Upgrading My PC.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I am looking into upgrading my main computer.  It's current specs are as follows:

• Motherboard: Intel Guardfish DQ965GF
• CPU: Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4GHz
• RAM: 4x Kingston 1GB DDR2-400
• Graphics card: ATI Radeon HD 4670 1GB
• Hard Disk(s): 2x Hitachi 250GB 7200RPM SATA-II
• Operating System: Windows 7 Professional x64

I am somewhat undecided as to whether I should either:

• Build a new PC from scratch, or
• Upgrade the CPU and RAM in my current build

It would definitely be cheaper to upgrade the CPU and RAM in my current PC, so that is what I am currently planning on doing in the near future.  But my main question is, what would be better: Get 8GB of slower, DDR-667 RAM, or get 4GB of faster, DDR-800 RAM?  Either way, it will be an upgrade from what I have now, I just want an opinion on whether speed is better than size when it comes to RAM.  (Oh, and either way I will probably be getting a Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz to go along with this upgrade.

So, what are your opinions?

[Matt3o]

if you really want a speed boost, just get an SSD even a small one for boot and programs. Regarding ram, well it depends on what you do with the PC. If you use a lot of VMs -for example- you better get tons of ram. That being said, I doubt you will ever notice the difference between 667 and 800 in real-life usage

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Ok, so I would probably end up getting 8GB of the DDR-667 then.  However, my current motherboard is fairly obsolete.  It's a Socket 775 mobo, so it is quite old by today's standards.  So my other option is to:

• Get a new motherboard. Maybe this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157291
• Get a new processor. This one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819106009
• Get new RAM. This x2: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314
• Get a SSD. This small one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148441

So I could buy all these parts, use my current case, PSU (a 500W Rosewill PSU), and graphics card, and upgrade my computer for around $340 total.  OR I can just get 8GB of RAM and a Core 2 Quad for my current mobo for around $200 total.  Hmm... now I'm starting to feel like spending the extra $140 might be worth it in the long run.  Any more thoughts or opinions?

[Matt3o]

if you want to save, I'd suggest to get a sata2 SSD and RAM. you'll surely see a noticeable performance boost. if you can spend some cash... well your config is not bad or you could try to build something around the old but good intel 2500k http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115072 paired with an asrock z77 motherboard (if you like to play some recent game)

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Well considering that the issue here is money, I will probably just end up buying the Core 2 Quad and the 8GB of RAM for my current build.  No sense in spending a ****-ton of money to upgrade everything when I can upgrade the essentials for a much cheaper price.  Plus that gives me more money to spend on keycaps!

[TheProfosist]

Send me a PM if your interested in some help with a PC build or some upgrade options

[WRXChris]

You should definitely consider an SSD as a boot drive.  For Windows ~100GB seems to be sufficient.  It was the biggest performance increase I've ever seen from a single part. 

If I were you, I'd consider only adding an SSD now, and try to save up for an SB or IB platform.  The SSD should tide you over, and trust me, you'll be amazed by the SB/IB performance, even at the lower end of the lineup.

My last system upgrade was from a Q9550 (3.4GHz OC) to 2600k (4.5GHz OC), and the performance difference was mind-blowing (even with the 2600k at the factory clock of 3.4GHz; clock-for-clock SB is sooo much faster than the Core/Core2 architecture).

[Malphas]

What is it you're wanting to improve about your PC exactly that necessitates an update? Replacing the memory is probably worthwhile, especially since it's so cheap. I don't see the same need for replacing the CPU unless you use encoders a lot or something, an SSD would make more difference for general usage.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Well, maybe this will help a little.  Here is a link to the spec report for my current build.  Maybe it will help if you guys know what hardware I am running so you can suggest possible upgrades.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/61075086/SpecReport.htm

[Matt3o]

You have a good rig.

For an overall performance boost get an SSD

If you use demanding softwares like photoshop, video editing, virtual machines, ... get more ram

If you are a gamer, well.. get a new graphics card

If you do a lot of audio/video encoding, get a new CPU

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Hmm... well I would have to say that I don't really fall into any of those categories.  But I guess that just means I should get a SSD...

[eon]

Yes you don't imagine the difference with & without an SSD but it's huge. I'm still on socket 775 with a Core 2 Duo and with an SSD it's really much faster than before (was using a Raptor 10000k). Crutial M4 is exactly what I got for my system drive.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Good to know.  I guess I will start off by getting a SSD, and if I feel I still need more speed I will consider upgrading the rest of my hardware.

[oTurtlez]

I'd switch over to the more modern side of Socket 1155. 775 was great and all, but I definitely have enjoyed my 2500k @ 4.5 over my E7500 @ 2.93 haha.

[Malphas]

Hmm... well I would have to say that I don't really fall into any of those categories.  But I guess that just means I should get a SSD...

That's probably the only thing that's going to create any noticeable improvement in performance then. Upgrading your CPU, RAM and video card is going to make absolutely no difference unless you're running something hardware intensive like encoders, photo/video editing suites, virtual machines or games. I'd just milk your current system for a while longer then replace the whole motherboard/CPU/RAM at a later date and actually get some worthwhile improvements like UEFI, DDR4, USB 3.0, etc.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Good point.  I guess I'll wait to do a complete rebuild and I'll just get a SSD for now.  Thanks for the advice guys.

[Lanx]

yea at least if you get a ssd (might want to splurge on 128g, i find 60g, REALLY limiting and i keep good house keeping and have had ssd since 2009, it's vertex2 in raid so it's almost decent) you can move the ssd to your new rebuild, all the other components, are suspect to upgrading aside from ram (if it even is ddr3).

[TheProfosist]

Good point.  I guess I'll wait to do a complete rebuild and I'll just get a SSD for now.  Thanks for the advice guys.

did you manage to get the deal on the 120gb intel?

[WhiteFireDragon]

Many others have said it already, but I'll reiterate it again. Just get an SSD, it's the single most important thing you can upgrade for a speed boost. You'll feel like you have a brand new computer. Just is backup software to make an image of your current hard drive, and put that image on the SDD and you won't lose anything. Some good SSDs mentioned in here:

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=35425.0

[Lanx]

just got this email

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820239045&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL092012&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL092012-_-EMC-092012-Index-_-SSD-_-20239045-L0D
use code EMCNAHN68

basically the newest sandforce controller ssd for 60bucks, i was happy with my ssd myself, but this is so far the best ssd this year (or ever), just purchased one, i'm thinking they'll run out of stock soon.

google for reviews it's all 91% out of 100, or 4.5 out of 5, blah blah.

[ontherx]

That SSD is sold out unfortunately. That would have been a good grab, even though it'd be bottlenecked by your mobo. For your setup, I would look into SATA II drives. I'm pretty sure socket 775 mobo's had the 3gb/s and not 6gb/s of current SATA III. That'll save you some money. It'll still operate faster than a conventional HDD.

As far as a "boot drive" goes, 60gb is sufficient, but not futureproof. Windows will never take up more than that. If you want to start loading up other programs on there, then yes, looking into 100+ is ideal.

Honestly, If I wanted a quick fix on that desktop, and I was strapped for cash, It'd be a SATA II 60g, unless the price difference between SATA II and III is minimal (which it might be, since sata iii SSD's are in a price-war it seems). That's the cheapest option.

To futureproof some, getting a 128+ gb sata iii is a good idea as Lanx was correct in its transferability to future builds. Most of the other hardware you have will be rendered obsolete if you don't want to bottleneck future generation hardware.


As far as Sata III brands go, many positive marks have been given to: Samsung 830, Crucial M4, OCZ Vertex 4 (pre 4th gen OCZ is iffy for QC reasons), Sandisk, Plextor M3, Intel 520/330 etc.

Ultimately I'd start lurking in the "build a pc sales" subreddit. people are pretty good about posting some crazy deals. For instance, getting a 128gb Sata III OCZ Agility 4 for $54.99 with free shipping for my laptop wasn't a hard deal to splurge on. And yes, it makes a huge difference for booting and normal windows applications.

[Internauta]

I have a OCZ Vertex 4 SSD and I love it, perfect for a boot drive after changing a few software settings. If youre going for a SATA III SSD upgrade that mobo first...

[TheProfosist]

SATA III drive can run in SATA II finethey may not be running at full potential but in the case of intel SATA III is actually cheaper also why shouldnt he get a SATA III SSD and use it when he rebuilds.

[ontherx]

I guess "unless the price difference between SATA II and III is minimal (which it might be, since sata iii SSD's are in a price-war it seems)." didnt register

Ultimately, the point is that getting an SSD is the way you should go for the time-being. keep watching prices, as they are easily the most volatile component at the moment.

[snooze2looze]

SSD FTW!

[tinlong117]

I highly recommend a intel G530/G620+H61/B75 mobo+ 8GB DDR3-1333(2GBx4), although the G series CPUs are low end CPUs, they still provide better perfomance and high C/P value if compare with 65nm C2D....
AMD,
I don't recommend any "faildozer" CPUs..Most of them are high consumption....
I will recommend APU if you want to use AMD platform.... It's provide a good graphic performance, in simple words " Althon II x4+HD 6550=APU"..

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

[MonoSky]

Personally, what I really think think you should do is build an i3 system.
They relativity CHEAP. Even more, you can always update to an i7 in the future if you REALLY wanted it.

But if you just want a tiny boost of speed I would say SSD as well

[sloppie]

Asrock z68
i5 2500k
AMD 6870
8GB DDR3 RAM
500W PSU

This setup should allow you to play most game with decent performance.

If you have money, then upgrade your SSD. I personally recommend Crucial M4 SSD. Otherwise, 7200 RPM HDD would do just fine.

[Internetlad]

If you want a quick upgrade for cheap, get an SSD. a 120 can be had for ~100 bucks depending on brand and sale price. Look for Crucial, Corsair or Samsung as brand. OCZ Agility is also good for price/performance but you're taking a chance as they're known to have issues.

That machine, while still relevant, is considered outdated by today's standards. I upgraded my Core 2 Duo e8400 last year.

If you want me to advise you on a brand new build, PM me. I do this for a living so I can get you set up nice.

[ranviper]

Scratch might be a good idea though. Any 1155 board and a 2500k will suit you just fine. Throw a 7850 or a 660ti in there and you should be set. Of course, don't forget to get an SSD and a sata 3 data drive. All those little things make a difference. Oh, and DONT get windows 8

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

Scratch might be a good idea though. Any 1155 board and a 2500k will suit you just fine. Throw a 7850 or a 660ti in there and you should be set. Of course, don't forget to get an SSD and a sata 3 data drive. All those little things make a difference. Oh, and DONT get windows 8

Lol, Windows 7 all the way, baby!

[Internetlad]

I dunno guys win95 is pretty leet

[Malphas]

The anti-Windows 8 BS is uninformed nonsense for the most part.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I dunno guys win95 is pretty leet

Dude, Windows 95 was great...

[Matt3o]

WindowsME FTW! 

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

WindowsME FTW! 

Dear God... not Windows ME...

[Malphas]

I dunno guys win95 is pretty leet

Dude, Windows 95 was great...

That's surely nostalgia talking. It was a pile of **** as far as reliability was concerned, notorious Windows rot and BSODs everywhere. Nice step-up in UI usability and features over 3.1 and DOS though.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

7 > (2000 = XP) > (95 = NT 4.0) > (98SE = Vista) > (98 = ME)

Formula for the best version of Windows...

[Internetlad]

I had 98SE.

S'alright.

[Lanx]

did you look for a ssd? i said previously my 3 year old 60g ssd raid failed, and since i had too much on my plate (wedding/honeymoon) i just grabbed a spare drive i had, i bought that 120gb deal and cloned it using easeus partition (or something like that, it was free and worked great), and the difference is night and day!

[Internetlad]

yeah the "feeling" of a quality SSD vs a crap SSD is incredible. Comparing crucial M4's (which are good but not even the "enthusiast" tier) to the sandisk entry level junk, I would have pegged the sandisk for being a WD Blue HDD tbh.

[TheProfosist]

Know what you mean my first ssd was a transcend 32g ends up its now slower than a flash drive.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

did you look for a ssd? i said previously my 3 year old 60g ssd raid failed, and since i had too much on my plate (wedding/honeymoon) i just grabbed a spare drive i had, i bought that 120gb deal and cloned it using easeus partition (or something like that, it was free and worked great), and the difference is night and day!

I have indeed been looking for a SSD, but I have yet to purchase one.  Most likely I will buy one within the upcoming weeks, seeing as how I'm starting to get annoyed with my computer's slow startup times and degrading performance.  If I don't get one next week, I'll save up enough money to get a nice 256GB SSD.  I don't think a 120GB would be big enough to fit all the programs I have onto it...

[TheProfosist]

A 120gb is surprisingly large i fit a adobe collection and visual studio 2010 on mine with room to spare.

[Lanx]

120 is pretty huge, i mean i admit with 60g i was struggling and with everquest2 installed (reason why i got it 4 years ago) i was constantly monitoring my space. But with microsoft office, a lot of applications and a steam game here and there, i got 50g to spare.

if you do game a lot and keep all your games installed, then yea maybe a 256gb would be one to get, but seeing as how the difference between having a ssd is like night and day (it really is the difference like 10 years ago when you had 256mb of ram using windows xp then putting in 2gigs, or upgrading from a 486 to a pentium2)

the ssd market is so volatile, i mean it's one a constant decline in terms of price, but we all saw what a force of nature can do to hdd prices.

[Internetlad]

i'm going to jump on the "120 gb is bigger than you think" bandwagon

I have several games including TF2, CIV V with expansions, XCom, Alan Wake and other full games on a windows 7 install.

With clever management, you can fit quite a bit on a 120 GB. I think people just assume 120 is small because the average HDD is 500GB-2TB nowadays, when realistically, unless you plan to never delete anything, you don't need that much space.

And, hey! Worst case scenario, down the road you can spend 50 bucks on a 500 gig "cold data" drive for pictures, music, videos. . . "adult entertainment". . .

etc.

[Larken]

Sandisk ain't that bad, granted I only use one for a slave drive for games. I'll cast my vote for the crucial m4, which I use solely for the OS and work programs. With the office suite, some adobe stuff and a plethora of other media related software and installing windows updates as they appear (I mention the updates mainly due to the fact that your windows installation will just get bigger over time), I'm hitting about 70gb usage, and this is without any games on the ssd.

another 50gb is actually more than enough for my games, except that Steam is evil and I tend to be lazy on the whole space management thing - which is why i got another 240gb sandisk for solely games alone (when you play mmos which you might or might not get back to, each installation ranges from 15gb to 30gb). The sandisk does fine for benchmarks and as a slave drive, but I wouldn't touch anything sandforce for my system disk. I probably just being biased, but I prefer my system to be stable over blazing fast - thus the m4. (was using an intel g2 previously, and have since then retired it to my 6 year old macbook).

[Internetlad]

Sandisk ain't that bad

I believe the Sandisk Extreme would be a solid choice, but I was using the el cheapo sandisk 64GB drive.