Upgrading Desktop PC

LAustin316 on 09/05/2013 - 06:48

Hi ppl,

My desktop is almost 5 years old and i reckon its time for some upgrade. Below are the hardware details:

  • Mainboard : Gigabyte EP45-DS3
  • Chipset : Intel P45
  • Processor : Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2666 MHz
  • Physical Memory : 8192 MB (4 x 2048 DDR2-SDRAM )
  • Video Card : ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series (Microsoft Corporation WDDM 1.1)
  • Hard Disk : SAMSUNG HD753LJ ATA Device (750GB)
  • DVD-Rom Drive : HL-DT-ST DVDRAM GH24NS70
  • Monitor Type : Acer Acer P241W - 24 inches

I would appreciate if you could suggest some worthy upgrades (below $1000) that could significantly improve the performance of the PC. I'm not a gamer but I do use autocad and adobe once in a while.
Thanks in advance.

Computing

Comments

  • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 07:10
    +1

    Just get an SSD for your OS and apps. Anything will do, but the Samsung 840 is good value right now:

    http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&c…
    http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&c…

    Edit: Also you didn't mention your OS, but consider upgrading that particularly if you are on 32 bit.

  • munted on 09/05/2013 - 07:26

    Are you able to work on a PC yourself? For $1000 you could really just build or buy a new PC.

  • Oofy Doofy on 09/05/2013 - 07:46
    +1

    Don't make a new computer, what you've got is fine unless you're trying to play games at uber settings or something. As stated above, an SSD (use your current hdd as storage) and perhaps upgrading your videocard to a PowerColor Radeon HD7870 2GB Myst Edition (best value) http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&c… would be the best bet.

    • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 08:44
      +1

      Only difference the video card will make is games or if you are doing some serious 3D modelling. Also although that video card is great value for games, it really isn't good value for someone who won't play games.

  • Austin316 on 09/05/2013 - 08:52

    Thanks for the comments guys. Yes, i think i will go ahead and purchase the SSD drive. Will it really make a difference in speed?
    What about the CPU? Do you think its worth an upgrade?
    At the moment, the graphic card works alright with autocad and photoshop. Do you think PowerColor Radeon HD7870 2GB Myst Edition (as suggested by Bamboozle) will really make much difference?

    • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 08:59
      +2

      It will make a huge difference in the 'feel' of the system. How this works is - if you tell your system to calculate pi to 2034839849 decimal places it won't really help. But if you close word then decide that was a mistake and reopen it, then change your mind and run excel this will all be much more responsive. Boot time and running starting programs and opening documents will all be greatly improved.

      Your CPU is very good. For most tasks a better CPU will make no difference (how often do you calculate pi?).

      As I mentioned above the video card will mostly only help with games. If you use solidedge or other CAM packages a lot it will help, but that card is really not designed for this purpose.

      • SHPION on 09/05/2013 - 09:08
        +1

        Or you can dig bitcoins. )))
        (just a joke! not an advice! not worth it!)

      • Austin316 on 09/05/2013 - 10:55

        Thanks. Glad i came here first without blindly going for the upgrade.

    • SHPION on 09/05/2013 - 09:03
      -8

      SSD is waste of money for desktop. It's fast but does it really mater if Autocad will start in 15 seconds instead of 40? Is it worth it? Or you can build HUGE Raid for that money with same performance.

      You need new gfx card only for games. If you are not hard core gamer, all you feel is very small difference in performance in Autocad and PhotoShop (lets say hard operation would take 50% less time - 10 sec instead 20)

      The best you can do just put 16GB RAM (max for your MB). It will be more noticeable in overall performance then SSD or fancy gfx.

      FYI: HD7870 requires 500W, 600W to perform really good. +$150 for decent PSU.
      PS: If you like to consider SSD, forget about Samsung 840 - it's crap. Get 840 Pro. (Or 830 Pro if you manage to find it)

      • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 09:14
        +10

        I've disputed the rest of your unfounded claims elsewhere, so let me just add:

        You need new gfx card only for games. If you are not hard core gamer, all you feel is very small difference in performance in Autocad and PhotoShop (lets say hard operation would take 50% less time - 10 sec instead 20)

        Doesn't work like that these types of operations are typically CPU/IO bound, so an SSD will help more. GPU might help on the split second updates when moving a lot around the screen, but these days anything is fast enough for this.

        The best you can do just put 16GB RAM (max for your MB).

        Won't make much differnce at all. Almost all apps are limited to 4GB (assuming you are running 64 bit Windows). If you have 64 bit AutoCAD it can use more, but really doesn't need it anyway.

        D7870 requires 500W, 600W to perform really good.

        The rated power of the PSU will make no difference to performance.

        Edit: It never ends!

        PS: If you like to consider SSD, forget about Samsung 840 - it's crap. Get 840 Pro. (Or 830 Pro if you manage to find it)

        Duifference is marginal for most uses. Main reason to go for the Pro is lifetime, not speed, and there are most cost effective options if you want a higher end product than the 840 Pro anyway.

      • soulink on 09/05/2013 - 16:43
        +5

        If you think just max out your ram to 16GB will increase speed overall more than ssd or video card, im sorry but you need to not give advice..

      • SydStrand on 10/05/2013 - 17:00

        One of the worst pieces of advice I've ever seen. Thankfully others corrected you in time before the OP could have gotten any ideas.

  • SHPION on 09/05/2013 - 08:52
    -8

    Very good but old configuration. It was real monster 5 years ago, so I think you would like to have something comparable today. Having 1K for upgrade you may build a decent system.

    I would strictly recommend to build a new one.

    SSD is fine but it's not a magic stick and it's pretty silly to see SSD in desktops. Simple RAID-0 would be much cheaper (per GB) and provide comparable performance in 99% of time without sacrificing in capacity.

    Your current MB was really great 5 years ago, but its ridiculous to put $300+ PCIE v3.0 on this MB. You might consider to put 2x Radeon HD7750 - your MB (2 PCIE v2.0 x16 slots) is very good for this and it's even cheaper and having same performance as $300+ card. But you deserve (and can afford) something better.

    With SSD (in desktop = lol) and new fancy gfx your PC may last for year or two, but it won't be enjoyable as before.

    Or you can keep monitor, dvd-rom (dvd-rw or BR-rw if you like) and HDD (for photos) and build a new monster. Something like i5 (or even i7), 32GB, HD7870, 2(or 3-4)x3TB RAID-0, 1000W and enjoy it for another 5 years)))

    • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 09:08
      +7

      SSD is fine but it's not a magic stick and it's pretty silly to see SSD in desktops.

      What? SSDs are fast, small, light, quiet and low power. What part of that is silly?

      Simple RAID-0 would be much cheaper (per GB) and provide comparable performance in 99% of time without sacrificing in capacity.

      1: RAID0 is not 'simple' as it should be under windows in my experience.

      2: Cost per GB is a broken measure as not all of your storage needs to be high speed (media can stay on the magnetic drives).

      3: I am really not sure how you come to that comparable performance claim, care to elaborate?

      4: The reliability of the RAID0 system would be terrible.

      5: Power usage, noise, heat and weight will all be increased.

      6: Case and/or power supply may need upgrades.

      Your current MB was really great 5 years ago, but its ridiculous to put $300+ PCIE v3.0 on this MB.

      Why? Apart from the fact that the OP has no need for such a GPU, they actually work very well on older motherboard, do some research.

      2x Radeon HD7750 … even cheaper and having same performance as $300+ card.

      What? Care to back that up? (not that it matters to the OP)

      But you deserve (and can afford) something better.

      Huh?

      • SHPION on 09/05/2013 - 09:21
        -6

        "Care to back that up?"
        No.
        I won't argue.
        I'm just sharing my own experience.
        If you willing to believe that SSD is wonder - it's you choice and it's wonder for you.

        • SydStrand on 10/05/2013 - 17:04
          +1

          "No.
          I won't argue."

          This isn't a matter of opinion, it's fact. Any computer will seem 'fine' in a vacuum but your set-up will still get destroyed in benchmarks and side-by-side performance because you've maxed out features that are completely wasted like RAM and refuse to pick SSD because it's 'more expensive per GB' when it's probably the single most noticeable upgrade one can make.

    • Oofy Doofy on 09/05/2013 - 09:10
      +2

      *REPLY TO SHPION

      You're adding complexity with no need.

      While RAID may be good, SSD's are cheap now and just a single one for the OS will do wonders. Nice and simple.

      Videocard, again… just a single card. Hell, you probably don't even need the card I mentioned, but it's the best bang for your buck with plenty of grunt left to do other things.

      Replacing a computer unnecessarily is a waste, consumerist 'upgrade/throw away' mentality at it's finest.

      Use it until it breaks and it's uneconomical to repair, then take it to e-waste. (or way out of date and you want it to be more practical for work/gaming etc if you're that way inclined)

      • SHPION on 09/05/2013 - 09:34
        -6

        Well I see your point and you are right. But it doesn't make me wrong. We are adepts of different "religions" )))

        Replacing gfx and putting SSD is simple solution, but I see it as waste of money because neither of them would perform even close to 50%.

        I prefer balanced system without bottleneck(s). I like to enjoy and I can afford it.
        Well, it IS kind of consumerism.
        But it a matter of convictions to decide what is worse: having expensive components not performing for its money (because of unbalanced system) or having expensive system performing on full throttle but not repaying it self before being replaced.

        For myself, having bottlenecks in system is waste of money.

        • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 10:05
          +3

          I completely agree with the bottlenecks argument, which is why the SSD is a solid option. Everything else you are saying is just 'this whole system is a bottleneck because it is old', which is demonstratably false.

        • evol on 09/05/2013 - 12:36
          +3

          Well I see your point and you are right. But it doesn't make me wrong. We are adepts of different "religions" )))

          Nope you're wrong.

          I prefer balanced system without bottleneck(s).

          Says the guy that suggested adding 2 x 7750 cards further up.

          I like to enjoy and I can afford it.

          E-peen bragging lulz. Just because you can afford it doesn't mean that it's performance and cost effective.

          For myself, having bottlenecks in system is waste of money.

          Derp, contradicting yourself again. Mechanical hard drives have been the biggest bottleneck in computer systems from the very start. Yes RAID is cost effective from a space perspective, but the mechanical bottleneck is still present. Mechanical access/seek times actually get even worse when in RAID configurations.

          Simple RAID-0 would be much cheaper (per GB) and provide comparable performance in 99% of time without sacrificing in capacity.

          Going from mechanical to solid state = going from a ~15ms to a 0.1ms random access seek time. This is a 10^2 factor performance improvement - you will not get a bigger factor of improvement from any other single part upgrade in a computer system. Last I checked, 15ms compared to 0.1ms is not "99% comparable performance".

          Something like i5 (or even i7), 32GB, HD7870, 2(or 3-4)x3TB RAID-0, 1000W and enjoy it for another 5 years)))

          Yawn, the uneducated, overkill spec sheet epeen bragger type is strong with this one.

        • SydStrand on 10/05/2013 - 17:10
          +1

          Block-quote Well I see your point and you are right. But it doesn't make me wrong. We are adepts of different "religions"

          No, you're simply wrong and attempting to change the debate into 'opposite but equal' is false equivalence. This isn't a matter of philosophy, people can quantify differences in computing and you'll lose almost every time. If you want to say your 'religion' is defined as "spend as much money on RAM as possible, bottleneck everything else and have the worst $:Performance set-up on the planet" then you'll take gold.

    • evol on 09/05/2013 - 12:14
      +1

      lol SHPION's solution is essentially - "it's old therefore it's crap, therefore build a new one with ridiculously unnecessary specs so you can enlarge your e-peen and pretend you know what you're doing (like I do)".

  • Frig on 09/05/2013 - 09:08
    +1

    "I'm not a gamer but I do use autocad"
    I would get a Nvidia graphics card as opposed to the AMD the Nvidia with its CUDA cores will be of more benefit and stabler for Autocad. You don't need anything over the top.

    Something like this Gigabyte GTX650ti for $129 is a bargain at the moment http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&c…
    If you go higher or lower I'd recommend a Gigabyte or Sapphire NVidia card

    Also, get a SSD. a 128GB will be plenty and use your HDD for storage.
    Look for Samsung 840Pro , Intel , Crucial, Sandisk Extreme or Plextor. All should be around $95-130

    • _Bruce_ on 09/05/2013 - 09:18
      +2

      The latest version of AutoCAD supports OpenCL, so it doesn't matter much what you get. It also doesn't matter much because AutoCAD really isn't that demanding.

  • Austin316 on 09/05/2013 - 10:50
    +3

    Thanks for all your comments.
    I've decided to go ahead with the samsung 840 pro 128 GB SSD drive ($135 from MSY). The description says sata III, will it work on my desktop?

    • evol on 09/05/2013 - 12:07
      +3

      It will work plenty fine. Just a tad slower (nothing noticeable in the real world though unless you're a benchmark addict) for read/write bursts as it will be slightly capped by SATA II throughput limitation .

      SSD is the most cost effective performance booster IMO. Most noticeable too. Let us know how the upgrade goes! :)

  • skyva on 10/05/2013 - 00:06
    +1

    I am running an ep45 motherboard with a ssd. It was worth the upgrade to a ssd from a good wd drive. I keep only the OS and a couple of programs that need to be fast on the ssd. The rest is on 2tb drives which are cheap as chips right now.

    Now you have ssd, the next easy upgrade is a good video card. For real grunt I would go either a 670 or a 7970, for under $400.

    I am waiting for next gen intel i5 not because it will be faster but because it will use less power (but yes it will be faster as well). A new motherboard will be much faster to boot and shut down on win 7, as it doesn't go though bios for 10 seconds before windows. New motherboard will require new ram and cpu, so you can get modern with 3 parts, the vid card and ssd will transfer easily.

    I would get a nice vid card now if you want an immediate improvement and save for new motherboard, vid card and ram when haswell chips become readily available.

    And do not do raid or listen to SPHION unless you have way too much cash and are happy to have your system offline for days whilst you fix it.

    • _Bruce_ on 10/05/2013 - 07:14

      Video cards are discussed above, why do you think this will help? Specifically the cards you mention.

    • scrimshaw on 11/05/2013 - 14:03
      +1

      Assuming that the OP even uses the 3d capabilities of Autocad, at the very most he would only need a 660. Anything higher is essentially a waste of money as you get diminishing returns in Autocard 3d performance.

      But given that he's running a 4800 series AMD gpu, a GPU upgrade would make little visible difference to any sort of rendering work. Look at the charts.

  • ethereal88 on 10/05/2013 - 08:09
    -2

    Chuck it. Tom's Hardware did benchmarks here against old Core 2 Quad's and Ivy Bridge:

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-york…

    They got smashed. Haswell is in three weeks. It will easily be 50% faster than your current antiquated setup and use vastly less power. And Bruce, that link also shows dual cores are rubbish for modern gaming. Look at those gaming benchmarks.

    • _Bruce_ on 10/05/2013 - 08:57
      +2

      They got smashed.

      From the article you linked:

      Older quad-core processors like the Core 2 Quad Q9550 still pack a decent punch, even besting the new Ivy Bridge-based Core i3-3225 in a few of our benchmarked applications.

      In short, if you already have a high-clocked Core 2 Quad, then Core i3 is not worth upgrading to based on performance alone.

      In the end, we're impressed by the staying power of Intel's Core 2 architecture

      While the company clearly made big improvements to threaded performance, memory bandwidth, efficiency, and value-added features, it's a little disappointing that an overclocked Core 2 Duo from four or five years ago can match or beat today's best dual-core offerings.

      And on Dual core gaming:

      Can we still recommend dual-core processors for gaming? At the most, we'd do so with reservations, and only after considering the prominence of gaming in your life, build goals, and the availability of other options. Locked ratio multipliers and the ability to execute two threads concurrently are both major strikes against Ivy Bridge-based Pentiums.

      Note: hit is talking about dual thread pentiums not hyperthreaded i3s.

      For this story, I purposely picked a brutal batch of games to expose any weaknesses these budget-oriented chips might have

      However, it's rare that an Ivy Bridge-based Pentium falls short of playability.

      Given the right purpose and budget, I could argue that there is no better gaming CPU than a G1610 or G2020.

      Are you able to read?

  • [Deactivated] on 11/05/2013 - 08:16

    Just remember that after you buy an SSD you'll need to put Windows, your most used applications and media files you are working on, on the drive. For example Microsoft Word and pretty much all Adobe applications that edit movies, music and pictures should all be on there. If the files you're working on aren't on the drive then you won't be getting much of a performance boost. If the application is on the drive then it will load the application faster but if the files you're working on aren't on there then it will still run slowly.

    • _Bruce_ on 11/05/2013 - 09:02
      +2

      If the files you're working on aren't on the drive then you won't be getting much of a performance boost. If the application is on the drive then it will load the application faster but if the files you're working on aren't on there then it will still run slowly.

      This isn't really true. The bulk of 'loading' in most applications is the application itself and libraries, not the file your are editing. The file you are editing is (usually) loaded straight to RAM so apart from the initial file open time there will be little difference here.

  • ddxsamx on 11/05/2013 - 09:59
    +2

    As mentioned, SSD is the best upgrade! OP, I'm still running a Q6600 with an intel x25m SSD (old school SSD) and it has to be the best upgrade ever :)

  • Frig on 11/05/2013 - 10:49

    Voolish " if the files you're working on aren't on there then it will still run slowly"

    This is true to a point but it depends how you use the files. Like Bruce said, if you are editing just 1 file, once it loads into memory it doesn't rely on the drive anymore. What I do is if I am editing say, 50 photos in a row, what I'll do is put them on the SSD from my camera in a working folder and then blitz through them (not having to wait long for each 30MB photo to load when I move to the next one) and once done transfer them in a batch to the storage drive.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join