Update: This popular offer is still available.
KAMRUI-Shop via Amazon has for
Prime Members: Kamrui E3B Mini PC on sale for $329.99 - $66 with promo code
PC7430MINI applied at checkout =
$263.99.
Shipping is free.
Thanks to Community Member
Dr.W for sharing this deal.
- Note: You must be logged in to clip coupons or apply promo codes. Coupons/Promo codes are typically single-use, may vary by account or may need to be re-applied in order to discount properly.
Specs:
- AMD Ryzen 5 7430U 6 Core Processor, up to 4.3 GHz
- AMD Radeon RX Vega 7 Integrated Graphics
- 32GB DDR4 Memory
- 512GB M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe Solid State Drive
- WiFi 6, Bluetooth 5.2
- Windows 11 Home
- Ports:
- 2x USB3.2 Gen2 (10Gbps)
- 4x USB3.2 Gen1 (5Gpbs)
- 1x USB-C (10Gbps)
- 1x HDMI 2.0
- 1x DP1.4b
- 1x Gigabyte Ethernet
- 1x3.5mm Audio Jack
Top Comments
The processor is identical to the old AMD Ryzen 5 5625U (2022).
"Performance
The performance is identical to the old Ryzen 5625U and therefore in the lower mid range of laptop CPUs in late 2023." - TechPowerUp (https://www.notebookche
Community Reviews
This Kamrui E3B mini PC is a compact Windows 11 Home desktop aimed at everyday use, home servers, and light media work. The Ryzen 5 7430U is described as a lower mid range chip, but the 32GB of DDR4 and 512GB SSD make it feel roomy for multitasking, Proxmox, and basic home office needs. It has handled Plex and Blue Iris well in real use, including 4K transcoding and six cameras, while drawing about 18W. The main limits are the weak Vega graphics for gaming and the gigabit ethernet and Wi Fi chip concerns on some units. A practical small box if you want modest power without much noise or bulk.
Common Questions (6)
AI-generated summary based on comments from the community. Updated ago
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
103 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
First, those that want to use this for plex/jellyfin. AMD is fine if your only streaming inside your home but if your going to stream outside you may need to transcode the video into a smaller file. Intel is still king in this, and it's not even close. A n100 would do a better job then this.
Second, if you are building a server you have to ask yourself how much storage your going to use. Plugging in USB drives or even a DAS into the USB port is always risky. USB carries overhead and is far more prone to data corruption vs internal storage.
Third, this is NOT a gaming machine. You may get by with old titles but keep in mind the graphics cores are Vega based. Vega is many generations behind. You will not be playing modern games on this.
First, those that want to use this for plex/jellyfin. AMD is fine if your only streaming inside your home but if your going to stream outside you may need to transcode the video into a smaller file. Intel is still king in this, and it's not even close. A n100 would do a better job then this.
Second, if you are building a server you have to ask yourself how much storage your going to use. Plugging in USB drives or even a DAS into the USB port is always risky. USB carries overhead and is far more prone to data corruption vs internal storage.
Third, this is NOT a gaming machine. You may get by with old titles but keep in mind the graphics cores are Vega based. Vega is many generations behind. You will not be playing modern games on this.
Intel CPUs, even very low-power ones like the N100, have:
Quick Sync, a dedicated hardware block for video encoding/decoding (H.264, HEVC, VP9, AV1 depending on generation).
Plex and Jellyfin have direct hardware support for Intel's Quick Sync.
This means an N100 can handle multiple simultaneous 1080p transcodes while barely using any CPU.
BUT BUT BUT...
AMD's VCN 4.0 (Video Codec Next 4.0) hardware can work with Plex for hardware-accelerated transcoding, but it requires a Plex Pass and generally works better on Windows than Linux due to varying levels of official support and driver implementations. If VCN 4.0 does work with Plex, intel and amd would be almost equal but thre real thing is plex truely supports quick sync so intel is the way to go without a doubt and it is dirt cheap.
AMD CPUs (like the Ryzen 7 7845HS / 8745HS) use Radeon integrated graphics (RDNA3), which have their own media engine — but Plex/Jellyfin hardware acceleration on AMD is:
Less mature
Less efficient
Less widely supported
Sometimes requires extra configuration or driver workarounds in Linux or Docker setups.
So while the AMD CPU itself is way more powerful, Plex may fall back to software transcoding, which uses the CPU cores instead of the GPU.
That burns power and limits the number of simultaneous streams.
Thanks.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
On a technical level, your OS will use a lot more RAM than is needed for caching. Caching can greatly speed up the overall snappiness of your system. 64 GB is overkill. But only 16 GiB very easily gets you into a spot where the OS is hitting the swap file in a way that negatively impacts performance.
Another technical note would be to consider the RAM usage of the iGPU. Since there is no dGPU, the OS can be pretty generous about giving system RAM for video memory. Even a modest 2 GB given away for video memory is a sizable chunk of 16 GB.
Lastly, do none of you keep a bunch of browser tabs open? Chrome, Firefox, and Edge all seem to love to hold onto RAM. And browsers are notorious for having various memory leaks found and patched over time. I do feel like I'm not the only one who sees a massive amount of memory regularly used by web browsers.
IMO, 24 GB of RAM is probably the current sweet spot for a typical, non-browser tab hoarding user to feel like their Windows system is running great. Alternatively, 16 GB plus a dGPU with its own dedicated vRAM.
Just my $.02
Next get an idea for what services you'll be running. That's where your RAM and processing normally go. I haven't used Frigate, but I have to assume that anything doing A/V creation or processing can use a lot of resources. A lot of things like Pihole or Home Assistant, don't use much. Try to identify what services use a lot of resources and which ones don't.
While you're still thinking about your services, think about home many of them are in use at at time. By "in use" I mean doing more than just sitting there. And think about how many of them are active concurrently. Here's some examples:
- Pihole is always active, but it uses very little resources, so it is very negligable.
- A Wireguard server uses a moderate amount of resources. But only when devices are connected and using it. So it may sit idle for you most of the time.
- Plex uses a ton of CPU, or a moderate amount of GPU if you have one that's supported. But it's only doing this when you are actively watching a video.
- Frigate looks to be the kind of thing running 24/7. If it is, you can think of it as a consistent % of your resources used up.
People can load up dozens of services on an 8 GB Raspberry Pi, since most things don't use a lot of resources. And most services aren't used concurrently,and sit idle most of the time. This system can easily be a Proxmox host that can handle a lot. But without knowing what all you want to use it for, it could also be easily be crushed by a single heavy service like Ollama or a highly modded game server.Last note: iGPUs don't get passed easily to VMs. If you were hoping to offload workloads to your GPU, a system like this isn't ideal. I believe you could more smoothly utilize the iGPU with a container in Proxmox. But for a VM, it's much easier and more practical to use a physical host with a 2nd dGPU that you can dedicate to a VM.
On a technical level, your OS will use a lot more RAM than is needed for caching. Caching can greatly speed up the overall snappiness of your system. 64 GB is overkill. But only 16 GiB very easily gets you into a spot where the OS is hitting the swap file in a way that negatively impacts performance.
Another technical note would be to consider the RAM usage of the iGPU. Since there is no dGPU, the OS can be pretty generous about giving system RAM for video memory. Even a modest 2 GB given away for video memory is a sizable chunk of 16 GB.
Lastly, do none of you keep a bunch of browser tabs open? Chrome, Firefox, and Edge all seem to love to hold onto RAM. And browsers are notorious for having various memory leaks found and patched over time. I do feel like I'm not the only one who sees a massive amount of memory regularly used by web browsers.
- 8 GB works, but sounds miserable.
- 16 GB is enough for the typical user. But, I think that most users who multitask would feel noticeable system improvements with more RAM than this.
- 24 GB is probably the sweet spot.
- 32 GB overkill. But since the options are normally 16 or 32 GB, this is the better choice, IMO. Especially if you can go back in time a few months to when RAM was much more reasonably priced.
IMO, 24 GB of RAM is probably the current sweet spot for a typical, non-browser tab hoarding user to feel like their Windows system is running great. Alternatively, 16 GB plus a dGPU with its own dedicated vRAM.Just my $.02
We have a lot of client PCs running 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB of RAM. Very few non-servers with 48GB or more RAM. Real utilization of that RAM is easy to ascertain, because we monitor all this equipment with Labtech's Automate minute by minute. We manage the fleets with SentinelOne (S1) Endpoint, (Eset as the cheaper alternative) Duo Desktop, NinjaRMM, ScreenConnect, and a few other smaller apps. That's a serious load on those PCs, taking up anywhere from 1.5-4GB RAM with those apps alone, depending on the organization's security needs.
Do you know what we have found? 8GB is adequate for deployments without Threatlocker and S1, but with it, 16GB is needed. Under no circumstances have clients actually needed more than 16GB, unless it's a workstation designed to run heavyweight applications like Solidworks or Premier Pro. Seriously, even with bloated security software, 16GB has never been a problem for the Chrome/Edge+365 apps crowd that makes up the 98%. 8GB, on the other hand, is not enough for new machines, so we will not sell a PC to customers with less than 16GB. 8GB becomes an acute problem when the user is frequently docked and uses a ton of Chrome / Edge tabs across multiple windows while also running a few 365 apps and Adobe Acrobat Pro. This can be exacerbated by AMD laptop's frequently defaulting to 1-2GB RAM reserved for the iGPU.
No home consumer is going to run the suite of security applications we run on those business machines, so tell me, what will John Q Public be doing on their laptop that requires more than 16GB RAM? Most aren't doing heavy video editing.
Keep in mind, if you have 32GB RAM, Windows will find ways to use it, as it loves to stage memory for background applications. This mainly assist with switching between multiple Windows if you never close applications, and just leave them all open. Don't do that, and make sure you shut down your Windows PC at least once a week, or you will inevitably experience system instability. Trust me, we have seen all manner of poor usage with machines. I remember encountering an extremely unstable desktop someone hadn't rebooted in over 6 months, instead putting it to sleep, never letting it complete WinUpdates. Curse Vista with it's idiotic replacement of the power button function with sleep. Never again.
Gaming and heavyweight applications like those previously mentioned are a few scenarios that pushes my recommended level to 32GB. For that scenario, I will agree. I think you are probably a power user who uses more memory than 95% of users, and you're assuming everyone has the same habits and needs. Not everyone leaves 10+ browser tabs open, all the time.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!