyway. 

 

As for you not being knowledgeable about linux, that is fine, however you are missing the one part that actually matters to the storage space problem at hand. A fresh install of Ubuntu runs under 5GB iirc (I have not ran my Linux partition for over a month, so sorry if I am overestimating it). If you use a lighter weight distro like Crunchbang, you can get away with 2GB taken up.  If you are not gaming, your main data usage is going to be docs, music, pictures, or other data you choose to put on it. It is easy to get by with a small drive for linux, especially if you are not using it for a daily driver machine. 

Yeah, but i would be making full use of 770, but then what after some time It's better to have 780 which i'm not fully utilizing and which i will fully utilize in the future than 770 which will get weaker and weaker (albeit it would take years before it's rendered almost useless).

 

I actually did install Ubuntu on my laptop, just when i bought my SSD, but i had hard time using it (especially installing programs...). Nevertheless, isn't it better having bigger SSD because it's rather useful He can store movies, music... He could also partition the same SSD to run both Windows and Linux on it....

[Sheldon_King]

Yeah, but i would be making full use of 770, but then what after some time It's better to have 780 which i'm not fully utilizing and which i will fully utilize in the future than 770 which will get weaker and weaker (albeit it would take years before it's rendered almost useless).

 

I actually did install Ubuntu on my laptop, just when i bought my SSD, but i had hard time using it (especially installing programs...). Nevertheless, isn't it better having bigger SSD because it's rather useful He can store movies, music... He could also partition the same SSD to run both Windows and Linux on it....

The thing is you will likely not see that happening though. Look back to Fermi, a GTX 470 vs a GTX480. The difference was about the same as the 770->780 and yet both are still just as useful for gaming. (while not having used a 470, the 480 still will run any game out there at very high settings as long as you don't expect 120FPS out of it). 

 

I have a hard time believing that you had a had time installing programs in Ubuntu unless you were trying to do it from binaries (not necessary in 99% of cases). It is no different than using the app store, just go to software center (or whatever they call it), look for your wanted program (there are thousands of them), then click install and enter the password you set on install.  If you want to install something that is not in software center, then it needs to be Ubuntu/Debian compatible first. Then download the .deb file, open the .deb and it will bring you back to software center and you install just like a program on software center.  If you need something that is not available as a .deb or on software center, you will just have to compile the binaries yourself, which is time consuming (not difficult, just takes time). 

The thing is though, unless he is storing ripped blurays without any compression, he will have far more space than he can use anyway. There is a difference between prepared for the future and just spending money to spend money.   If he were to dualboot, then the larger SSD would be great, but he would need a HDD to go with it (assuming a strait cut down the middle he would end up with about 110GB usable to each OS (assuming 240GB SSD), and with windows that fills up VERY fast.) . 

[Silver Knight]

The thing is you will likely not see that happening though. Look back to Fermi, a GTX 470 vs a GTX480. The difference was about the same as the 770->780 and yet both are still just as useful for gaming. (while not having used a 470, the 480 still will run any game out there at very high settings as long as you don't expect 120FPS out of it). 

 

I have a hard time believing that you had a had time installing programs in Ubuntu unless you were trying to do it from binaries (not necessary in 99% of cases). It is no different than using the app store, just go to software center (or whatever they call it), look for your wanted program (there are thousands of them), then click install and enter the password you set on install.  If you want to install something that is not in software center, then it needs to be Ubuntu/Debian compatible first. Then download the .deb file, open the .deb and it will bring you back to software center and you install just like a program on software center.  If you need something that is not available as a .deb or on software center, you will just have to compile the binaries yourself, which is time consuming (not difficult, just takes time). 

The thing is though, unless he is storing ripped blurays without any compression, he will have far more space than he can use anyway. There is a difference between prepared for the future and just spending money to spend money.   If he were to dualboot, then the larger SSD would be great, but he would need a HDD to go with it (assuming a strait cut down the middle he would end up with about 110GB usable to each OS (assuming 240GB SSD), and with windows that fills up VERY fast.) . 

I did write that it would take years

 

All i know that i needed to type something in the command table to install it... And why would Windows fill in faster than Linux

I agree that he shouldn't be spending money just to spend it, but if it's cheap, and he's already going to buy it, why wouldn't he? It all depends on his needs, so why don't we ask him?

 

Considering building a small, inexpensive PC to run Linux on. Not looking to play games on it or do anything major. Just to play around with Linux OS and get to know it. Yes, I am well aware of Virtual Box, but I'd prefer this route so I can possibly sell it later on. Any input would be helpful. Thanks.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ELEu

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ELEu/by_merchant/

Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/3ELEu/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD A8-5600K 3.6GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($98.12 @ Amazon)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-F2A55M-HD2 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard  ($44.99 @ Micro Center)

Memory: A-Data Plus Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  ($42.26 @ Amazon)

Storage: Kingston SSDNow V300 Series 240GB 2.5" Solid State Disk  ($109.99 @ Micro Center)

Case: Rosewill R379-M MicroATX Slim Case w/300W Power Supply  ($49.99 @ Amazon)

Optical Drive: Samsung SH-224DB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer  ($14.99 @ Newegg)

Monitor: Samsung E1920X 18.5" Monitor  ($74.99 @ Mac Mall)

Keyboard: Logitech MK120 Wired Slim Keyboard w/Optical Mouse  ($14.98 @ OutletPC)

Total: $450.31

(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)

(Generated by PCPartPicker 2014-05-06 00:19 EDT-0400)

jtrier1, for what're you planning on using your SSD on that Linux machine?

[Sheldon_King]

I did write that it would take years

 

All i know that i needed to type something in the command table to install it... And why would Windows fill in faster than Linux

I agree that he shouldn't be spending money just to spend it, but if it's cheap, and he's already going to buy it, why wouldn't he? It all depends on his needs, so why don't we ask him?

I think you are missing the point though. It would take years to get to the point where you NEED a 780 to game, yes. But also by that time a 770 and a 780 will both be fairly low end. It would be n different than someone whom bought a 5870 or 480 on release. They are about equal to a 660 now, and not even high end (will game). If you bought a 5850 or 470, you would still be at the point. You would still be running the same games at about the same settings, and still be needing to replace them soon. The extra is not worth it.

 

As for using CLI to install, that is only one way to do it. 99% of the time, you do not have to touch the command line if you do not want to. It is generally faster to use it, but it is not necessary. Next time, try getting the program out of Software center or via a .deb file. It will make life much easier.

 

Windows would fill in faster for a couple of reasons. First up, the OS itself is much larger as far as disk space is concerned. Also, you are going to need to install all of the programs you wish to use, unless you use IE, and wordpad. Each little program is a little more space, whereas the standard install of Ubuntu will have everything you need, all the drivers, all the tools, etc. Your 5ish GB of data is full of nothing wasteful. Whereas teh 30GB of windows is useful, but wasteful considering you still need to install drivers, browsers, and any program you want to use. Assume 500MB each and you need 3 programs (FF, Word, and lets say teamviewer or the like), you are now looking at 31GB vs 5GB. See what I am saying? The linux install needs less space, as the OS itself is 1/6 the size of windows. If we went back to say windows XP or 2000, then it would be inversed, the windows would not need as big of a HDD/SSD to run, as it would be the smaller one.