Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Upgrade or wait?
12
Upgrade or wait?
2006-11-23, 10:04 PM #1
My current system:
Asus A8N-SLI
Athlon 64 3500+
1 GB Corsair DDR400
XFX 7950 GT

I've thought about buying a faster CPU, and doubling the RAM. Then I began to wonder how much more it would cost to get a Core 2 Duo, good motherboard, and 2 GB of RAM. I've been building AMD systems for five years, so I'm really out of touch when it comes to building Intel.

More memory is definitely in my future, 1 GB just isn't cutting it. So I guess the question is, would I see much of a performance boost with a CPU upgrade? Or should I just wait a year or so and build a new system at that time?
2006-11-23, 10:17 PM #2
Right now upgrading to a good dual-core is certainly worthwhile. The next best thing to happen to CPUs will be quad-core, and I've heard those won't be much of use to anyone besides those that run apps that would actually use it. I recently upgraded to an E6600 (2.4 GHz, 4 MB cache), 2 GB of RAM, and a new motherboard, and I couldn't be happier. I actually came from a system almost exactly like the one you have now. Plus the Core 2 Duos overclock well, I got mine up to 3 GHz without breaking a sweat, and after I get some better cooling I'll be shooting for 3.6 GHz.
<Lyme> I got Fight Club for 6.98 at walmart.
<Black_Bishop> I am Jack's low price guarantee
2006-11-23, 10:20 PM #3
Approximately what would a mobo+cpu+ram like yours run?
2006-11-23, 10:27 PM #4
Upgrade.
2006-11-23, 10:29 PM #5
The E6600 is going for $308 right now, the motherboard I got, the Abit AW9D-MAX is going for $220, and the memory goes for around $300. Granted, I kind of veered on the top end because I intend to overclock it as much as I can. Memory prices have gone down and you can get a good set of 1GB sticks for about $215, a good motherboard for about $150, and the E6400, which is 2.13 GHz, goes for about $220, and overclocks just as well.
<Lyme> I got Fight Club for 6.98 at walmart.
<Black_Bishop> I am Jack's low price guarantee
2006-11-23, 10:35 PM #6
I'll never understand how people can spend so much money on computers :psyduck:

In a year, the huge expense is completely worthless, because the technology is then old and dated. I'm still using my peice of crap compaq from 2001, and it certainly still does basicly everything a normal user could ask.

o.0
2006-11-23, 10:38 PM #7
Originally posted by Greenboy:
I'll never understand how people can spend so much money on computers :psyduck:

In a year, the huge expense is completely worthless, because the technology is then old and dated. I'm still using my peice of crap compaq from 2001, and it certainly still does basicly everything a normal user could ask.

Sure, if a normal computer user doesn't play games.

So anyway, I'd be looking at ~$600.

Thanks, any other opinions?
2006-11-23, 10:56 PM #8
Originally posted by Greenboy:
I'll never understand how people can spend so much money on computers :psyduck:

In a year, the huge expense is completely worthless, because the technology is then old and dated. I'm still using my peice of crap compaq from 2001, and it certainly still does basicly everything a normal user could ask.

Chances are, if someone is spending that much money on a computer, they're not a normal user.

I'm spending $1500 on a brand new computer, and I wouldn't call myself a normal user.
2006-11-24, 3:55 AM #9
There is nothing normal about normal users.
2006-11-24, 4:59 AM #10
True that. A normal person will have some crappy old pc they get on maybe once a day.
But us 'normal' users, we wanna game ;)
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2006-11-24, 5:07 AM #11
I play games, but I dont spend 1000+ every year keeping up to date. Still boggles my mind.

o.0
2006-11-24, 5:24 AM #12
Originally posted by Aglar:
Sure, if a normal computer user doesn't play games.

So anyway, I'd be looking at ~$600.

Thanks, any other opinions?


Personally, I would hold off unless the need for RAM is really pressing.
[This message has been edited. Deal with it.]
2006-11-24, 5:48 AM #13
what games do you play? obviously not the new ones.
oh, and I don't spend 1k every year either... I do that every few years. (well, usually more then 1k but..)
You can't judge a book by it's file size
2006-11-24, 10:00 AM #14
I'd say go Conroe, 2gb of some good value RAM (unless you plan on overclocking it), 8800GT, or if you're an ATI fanboy (which you're obviously not) wait on the R600, and there's a lot of motherboard reviews for Conroe out there (to be honest, I don't know much about it as I've not had time to just laze through the articles like I usually do.)

8800's, by the way, are friggin awesome.
D E A T H
2006-11-24, 10:10 AM #15
Heh. I'm still running my '02 system.

P4 2.4Ghz
512MB PC1066 RDRAM
120GB HD
ATI Radeon 9700 TX


I can still run most games decently. I remember the FEAR demo ran pretty good, and the BF2 demo didn't kill me.

The only upgrade i'm considering is a DVDRW because it didn't come with one to start with and my CDRW is on the fritz.(Stupid me)
<Rob> This is internet.
<Rob> Nothing costs money if I don't want it to.
2006-11-24, 10:11 AM #16
I REALLY need another gig of ram.
2006-11-24, 10:16 AM #17
$50, Rob: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=1071020&sku=ULT31664
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2006-11-24, 10:37 AM #18
Hmm. That's not a bad deal at all.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2006-11-24, 11:02 AM #19
Originally posted by Greenboy:
I'll never understand how people can spend so much money on computers :psyduck:

In a year, the huge expense is completely worthless, because the technology is then old and dated. I'm still using my peice of crap compaq from 2001, and it certainly still does basicly everything a normal user could ask.

I agree, my three year old computer (Athlon XP 3200 1GB RAM and a recent $50 upgrade from a 9800 to a 7400) can still run games just fine.

So I would say no, don't upgrade.
2006-11-24, 1:04 PM #20
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]I'd say go Conroe, 2gb of some good value RAM (unless you plan on overclocking it), 8800GT, or if you're an ATI fanboy (which you're obviously not) wait on the R600, and there's a lot of motherboard reviews for Conroe out there (to be honest, I don't know much about it as I've not had time to just laze through the articles like I usually do.)

8800's, by the way, are friggin awesome.[/QUOTE]
I'm really not planning on upgrading my video card yet. As awesome at the 8800s are, there's absolutely no way I can justify the price. I'll probably be buying a new video card a year or so from now.

As for the rest, ugh, I still can't decide what to do. I'm leaning toward just getting another gig of RAM and calling it quits, waiting to do a complete overhaul (mobo/cpu/ram/video card) next year.
2006-11-24, 4:12 PM #21
Originally posted by Aglar:
I'm really not planning on upgrading my video card yet. As awesome at the 8800s are, there's absolutely no way I can justify the price. I'll probably be buying a new video card a year or so from now.

As for the rest, ugh, I still can't decide what to do. I'm leaning toward just getting another gig of RAM and calling it quits, waiting to do a complete overhaul (mobo/cpu/ram/video card) next year.

One word: DirectX10.

Seriously, between games and Vista, DX10 would easily justify the purchase--but that's really the only reason I'd tell you to upgrade. If you're going to upgrade without a DX10 card, that's not really a highly intelligent choice, especially for someone looking for longevity from their system.

Up to you though.
D E A T H
2006-11-24, 4:41 PM #22
Just more RAM may help...I'm only running a P4 3Ghz / 1.5Gb / X800XL, and I can run anything I've thrown at it so far. Granted, I don't run with FSAA/anis/etc..

Just upgraded to a 1680x1050 WS...I hope I can still run everything I already have.. :o
woot!
2006-11-24, 5:02 PM #23
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]One word: DirectX10.

Seriously, between games and Vista, DX10 would easily justify the purchase--but that's really the only reason I'd tell you to upgrade. If you're going to upgrade without a DX10 card, that's not really a highly intelligent choice, especially for someone looking for longevity from their system.

Up to you though.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I'm well aware of the benefits of DX10. But realistically, I'd rather wait for DX10 titles to start coming out, at which time earlier DX10 cards will likely have dropped in price.
2006-11-24, 7:42 PM #24
Yeah, DX10 won't be worth getting till Q2/Q3 next year, if you even decide to upgrade to Vista at the time. You'll certainly see the benefit from upgrading your main components though. You might get to a point where your CPU is holding your video card back, that's the way it was for me. You could upgrade your main components now, and then when the DX10 games start flowing you upgrade your video card and get Vista. Otherwise upgrading everything at the same time might not be doable, as far as money goes.
<Lyme> I got Fight Club for 6.98 at walmart.
<Black_Bishop> I am Jack's low price guarantee
2006-11-24, 8:59 PM #25
Originally posted by Emon:
$50, Rob: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=1071020&sku=ULT31664


Unfortunately, my system uses DDR2 ram, so I have to spend about $20 more. :P

Thanks for the heads up though.
2006-11-24, 9:45 PM #26
Don't bother. You're current system is fine, just OC that 3500+ some. Duel core is still no where near necessary yet. Half way through next year build a Quad Core PC with DX 10 cards.
2006-11-24, 10:21 PM #27
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Don't bother. You're current system is fine, just OC that 3500+ some. Duel core is still no where near necessary yet. Half way through next year build a Quad Core PC with DX 10 cards.


If dual core is unnecessary now, how will quad core be necessary in just half a year? Software doesn't move that fast my friend.
<Lyme> I got Fight Club for 6.98 at walmart.
<Black_Bishop> I am Jack's low price guarantee
2006-11-25, 9:24 AM #28
I must agree with Dredd. Your post is ridiculously inconsistent.

Dual Core ISN'T necessary yet, true, but it's nice. I just wouldn't suggest upgrading for dual core only just yet.
D E A T H
2006-11-25, 9:51 AM #29
Originally posted by Greenboy:
I play games, but I dont spend 1000+ every year keeping up to date. Still boggles my mind.


Do you play games released in the past two years on your crappy Compaq? Probably not.
2006-11-25, 10:03 AM #30
No, but theres only like 1-2 games coming out a year now that even slightly interest me. Meh, stories of a poor bum>.>

o.0
2006-11-25, 10:21 AM #31
I would wait. I mean, not all games demand such a nice processor quite yet, I would give it a year and let prices fall. I've got an Athlon 64 3000 and its fantastic.
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" Anyone who recognizes this quote is awsome.
2006-11-25, 10:22 AM #32
Originally posted by JDKNITE188:
Do you play games released in the past two years on your crappy Compaq? Probably not.


You don't have to spend much to play...since I bought this system over a year ago, I've put less than $1k into it - including original purchase price, upgrades and a new LCD..
woot!
2006-11-25, 10:36 AM #33
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Dual Core ISN'T necessary yet, true, but it's nice.[/QUOTE]
It's more than nice, it's indispensable for heavy multi-taskers. In addition to boasting huge performance increases in next generation games (starting in Q1 or Q2 in 2007), you may even see performance benefits on single threaded games and applications now, because background processes can be offloaded onto the second core.

And if you have multiple monitors, you can do fun things like watch TV or movies while browsing, playing windowed games, whatever. Or just have your PC not become useless when an automated virus or spyware scan runs. Or be able to download torrents while playing games.

Dual core CPUs are more than "just nice." I say go for it. Core 2s are very powerful and very cheap. The E6400s are supposed to overclock like nobody's business. The E6300 will still be an order of magnitude above what you have now.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2006-11-25, 5:47 PM #34
Originally posted by Emon:
It's more than nice, it's indispensable for heavy multi-taskers. In addition to boasting huge performance increases in next generation games (starting in Q1 or Q2 in 2007), you may even see performance benefits on single threaded games and applications now, because background processes can be offloaded onto the second core.

And if you have multiple monitors, you can do fun things like watch TV or movies while browsing, playing windowed games, whatever. Or just have your PC not become useless when an automated virus or spyware scan runs. Or be able to download torrents while playing games.

Dual core CPUs are more than "just nice." I say go for it. Core 2s are very powerful and very cheap. The E6400s are supposed to overclock like nobody's business. The E6300 will still be an order of magnitude above what you have now.

Or you know, maybe I consider all that nice. I'm not saying they're pointless, just that they're far from necessary. Yes, they do offer a lot of advantages, but I just don't see the reason to make that your PRIMARY concern for upgrading just yet for anyone.
D E A T H
2006-11-25, 7:13 PM #35
Originally posted by JudgeDredd:
If dual core is unnecessary now, how will quad core be necessary in just half a year? Software doesn't move that fast my friend.



Not necessary, but if he's building new, it's a good idea. Also, Alan Wake.

Really, his system is really quite nice right now. He could upgrade, but it would be a waste of money. He'd just end up spending a lot of money on stuff that'll be half the price when he'll actually has a use for it. Honestly, if money's burning a hole in your pocket buy a new monitor or sound system or something. An 7950GT is nothing to sneeze at.

If you're doing a lot of video editing or other CPU intensive apps you might look into getting a good 775 MoBo and a core 2, but as far as games go, your 3500+ will serve you well, especially if you OC it a tad. Really, what game are giving you problems right now?
2006-11-25, 7:22 PM #36
aglar... at most dual core and maybe some more RAM for now for any full system upgrades i'd wait a bit longer
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2006-11-25, 9:48 PM #37
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Or you know, maybe I consider all that nice. I'm not saying they're pointless, just that they're far from necessary. Yes, they do offer a lot of advantages, but I just don't see the reason to make that your PRIMARY concern for upgrading just yet for anyone.[/QUOTE]
Well I wasn't really targeting that at you necessarily...I was thinking more about Obi_Kwiet's silly comments when I wrote it. :ninja:
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2006-11-25, 10:52 PM #38
Originally posted by DrkJedi82:
aglar... at most dual core and maybe some more RAM for now for any full system upgrades i'd wait a bit longer

I have no intentions of upgrading the 7950 GT until at least six months from now, probably more like a year. I'm fairly certain I'll just get more RAM. Maybe if the CPU but really bites me I'll sell my gig and get 2 gigs of higher quality stuff (my current ram is Corsair ValueSelect or something), so I can OC a bit.
2006-11-26, 8:15 AM #39
Originally posted by Emon:
Well I wasn't really targeting that at you necessarily...I was thinking more about Obi_Kwiet's silly comments when I wrote it. :ninja:

Oh. Sorry bout that then :p
D E A T H
2006-11-26, 8:38 AM #40
Originally posted by Emon:
It's more than nice, it's indispensable for heavy multi-taskers. In addition to boasting huge performance increases in next generation games (starting in Q1 or Q2 in 2007), you may even see performance benefits on single threaded games and applications now, because background processes can be offloaded onto the second core.

And if you have multiple monitors, you can do fun things like watch TV or movies while browsing, playing windowed games, whatever. Or just have your PC not become useless when an automated virus or spyware scan runs. Or be able to download torrents while playing games.

Dual core CPUs are more than "just nice." I say go for it. Core 2s are very powerful and very cheap. The E6400s are supposed to overclock like nobody's business. The E6300 will still be an order of magnitude above what you have now.


No, they're nice at most right now.

Unless you have serious background processes eating lots of CPU time, it won't make any sort of impact on performance. And since hardly any programs actually make full use of dual cores, and that Vista will be the first Windows to really be "smart" about dual-cores, it is not nice.

And having dual cores doesn't affect multiple monitor usage at all. I play Ragnarok or Starcraft while watching anime all the time, on my single-core CPU. Same with torrents running. I've had 3 torrents running while playing a CS:S, I saw no FPS difference (my ping went nuts though, thank god for upload restrictions!). Finally, Anti-virus or spyware scans won't be much assisted by dual core either, since they're actually rather CPU unintensive, they just rape the hard drive. If your games stutter from antivirus scans, its more because of the hard drive raping than anything else.
12

↑ Up to the top!