Computer Upgrade / Updates
 

http://compreviews.about.com/cs/desk...aprDellXPS.htm

this is essentually my computer. The only differences are as listed.

3.4ghz P4 Processor
1g Ram (DDR2)
180g Harddrive
ATI X800XL 256mb video card.

So, here is what I am thinking that I would like to start updating my PC a little. I got the PC in late 2005, so it is time to make some updates.

I am looking at either getting an Nvidia 8800gts or the ATI 2900, any recommendations?

Not so much looking forward to this upgrade, but should I look into upgrading / updating my processor? If so, what would you tech guys suggest?

I have room for 3 more 1g ram modules, so another gig of ram would help out also.

Do you guys have any other ideas that I might start to look at?

Moar RAM! Never a bad thing. Video cards aren't my thing, but as far as I know you've almost maxed out your processor unless you can go to a dual/quad core.

RAM is like $12 from Tigerdirect. Hmm.

Save your money for a new MB/system w/dual core, etc.

What you have isn't bad, and upgrades will only show small improvements given the architecture of the system.

I wouldn't even buy RAM unless you are running Vista.

I don't know anything about Motherboards, or what I should even be looking for. Some help would greatly be appreciated.

New MBs are likely going to have different power requirements, so assume you will need a new base system.

If you like Dells, the XPS line is probably worth looking at for at least a starting place.

It is an XPS!!!

It's on the link from the first post.

Dell XPS Gen 3

I know, that is why I said to go look at the new XPS systems.

XPS is a product line, not a specific model.

You can't upgrade your CPU without upgrading your MB so yah, add another gig of RAM if you game or multi-task, or just buy new. I just bought one of these.

I am in the middle of redoing my desktop as well, finally.

In your case, the only real CPU upgrade would be to dual-core, and that means new MB and RAM too. It would also probably mean a new PSU, as Dell's suck. Especially if you went with a big video card.

Where are you experiencing slowdowns? Cause unless you do a LOT of multitasking, it's likely that you won't notice a difference worth the $400 the new stuff will cost (before video and HDD).

Games in the BF2 catagory will need over 1GB of RAM, so that will help.

Personally, I would simply:

--Get more RAM, at least 1 more GB module from Newegg or something $25
--New Hard Drive, get a new 32MB cache SATA drive, this will be the single biggest speed boost $80 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16822148309
--New Video Card, maybe a year-old second-hand one, there are a LOT of kickass cards (x1900xt, 7900GT, etc) priced in the $100 range on various forums and eBay right now

Check your Power Supply, Dell's usually are underpowered, make sure you have enough amps on the 12v side if you get a really big Video Card.

There, that way you will have an HDD and Video Card that will be good for another couple years when you eventually go with a new PSU, multi-core, MB, and RAM.

Interestingly enough, I recently replaced my Sager 1.73 Centrino and x700 15.4" with an ASUS 15.4" AMD X2 1.9 with HD2600. It's a wonderfully-crafted laptop (after several years of Sagers), but ATI Mobility Driver support blows. After I chucked Vista and dropped XP Pro on, and found all the drivers, I finally had to go with a hacked ATI desktop driver to get the card's performance up. I had two choices: driver hack to run as FireGL v5600 Mobility (gaming sucked); or hacked desktop drivers for the HD2600. I'm staying with the HD2600 config, simply because it games. I get little weirdness every so often, but it's not a big deal. Considering the laptop was $800 on Newegg sale, I probably did OK. I run 2gb in that.

Oh, my new desktop setup is:

Lian-Li case (old, had it for years)
Enermax E651P PSU (old, had it for years)
ASUS P5K-E-AP MB (new, $150)
Intel C2D E8400 3.0ghz 6mb L2 1333fsb ($226)
OCZ 2x1gb Platinum blingywhatever very tight timings ($75)
eVGA Nvidia 7900GTO 512mb second-hand ($90)
Seagate 250gb SATA 3.0 32mb cache system drive ($80)

Needed the clock speed for video rendering in Premiere, or else I would have gotten in on all of the quad Q6600's that are floating around at $230....

Previous setup was disassembled a year ago, was a pair of Athlon XP2200's on a Tyan board with FireGL X1 and 66mhz PCI SATA RAID....I still have some peripheral stuff I might list for sale.

If you'll excuse the hijack, what's the deal with dual core processors? Is a 1.7 core 2 duo the same in performance as a 3.4 ghz P4, for example?

No, its more like having dual processors.

Meaning, unless the program is highly multithreaded and can take advantage of multiple processors, it'll be only a minor bump in performance. Its not like it doubles performance.

EDIT to add clarity: clock speeds don't equal performance. In a straight up comparo between the 1.7 core 2 duo versus a 3.4ghz p4, the core 2 duo will likely win most tests, so your question is kind of a weird one.

If the question is, will a 1.7 core 2 duo be equivalent to a 3.4 GHz single-core chip based off the same architecture and bus speeds? Well, that's all theoretical and at that point it'd depend on the application.

What Nick said mostly. There are a number of articles comparing them in gaming and non-gaming applications as well s comparing dual core to dual processor. Google: dual core performance single (Or something close)

What does best really depends on the application and the performance of the other system components.

Many games for example don't see any benefit unless you are running multiple high end video cards to eliminate that bottleneck.

For File/print servers, Dual Core is overkill. I'd rather have dual singles so if I lost a CPU I can run with 1, but try and find a non-Dual core server these days. non-Dual core anything is getting hard to find.

To answer some of the questions, my 3.4ghz P4 has HT or Hyper-thread technology. I am not sure if an actual dual core processor will be an upgrade for me. As the only dual cores that I see are at a lower speed then my processor. Typical ones seam to be 2.4 - 2.8 ghz.

As for the games that I play on it, I have COD4, which is optimized for Dual Core processors. I mostly play World of Warcraft. When I log off of WoW, I get an approximately 1 minute of computer lag before I can do anything. Such as shutting it down, or even clicking on Firefox.

Weak.

Wow, be a little more specific! What is weak, my pc lag, or the comparison between dual and single core?

Not to bust your butt, but I need answers and opinions. I don't know jack crap about this stuff. That is why I am asking. Confusing answers, confuse me.

I posted that at the same time as you posted. It was in reference to learning that my new dual core 1.7 isn't going to be as fast as a P4 3.4. :(

What do you want to spend might be a better way to start.

Yes, most Dual core speeds are slower, but they are faster due to higher bus speeds (800 vs 1333+) to RAM and Peripherals as well as the ability to do 2 things at once.

Your old system may be Hyperthreading capable, but that just makes it Pseudo dual 1.7Ghz box at best.

Newer games are designed to take advantage of the multiple cores.

A mid range Dual Core with a pair of SLI video cards might be 2-4 times faster running modern multi-threaded games than your current system, though I am far from an expert.

Also, early hyperthreading technologies didn't really do much (some people will even say it hurt performance a little).

But yeah, there is a lot more to a processor than just clock speed. Deans right on the money, so a core 2 duo at 1.7GHz will feel faster than your 3.4GHz P4, but it would be incorrect to say they are equivalent or "faster" or "slower" or whatever.

Its hard to difficult clock speeds of different families of processors. Perhaps you all remember the old Apple ads comparing their 400mhz G4 to a 1GHz Pentium 2? And even though the Core 2 duo and the Pentium 4 are both from Intel, their architecture is quite different and therefore comparing clock speeds is just plain weird.

Brian, you would definitely benefit going to a new dual core processor (and the associated new motherboard w/ faster bus speeds and whatnot).

The Dual Cores don't run especially fast, but they're great for serious multitasking. I typically have Civil 3D (major resource hog) plus IE, Excel, Pidgin, WMP, and whatever else running simultaneously. No system issues, but Civil 3D often takes time to complete tasks, which is when I switch over and browse the interent.

Regen's done, gotta go! :p

To answer Dean's question, $500-800 over a period of 10 months.

I think right now, I will just order at least one more 1g of Ram. And then do a possible video card update in the near future. I talked with the IT guy at my work, and that was his suggestion. And for the most part, that is what everyone on here seems to be suggesting also.

Yeah, I know that one. Revit is even more of a system hog then any of the AutoCad versions. That is why I have two screens at work, one for browsing the internet, and one for waiting on Revit to finish what I told it to do 5 minutes ago. LOL.

Based on that budget and time frame, I'd clean up and defrag the current system and see what your real RAM utilization is before spending anything on anything.

10 months from now something better than this Alienware system will be in your price range and it will kick ass over just about anything you can do by adding RAM and 1 higher end video card to your existing box.

Don't worry, the Core 2 duo processor will be faster.

I had to edit one of my posts to add clarity. Comparing two families of processors based on clock speed alone is tough.

For the most part, your processor is idle 99% of the time. Clock speed only measures how fast the processor can calculate something, but has nothing to do with the efficiency of the system as a whole. Intel has started improving other areas to speed up the overall performance of the whole system.

Thankfully the mega/gigahertz war has finally gone away as it was really starting to overshadow development in other areas. But its one of those things where most consumers say "I don't know what that number means, but I definitely need more of it" and so Intel and AMD kept pushing out chips with higher and higher clock speeds.

Actually I only mentioned Core 2 Duo as a hypothetical. My new dual core CPU is an AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor TK-53 (512KB L2 Cache 1.70GHz, 1600MHz).

http://www.everex.com/products/xt5300t/xt5300t.htm

Is the 1600MHz the FSB speed? That's pretty cool right?

Did you forget a smiley there? :p

Ah, you edited :p

Yeah, thats the FSB speed. And yeah, that's as good as it gets right now (I think, I don't keep up on specific hardware numbers).

:lol: No, I'm just confused.

:cool:

I just went by the price and all the awesome reviews. I realize that YMMV depending on the full system so I didn't really do much research before pulling the trigger on it.

Okay, well... the answer is no. Higher bus speeds are always faster. Doesn't matter how many cores are putting stuff onto the bus.

Yah, I was being silly and looking at the RAM speed and assuming it was the same as the CPU FSB speed, but alas, that doesn't work with dual core.

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/pr...ox/m/33306260/

This looks like a good upgrade!! Obviously I would have to update some other things too. But, if I spread things out over the next ten months or so, I should be fine.

You'd get way more for your money if you just saved for 10 months then bought everything at once. Anything you buy now will be obsolete in 10 months.

That's what I said back on post #4,#6, #23! :D

And that's what I've been meaning to re-affirm every post since, but keep forgetting.

Yeah, but Brian didn't seem to notice, so I thought it needed to be said again.

I know it would be obsolete. But I am not going to get into the tech race. I just want to upgrade / update my current pc to last me a couple more years. At that point, hopefully I will be able to purchase a new pc.

Okay, then buy the same stuff you were going to buy now in 10 months and save yourself 80% of the cost.

Yes, I read everyone of them. I even checked out the linked Alianware on post 23. That is what lead to me looking up that AMD processor. Sheesh!!!

Yes, I agree. But the only thing I am going to do right now is order another gig of RAM. I mean, $20!!! Plus, it WILL help out my PC to where I am not getting frustrated with it over the next 10 months.

We are not suggesting you get into the race, only that the returns on upgrading a 3 year old system may be minimal. Optimizing what you have and spending the whole $800 10 months from now will get you a much better system than upgrading your existing system piecemeal. It still won't be the state of the art by a long shot, just substantially better than spending money on the existing system.

Makes sense.

RAM will only help if you are actually running out. You also want to make sure you buy it in pairs and that you have slots available for it. 1Gb on XP is pretty damn good though.

Getting rid of crap on your system and defragmenting your HD may add far more performance than RAM.

Just defragmenting your swap file alone can make the machine feel new again in some cases. And yes, the swap file gets used even if you have enough RAM.

If you have a second 7200RPM SATA HD of any size lying around, putting the swap file on that will also improve performance.

For Graphics work you need a decent video card. The two you are looking at are fine, but there are better (more$$) out there that are 512 or higher cards. Run as much ram as you can for graphics. I run 4G.

Also on Dell - if you can qualify for the small business leases - do it! They have a 30 month, $1 buy out that is at like 3.5%. I just ordered the wife a new Optiplex 755 ultra small factor tower for $1310. It includes;

4550 dual core processor
2G ram
CDR/DVD RWR
22" HD LCD
250G drive
Bluetooth wireless mouse and keyboard

It is a pretty bomber machine for the money. I am getting a new machine for my home work that will be similar except for upgrading the video car, more ram and a 6550 processor. That brings the price up to $1650.

The big advantage with the small business units is that they include the 3 year on site warranty. The lease payment on my wife's machine is like $61/month. Now if you can't right it off, then it is not worth it to lease as Dell has a purchase program right now of 12 months no interest.

Or if you search Ebay, you might be able to find one of these screaming machines!

To be fair, that 386 *was* a BEAST in 1989.

So, the biggest thing you do at home is gaming?

Immediate fixes for that involve 1 more gb of ram, a better video card, and a faster hard drive.

Your CPU/MB/RAM combo, while without the larger caches, more efficient processing, and incrementally-faster FSB's, is more than adequate for playing.

While I have all you 1334 peeps here, does anyone have a Molex-to-PCI-E power cable adapter? Looks like this:
http://c1.neweggimages.com/NeweggIma...887-001-02.jpg

Didn't I post this question and get my ass chewed for being a cheap bastard?

I have one. Coming to the meet?
I lied, I can't find it. I know it is here somewhere and will keep looking, but it is not where it belongs

They have them at PC-Club around the corner to the left from CompUSA in the same strip mall.

Once you have a rifle collection and the skill to hit a woodchuck sized object from 3/4 of a mile away, we'll stop chewing your ass for being cheap too.

Ha, I missed that thread. I'll be at the meet, if you have one it will be awesome. Otherwise I'm left with busting out the soldering iron if I want to be running Friday night....

Yes, I don't have a TV, and I can only reload ammo and search the internet before that becomes boring. Originally, I used the PC for Architectural Drafting. But that has dried up. So, it is now more or less a fulltime gaming rig!

Quote of the Day right there!