Slashdot Mirror

The main reason why 10GbE took time to arrive is simple : connectors are not the good-old RJ45 used for 10Mb, 100Mb and 1GbE. The RJ45 connector is small, cheap and backward compatible. The 10GbE connectors are deep, expensive and not RJ45-compatible, hence cannot be used as a 1GbE port.

I use 10Gb over Cat6 in my home (to connect my servers to the SAN). It's really easy to find 10GbE with RJ45 connectors, like this card.

Get an inexpensive LCD screen (about $140 at Newegg), I have a slightly older version of this Asus 21" 1920 x 1080 LCD back-light monitor, works great and is fairly light weight:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236100

Make a case with some foam padding and cloth that won't scratch the screen. Maybe something like a Pelican case (the monitor above is about 15" x 20").

Looks like there is a Hackerspace in Austin. Go visit them and maybe they will be able to help you hack something together.

http://atxhs.org/wiki/Main_Page

...but here's almost exactly the same specs, assembled and with Android 4.1, for $80:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834686007
1GHz A9 CPU
1GB DDR3
Touchscreen
onboard wifi
Plus this has a preconfigured OS plus I heard it's easily rootable to run Linux and whatever else and a Mali 3D accelerator/GPU which is quite nice at HD netflix and games.

No, DisplayPort and Thunderbolt aren't widely deployed.

I don't know when you last looked at video cards, but pretty much all of them have had DisplayPort for the last 2 or 3 years. NewEgg currently lists almost 300 video cards that have at least one DP or mini-DP connector: here are the 195 that have exactly one DP connector.

Not sure you realize this, but your laptop is about 5% slower than an Atom D2700. You are using a netbook, dude, it's just a really big heavy expensive netbook.

This laptop is about 3 times faster than what you are using, just in CPU. Graphics would blow it away as well. Surely you aren't going to claim that less than an inch of size makes it "another class" are you? They are both "thin and light"

If this was a previous generation where AMD was actually still competitive, Titan would have been the high end part, and it would have cost $500 instead of $1000.

Their problem is that the cost of implementing large-die processors is getting extremely expensive compared to how it used to be. We used to see previous-generation processes used for high-end cores because the maturity overcame the extra cost of the large die. But now that large dies are prohibitive (and assuming prices cannot grow), the graphics makers have no way to improve performance until the new 20nm process is released.

Nvidia has an out because of their vase supercomputing following with Tesla and Cuda, so they can afford to make an outlandish GPU like GK110 and charge $3500 for it! This gives them a path to offer a "new" top-end card with more performance, but since it's powerful enough to *almost* cost them a Titan or Tesla sale, they still want to charge a premium. In the end of the day the ONLY chip Nvidia makes that is mass-market affordable is GK104, so that's why AMD has no response to the GK110.

Since AMD is no longer really a threat in the high-end GPU space, Nvidia can literally maintain the MSRPs of the old parts as if the new parts are merely higher performing extensions of the previous generation without any downward pricing pressure on anything.

AMD is plenty competitive. They revamped their drivers and improved silicon/clocks to make the HD 7970 GE the fastest graphics card on the market, and priced it lower than the GTX 680. The GTX 780 (And 770 to be released soon) are a direct response to that performance acheivement.

No. The OEM version is $100. It just happens to be roughly the same price as the retail upgrade version. This is why I never buy the upgrade version.

Example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416550

The main problem I've had is that every newer router I've tried in the 3 or 4 years have has had horrible reliability problems... dropped connections and the like. I got tired of messing with them and spent the $50 on the WRT54GL (which is what it's still going for on Newegg: and haven't had an issue like that since. Sure, the wireless is slower, but my WRT54GL's been running stably and consistently despite not having been rebooted in over 2 months. whereas the newest router I had required a full router reboot every couple days. That wasn't my doing. That wasn't a faulty hardware. That was the default setting in the router's setup page under its "maintenance" page. The default setting had the router set to reboot on Tuesdays and Fridays.

Do they make new routers that can maintain a stable connection for under $100?

4TB SAS drives are available, shipping, and being used.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822178306

> Afaict the largest DIMM of desktop memory* currently available is 8GB.
> * DDR3, unregistered non-ecc.

Depends how you define "desktop memory"

16 GB, and 32 GB sticks are "available" in extremely limited supplies

$360 Kingston 16GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Model KVR13LR9D4L/16
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239525

$1400 HP 627814-B21 32GB DDR3 SDRAM Memory Module
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820326202

Not sure if this counts as desktop memory ... (technically NewEgg lists it as Server Memory)
$1400 IBM 32GB DDR3 ECC Registered DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820135081

> I've seen systems that claim support for up to 2TB of ram.

The HP ProLiant servers support up to 2 TB with 64 DIMM slots. Only $10K for the mobo, the RAM will only cost you $90K :-)
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/15351-15351-3328412-241644-3328422.html?dnr=1

But yeah, looks like we have to wait another 10 - 20 years before we start seeing "normal" desktop motherboards support more then 128 GB. The 4 or 8 DIMM sockets will be "good enough" for a long time.

> Afaict the largest DIMM of desktop memory* currently available is 8GB.
> * DDR3, unregistered non-ecc.

Depends how you define "desktop memory"

16 GB, and 32 GB sticks are "available" in extremely limited supplies

$360 Kingston 16GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Model KVR13LR9D4L/16
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239525

$1400 HP 627814-B21 32GB DDR3 SDRAM Memory Module
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820326202

Not sure if this counts as desktop memory ... (technically NewEgg lists it as Server Memory)
$1400 IBM 32GB DDR3 ECC Registered DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820135081

> I've seen systems that claim support for up to 2TB of ram.

The HP ProLiant servers support up to 2 TB with 64 DIMM slots. Only $10K for the mobo, the RAM will only cost you $90K :-)
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/15351-15351-3328412-241644-3328422.html?dnr=1

But yeah, looks like we have to wait another 10 - 20 years before we start seeing "normal" desktop motherboards support more then 128 GB. The 4 or 8 DIMM sockets will be "good enough" for a long time.

> Afaict the largest DIMM of desktop memory* currently available is 8GB.
> * DDR3, unregistered non-ecc.

Depends how you define "desktop memory"

16 GB, and 32 GB sticks are "available" in extremely limited supplies

$360 Kingston 16GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 Desktop Memory Model KVR13LR9D4L/16
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239525

$1400 HP 627814-B21 32GB DDR3 SDRAM Memory Module
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820326202

Not sure if this counts as desktop memory ... (technically NewEgg lists it as Server Memory)
$1400 IBM 32GB DDR3 ECC Registered DDR3 1066 (PC3 8500)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820135081

> I've seen systems that claim support for up to 2TB of ram.

The HP ProLiant servers support up to 2 TB with 64 DIMM slots. Only $10K for the mobo, the RAM will only cost you $90K :-)
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF04a/15351-15351-3328412-241644-3328422.html?dnr=1

But yeah, looks like we have to wait another 10 - 20 years before we start seeing "normal" desktop motherboards support more then 128 GB. The 4 or 8 DIMM sockets will be "good enough" for a long time.

If one woman can have a baby in 9 months, then 9 women can have a baby in one month, right?

No.

Not every task can be run in parallel.

Now however if your data is _independent_ then you can distribute the work out to each core. Let's say you want to search 2000 objects for some matching value. On a 8-core CPU you would need 2000/8 = 250 searches. On the Titan each core could process 1 object.

There are also latency vs bandwidth issues, meaning it takes time to transfer the data from RAM to the GPU, process, and transfer the results back, but if the GPU's processing time is vastly less then the CPU, you can still have HUGE wins.

There are also SIMD / MIMD paradigms which I won't get into, but basically in layman's terms means the SIMD is able to process more data in the same amount of time.

You may be interested in reading:
http://perilsofparallel.blogspot.com/2008/09/larrabee-vs-nvidia-mimd-vs-simd.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7091958/cpu-vs-gpu-when-cpu-is-better

When your problem domain & data are able to be run in parallel then GPU's totally kick a CPU's in terms of processing power AND in price. i.e.
An i7 3770K costs around $330. Price/Core is $330/8 = $41.25/core
A GTX Titan costs around $1000. Price/Core is $1000/2688 = $0.37/core

Remember computing is about 2 extremes:

Slow & Flexible < - - - > Fast & Rigid
CPU (flexible) vs GPU (rigid)

* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501
* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130897

If one woman can have a baby in 9 months, then 9 women can have a baby in one month, right?

No.

Not every task can be run in parallel.

Now however if your data is _independent_ then you can distribute the work out to each core. Let's say you want to search 2000 objects for some matching value. On a 8-core CPU you would need 2000/8 = 250 searches. On the Titan each core could process 1 object.

There are also latency vs bandwidth issues, meaning it takes time to transfer the data from RAM to the GPU, process, and transfer the results back, but if the GPU's processing time is vastly less then the CPU, you can still have HUGE wins.

There are also SIMD / MIMD paradigms which I won't get into, but basically in layman's terms means the SIMD is able to process more data in the same amount of time.

You may be interested in reading:
http://perilsofparallel.blogspot.com/2008/09/larrabee-vs-nvidia-mimd-vs-simd.html
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7091958/cpu-vs-gpu-when-cpu-is-better

When your problem domain & data are able to be run in parallel then GPU's totally kick a CPU's in terms of processing power AND in price. i.e.
An i7 3770K costs around $330. Price/Core is $330/8 = $41.25/core
A GTX Titan costs around $1000. Price/Core is $1000/2688 = $0.37/core

Remember computing is about 2 extremes:

Slow & Flexible < - - - > Fast & Rigid
CPU (flexible) vs GPU (rigid)

* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116501
* http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130897

I started looking at other retailers when I saw how much Amazon was overcharging on the Nexus 7 (and still is):

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nexus%207&sprefix=nexus+7%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Anexus%207
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=nexus+7&x=-881&y=-112

So add the WRT54GL to it running Tomato, OpenWRT, or DDWRT.

$50 from NewEgg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=33-124-190

You need glasses or an education then. Look at the benchmark site. It even says "Last Price Change: $45.31 USD (2013-02-07)", you dumb fucking piece of shit.

I provided the EXACT models. Are you too lazy to go check prices on Amazon or Newegg? Ever heard of Google? I assure you that the prices are quite real and you're just pissed off because I exposed your for the clueless idiot that you are.

Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz, Dual core w/heatsink & fan - $50 on Amazon
Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz, Dual core w/heatsink & fan - $50 on Newegg
Intel Desktop Board Classic Series MicroATX DDR3 1333 LGA 1155 Motherboard - $48
Intel DH61BF Desktop Motherboard - Intel H61 Express Chipset - Socket H2 LGA-1155 - $50 on Newegg

Now don't you feel like a fucking moron? You should, because you are. You aren't qualified to be a PC tech or system builder because you are uninformed and wrong most of the time.

You need glasses or an education then. Look at the benchmark site. It even says "Last Price Change: $45.31 USD (2013-02-07)", you dumb fucking piece of shit.

I provided the EXACT models. Are you too lazy to go check prices on Amazon or Newegg? Ever heard of Google? I assure you that the prices are quite real and you're just pissed off because I exposed your for the clueless idiot that you are.

Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz, Dual core w/heatsink & fan - $50 on Amazon
Intel Celeron G1610 Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz, Dual core w/heatsink & fan - $50 on Newegg
Intel Desktop Board Classic Series MicroATX DDR3 1333 LGA 1155 Motherboard - $48
Intel DH61BF Desktop Motherboard - Intel H61 Express Chipset - Socket H2 LGA-1155 - $50 on Newegg

Now don't you feel like a fucking moron? You should, because you are. You aren't qualified to be a PC tech or system builder because you are uninformed and wrong most of the time.

And guess what? At the same price point, most people would still take the ASUS. Why? Because the stuff that matters on it is better. It's hilarious you would bring up that crap though, because only a fanboi would even try to suggest that shit is worth even remotely $450.

But none of that matters, because most people shop based on their budget; they don't decide what features they want then go buy it. And the fact is, you simply can't buy a new Macbook for under $900, with ANY specs. If you're not too picky about the screen size, you can even get a PC with the same hardware specs as the Mac for around $400-$500, like this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312087R.

For practical purposes, same capabilities, and around a third of the price.

But since you insist on being an idiot fanboi, let's see what we can get in a PC for the same price as the Mac, shall we?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834127875

Hmm... way better screen resolution, much faster CPU, twice as much ram, way better graphics, twice as much HDD space and it's ALSO faster.

So yeah.

Why would you buy what is effectively just a dell for 3x the money with near useless software?

And guess what? At the same price point, most people would still take the ASUS. Why? Because the stuff that matters on it is better. It's hilarious you would bring up that crap though, because only a fanboi would even try to suggest that shit is worth even remotely $450.

But none of that matters, because most people shop based on their budget; they don't decide what features they want then go buy it. And the fact is, you simply can't buy a new Macbook for under $900, with ANY specs. If you're not too picky about the screen size, you can even get a PC with the same hardware specs as the Mac for around $400-$500, like this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834312087R.

For practical purposes, same capabilities, and around a third of the price.

But since you insist on being an idiot fanboi, let's see what we can get in a PC for the same price as the Mac, shall we?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834127875

Hmm... way better screen resolution, much faster CPU, twice as much ram, way better graphics, twice as much HDD space and it's ALSO faster.

So yeah.

Why would you buy what is effectively just a dell for 3x the money with near useless software?

Multiple wifi antennas? Really? Every laptop model I've ever worked on (and that's a few dozen) that came with wifi out of the box had at least two separate antennas. Usually one goes up one side of the screen, and the other goes up the other side.

Photo editing software can be had for free.

Since you said sub $1,000 and the closest a 13" mac gets to that is $1,199 I'll use that model for comparison.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD101LL/A?#hardware
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834100228

And here is what you asked for.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230262

It meets or exceeds the specs of your $1,199 13" Macbook Pro in every way and costs just $749 - regular price, not on sale. Your Macbook costs over 50% more.

You're welcome.

Multiple wifi antennas? Really? Every laptop model I've ever worked on (and that's a few dozen) that came with wifi out of the box had at least two separate antennas. Usually one goes up one side of the screen, and the other goes up the other side.

Photo editing software can be had for free.

Since you said sub $1,000 and the closest a 13" mac gets to that is $1,199 I'll use that model for comparison.

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD101LL/A?#hardware
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834100228

And here is what you asked for.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230262

It meets or exceeds the specs of your $1,199 13" Macbook Pro in every way and costs just $749 - regular price, not on sale. Your Macbook costs over 50% more.

You're welcome.

Well there is always more than one way to skin the kitty as I always say and I used a couple of Via boxes for low power servers for an SMB that needed their data encrypted, having AES hardware accelerated made them have decent performance without heating up the closet I had to put them in.

Don't look at the C7 though friend, its too old and they have MUCH better models out. Instead check out their Pico-ITX embedded as you can get a nano dual core based unit for around $200-$250, has lower power, better support for crypto, fanless, and they are built like tanks. My buddy that does carputers has used some and says they are top notch, really take a beating and run well. Hell I just spent 3 minutes in Google and found one ready to go for $160 so its really not any more expensive than the E350 and the Nano dual core has AES support baked in. Look up "Via Padlock" if you want to know more about it but if you need low power crypto that would be the way to go.

But it just goes to show what I was saying was correct, with X86 there are a dozen ways to do the same task so its simply a matter of finding the right tool for the job. E350 won't do it? Here is a Via that will without blowing the power budget. Money no object? They have Intel CULV that just sip power but those bitches are expensive with a capital E so if you are on a budget it wouldn't be the first choice. But as you can see here on this overview that if crypto is a major requirement the Via has it covered, hell it says it can get 12.8 Gbps throughput encode/decode which would be more than plenty and at roughly the same power budget as the E350, and I can tell ya it makes for a great low power server box with crypto.

This is why I don't get people trying to fit ARM into every project, it reminds me of those guys that tried to make everything with VB. ARM works best with helper DSPs in the PMP/handheld space, once you start needing any kind of real IPC ARM quickly runs into a wall. As you can see there are just so many different X86 chips out there somebody will have one that will cut the mustard without giving up performance. i don't even want to know how hard you'd have to slam a Pi to get it to do a crypto dashcam, poor little thing would probably melt. You could take that Zotac box, slap a stripped down Linux or Windows install and there ya go, hell it even has an SD card slot so you could take the data out of the unit without taking it out the trunk, easy peasy.

If it's LTE, you can get a transfer rate of 66Mbit down and 12Mbit up, so 500MB is about sixty seconds of access. Still extortion unless you pay $70/mo for "unlimited". Strangely enough it shows 12GB on the website. There are single files out there in excess of 25GB - just get into genomics or mapping. If they prohibit tethering, better figure out USB host mode or find a source for 64GB SD Micro cards.

Yes, you too can afford a keyboard with a fully functional shift key:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823109232

Look at this bad boy: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823109232

Only $14 and you can have a functioning shift key.

$50 each is vastly overstated price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16803015216 55 Watt Equivalent 7 Watt A19 E26 Base Warm White LED Light Bulb $11.99 each

I picked up several at a nearby big box hardware store for about $5 each after coupons from the local utility. They also had equivalent bulbs to the one I linked at Newegg for similar prices.

You might get a good keyboard, but you're very likely to get something that doesn't work properly.

Last week, I got a coupon for a Cooler Master keyboard with Cherry MX Blue switches. It was a very good price, but then I looked at the reviews. Concentrating on the negative reviews, I saw mention of keyboards with one or two broken keys, and keyboards with delicate USB connectors that break, and keyboards that stop working entirely after one year, after one month, after one week. Sometimes the customer would RMA keyboards several times before getting a keyboard that worked reliably. This is not what I imagine when I read claims of "50 million life cycle."

Nope, I don't get the appeals of mechanical, besides seeing high price tags for low features on modern models. Take a look: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007651&IsNodeId=1&Description=MECHANICAL&Tpk=mechanical%20keyboards

Most of these look like the $5 HP model I mentioned somewhere in this discussion.

g) Add an HDHomeRun DUAL - High Definition Digital TV Tuner so you can watch and DVR OTA TV over your network.

h) If you're not boycotting Sony, consider getting a Sony BDP-SP390 which streams Netflix, Hulu+, Amazon and plays Blu-ray Discs for a little more than a Roku.

why not have a 2-4GB ram disk with slower / older ram on some kind of card / sata device? Just use it for temp stuff and it does not need a battery back up.

I remember having an ISA card that acted like a RAM disk back when computers had much more serious memory constraints, I think I had it on an 8086, which had a 1MB addressable space limit.

It was incredibly fast, I was using it to hold temporary files to help speed up a sort that wouldn't fit in memory - I think it had 128KB of RAM and it was incredibly fast - well, as fast as an 8 - 16MB/sec ISA bus could be.

But I can't imagine that there's much of a market for this type of accelerator these days since most people that want fast RAM disk performance just add more RAM to their computer and let the operating system manage it - getting a new motherboard with more RAM capacity if needed. I did find this card, which includes a backup battery so it's not just a RAM disk, the contents don't go away when you turn off your computer:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815168001

It probably has lower latency than an SSD, but it acts as a 1.5 Gbit SATA interface, so transfer rate is limited to 150MB/sec.

I've also seen SSDs on a PCIe card, but that's not quite the same.

The 2 ft tall part isn't usually a problem, but that damned jet-noise just doesn't cut it in a media application.

If hard drive noise for quiet drives is a problem, then there is no solution, as SSDs are too expensive for the storage amount a media server needs.

Who said anything about SSDs? Nice try. But do go on...

Otherwise, though, there is nothing that requires a computer to be noisy. My HTPC only makes any noise because it has a video card that is beefy enough to play games. I have a fanless card that would do just as well if I was only playing media, and the processor is the same Core i5 as the base Mac Mini. The power supply has a fan that only runs when it gets too hot, but it never will as the parts in the machine can't ever draw enough power.

You mention that your "HTPC only makes noise because..."

Who cares WHY it makes noise. It makes noise. Next...

The HTPC case is brushed aluminun with a standard media rack size,

Whatever a "media rack" is. The Mac mini is brushed aluminum, too. So?

and can hold two 3.5" drives and two 2.5" drives internally, which could easily be 10TB (the 2.5" drives don't have height limits, so I can use the Western Digital 2TB drives). This looks far better than a Mac Mini with 2-3 external drives connected to it.

So, you're going to do backups to the same box as your media library? I hope you realize that you are one Power Supply failure from losing your entire collection, and that a RAID (if you are silly enough to put your trust in consumer-level RAID) is no substitute for backups... So, since I ASSUME you aren't that stupid, exactly HOW do you avoid having "external drives", whether directly attached, or somewhere else?

Also, those 2TB 2.5" WD drives are $189 apiece; so you have 2 HARD DRIVES that are 2/3 of the cost of an entire base-model Mac mini. Yeah, sounds like a great deal you have going there...

The best solution is a storage server in a different room, and then you can use anything for a media player..

No, all you need then is ????ft long HDMI and/or RCA cables, and a perfectly-positioned "other room". A lot of people don't have that luxury.

.you don't need a full-fleged computer like the Mini. I've got sub-$100 media players that can play back pretty much anything, and they have no moving parts, so are completely silent, and draw less than 30W from the wall plug.

Oh, you mean like an AppleTV, right? Yeah, you can have one of those, too, for the other TV. And then you know what? Because of how AirPlay works, you can then essentially have TWO "HTPC"s.

Oh, and I note that you DIDN'T crow about how your HTPC was "so much cheaper" than a Mac mini. Telling,

The 2 ft tall part isn't usually a problem, but that damned jet-noise just doesn't cut it in a media application.

If hard drive noise for quiet drives is a problem, then there is no solution, as SSDs are too expensive for the storage amount a media server needs.

Otherwise, though, there is nothing that requires a computer to be noisy. My HTPC only makes any noise because it has a video card that is beefy enough to play games. I have a fanless card that would do just as well if I was only playing media, and the processor is the same Core i5 as the base Mac Mini. The power supply has a fan that only runs when it gets too hot, but it never will as the parts in the machine can't ever draw enough power.

The HTPC case is brushed aluminun with a standard media rack size, and can hold two 3.5" drives and two 2.5" drives internally, which could easily be 10TB (the 2.5" drives don't have height limits, so I can use the Western Digital 2TB drives). This looks far better than a Mac Mini with 2-3 external drives connected to it.

The best solution is a storage server in a different room, and then you can use anything for a media player...you don't need a full-fleged computer like the Mini. I've got sub-$100 media players that can play back pretty much anything, and they have no moving parts, so are completely silent, and draw less than 30W from the wall plug.

You're pretty much dead on with your numbers:

32GB Nexus 7 w/ AT&T 3G - $300

TP-Link TL-WN722N (atheros usb wifi) - $20

Sena UD100 (Bluetooth USB) - $40

USB Ethernet adapter - ~$30 (really? Damn!)

OTG cable (host mode) - $2

I wonder how long it takes them to compile/load all those apps? Would be interesting to break it down and see just how much per hour these guys are charging.

The Aegis Padlock Pro works just fine, it supports over 1TB and it has a SSD version. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822161085

For reference, this is the Antec 900 that parent claims look nice (first result in google images)

I know that taste is subjective but claiming that this would look nice in the living room is a stretch. I already find it horrid to have a PS3 (original), imagine this bling-a-bling christmas tree wannabe case.

I'be been using this antenna booster for years it makes your phone act like the antenna is 6 foot long. Oh wait I just looked at what the article is talking about. Never mind. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA07R0BH8730&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleMKP&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-_-pla-_-Signal+Boosters-_-9SIA07R0BH8730

or powerline ethernet if you really need something "wired" but vaguely more secure and not susceptible to most issues.
http://www.newegg.com/Powerline-Networking/SubCategory/ID-294

I've been using an SSD since the start of Jan 2012 to the present as a the sole drive for a gaming system: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171567

It's still running strong and the load times are noticeably faster in all games over my previous 10k Raptor. Other than being a bit small, it serves my needs perfectly.

Grain of salt, YMMV, etc.

Citation needed? The manufacturers typically tell you. For instance here http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239045 it states "Budget-minded gamers and enthusiasts will benefit from the lower price of Kingston’s new HyperX 3K SSD. This solid-state drive combines premium 3000 program-erase cycle Toggle NAND with the second-generation SandForce controller" So it gets only 3% of the authors most optimistic graph! Kind of funny article actually. Like the mad scientist doing lots of good math but overlooking the most obvious information the ding bat brought along for comedy plot complications sees in a flash. I wrote a tutorial yesterday on how to make a ram drive on linux so as to avoid using your fancy fast flash drive. It can be found here: https://ioconnor.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/tutorial-on-automatically-moving-home-to-ram-drive-and-back-on-startup-and-shutdown/

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

1. AM3+ Mother board $39.99
2. FX-4100 $104.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

AMD total $193.97

Intel

1. i5 2310 $184.99
2. Asrock H61 $44.99
3. 8GB PC 1033 DDR3 $48.99

Intel Total $278.97
Both systems when upgraded with a GTX 660 card ($219.99) will play pretty much everything at 60fps+.

Personally I have a FX-6100 + Radeon 7850(about the same price point as the 660) and BF3, Crysis 2, Spec Ops The Line, Assasians Creed series all play minimum 60 fps across the board, buttery smooth. The Intel rig might hit 80fps but if you were to put the two systems side by side would you be able to take "the Pepsi Challenge" and tell the difference? No, they both run at the monitors refresh rate, unless your monitor is 120Hz at which point the Intel system won't be able to hit 120Hz anyway.

But as far as the $300 vs $500 price point most of the cost is a decent mother board but overall I was shooting for Big Box store prices and mid-upper level main boards which for AMD systems would be a better investment anyway since an AM3+ board will still still be good for 2 future generations where the Intel board is already dead in the water.

This is really a $300-400 problem? You could do much better with a Foxconn barebones ($130), 4 Gig of DDR3 RAM ($25) and a $30 add-in gigabit card and a hard drive ($50) - all in for about $235.

Of course, this is an atom-based system, but you won't be paying a premium for a discrete graphics feature you won't use.

This is really a $300-400 problem? You could do much better with a Foxconn barebones ($130), 4 Gig of DDR3 RAM ($25) and a $30 add-in gigabit card and a hard drive ($50) - all in for about $235.

Of course, this is an atom-based system, but you won't be paying a premium for a discrete graphics feature you won't use.

This is really a $300-400 problem? You could do much better with a Foxconn barebones ($130), 4 Gig of DDR3 RAM ($25) and a $30 add-in gigabit card and a hard drive ($50) - all in for about $235.

Of course, this is an atom-based system, but you won't be paying a premium for a discrete graphics feature you won't use.