2500k and an SSD has been ground breaking for me...

[Hulk]

I've been building and upgrading my computers for a long time. Generally when you build a new system or make an upgrade you get that "oh yeah!" feeling for a week at best and then you start noticing where your system is still lagging and preventing you from working as fast as you'd like to.

When I upgraded from a 486 to a Pentium extrusion effects in Coreldraw took maybe 5 minutes instead of a half hour to display. Moving to the old Celeron 300A>450 pretty much got rid of that extrusion problem but now I could just barely display NTSC MPEG-2 video at full frame rate. The PIII 850 could handle the video playback but it was painful to have to edit video on it. The P4 3.06 made SD MPEG-2 video editing bearable but now HD editing or even SD AVCHD was a bear. The Core2Duo helped a lot but lots of things were still slow, opening applications was even painful.

Then I built my current rig with a 2500k and an SSD. A year later I'm still impressed with this system. Sure it could be faster, don't get me wrong. I'm waiting for Haswell and nothing is ever fast enough. All you have to do is have 6 instances of Vegas rendering like I'm doing now and burning a DVD and you see the need for more speed. But just the fact that I can burn that disc, render 5 timelines at once and type this message without any slowdowns or burning a coaster is quite a feat. Remember when burning a CD at 1x speed meant closing all background processes, crossing your fingers and not even touching the mouse until the burn was completed?

All I'm saying is that this system seems to have more "legs" than any I've used before. Of course it's the combination of the 2500k AND the SSD, which makes opening apps a snap, plus 16GB and Windows 7 x64 means that I rarely run into that old dreaded slow motion screen redraw from memory! Remember that?

For me it seems the PC I wanted about 25 years ago has finally arrived. Sandybridge, SSD's, and Windows 7.

What's your experience? Do you see your current rig being light years ahead of the one you had five years ago where as the one from 5 years ago was significantly faster than the one from 5 years before that but no "light years" ahead?

 

[RU482]

yeah, both are great leaps forward in computing

 

[Idontcare]

For me it seems the PC I wanted about 25 years ago has finally arrived. Sandybridge, SSD's, and Windows 7.

My sentiments exactly. When I built my 2600K + OCZ V3 + Win7x64 w/16GB I felt like my perfect desktop had finally arrived.

Then I did my laptop - some dual-core SB with an SSD and win7x64 and I felt like my perfect laptop had arrived as well.

It took both the SSD and Win7 IMO. I'm sure I'd feel the same if my CPU's were Zambezi chips as well, outside of maybe the laptop battery life (but my laptop is always plugged in, so probably not).

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Agreed up to a point here. I've found Win7 to be rather smart and if you have large amounts of RAM it tends to cache the right stuff, lessening the impact of upgrading to an SSD. That said, it's still a nice boost.

 

[Hulk]

My sentiments exactly. When I built my 2600K + OCZ V3 + Win7x64 w/16GB I felt like my perfect desktop had finally arrived.

Then I did my laptop - some dual-core SB with an SSD and win7x64 and I felt like my perfect laptop had arrived as well.

It took both the SSD and Win7 IMO. I'm sure I'd feel the same if my CPU's were Zambezi chips as well, outside of maybe the laptop battery life (but my laptop is always plugged in, so probably not).

I have an "old" Dell 640m laptop with a C2D at 2GHz. I was seriously ready to get a new thin and light one but I figured I'd pop in the old Intel 320 from my desktop. Wow, a trans-formative change to say the least. Apps pop open almost like my desktop. Sure it's a little thicker and heavier than what you can get today and the processor isn't the latest and greatest but I honestly can't justify getting rid of it when it performs this well. Plus it has a pretty darn good 1440x900 display. It only has 2GB RAM max so I'm staying with XP but for what I use it for that really isn't a hindrance.

 

[moonbogg]

I too went from C2D E8400 to 2600k with SSD. The difference was the biggest i've ever had in an upgrade that I can remember. Pretty ridiculous fast from what I had.

 

[dma0991]

Current CPU performance is relatively sufficient for about 50% of the things that I do but SSD is by far the best upgrade that one could do to a PC, new or old. Using some of my older PCs with a HDD seems to have loading times that felt like forever since I've gotten used to the speed of a SSD.

SSD would have the most impact on laptops/Ultrabooks and gives it a fighting chance against perceivably faster devices like tablets. I'm still waiting for the day that all laptops would come with a 512GB SSD factory installed and remain at an affordable price. I reckon that is possible in 10 years or less.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Current CPU performance is relatively sufficient for about 50% of the things that I do but SSD is by far the best upgrade that one could do to a PC, new or old. Using some of my older PCs with a HDD seems to have loading times that felt like forever since I've gotten used to the speed of a SSD.

SSD would have the most impact on laptops/Ultrabooks and gives it a fighting chance against perceivably faster devices like tablets. I'm still waiting for the day that all laptops would come with a 512GB SSD factory installed and remain at an affordable price. I reckon that is possible in 10 years or less.

I'd say that is pessimistic. Within the next 5 years IMO

 

[secretanchitman]

putting an ssd into my 15" macbook pro was by far the best thing ive done to it. the speed increase is so tremendous that i dont even want to sell this laptop anymore, at least not until it totally breaks down in a few years (if it doesnt, great!).

 

[dma0991]

I'd say that is pessimistic. Within the next 5 years IMO

I merely gave a conservative figure that I think is possible. SSDs are still reserved for higher end, more expensive laptops. It would take some time before some of that to trickle down to cheaper, more affordable laptops. If it is achievable within the next 5 years, all the better.

The only reason why I think that it still needs more than 5 years is that a 512GB SSD has to be as cheap as a 500GB HDD to be feasible as a HDD replacement which as of now isn't the case as a 500GB HDD costs as much as a 64GB SSD. If future iterations of Windows trimmed some of its fat, 256GB SSD as a standard storage medium for all laptops would be attainable in 5 years or less.

 

[2is]

I've got multiple computers. My primary desktop and my laptop are both on SSD. I hate using any of my other computers even though outside of them not having an SSD, they are quite capable machines.

I foresee a SSD conversion for most of my machines around black Friday.

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

Sounds like you could use an i7 with all that rendering

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Agree whole heartedly, I jumped on the SSD bandwagon when the slightly more affordable performance drives came to market, my first one is the OCZ Vertex 3 120Gb, previously I'd run Raptors in various configs including RAID 0.

I've always run top of the line PCs overclocked for maximum performance and was impressed with my 2600k, even at stock speeds it was game changer when compared to my ageing Q9450, at 3.6Ghz lasted a good 3 years before finally showing its age, the clock for clock performance increase with the 2600k was easy to underestimate and the overclocking headroom was simply huge, it's at 4.7Ghz at the moment which feels like a trivial overclock.

I think overall the SSD is the biggest factor through, we've seen no significant increase in data rate on desktop drives for a very long time, sure it creeped up as data density increase and spindle speeds remained the same but there was never a big jump in tech and SSD was just what we needed, with a fast CPU the insane read/write speeds matched with nominal "seek" speeds made even day to day OS use significantly better.

 

[nxttruong]

I don't do in the computer aspect. Therefore, the above information is very useful for me. Thanks very much

 

[T_Yamamoto]

I am still waiting for the day I can build my computer.

Still running that conroe Pentium.

 

[Hulk]

Sounds like you could use an i7 with all that rendering

You are probably right. When I built this rig last year I debated long and hard 2500k vs. 2600k and in the end I went cheap with the 2500k. It's not a huge deal as I do most rendering at night and just have the computer shut down automatically when it's finished. But I could use hyperthreading...

Now I'm stuck wondering if I should go for a 2600k, Ivy with HT, or wait for Haswell?

I'm actually leaning towards a 2600k/2700k.

 

[ajemm]

I definitely agree with the OP. I updated my desktop PC from a Core 2 Duo and a "spinner", to an i7 3770 and a SSD in the past month. I expected it to be much faster, which it is. But, I'm equally impressed with the power consumption. My idle draw is less than half of what it was! This has helped make my very quiet rig virtually silent.

 

[Kenmitch]

You are probably right. When I built this rig last year I debated long and hard 2500k vs. 2600k and in the end I went cheap with the 2500k. It's not a huge deal as I do most rendering at night and just have the computer shut down automatically when it's finished. But I could use hyperthreading...

Now I'm stuck wondering if I should go for a 2600k, Ivy with HT, or wait for Haswell?

I'm actually leaning towards a 2600k/2700k.

There is always the option of bumping up your overclock a couple hundred mhz

If you live by a microcenter they have the 2700k for $229 currently also.

 

[wand3r3r]

486 to a Pentium
Celeron 300A>450
The PIII 850
The P4 3.06
Core2Duo

2500k and an SSD.

Up to about this point each generation has offered significant performance increases.

However, this is where I am a little concerned. Ivy bridge hardly offers anything new over sandy bridge at the same price. The socket 2011 doesn't improve much over 1366.

It has always been awesome to upgrade, but currently sitting on 1366 I see no incentive to upgrade and it's a bummer. I'm waiting for the next gen but unless it's a miracle I don't think the performance increases of past will continue. At the very least we will need to skip a generation to really get a performance increase.

 

[Klunt Bumskrint]

You are probably right. When I built this rig last year I debated long and hard 2500k vs. 2600k and in the end I went cheap with the 2500k. It's not a huge deal as I do most rendering at night and just have the computer shut down automatically when it's finished. But I could use hyperthreading...

Now I'm stuck wondering if I should go for a 2600k, Ivy with HT, or wait for Haswell?

I'm actually leaning towards a 2600k/2700k.

I just up/sidegraded from a 2500k to a 3770k and loving it

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

When I build my first 2nd generation Intel® Core™ i7-2600K system with an Intel SSD 320 80GB I was shocked at how fast it was compared to all the other old systems around me. Boot, access and even running a game it all seems to run so much faster. Now I have an Intel Core i5-3570K and an Intel SSD 520 120GB and I am loving it just as much.

 

[Hulk]

Up to about this point each generation has offered significant performance increases.

However, this is where I am a little concerned. Ivy bridge hardly offers anything new over sandy bridge at the same price. The socket 2011 doesn't improve much over 1366.

It has always been awesome to upgrade, but currently sitting on 1366 I see no incentive to upgrade and it's a bummer. I'm waiting for the next gen but unless it's a miracle I don't think the performance increases of past will continue. At the very least we will need to skip a generation to really get a performance increase.

Keep in mind that Ivy is primarily a die shrink and in that regard it is doing it's expected job for Intel, which is working out the 22nm process kinks for Haswell.

For many users I think we've reached a point where most of the mid grade or higher processors produced over the last year or two and an SSD adequately run most software. I'm not talking about gaming, serious video editing, CAD, or other esoteric applications. And of course that's a good thing because there really isn't the constant need to upgrade so that you can simply edit a home video or process some photos in Photoshop without having to wait forever for each preview/render.

So you have to be honest with yourself and see if there are bottlenecks in your current rig that are really causing you to waste time.

On the other hand there are quite a few people around here that do have specific applications which require all of the processing power you can throw at them and just about every upgrade is worthwhile. It's a very personal thing, that is how to spend one's money, so all of the reading and discussion in here helps each person make his/her final decision.

With all that being said sometimes you just want the latest and greatest because it's fun to check it out. Nothing wrong with that either

 

[Hulk]

I just up/sidegraded from a 2500k to a 3770k and loving it

Yeah I'd really like a 3770k but all the racket about it causing a fusion reaction in my computer does give me pause. Let me explain, as you can see from my sig I have mild overclock on my 2500k. My Noctua case and cpu fan are dialed so far back that my rig is for all intents and purposes silent. And I really like it that way. In addition, even under full load it'll barely break 60F.

If I go with the 3770k and keep my current cooler (I can use it with Ivy right?) to keep similar temps what type of an overclock can I expect? I'd be happy with 4GHz at stock volts actually.

 

[Puppies04]

In addition, even under full load it'll barely break 60F.

I think you mean 60°C, if not message me with how much you want for that cooler

 

[rgallant]

Up to about this point each generation has offered significant performance increases.

However, this is where I am a little concerned. Ivy bridge hardly offers anything new over sandy bridge at the same price. The socket 2011 doesn't improve much over 1366.

It has always been awesome to upgrade, but currently sitting on 1366 I see no incentive to upgrade and it's a bummer. I'm waiting for the next gen but unless it's a miracle I don't think the performance increases of past will continue. At the very least we will need to skip a generation to really get a performance increase.

"However, this is where I am a little concerned. Ivy bridge hardly offers anything new over sandy bridge at the same price"

-for a gaming system with ib you get first ever pci-e 3.0 x16 [until 2-3Q 2013] 2x over sandy FOR the same money and why I waited for it,
-go back 3 years ago and look at the video cards , then go ahead in 3 years and see what the high end gpu's might be pushing out on pci-e 2.0 [x8 if sli].
- if running high end vid. cards ,if built today lots of sb owners will be updating well before the 3 yr upgrade cycle , ib owners not so much.
-not running highend games, no need to update the cpu\sub systems really if you have a 1366 system till 2014-15.
IMO