Looking to upgrade my computer

[MaithuRuadh]

I built my own computer several years ago, and while it was never anything special, it has served me well. I play just Skyrim on it now, as far as games go, so I'm looking for some advice on upgrading -- on a budget (as I'm sure you guys have heard many times).

 

I have:

ASUS P5ND2-SLI board

Intel Celeron D 352 3.20Ghz CPU

Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT

Antec 500W PSU

4GB RAM

Windows XP (I know ...)

 

Going from there, I'm the usual low-on-cash guy looking for a good, but not bank-breaking upgrade. Skyrim runs pretty well on my system on medium settings (aside from the 6-8 minute wait to get to the main menu on startup and the random freeze-ups). I never really have any FPS problems or stuttering, even in dragon combat.

 

I'm not interested in overclocking the CPU or running Skyrim on ultra -- just trying to get the game to run smoothly on standard settings.

- I've had my eye on the ASRock z77 Extreme4 board, although I've heard it might be superfluous for someone not planning on overclocking. It's right in my price range, though.
- Quad core CPUs seem to be way out of my price range. Is there anything decent for $100 or so?

- Any recommendations for a decent graphics card, again in the $100 or less range?

- Hopefully at least upgrading to Windows 7 in the near future.

Thanks for any help you can offer.

Edited March 4, 2014 by Maithu_Ruadh

[Rennn]

That's too much on a motherboard given your budget, generally you want to spend half as much on a mobo as you do on a video card. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157304

You will *probably* need a quad core to run new games efficiently, dual cores just aren't cut out for gaming anymore. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116782

This is a cheaper CPU option with ofc lower performance, but still should be a massive upgrade over yours. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116773&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&PageSize=10&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&IsFeedbackTab=true#scrollFullInfo

There are couple video card options that will run games well enough on high settings (depending on the game).

Cheaper: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127725

Faster: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125502

 

Get the cheaper options, and you could still easily increase your performance by 200%.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Rennn

[FMod]

Your case sounds like a recipe for an AMD system.

I have nothing against Intel's engineering divisions, they make good products, but they're firmly in the business of charging a lot for not too much.

 

Rennn suggests you get a dual-core... Is that a reasonable option? For right now, yes. To get by till '15 or '16, when you buy a real CPU, yes. If your upgrade will be delayed for longer, no. If you're not just short on cash in your wallet right now, but looking to keep your electronics budget down, hell no. Dual-cores are obsolete already, even if still good for older games, and they will only get worse as years go by.

 

I'll need an exact budget to suggest the exact optimal upgrades. Don't say "$100 CPU, $100 GPU, $100 mobo", that's naivete, not a budget. All you need is maximum performance in the end, what to spend on every particular part is a means, not an end. So do you have $250 or $350 or $450 or what.

 

 

 

 

- Hopefully at least upgrading to Windows 7 in the near future.

I'd suggest to pass on it so far, but security support for XP will be cut off too soon. Anyway, don't think of it as much of an "upgrade".

 

Myself, I plan to get another SSD and install XP on it in a few days - deleted my old copy a while back - because as a gaming system it's just plain better at every single thing aside from DX11 support. Better sound, more video options, better compatibility, it just runs more games and runs many of them better than w7 or w8 do.

[Rennn]

Your case sounds like a recipe for an AMD system.

I have nothing against Intel's engineering divisions, they make good products, but they're firmly in the business of charging a lot for not too much.

 

Rennn suggests you get a dual-core... Is that a reasonable option? For right now, yes. To get by till '15 or '16, when you buy a real CPU, yes. If your upgrade will be delayed for longer, no. If you're not just short on cash in your wallet right now, but looking to keep your electronics budget down, hell no. Dual-cores are obsolete already, even if still good for older games, and they will only get worse as years go by.

 

I'll need an exact budget to suggest the exact optimal upgrades. Don't say "$100 CPU, $100 GPU, $100 mobo", that's naivete, not a budget. All you need is maximum performance in the end, what to spend on every particular part is a means, not an end. So do you have $250 or $350 or $450 or what.

 

 

 

 

- Hopefully at least upgrading to Windows 7 in the near future.

I'd suggest to pass on it so far, but security support for XP will be cut off too soon. Anyway, don't think of it as much of an "upgrade".

 

AMD really might be the better choice of CPU for him. Intel CPUs will beat them in core-per-core performance, but at the $100 price limit (or thereabouts) Intel doesn't have any good multicore offerings, which will be required in the months or years to come. I didn't recommend AMD initially since his choice of motherboard indicated he was looking for an Intel CPU.

 

For example, if he went with these instead:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113286

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130637

http://www.amazon.com/EVGA-Superclocked-Dual-Link-Graphics-01G-P4-2753-KR/dp/B00IDG3LUO/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1394001381&sr=8-6&keywords=gtx+750+TI

 

He'd have a pretty nice gaming rig for $330, really. Significantly stronger than the same-priced Intel build.

 

As for expenses, I usually find that it works best to spend the same amount on a CPU and GPU, and half that much on a motherboard and RAM. And it's always a good idea to get as good of a monitor as possible. Every video card draws perfect colors in true to life accuracy and clarity. Using a bad monitor just handicaps the image quality that your GPU is already drawing.

So there are no universal rules for what to pay, obviously some $200 cards are better than some $350 cards. But as a rule of thumb, I find that works pretty well.

 

However, his RAM is likely DDR2 on that mobo and probably old... That might need to be replaced as well since I don't remember for sure, but I don't think DDR3 slots are backwards compatible. If it does have to be replaced, I nominate this single stick of 4GB instead of 2x2, because a single stick will leave more room for RAM expansion later.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231313

 

Whatever Maithu decides, I don't think he'll find a better video card near the $100 range than an EVGA GTX 750 SC. It barely even draws more power than his old 9600.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Rennn

[Werne]

As for expenses, I usually find that it works best to spend the same amount on a CPU and GPU, and half that much on a motherboard and RAM.

Which is why you run a decent CPU with a crappy board. :tongue: Cheap RAM vs expensive RAM makes practically no difference in games (2-3FPS at best on high-end machines, 0-1FPS on anything else, except in F1) so OP can cheap-out on that.

 

Anyway, expenses should have some form of balance, you don't buy a $55 board for a $110 CPU, especially when that CPU draws over 100W. FYI, TDP is not power draw, 8-core Vishera draw up to 160W with a 125W TDP, old Bulldozer drew nearly 200W with a 125W TDP. I use a $110 8+2 board with a $160 CPU which I consider balance, and balance means I'm 100% sure my board won't blow up and take the rest of my PC with it.

 

As for that MSI board you linked there, it's a low-end 4+1 piece of crap but at least it has a VRM heatsink so it'll do for a 95W chip (as long as OP doesn't even consider overclocking, otherwise kaboom goes the PC). I'd also drop the voltage on the CPU as low as it can go after setting up the machine, those 4+1 boards aren't too great with FX-series CPUs in them and undervolting makes the CPU/board run cooler while not dropping performance one bit (it may actually increase performance by eliminating VRM/CPU thermal throttling, it'll likely increase the board's lifespan greatly too).

 

Whatever Maithu decides, I don't think he'll find a better video card near the $100 range than an EVGA GTX 750 SC.

Nope, the Sapphire 7850 is on discount for $135 on Newegg, $5 more than that 750 SC while outperforming it by ~40% (by the way, large GPU-only OC on 750, like on that SC, doesn't scale too well into gaming performance, but that's another story entirely).

 

If OP can spare the money, that 7850 would be by far the best choice for the price point.

 

EDIT: Damn, that 7850 went out of stock while I was writing the post. :sad:

Edited March 5, 2014 by Werne

[Rennn]

 

Whatever Maithu decides, I don't think he'll find a better video card near the $100 range than an EVGA GTX 750 SC.

Nope, the Sapphire 7850 is on discount for $135 on Newegg, $5 more than that 750 SC while outperforming it by ~40% (by the way, large GPU-only OC on 750, like on that SC, doesn't scale too well into gaming performance, but that's another story entirely).

 

If OP can spare the money, that 7850 would be by far the best choice for the price point.

 

EDIT: Damn, that 7850 went out of stock while I was writing the post. :sad:

 

 

it was open-box anyway. If we weren't going for new cards I could have found something a lot cheaper...

[Rennn]

 

As for expenses, I usually find that it works best to spend the same amount on a CPU and GPU, and half that much on a motherboard and RAM.

Which is why you run a decent CPU with a crappy board. :tongue: Cheap RAM vs expensive RAM makes practically no difference in games (2-3FPS at best on high-end machines, 0-1FPS on anything else, except in F1) so OP can cheap-out on that.

 

 

Hold on, my CPU is not decent. XD Any random i3 outperforms it core-per-core. Hell, even a low-end Core2Quad outperforms it. This is a Phenom II 955 stock, not a black edition and not a 965. The performance of the 4x 955s is absymal. However, you're right that my ratio doesn't work so well past a certain threshold. Decent $100 CPUs exist, but a $50 motherboard is often a time-bomb. Similarly, $1000 graphics cards exist, but a $500 motherboard would be a complete waste. My guideline works within the $150-$700 range. :3

 

Anyway, the board I linked has a negligible fail rate, I wouldn't call it crappy if 97% of the people who buy it leave glowing feedback.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Rennn

[Werne]

Hold on, my CPU is not decent. XD Any random i3 outperforms it core-per-core. Hell, even a low-end Core2Quad outperforms it.

Yet it ties with i3 3220 when all 4 threads are used, which is what most games nowadays use. And it outperforms low-end C2Qs, only mid-range/high-end C2Qs are faster. Performance per core (aka, IPC) is important for single-threaded software, anything that uses 4 cores like modern games will run roughly the same on that Phenom of yours as it does on an i3 cause it's a pseudo-quad-core (dual-core with HT). As far as I hear from people who still have those, overclocked C2Q and Phenom II CPUs are still decent for playing games, won't do Crysis 3 on ultra at 60FPS but it'll at least be playable on medium/high (for ultra you're looking at FX 83xx or IB/Haswell i7, even i5 4670K at 4.4GHz can't keep up with C3 ultra without dips, don't know why I'm saying this though).

 

Not to mention that on a decent board with decent cooling you can have solid gains through overclocking on your CPU, Black Edition Phenoms only have an unlocked multiplier but non-BE ones can still be overcloked through FSB/BCLK tweaking, think 20-30% depending on the chip, how high you can drive the FSB and how well you can tweak your RAM. Those with BE Phenoms often combine FSB and multiplier for more precise frequency tweaking and higher gains in different departments (like RAM/NB/HT Link, etc). AMD systems don't suffer the same problem Intel does on 1155/1150 when changing BCLK so basically any AMD CPU can be overclocked as long as you know what you're doing (playing with BCLK on 1155/1150 can result in nasty stuff all around).

 

You have a problem with overclocking though - your board is dying with CPU on stock, which brings us back to that price balance talk.

 

However, you're right that my ratio doesn't work so well past a certain threshold. Decent $100 CPUs exist, but a $50 motherboard is often a time-bomb.

More expensive boards are sometimes timebombs too. Besides, price doesn't dictate quality, just look at H87 vs Z87 boards - a lot of those are the same damn thing with Z87 having a fully unlocked chipset (aka, allows overclocking) and a higher price. And then everyone with a locked CPU wants a Z87 cause H87 is "crap". :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, the board I linked has a negligible fail rate, I wouldn't call it crappy if 97% of the people who buy it leave glowing feedback.

Yeah, but those reviews are written after a week or two, and I'm not talking about the board dying after a week or a month, I'm talking a year or two, your board didn't start giving out after a week/month either. The reviews are good though, I've even seen some overclocks there on FX 6300, still in the safe zone (4.3GHz or so) but they're overclocks. As I said, that 4+1 board is good for a 95W chip if OP won't overclock (he said he wouldn't). It has a VRM heatsink and supposedly supports 125W chips, though I wouldn't try putting a Phenom II or 8320/8350 in that thing.

 

If in a year or two/three OP decides to take advantage of an unlocked CPU to OC and boost his performance he'll need a better board for any serious result. That mobo you linked could go maybe +0.050V over stock VCore (active VRM cooling being a must) without permanent damage, anything above that can result in an untimely electronic barbecue cause the board is not designed to have that much power being pumped through it.

 

That's why I mentioned the board isn't that great, OP may have said he won't overclock but so did I and after a week I was at 4.5GHz, the difference being that I have a board capable of handling it. There's just something about unlocked CPUs that makes you go "Whee, I wanna fiddle with it!", though it may be just me that feels that way. :unsure:

Edited March 5, 2014 by Werne

[Rennn]

 

Hold on, my CPU is not decent. XD Any random i3 outperforms it core-per-core. Hell, even a low-end Core2Quad outperforms it.

Yet it ties with i3 3220 when all 4 threads are used, which is what most games nowadays use. And it outperforms low-end C2Qs, only mid-range/high-end C2Qs are faster. Performance per core (aka, IPC) is important for single-threaded software, anything that uses 4 cores like modern games will run roughly the same on that Phenom of yours as it does on an i3 cause it's a pseudo-quad-core (dual-core with HT). As far as I hear from people who still have those, overclocked C2Q and Phenom II CPUs are still decent for playing games, won't do Crysis 3 on ultra at 60FPS but it'll at least be playable on medium/high (for ultra you're looking at FX 83xx or IB/Haswell i7, even i5 4670K at 4.4GHz can't keep up with C3 ultra without dips, don't know why I'm saying this though).

 

You have a problem with overclocking though - your board is dying with CPU on stock, which brings us back to that price balance talk.

 

Anyway, the board I linked has a negligible fail rate, I wouldn't call it crappy if 97% of the people who buy it leave glowing feedback.

Yeah, but those reviews are written after a week or two, and I'm not talking about the board dying after a week or a month, I'm talking a year or two, your board didn't start giving out after a week/month either. The reviews are good though, I've even seen some overclocks there on FX 6300, still in the safe zone (4.3GHz or so) but they're overclocks. As I said, that 4+1 board is good for a 95W chip if OP won't overclock (he said he wouldn't). It has a VRM heatsink and supposedly supports 125W chips, though I wouldn't try putting a Phenom II or 8320/8350 in that thing.

 

That's why I mentioned the board isn't that great, OP may have said he won't overclock but so did I and after a week I was at 4.5GHz, the difference being that I have a board capable of handling it. There's just something about unlocked CPUs that makes you go "Whee, I wanna fiddle with it!", though it may be just me that feels that way. :unsure:

 

 

The main problem is, I really don't care if I can get Crysis 3 on high settings, because I don't play it. Many of the games I *do* have are heavily CPU oriented and only optimized for 2 or 3 cores, so I don't consider a CPU 'good' unless it has solid core-per-core performance and multithreaded performance, which my Phenom II lacks. It's also very disheartening to see the minimum required specs on certain games list a Phenom II x4 as equivalent (in that game) to a Core2Duo...

 

Anyway, my motherboard is failing (which I most likely have confirmed now, as memtest turns up no errors) because of relative stupidity on my part, not because the motherboard was faulty. And it's a micro ATX model known to be bargain bin material... If he doesn't overclock, the chances of his failing are virtually nonexistent. I see the point you're making, but it doesn't seem cost efficient to plan on overclocking when he already said he wouldn't, and when the FX-6300 at stock speeds will already outperform his old CPU by like 200% core-per-core (and even higher multithreaded).

 

The OP doesn't seem terribly interested in pushing graphics to their limits on ultra...

[MaithuRuadh]

Thanks, gentlemen. The original Intel board I was considering, I'll admit, was because of the good rating from Newegg. I've been out of the loop for a long while on hardware, so I assumed most good boards are around $100 these days. I'd say $330 or less would be my budget for board + CPU + GPU.

 

But it definitely sounds like the AMD setup will get me the best production for the money. The AMD processor looks great. I didn't realize they came with their own cooling fan. I have a pretty nice (by 2006 standards) fan on my current CPU, but I wasn't sure if was compatible with non-socket 775 boards. Any recommendations for a non-"piece of crap" AMD board? Like I said, I don't really play around much with the processor ... in fact, I'm not ever sure how to go about changing its settings.

 

That's really reassuring about Windows XP, though. I was afraid with all the newest technology, XP would be horribly incompatible. Nice to know it's better, at least for gaming, than the later Windows.