Upgrade often, but cheap, or buy big for the long haul?

[Yuriman]

The question really ought to be rephrased, "How many more useful years can I get out of my system, depending on how much I spend initially?"

This of course depends entirely on your use case.

Consider though, a gamer in 2010 building this hypothetical PC. They can spend $650 on a rig with a Celeron, SSD, and mid-range GPU, or upgrade to an i3 for $700, or an i5 for $800, or an i7 for $900.

An i7 from 2010 is still relevant today, while in some use cases you'd have had to replace the Celeron every year for 5 years, upgrading the motherboard 3 times (call it $125 each time). The hypothetical Celeron system in 2015 would still be slower than the original i7 (by a lot), but would have cost over $1,000, all said and done.

An i3 looks better in comparison (but is STILL slower than the 2010 i7), and an i5 better still, because performance per dollar is actually a lot better on higher end CPUs when you factor in a fixed motherboard price.

On the other hand, my dad is still happily chugging along on a Core2Duo from 2006. I feel I got some great value out of that machine.

 

[ElFenix]

from my perspective, with gaming as my goal: for processors, so long as you have a quadcore intel nehalem or later, upgrades haven't been particularly necessary (especially if you're overclocking). usually it seems like the better money is in the graphics card upgrade. for those i've been happy with a second rung from the top version about 8-9 months after they've come out (so some new hotness is around the corner and the prices have come down). the only other thing that's been upgraded as often is the SSD - not so much for speed but for capacity.

 

[lord_emperor]

Upgrade cheap for the long haul!

Actually this has worked out well for me recently. AMD products really shine when working on a budget.

 

[fuzzymath10]

It's also about strategic investments whereby your hardware can be passed down and remain useful. It is true that an older Core 2 machine with IGP or basic DX10 discrete card is in general obsolete. However, it remains useful for a wide range of users by including an SSD.

System bottlenecks are pretty binary outside of gaming. Without an SSD, you become horribly I/O bound and the experience sucks regardless of what CPU is running (but especially bad with a slower CPU), and once you put in an SSD, the CPU frequently becomes the bottleneck and then any modern CPU with turbo feels like a godsend compared to small cores or something like a Core 2 or Phenom.

 

[Dulanic]

I'm still using a i7 from 2010 build I did. The CPU is plenty fast for anything I need. The only changes I needed to make was for the GPU. I went decently high end at the time, and am still happy today with that same decision.

I honestly can't believe I haven't done a major upgrade to my PC for 5 years! That's crazy compared to the early 2000's or late 90's where you had to upgrade every year or so to keep up.

 

[Sonikku]

I upgraded from a pentium sandy G630 to a sandy i5 2500 a few months ago for $100 and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Beat paying 300 for a new MOBO + New i5 for my gaming budget. Can't overclock, but turbos to 3.7ghz which is "good enough".

 

[MongGrel]

I have an i7 920 over 6 years old and was curious as to how it compared to modern chips. I don't know how relevant Passmark is to the programs that you might be using, but the i7 920 scores 4990. The Haswell i3's score form 4792 (i3 4130) to 5573 (i3 4370). The newer chips come with graphics processors, however. Of course the Skylake i3's should be out soon and will likely do better. If you started with an i3 6 years ago, I think you would have had to change motherboards twice over that period, and now a third time for Skylake. I'll have one motherboard upgrade when I upgrade to a Skylake i7 this year.

Not to mention the big strength of the 920 was that it could overclock like a boss. Very low 2.66 ghz stock speed with the potential of 3.6-4.0 ghz overclocks.

Glad I purchased an I7 920 myself when they were new, but something like that is unlikely to happen again.

Have a X5680 OC'd atm in the original.

Depending on what Mobo you have you can stick a used server chip in that thing and boost it more.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2335636&highlight=l5639&page=101

 

[MongGrel]

If I were building new myself atm, I'd be looking at Skylake I guess.

But I'm not for several reasons.

 

[MongGrel]

Truthfully a lot of this is going to depend upon what is available in the market at the time and how technology advances. For instance, no one scored a bigger win than those who bought into the X58 platform and bought an "overpriced" i7 980X that overclocked well back in 2010. Sure people have been upgrading those X58s with cheaply available Xeons now for the past little bit, but those original 980X buyers have had that performance available to them for over five years. While it's been outpaced by X79 and X99, to this day it's still a very viable system.

Even the 920 at the time, but I know you're well aware of that

The reason I even picked one up back then was the X58 looked it was going to have a future.

 

[iSkylaker]

I have an i7 920 over 6 years old and was curious as to how it compared to modern chips.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/47?vs=699

As fast as and/or slower than FX-6300, without counting the OC potential.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I upgraded from a pentium sandy G630 to a sandy i5 2500 a few months ago for $100 and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Beat paying 300 for a new MOBO + New i5 for my gaming budget. Can't overclock, but turbos to 3.7ghz which is "good enough".

You can overclock them, but it's limited to +400mhz I believe. I had a i5-2500 in the lab boosting to 3.925ghz with the max multiplier allowed and maybe 103mhz BLCK.

 

[escrow4]

Both. I use a 5930K in my gaming box and a 4170 for my porn box. An i3 desktop is the minimum you'd want for a fluid box. Anything slower isn't worth it. 8GB RAM either way absolute minimum.

 

[SPBHM]

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/47?vs=699

As fast as and/or slower than FX-6300, without counting the OC potential.

using an i7 920 without OC should be illegal!

and also

still faster than the best i3s for MT
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/47?vs=1197

but the power efficiency is pretty bad.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

and a 4170 for my porn box.

I like how upfront you are about it.

I'm a fan of buying the big last-gen used when a new gen (tock) comes out. E.g. when HW-E came out, I picked up a 3930k + P9X79 Deluxe (top-end Asus consumer mobo) for $400 (or $420, can't remember). Even now upgrading every new gen isn't necessary, but hey it's a hobby and I don't mind.

I have a HW-E system now but that's more due to some unusual circumstances.

Otherwise, I usually go for an i5 if staying within the mainstream. My last 5 client builds (casual-moderate gaming) were all i5 -k chips.

 

[Madpacket]

I like building new computers and playing with new computer gear so I'm constantly buying and selling hardware. This has actually worked out pretty well as I've been able to sell parts before they drop off the bell curve in value but still get a year or so out of them to use. This has given me a broad understanding of different tech and allows me to stay on top of things. Also all my friends and family have great computers for the most part because of this addiction

 

[jimhauk]

I always believe in CPU for long term, meaning buy the best and it will last you a while.

 

[Arachnotronic]

CPUs/platforms for the long-haul, iterate fairly quickly on GPUs.

 

[tential]

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_pro...lete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2189159.m1684

Recently sold i7 2600k.

Launched 4 years ago.
MSRP $317.
Sold at half price now 4 1/2 years later.
It cost you $160 over that 4 1/2 years.
$35 a year for an i7.

Go look at an i7 benchmark and tell me you don't want an i7 k model for $35 a year... And it's not like you have to upgrade that i7 now. You can wait another 2 years it's still got good performance....

i7 920 is $284 at launch.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_pro...lete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2189159.m1684

$50 bucks on ebay to sell.
$234 over 7 years
$33 a year.

So even if you want to hold your intel processor for super long, it won't change the cost per year you're paying to hold it.

Buy a good i7, and sell it when you want to upgrade if the price is right, and you'll enjoy amazing performance at an affordable price. Thanks intel.

FX 8120 was out at the same time as the 2600k. Lets see how that did. I'll be generous and say $90... although so many are in box....
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_pro...lete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2189159.m1684

So $200 launch price (It was over this price since:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5595/amd-releases-fx6200-and-fx4170-processors-fx8120-gets-a-price-cut)
Got a price cut to $200 in February... so clearly it launched over $200.
It's selling at $90 now (That's generous).
$110 over the 3.9 years.
It's $28 a month to own...

Would you rather have had an i7 2600k
Or an FX 8120....
Right now...
4 years of FX 8120... or 4 years of i7 2600k.

Easy decision.

Doesn't even factor in the fact you would have enjoyed the i7 2600k longer since it launched first and was still faster.

 

[bigboxes]

I usually pass down my older computers when I upgrade. I do a little tinkering here and there, especially as parts fail, but I generally ride them out until that urge to upgrade gets too strong. Unfortunately for my wife, I hung on to my i7 920 longer than I would have in the past because it was still very strong. So, last year when her PC finally crapped out I built her an all new 7850K box with 8gb of ram. Perfect for her. Handles everything she will ever throw at it.

Late in '14, I started having more and more issues with my i7 920 setup. I decided that I truly wanted to upgrade, as it didn't have the horses it once did. I got a 4790K in December for $250 from Microcenter. Kind of similar, as I had purchased my 920 there for $200. Both motherboards were just under $300. I love having a rock solid box. It's faster than 99% of the PCs out there. Being an enthusiast on this site tends to skew things a bit. You're looking at all these X99 and now X170 CPUs and thinking that I'm falling behind. Of course, that is not true. I'm still giddy about my build and will likely be for some time.

I use my PC more than most so I am pleased that I went with the high end that I did. I realize that there are some parts that are higher end, but the cost to me would probably be ~$750+ more to build the rig that I would if I had gone another route.

 

[simas]

as others said - long CPU, short GPU.
CPU - higher cost of any upgrades because CPU vendors can currently get away with planned obsolescence of their sockets at rate no one else is allowed to have . Imagine Nvidia requiring completely different GPU slot and new motherboard for each iteration of the video cards, its sales would drop significantly.

for comparison - modern CPU (Skylake) runs on socket created for it making all previous motherboards obsolete. modern GPU (i.e. Fury) runs on PCIe created 11 years ago.

 

[throwa]

I never understood the obsession with "OMG, max out every single slider bar! ultra graphix 8x AA 8x AF! shadows! 4k!" myself.

In reality, most GPU's from a few years back can still play current 2015 games..... simply turn down the settings. I have a HD 7850 (2012 era tech), and it plays all games i throw at it just fine. For the newer stuff like Witcher 3 or GTA V? I simply turn down the settings, that's all. I have a buddy who has a Gtx 670 (same era), it still plays most his stuff as well. No big deal, just play with lower settings. The difference between High and Ultra is small, and most games still look acceptable at Medium.

GPU's are like cars, they become "obsolete" so quickly that it really doesn't make sense to drop big $$$$$ on just 1 GPU, unless one is trying to show off or has money to blow. I mean some of these "flagship" GPU's cost literally a month's rent.

For example, a Gtx 970 will probably still be acceptable 3 years from now.

 

[tential]

I never understood the obsession with "OMG, max out every single slider bar! ultra graphix 8x AA 8x AF! shadows! 4k!" myself.

In reality, most GPU's from a few years back can still play current 2015 games..... simply turn down the settings. I have a HD 7850 (2012 era tech), and it plays all games i throw at it just fine. For the newer stuff like Witcher 3 or GTA V? I simply turn down the settings, that's all. I have a buddy who has a Gtx 670 (same era), it still plays most his stuff as well. No big deal, just play with lower settings. The difference between High and Ultra is small, and most games still look acceptable at Medium.

GPU's are like cars, they become "obsolete" so quickly that it really doesn't make sense to drop big $$$$$ on just 1 GPU, unless one is trying to show off or has money to blow. I mean some of these "flagship" GPU's cost literally a month's rent.

For example, a Gtx 970 will probably still be acceptable 3 years from now.

If you bought a GTX 980Ti now, and sold it 1 year from now, it may cost you 12 dollars a month?
So your netflix bill?

People pay $60+ a month for cable every day. But paying $600 in 1 go for cable for a year scares a person.
People love getting nickel and dimed but are scared of large purchases it's amusing.

Amortize it over the cost of it's useful lifecycle and it's far more attractive than Cable, Interrnet, Phone, etc.

You could buy and sell the top end GPU each year and be cheaper than all of those services.

 

[sxr7171]

With annual 5-10% increases in performance at best going high end is preferred. Even the most avid upgraders can't justify a new purchase for 3-4 years. Also if you are calculating TCO then you also need to add in your time to disassemble, photograph, box and mail out the old stuff as you sell them.

 

[mizzou]

Assuming you spend the same amount of $ over a 5-8 year timeline:

Cheap frequent upgrades will get you basic PC performance over 5-8 years. Not too bad, but not too great:

Expensive sole purchases of PC equipment will get you great performance to start, but gradually get to poor performance at the end of 5-8 years.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I've done both. I find that frequent budget upgrades are good, so long as you don't fall beneath the "too cheap to be useful" threshold. Also, it helps to identify reusable parts and spend extra there.

For me, it makes sense to pay out extra money for quality on PSU and HSF/cooling. Probably case too, though I have had a lot of luck with cheap cases. The components you should expect to replace in budget builds are motherboard, CPU/APU, and possibly RAM. dGPU if you aren't using integrated graphics.

I am still using a Corsair HX-520 from something like 2008. For cooling, I still have the same HSF and aftermarket fans that I bought in 2009. The case dates back to '09 as well. I only just upgraded from my used Gateway LCD monitor to a used HP 2035 LCD monitor. The jump from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 was pretty nice, and I got to stay with 4:3 which makes me happy.

In any case, my APU-based system from last November stacks up pretty well compared to many PCs from early 2009 (which is the last time I bought reusable parts for this system). It won't win benchmarks against Bloomfields with top-of-the-line dGPUs from the day, but it will put up a pretty good fight. Total cost of chip + board + RAM was around $300, and that's only 'cuz I got 16 Gb of RAM instead of the default 8. Total cost for every upgrade cycle between then and now is still less than what people paid for a 4 GHz i7-920 system with a gamer card from early '09. Though they may not have had the d0 stepping at that time, so you might not have had 4 GHz that easily . . .