Need to speed up wife's computer

[Hubb1e]

Ok, great suggestions above to get that screen shot before making purchases.

Wow, you are out of RAM, my friend.

Look, you know you need to reinstall the OS, you need a new motherboard, you need at least 8GB of RAM, and yes, you should probably have an SSD.

Now, since you're doing all of this, I suggest you just start over with an i3-3220. I just can't recommend you spend money on a new AMD motherboard simply to use your old, somewhat slow cpu again. Seems like a missed opportunity, given how much you're spending and the hassle of rebuilding the whole system from scratch.

Plus, this way, you might be able to repurpose or sell the old system.

If he had a use for the old motherboard cpu and ram or if he feels comfortable selling it then starting over could make sense but going back to a dual core in this use case sounds like a step back. Quad core i5 or a8 5600k would be my recommendation.

 

[Termie]

If he had a use for the old motherboard cpu and ram or if he feels comfortable selling it then starting over could make sense but going back to a dual core in this use case sounds like a step back. Quad core i5 or a8 5600k would be my recommendation.

Not necessarily. The per core performance of an i3-3220 is much higher than his Athlon quad, on the order of 100%, and about 50% faster than a 5600k as well. His wife's usage pattern is barely what I'd call multi-tasking. Web surfing, internet video streaming, and emails are very much single-threaded tasks, and even if she switches back and forth quickly, the pure speed of Ivy Bridge, combined with hyperthreading, will more than match any AMD processor, including the FX8350, assuming this usage pattern remains the same. Of course, an Intel quad would be ideal, but it's much more expensive.

Benchmarks: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/122?vs=677

 

[Hubb1e]

Ok, but there's also nothing wrong with an AthlonII X4 for web surfing and that one is free.

 

[piasabird]

So does the cache for the webbrowser get filled up? I have mine set up to delete the cache every time I close the brower.

 

[piasabird]

You could say your brother built it so have him fix it. You might also sleep on the couch. Maybe your getting a tax rebate soon and spend it on her.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Ok, but there's also nothing wrong with an AthlonII X4 for web surfing and that one is free.

I don't buy it that a dual-core Intel would out-surf an AMD quad-core Athlon II.

My friend has an a 640 AII X4, and I have a G630 2.7Ghz dual-core SB. Both with fast internet and SSDs. His machine seems subjectively faster than mine. He's also using AMD IGP (785G), and I'm using a GT430 NV PCI-E card.

 

[Torn Mind]

I don't buy it that a dual-core Intel would out-surf an AMD quad-core Athlon II.

My friend has an a 640 AII X4, and I have a G630 2.7Ghz dual-core SB. Both with fast internet and SSDs. His machine seems subjectively faster than mine. He's also using AMD IGP (785G), and I'm using a GT430 NV PCI-E card.

The G630 does not have HyperThreading or as much clockspeed. Those places are where the benefits lie. It is a much more even match between the Celeron G620 and the Athlon. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/122?vs=406

Now, web browsing is mostly single threaded. Javascript, for example, is only single-threaded and only one core is going execute the Javascript code. But if you have a bunch of processes, more cores allows the Windows task scheduler to spread the threads in the processes out over more cores and have the other cores execute that code. This leads to less "interference" with the application you are concerned with and hence the perception of a snappier system.

Most likely, rendering of web pages will be faster with an i3 than the Athlon. But she's really loading it heavily, then the different might not be as substantial.

 

[easp]

My wife had similar browsing habits. I stuffed 6GB into her 2008 Mac, and it helped a lot, but Chrome seems to use more and more memory every month. I sprang for an SSD when the prices came down enough. Even though her computer was limited to 1.5Gbps SATA, the SSD still made a huge difference, but she didn't really notice until I pointed out to her that she could keep her email and other apps open at the same time she had her browser open. The SSD pretty much eliminated all the suck from her system.

Jeeze, the RAM for that thing is even more expensive than I thought. Definitely get the SSD, it should make a huge difference, even with just 4GB of RAM, by making things swap to and from disk much much faster. Ideally, you'd get it up to 8GB-16GB of RAM and an OS that can take advantage of it, but that is obviously a bigger upgrade once you factor in the RAM, the motherboard and the OS.

 

[mfenn]

So does the cache for the webbrowser get filled up? I have mine set up to delete the cache every time I close the brower.

The web browser's cache is on disk.

 

[Replacement]

Okay,
My head is spinning with all of these suggestions.
I think I want to compare 2 options.
Option one - New Motherboard, CPU, RAM at least 8 if not 16gb, OS and SSD
Option two - New Motherboard, use current CPU, RAM at least 8 if not 16gb, OS and SSD

I know some have already made suggestions but I am not sure if those suggestions still stand since my post of her current usage.

I see that Samsung has a 128gb SSD in their Pro line for $130 on sale at
tigerdirect.com, I was thinking about grabbing that unless there are
better ones for around the same $ that I should be looking at.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5247117&CatId=5298http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url...s.asp?EdpNo=5247117&CatId=5298&user=u00000687

 

[Hubb1e]

General consensus is to get as much RAM as you can with upgradability in mind. That means boards with 4 ram slots.

My suggestion still stands since i knew from the beginning that you just needed more RAM. It was to get this AM3+ motherboard based on the 760G chipset http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128565
Then you'll get 8 to 16GB of ram and everyone is suggesting to just bite the bullet and go with 16GB since you're already close to using all 8.
This upgrade will be $110 with 8GB or $160 with 16GB of ram. You'll reuse the old CPU which is perfectly good. You will also install windows 7 x64

Or, some other people have suggested also replacing the CPU with an Intel i3. This will get you slightly better performace than your Athlon II X4, but you'll drop from a quad core to a dual core. The i3 is quite fast and makes up for the lack of cores with pure speed but I consider this a sideways upgrade, meaning the X4 and the i3 are in the same performace class. The i3 is about $125 and you'll need a board and ram which are the same price as the AMD recomendation I made so that will be $235 with 8GB or $275 with 16GB. Another bonus in the i3 is that the GPU is fully modern and supports hardware video decoding which the 760G does not, but you could always add a $20 video card to the AMD buid to get that feature.
People have also suggested a build based on AMD's Trinity CPUs. They will match the performace of the Intel i3 but are quad core instead of dual core and come with better onboard graphics for playing games. This is a better general performance machine than the i3 and the Athlon X4 setups because it can play games, but that's not part of your use case. This setup will cost the same as the Intel setup and is also in the same performance category as the i3 and Athlon X4.
Once you've fixed the problem with the RAM you can add extras like an SSD. The one you linked is a good SSD. SSDs are awesome but will require you to setup her file system so she doesn't run out of space on the SSD.

 

[mfenn]

Okay,
My head is spinning with all of these suggestions.
I think I want to compare 2 options.
Option one - New Motherboard, CPU, RAM at least 8 if not 16gb, OS and SSD
Option two - New Motherboard, use current CPU, RAM at least 8 if not 16gb, OS and SSD

I know some have already made suggestions but I am not sure if those suggestions still stand since my post of her current usage.

Option 1:
MSI 760GM-E51 $60
Corsair DDR3 1600 16GB $77 AP
Total: $137 AP

Option 2:
Core i3 3220 $130
Biostar B75MU3+ $70
Corsair DDR3 1600 16GB $77 AP
Total: $277

The i3 beats the 630 in pretty much every situation, including highly threaded workloads such as Cinebench. Of course, it completely blows the 630 out of the water in single-threaded benchmarks.

I see that Samsung has a 128gb SSD in their Pro line for $130 on sale at
tigerdirect.com, I was thinking about grabbing that unless there are
better ones for around the same $ that I should be looking at.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...117&CatId=5298

For this usage, I would not pay the premium that the 840 Pro carries over the normal 840 120GB @ $95. Like Hubb1e said though, don't get an SSD until you've gotten the CPU, mobo, and RAM sorted out.

 

[Torn Mind]

Would a Sandisk Ultra Plus be an acceptable choice as well? It seems to be following the Samsung 840's pricing.

 

[Sleepingforest]

The 840 wins big in 4K random writes and in the 2011 Light Workload benchmark. I'd say it's better for the average consumer.

 

[mfenn]

The 840 wins big in 4K random writes and in the 2011 Light Workload benchmark. I'd say it's better for the average consumer.

Nice find!

 

[Hubb1e]

Option 1:
MSI 760GM-E51 $60
Corsair DDR3 1600 16GB $77 AP
Total: $137 AP

Option 2:
Core i3 3220 $130
Biostar B75MU3+ $70
Corsair DDR3 1600 16GB $77 AP
Total: $277

The i3 beats the 630 in pretty much every situation, including highly threaded workloads such as Cinebench. Of course, it completely blows the 630 out of the water in single-threaded benchmarks.



For this usage, I would not pay the premium that the 840 Pro carries over the normal 840 120GB @ $95. Like Hubb1e said though, don't get an SSD until you've gotten the CPU, mobo, and RAM sorted out.

All good info, but the OP should know that a 6 year old dual core 2ghz core 2 duo offers perfectly acceptable internet browsing performance as long as you've got enough RAM. So, your 3ghz Athlon quad is more than adequate for her needs. I use a 2.5ghz dual core for work and it feels just fine. I don't notice much difference between it and the 4.4ghz quad core in my home computer as download speed is more important. The Core i3 will be faster as I said, but your problem is not that you're CPU limited and when you are CPU limited you can drop in a faster chip into your new motherboard because socket AM3+ is supposed to be very long lived.

It's up to you to decide if that bit of extra CPU performance is worth the money because personally I'd rather spend that $130 on an SSD because that would be a real impact on the responsiveness of of the system.

 

[Torn Mind]

If he wants to go up to 32gb RAM in the future and wants to use Windows 7, he will need at least Windows 7 Professional.

 

[Klavshc]

I would like to chime in.

I was in a similar situation on my laptop:
Old t2080 intel dual core
2 GB ram (ddr2)
Shitty 5400 rpm harddisk.
Chrome.

Surprisingly the biggest problem was not the positively anemic and aging CPU, nor the RAM, it was Chrome.
I like OP's wife tended to have 40+ tabs open in chrome and it just gobbled RAM until the machine felt 10+ years old instead of "only" 6-7.

Chrome is an awesome browser, but it is an absolute memory hog.
Further there is a problem which compounds the problem of Chrome+ too little RAM, and that is the Flash in chrome, or more specifially, the flash in chrome + flash outside of chrome.
If you have multiple browsers installed, you have to install flash even if chrome has flash already embedded in, this can cause problems when then using chrome.
I've seen chrome spike to 1.8GB ram with 4-5 tabs open, frequently.

Overall the way I solved it was to install firefox on the laptop.
I'm currently sitting here with 84 open tabs, everything from online blogs, to webcomics, to forums, etc etc.
Firefox with all these tabs open is at a solid 358 MB ram and with 1518/4092 MB committed in task manager.

I love Chrome, but for anemic systems, and if you're a taboholic, get firefox.

Link to firefox with 84+ tabs open: