Climbing the price/performance curve? How steep do you go?

[cbn]

I even entertained the idea of buying a Z97 mobo that supports 5th-gen Core CPUs, M.2, and SATA-Express, just to be "future-proof", and keeping the G3258 for now and trying to OC it higher than 3.8 with a "proper" overclocking board.

I have a Z97 with M.2, but I question if there will be much specific development for it. (re: it's PCIe 2.0 x2 slot is only ~2x faster than SATA 6Gbps).

However, if the Skylake laptops and desktops start shipping with M.2 PCIe 3.0 x 4 "en masse" I think we will start to see controllers for SSDs that are significantly faster than what we have today.

 

[Stuka87]

I have a Z97 with M.2, but I question if there will be much specific development for it. (re: it's PCIe 2.0 x2 slot is only ~2x faster than SATA 6Gbps).

However, if the Skylake laptops and desktops start shipping with M.2 PCIe 3.0 x 4 "en masse" I think we will start to see controllers for SSDs that are significantly faster than what we have today.

Only around 2x faster!? Thats huge...

 

[Ramses]

I have a Z97 with M.2, but I question if there will be much specific development for it. (re: it's PCIe 2.0 x2 slot is only ~2x faster than SATA 6Gbps).

However, if the Skylake laptops and desktops start shipping with M.2 PCIe 3.0 x 4 "en masse" I think we will start to see controllers for SSDs that are significantly faster than what we have today.

I bought a z97 board recently and made sure it had m.2 and sataE, but I did pass on the current crop of 2x pcie m.2 drives, wasn't impressed with other than the raw data rate. I'm hoping one or the other standard catches on. I agree x4 is probably going to be the thing, I hope. I think asrock has a 4 lane m.2 board now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I bought a z97 board recently and made sure it had m.2 and sataE, but I did pass on the current crop of 2x pcie m.2 drives, wasn't impressed with other than the raw data rate. I'm hoping one or the other standard catches on. I agree x4 is probably going to be the thing, I hope. I think asrock has a 4 lane m.2 board now.

I certainly hope consumer Skylake is going to have more PCI-E 3.0 lanes coming off of the CPU, what with M.2 needing PCI-E 3.0 x4 for maximum performance. Enough for two M.2 drives would be even better.

 

[BSim500]

it's better to save up and invest in "bigger", due to better longer-term "bang for buck".

Very true. "Upper mid" category for me (i5 + GTX 960-970 class cards). As you said - the best "bang per buck" often comes from buying a decent rig, making it last 3-5 years and not needing to otherwise upgrade cheap components every 12-18 months. Makes even more sense given a lot of people "split upgrade" (ie, upgrade GPU twice as often as CPU).

 

[ShintaiDK]

I certainly hope consumer Skylake is going to have more PCI-E 3.0 lanes coming off of the CPU, what with M.2 needing PCI-E 3.0 x4 for maximum performance. Enough for two M.2 drives would be even better.

The chipset will handle up to 20 PCIe 3.0 lanes. The 12 of them obviously to M2.

Even Wifi modules are moving to M2 now.

http://ark.intel.com/products/83635/Intel-Dual-Band-Wireless-AC-7265

 

[schmuckley]

Too steep.

 

[fuzzymath10]

The user need and expectations will come into play when identifying the bottlenecks and deal breakers.

Personally, I believe SSDs offer such a huge benefit that no system of any caliber should be without one as the boot drive. Bonus points if it's big enough that you don't have to be stingy with moving folders around. I bought an 80GB X25-M in early 2009 for about $400 and now, everyone in my immediate family boots from an SSD.

The biggest issue on the CPU side is mobile small-core parts are being sold as laptop/desktop class. This wasn't the case 5+ years ago so the mid/high end has moved up whereas the floor hasn't. I see no problem in investing in processors that can reasonably last many years. My P4 Northwood machines lasted 5-7 years with just RAM upgrades, my Core 2 machines have reached 5+ years, and I expect my i5/i7 machines to last comparably long or longer.

Price perception matters too. A P4 1.8A in 2002 cost me $350 in 2002 dollars and you could go up to 2.4. Compare that to an i5 for $200-225 in 2011-2014 dollars, and add $100 for an i7. So, I consider an i5 an affordable processor. Assuming you'd need close to $100 in 2002 for any new CPU of any spec, that is i3 territory today.

Machines that start mid-high range will slowly become on the low side of mid-range over time, but starting out low range will mean you never have even a mid range experience over the lifetime of the machine. And there's value attached to a favourable user experience.

 

[sm625]

Pretty much same boat as the OP. I bought a Q6600 in 2007 for $220, and that has been (and will most likely always be) my most expensive purchase. A close second was the X2 3800 for $180. All others have been under $100.

 

[Yuriman]

@fuzzymath10, I bought an AthlonXP 1700+ for around $40 new, and it was a very respectable chip at the time. I believe that was sometime in late 2002?

 

[fuzzymath10]

@fuzzymath10, I bought an AthlonXP 1700+ for around $40 new, and it was a very respectable chip at the time. I believe that was sometime in late 2002?

I don't remember exactly how much cheaper AMD was, but at the time when shopping around, the local PC shops had maybe a $100 difference between comparable AMD and Intel builds.

I might also be thinking 6-12 months before you since the 2000+/2200+ were top end, so I can't imagine a 1700+ being $40 - maybe an older Duron.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Just chart it out. Look at the Benchmarks (Anand Bench is useful for this) for the tasks that matter to you, determine what price/performance measurement matters the most, and see if there's a detectable point.

For example, let's say Cinebench mattered to you:

So you could look at something like this and make an argument for any of the chips in question, but it depends on what is important to you.

G3258 - "Well, the cheapest parts give you the most performance for the dollar, so I'll get a G3258."
i3 - "Well, it's the fastest chip that's within my $140 CPU budget."
i5 - "Well, the i5 is the cheapest chip that will break 20,000 points, and that's the performance I need at minimum, so I'll get that."
i7 - "Well, the i7-4790 is the fastest chip that still offers >100 points per dollar, which is my line in the sand for bang-for-the-buck. The higher end chips are a much worse value."

You could do the same with SysMark or gaming FPS - however you wanted.

H81 chipsets and locked i5s make a lot more sense for people who don't bother with overclocking. (You know, the other 99% of the world.) Don't worry too much about them; but the flipside is, if you want to overclock, don't buy an H81 motherboard, like, ever. (Don't buy things that don't do what you will want them to, or which will only do them in very limited circumstances.)

 

[dave_the_nerd]

There's also a is-it-worth-doing problem with overclocking low end hardware on a budget. Sure, it's fun, but if the $50 you save buying a G3258 instead of a faster i3 ends up sunk into the platform (cooling, power supply, motherboard) to make the G3258 less slower... then if using the computer matters more than tweaking the computer, you should have bought the i3.

It's very easy to put more money into a slower system because you were having fun messing with it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's about priorities, and remembering that sometimes overclocking the hell out of something isn't the best deal.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Anyway, I usually end up spending around $200 for a CPU - Athlon XP 2400+, Q6600, and i5-3570K were three of my last four builds, and they were all in the $190-$220 range.

 

[Yuriman]

I don't think I've ever spent more than $200 on a video card, or $280 on a CPU (Q6600?), and tend to aim for around $200 for my CPU too, these days. I tend to go for cheap cases (<$50), the cheaper power supplies that are still of reputable brands and high efficiency, etc. etc., though I was an early adopter of SSDs, buying two X-25M's for RAID0 basically on launch day.

 

[Hulk]

I've always felt that around $200 is the sweet spot on the price/performance curve for CPU's. About a year and a half ago I picked up a 4770k for $199 at a Microcenter sale.

The strange thing is for the first time there isn't a CPU I'm looking to upgrade to. When I had my 2500k I had the urge for a 2770k, or 3770k when that came out. But now, there's pretty much nothing on the horizon that even tempts me with the upgrade fever. Perhaps Broadwell will change that when the desktop parts finally arrive but from what I've read I doubt it.

 

[toyota]

I've always felt that around $200 is the sweet spot on the price/performance curve for CPU's. About a year and a half ago I picked up a 4770k for $199 at a Microcenter sale.

The strange thing is for the first time there isn't a CPU I'm looking to upgrade to. When I had my 2500k I had the urge for a 2770k, or 3770k when that came out. But now, there's pretty much nothing on the horizon that even tempts me with the upgrade fever. Perhaps Broadwell will change that when the desktop parts finally arrive but from what I've read I doubt it.

your comment is worded quite odd and really does not make a lot of sense. there is nothing above Haswell right now and you already have a Haswell i7. and Broadwell is the very next thing coming out so its odd to say nothing on the horizon tempts you but then say you may consider Broadwell. and Broadwell is really nothing more than a shrink plus rumors say it as issues with higher frequencies. Skylake is the first cpu coming that you should even be considering at all and it appears to be coming out not long after Broadwell.

 

[richaron]

I found this old receipt recently which make me chuckle. It was my university box, about as high end as I could reasonably go (and about as high end as I have gone). CPU just came out & consumer video cards weren't in the same price they are now. Plus the monitor was the bomb @ 17 inches.

Late 2001 in AU$ from a cheap online store:

Edit: Prices mightn't mean much, and times have changed... But these days AU$620 is halfway between a 5820K and 5930K.

 

[Hulk]

your comment is worded quite odd and really does not make a lot of sense. there is nothing above Haswell right now and you already have a Haswell i7. and Broadwell is the very next thing coming out so its odd to say nothing on the horizon tempts you but then say you may consider Broadwell. and Broadwell is really nothing more than a shrink plus rumors say it as issues with higher frequencies. Skylake is the first cpu coming that you should even be considering at all and it appears to be coming out not long after Broadwell.

You are right. I was distracted when I was typing that. My 2 year old was on me...

Anyway what I meant to say was I have no urge to upgrade because for the first time in since I can remember there is nothing to upgrade to. It's been a year and a half and not only is there nothing available, but nothing in the rumor pipeline even interests me. Over the past twenty years there was always some faster chip than what I had that I really wanted, not needed, wanted.

 

[schmuckley]

Just chart it out. Look at the Benchmarks (Anand Bench is useful for this) for the tasks that matter to you, determine what price/performance measurement matters the most, and see if there's a detectable point.

For example, let's say Cinebench mattered to you:

So you could look at something like this and make an argument for any of the chips in question, but it depends on what is important to you.

G3258 - "Well, the cheapest parts give you the most performance for the dollar, so I'll get a G3258."
i3 - "Well, it's the fastest chip that's within my $140 CPU budget."
i5 - "Well, the i5 is the cheapest chip that will break 20,000 points, and that's the performance I need at minimum, so I'll get that."
i7 - "Well, the i7-4790 is the fastest chip that still offers >100 points per dollar, which is my line in the sand for bang-for-the-buck. The higher end chips are a much worse value."

You could do the same with SysMark or gaming FPS - however you wanted.

H81 chipsets and locked i5s make a lot more sense for people who don't bother with overclocking. (You know, the other 99% of the world.) Don't worry too much about them; but the flipside is, if you want to overclock, don't buy an H81 motherboard, like, ever. (Don't buy things that don't do what you will want them to, or which will only do them in very limited circumstances.)

That chart has current-gen chips missing.err 1..
What about 5820k?