expired
Prime Members: Kamrui E3B Mini PC: Ryzen 5 7430U, 32GB DDR4, 512GB SSD
$264
$400
34% off
+ Free Shippingat Amazon
Missed This Deal? Get alerts when similar deals are posted.
+ Free Shippingat AmazonDeal Details
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.
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.
- 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
Editor's Notes
Written by johnny_miller | Staff- At the time of this posting, our research indicates that this is $15.01 lower than the next best comparable online prices starting from $279.
- Don't have Amazon Prime? Students can get a free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited video streaming & more.
- If you're not a student, there's also a free 1-Month Amazon Prime trial available.
Community Notes
About the Poster
Deal Details
Community Notes
About the Poster
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.
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.
- 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
Editor's Notes
Written by johnny_miller | Staff- At the time of this posting, our research indicates that this is $15.01 lower than the next best comparable online prices starting from $279.
- Don't have Amazon Prime? Students can get a free 6-Month Amazon Prime trial with free 2-day shipping, unlimited video streaming & more.
- If you're not a student, there's also a free 1-Month Amazon Prime trial available.
Community Voting
Deal
Score
+105
Good Deal
Bad Deal
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.
Your right... it is difficult to know the differences between models. But you have to list your needs... do you need 1GB ethernet port or 2.5 or multiple or Raid 0 or Raid 1. Based on your answer you will narrow your search.
Also, you should see if the manufacturer has throttled the system. It is not a bad thing if it does but there are mini systems that are not throttled. You can find out based on the wattage of the LP1 and LP2 (use chatGPT to understand).
I ended up purchasing the Firebat A5P (7845HS, 16GB, 512GB) for $234 and this model is throttled. For me, the most important thing was having a decent GPU so I can try and play games and do emulations. I believe the 7845HS is AMD's weakest CPU that houses a 780m within. The AI 9 370 houses the 890M.
The Ryzen 7 7845HS is significantly more powerful than the Ryzen 5 7430U, due to having more cores and higher power consumption, while the Ryzen 5 7430U is focused on power efficiency and is best suited for everyday tasks. The 7845HS is a high-performance mobile processor designed for intensive tasks like gaming and content creation, whereas the 7430U is a lower-power chip for general productivity and thin-and-light laptops.
I don't see this as being a good deal compared to what I bought.
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.
My family laptop with a Ryzen 5 8645HS and 16 GB of RAM sits at about 59% RAM usage (8.1 GB) after boot. And that's with just Bitwarden, Nextcloud Desktop, Steam Client, Teams, and the Xbox app running in the tray. I'm not seeing any other obvious bloat. If there is, then it's bloat that you'd likely find on John Q Public's machine as well.
Having my daughter signed in with one Edge tab and myself signed in with 5 Firefox tabs, the system idles at 87% (12 GB) used. Going by my SSD's frequent 20%+ usage and 20.4 GB of RAM committed, the system is likely already utilizing the swap file quite a bit. I do not think that this scenario represents anything out of the ordinary. Nor do I think it would be unusual to throw multitasking with a small game like Minecraft into the mix as well.
Your post sounds as if it is written by an MSP. I assume your job's priorities are to minimize expenses along with quantifiable productivity losses like down time. Hence your post's focus on things being adequate and meeting needs. But if you re-read my original post, the discussion was not about the amount of RAM a system needs. It was about every day users seeing benefits above 16 GB of RAM. Benefits that may not blow you away, but would be noticeable.
I don't know that our arguments contradict each other. But I do think that we are looking a the question of "how much RAM" from different perspectives. For what it's worth, I've seen the family laptop I talked about above stutter plenty of times. But, it hasn't stumbled. Even if more RAM would have improved things, it's been enough to be a stable system with good performance.
Side note: The proliferation of NVMe storage has substantially reduced the penalty associated with hitting the page file. This has probably made a hug impact on system performance when you've got "enough" RAM but not "plenty".
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Here is a BAREBONE, but with a 7845hs for a few bucks more... https://acemagic.com/products/ace...640608389
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
For plex you should be u sing Intel and the CPU strength should be meaningless. So really a N95 or N97 or N100 or N150 should be more then fine for plex.
Intel processors are a popular choice for Plex servers because they include Quick Sync Video (QSV), a hardware-accelerated feature that efficiently handles video transcoding, a process that can otherwise heavily tax the CPU. This hardware acceleration allows Plex to stream multiple high-resolution videos to various client devices simultaneously with minimal impact on overall performance.
You can watch this video to learn how Intel N100 Mini PCs are a good choice for a Plex server... just google it.
So if Plex is your goal, stay away from AMD. If gaming is your goal, stay away from Intel.
I am a power user. 48 GB of RAM is my sweet spot. But I'm not talking about my normal usage on my work laptop or personal desktop.
My family laptop with a Ryzen 5 8645HS and 16 GB of RAM sits at about 59% RAM usage (8.1 GB) after boot. And that's with just Bitwarden, Nextcloud Desktop, Steam Client, Teams, and the Xbox app running in the tray. I'm not seeing any other obvious bloat. If there is, then it's bloat that you'd likely find on John Q Public's machine as well.
Having my daughter signed in with one Edge tab and myself signed in with 5 Firefox tabs, the system idles at 87% (12 GB) used. Going by my SSD's frequent 20%+ usage and 20.4 GB of RAM committed, the system is likely already utilizing the swap file quite a bit. I do not think that this scenario represents anything out of the ordinary. Nor do I think it would be unusual to throw multitasking with a small game like Minecraft into the mix as well.
Your post sounds as if it is written by an MSP. I assume your job's priorities are to minimize expenses along with quantifiable productivity losses like down time. Hence your post's focus on things being adequate and meeting needs. But if you re-read my original post, the discussion was not about the amount of RAM a system needs. It was about every day users seeing benefits above 16 GB of RAM. Benefits that may not blow you away, but would be noticeable.
I don't know that our arguments contradict each other. But I do think that we are looking a the question of "how much RAM" from different perspectives. For what it's worth, I've seen the family laptop I talked about above stutter plenty of times. But, it hasn't stumbled. Even if more RAM would have improved things, it's been enough to be a stable system with good performance.
Side note: The proliferation of NVMe storage has substantially reduced the penalty associated with hitting the page file. This has probably made a hug impact on system performance when you've got "enough" RAM but not "plenty".
Will 16GB will get you there with a few compromises? Yes. You can certainly find scenarios where that extra 8GB will cover the remaining use cases, but the extra 16GB to get it up to 32GB... Most users will never actually use it in the lifetime of the device. That may be different in 10 years, but the laptop will be a piece of crap by that point, either way.
My ultimate view is indeed about maximizing value. At what point does the extra cost provide enough value to the user to improve the experience? If there's no capability to increase RAM in the future via DIMMS or SODIMMs, that decision is even more important. That's why I generally recommend 16GB today if there is the ability to upgrade, particularly if the 16GB device has an easy upgrade path. If not, that 32GB level becomes much more enticing. Intel's Lunar Lake series is a tough call for me, since it's always embedded memory. Most users will be fine with 16GB... but it you think you'll use that 32GB, get the 32GB version.
Merger with Tesla
Slickly
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
TL;DR
For everyday users, 16 GB is perfectly enough today. NVMe + OS memory management (compression, smart caching, file caching) + modern browsers and apps make large RAM quantities a law of diminishing returns. Buying a bunch of extra RAM is often a waste of money, power, and thermal headroom — and it rarely fixes the real causes of stutter.
⸻
Point-by-point takedown
1) "My family laptop idles at 59% (8.1 GB) and 87% (12 GB) with two users — that proves people benefit from >16 GB"
That's not evidence of needing more RAM — that's evidence of how modern OSes use RAM. RAM is useful storage: the OS fills available memory with caches and prefetch data to speed things up. High "used" RAM doesn't mean the system is starved; it often means the OS is being efficient. If the system needs memory it will free caches or compress memory. The metric you should care about is hard page faults and swap thrashing, not "percent used after boot."
2) "SSD NVMe is being used for swap a lot, so it must be hurting"
NVMe's low latency and high IOPS massively reduce the penalty of hitting the page file compared to the HDD era. Yes, swap is slower than RAM — but on NVMe it's often imperceptible for typical desktop workloads. Modern Windows/macOS/Linux memory subsystems and compression layers make the effective gap much smaller for average multitasking. In short: swapping on NVMe is no longer the dramatic disaster it used to be.
3) "System idles with 20.4 GB committed and SSD activity — swap is in heavy use"
Committed memory and short bursts of SSD activity don't prove chronic memory starvation. Many apps commit memory they rarely touch. SSD activity can be background syncing, indexing, virus-scan hits, or write-back cache flushes — not necessarily page-in/page-out thrashing. Correlation ≠ causation.
4) "Multitasking + Minecraft would show the benefit of more RAM"
Minecraft is surprisingly light on RAM unless you load big modpacks or run a server. If you're seeing stutter playing a small Minecraft instance, the bottleneck is more likely GPU, thermal throttling, single-core CPU limits, disk I/O for asset loads, or buggy drivers, not the difference between 16 GB and 48 GB.
5) "People notice incremental improvements above 16 GB"
Maybe — if they're power users who:
• Run many large VMs or Docker containers simultaneously,
• Edit multiple large photos/videos and keep multiple 4K timelines open,
• Use large IDEs with many language servers, or
• Host local databases and analytics jobs.
For the typical home user — browsing, streaming, Office, light gaming — the extra headroom is invisible; the user experience is dominated by CPU single-thread performance, GPU capability, NVMe speed, and software inefficiencies (like leaky browser extensions).
6) "This isn't about MSP cost-minimization — it's about perceived benefit"
Cost is a real, user-facing factor. But more importantly: upgrading RAM to solve UX issues is often the wrong first fix. Diagnose — use Resource Monitor, check hard faults/sec, GPU/CPU thermal throttling, driver issues, Chrome/Edge extensions, background syncers (Nextcloud), and antivirus behavior. Fix the real problem — not the RAM.
⸻
Practical reality checks (aka reasons why I'm doubling down)
• Diminishing returns: Doubling RAM from 16→32 gives less perceptible benefit than 8→16 did. The 3rd and 4th increments are mostly useful for niche workloads.
• Cost vs benefit: Most users could spend the money better on a faster NVMe, a better CPU, or a GPU — all of which often improve real-world responsiveness more than extra RAM.
• Energy & thermals: More RAM means more modules, slightly higher idle power and thermal constraints in thin laptops — not nothing, especially on battery life.
• Software improvement: Browsers, OSes, and apps keep getting smarter about memory. Memory compression, process prioritization, and cached prefetching reduce the need for huge physical RAM pools.
• Misdiagnosis is common: People think RAM is the answer because it's an easy upgrade. It's a band-aid that feels technical but rarely addresses the root cause.
⸻
Where you are right (begrudgingly)
• Yes, there are users and setups that truly benefit from >16 GB (VM-heavy devs, pro content creators, scientists). For them, 32–64+ GB is justified.
• Yes, if a system truly has sustained hard page fault spikes and constant NVMe saturation, extra RAM helps. But prove that with metrics before upgrading.
⸻
Final (blunt) recommendation
If you want to be a responsible contrarian like me: don't buy more RAM unless you can measure that page faults and disk-backed IO are the limiting factor. First: profile (hard faults/sec, disk queue depth, CPU/GPU thermal throttling). Fix drivers, reduce extension and background service bloat, optimize syncers, and test. If a measurable memory-starvation pattern remains, then add RAM.
But for the everyday user? 16 GB is not a "compromise" — it's the sweet spot. Your 48 GB hill to die on is fashionable, but mostly theater.
Want me to write an aggressive, MSP-style comment you can post that demolishes the "more RAM for everyone" crowd? I'll happily draft a scorcher.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!