Recommended processor for parents' PC

[toyota]

Just FYI, my mom thinks my Acer Aspire One netbook is as fast as hell.

The thing only has 1.5 GB of RAM and it's a goddamn single-core Atom.
But it has a very light XP installation, so it's actually got RAM to spare since she doesn't do anything 'heavy' with it.

RAM is key, much more than a SSD hard drive or whatever.
Enough ram = smooth performance = happy mom n' dad.

single core Atom is slow as ass at times for even surfing the web. go to a page with a bunch of Flash on it and it will make you feel like you are on dial up. heck the cpu I am using now murders my Atom and even it is really poky on some sites.

for most ignorant people, computers are like cars. if they dont know any better and someone tells them its fast then they believe it.

 

[a123456]

single core Atom is slow as ass at times for even surfing the web. go to a page with a bunch of Flash on it and it will make you feel like you are on dial up. heck the cpu I am using now murders my Atom and even it is really poky on some sites.

for most ignorant people, computers are like cars. if they dont know any better and someone tells them its fast then they believe it.

Totally depends on the parents involved. My parents were using a single core Atom netbook. I offered to upgrade them but they were adamantly against it because what they had was "good enough" and waiting an extra few seconds were no big deal to them. This was even after they used my i7 with SSD.

Their desktop was a P4 and they were totally cool with that since they don't do 1080p video ever, just the random Youtube and that's it. I think they have some C2D now or something that they got themselves from Dell. I offered to move them to SSD but they were also against that because they were fine with the speed and their max budget for any upgrades was 0.

Other people who do more 1080p and will care/notice the speed will benefit more from an SSD or other upgrade.

The Dell stuff can be pretty cheap if you don't have a cheap source of Windows. You can sometimes find something like an E7500 + 23" 1080p monitor for around 400, which is not bad. Although my parents would probably veto the 23" monitor because it's too big and they want to stay with their 19" giant dot pitch monitor for bad eyes.

The really major thing is if you're within driving distance of them. If you are, then anything is fine. If you aren't, a pre-built is much easier since trying to instruct non-tech parents to rip out a part to RMA if something goes bad is completely not happening whereas if you order a business class Dell, they do 3 year on-site warranty.

 

[AtenRa]

I would suggest a Llano setup with 4GB ram and an SSD

 

[OBLAMA2009]

I would suggest a Llano setup with 4GB ram and an SSD

i would suggest you try llano out first before making that suggestion

 

[AtenRa]

i would suggest you try llano out first before making that suggestion

You mean i should try an AMD Athlon II X4 with AMD HD5570 ??

That will get you the same performance but Llano will have lower power usage and it will be cheaper

Do you really need more for Home/Office ??

 

[Gikaseixas]

i would suggest you try llano out first before making that suggestion

from the early benchmarks, Llano performs like a Phenom II cpu. Any Phenom II paired with 4GB of ram and a SSD drive would be more than enough.

For my parents i would just put together a i3 2100 (cool and fast cpu for regular tasks), 4GB of ram, onboard video (is enough since they don't game), a 1080P capable monitor and SSD drive.

 

[deimos3428]

I gave my mom my "old" system when I upgraded: a Phenom II X3 710. But really any modern machine with two cores, 4GB, Windows Vista/7, a SATA HDD, and onboard graphics capable of 1080p would've sufficed. The expectations of most seniors ain't high.

She's still kinda in shock, coming from a Pentium 2 @350. This machine is much faster, much quieter, and much less beige. I'm sure it'll keep her happy for a decade or more, and if it doesn't there'll be a ton of used hardware headed her way anyway as I maintain my own upgrade schedule.

 

[exar333]

Most modern setups would be fine for what the OP described. The computer would probably only be 'slow' if it got bogged-down by a plethora of applications that kill the startup time and leech resources (virus scanners, browser add-ins, viruses, trojans, etc).

 

[blckgrffn]

Most modern setups would be fine for what the OP described. The computer would probably only be 'slow' if it got bogged-down by a plethora of applications that kill the startup time and leech resources (virus scanners, browser add-ins, viruses, trojans, etc).

Hence the all important SSD addition

 

[grimpr]

I'd say a Llano with a cheap socket FM1 motherboard and a SATA 3.0 SSD, Crucial or Intel.

Heres a cool video of a Llano setup playing Crysis 2 and running Linx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kGwrqSntFs&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Munky]

Core i3 2100. I recently built my parents a PC using the same cpu, and that should easily last them 5 years or more.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Everybody has to "throw in" on this one -- the thread is already 3 pages long. I'm no exception.

There was a time during the late '80s and through the '90s that you'd pay around $3,000 for an OEM rig. I think one time -- I dumped 5 Grand into one. I remember my landlord and colleague who spent at least that much in 1984 for an "IBM-PC." I started building my own systems around 1996, and was able to save a nice pile of change.

But that's "changed." Looked in the Times today at the daily Fry's ad. You can buy a low-end PC for $400 -- occasionally even less!! For an aging parent, that might be fine. I don't MIND being Mom's "tech-support" for hardware and OS maintenance. But it's a "personal computer," and it gets a little irritating to be called upstairs for assistance with every "install new updates" and AV pop-up window that requires just a little decision-making and common sense. Thank GOD for "remote desktop" . . . .

Maybe you CAN'T buy a high-end rig for what it costs you to build it yourself, but it can come pretty close.

For me, it's a personal choice -- acknowledging that its more costly and uneconomic. I CAN'T STAND all the "extended care" software, internet reminders and other crap that Dell puts on their systems. I can't stand the proprietary hardware. I can't stand the fact that they may build it to your spec, but always throw in a PSU that only supports those specs and those needs at that particular time. It's NICE that they're making desktops that are compact and have a low footprint, it's NICE that they come ready-loaded with Win 7 and some other complimentary software.

But I just can't STAND those things! I CAN'T STAND them! So I build a new machine every time it looks to be advantageous, and pass on the cast-offs to the fam-damn-ily. I couldn't POSSIBLY have stuck with a Pentium 4 since 2006, but my brother did -- and he's perfectly happy with it -- except that he bought himself a C2D laptop. And he's happy to get my Q6600 system at end of this year.

Hold on . . . I hear someone calling: "Nor-man!! NOR-MANNN!! Leave that girl alone, Nor-man!! Your mother did something to her e-mail browser, and doesn't know how to change it back . . . . NORRRRR-MANNNNN!!!" And . . . there goes the Bates Motel, with nobody to watch the office and man the cash-register . . . .

 

[Zap]

I didn't want to be vulgar. After all, this is a public discussion. Celery (on) is a bad word.

:awe:

RAM is key, much more than a SSD hard drive or whatever.

RAM is key... only if you don't have enough RAM.

For "normal desktop usage" (email, web, media consumption, etc.) what would be the better performer to anyone sitting down at the system:

Current dual core CPU, 32GB RAM, current 7200RPM HDD

Current dual core CPU, 2GB RAM, current SSD

(by "current" I mean Athlon II/Core i3, non-gimped (no OCZ Onyx) SSD with Trim/HDD with at least 320GB platters)

Sure, with Windows 7 going from 512MB or 1GB RAM to 2GB RAM is a HUGE upgrade, but if your tasks don't demand it, higher is not always better.

Analogy time! It's like this... Not enough RAM is like trying to drive yourself and two friends to the movies in your 2-seat Miata. Will take you two trips. If you "upgrade" your car to a 4-seat Civic (or are they 5?) you can then take your two friends in one trip. However, if you upgrade to some ginormous SUV with a third row of seats and enough seatbelts for eight passengers... you still won't get to the movies any faster. Adding an SSD to the mix is like adding NOS to any of the cars. Doesn't increase the seats, but WHOA does it move fast.

Hold on . . . I hear someone calling: "Nor-man!! NOR-MANNN!!

 

[Marty502]

single core Atom is slow as ass at times for even surfing the web. go to a page with a bunch of Flash on it and it will make you feel like you are on dial up. heck the cpu I am using now murders my Atom and even it is really poky on some sites.

for most ignorant people, computers are like cars. if they dont know any better and someone tells them its fast then they believe it.

Forgot that one. I actually installed the low quality flash extension for Chrome. Problem solved.

To be honest, it performs decently and even I take it for working sometimes. For Gmail, Excel, Facebook and news sites, who needs more than that?

 

[Marty502]

RAM is key... only if you don't have enough RAM.

For "normal desktop usage" (email, web, media consumption, etc.) what would be the better performer to anyone sitting down at the system:

Current dual core CPU, 32GB RAM, current 7200RPM HDD

Current dual core CPU, 2GB RAM, current SSD

(by "current" I mean Athlon II/Core i3, non-gimped (no OCZ Onyx) SSD with Trim/HDD with at least 320GB platters)

Sure, with Windows 7 going from 512MB or 1GB RAM to 2GB RAM is a HUGE upgrade, but if your tasks don't demand it, higher is not always better.

Well, that's what I actually meant. It's just that I see some budget rigs on sale today with faster CPUs than mine and 1 GB of RAM and it drives me nuts.
My rig is 6 years old and it would runs circles around them for pretty much anything.

So yeah, no need to go crazy on the RAM either. But it's gotta be a good chunk and honestly, you really have to be a cheap ass to skimp on that. RAM is so cheap nowadays.

 

[VirtualLarry]

honestly, you really have to be a cheap ass to skimp on that. RAM is so cheap nowadays.

Yes. I just cringe, when I see OEM systems with "3GB DDR3 RAM". How much more expensive could it be to just throw in a single 4GB stick of DDR3. Really.

 

[mmaestro]

So I'd been thinking about creating one of those systems with an SSD for speed, but how are y'all managing those dealing with non-technical people? My folks, for instance, do a lot of photo storage (not even editing, they just copy it to the HDD) meaning a small capacity SSD just won't cut it. To me, Z68 (as cheap as you can go) with the SSD caching makes a ton of sense here - it makes the drive invisible, while still providing much of the speed benefits. Or are you going through and redircting libraries/user folders to secondary magnetic storage, or am I the only one facing down the prospect of leaving 2 disks in there with people who don't really understand file systems?

 

[Ratman6161]

Why do people always cheap out when it comes to getting a computer for their parents? As if their parents wouldn't want something quick and responsive like any normal person.

The issue is that several years ago even a low end system got fast enough for many people. The E5200 system the in-laws got was and still is way more than adequate for what they do with it. So its not a matter of "cheaping out". Its a matter of not having them waste their money on speed they will never...ever...use. You may say "but for $20 more you could have gotten the super duper xyz processor! To which I would say, that was $20 wasted because they would not know the difference anyway.

 

[Ratman6161]

Lol? I went to Dell right now and configured a system similar to mine built over a year ago. I gave the Dell every possible benefit of the doubt. ...
The verdict? I don't feel so bad dropping another $140 for my second Filco.

See, you confirmed my point in that you did not save money buy building your own. You did ensure that you got exactly what you wanted, which is exactly what I said.

 

[Zap]

So I'd been thinking about creating one of those systems with an SSD for speed, but how are y'all managing those dealing with non-technical people? My folks, for instance, do a lot of photo storage (not even editing, they just copy it to the HDD) meaning a small capacity SSD just won't cut it. To me, Z68 (as cheap as you can go) with the SSD caching makes a ton of sense here - it makes the drive invisible, while still providing much of the speed benefits. Or are you going through and redircting libraries/user folders to secondary magnetic storage, or am I the only one facing down the prospect of leaving 2 disks in there with people who don't really understand file systems?

I haven't tried Z68 with SSD caching but it sounds very promising.

What I've done in these instances is to have an SSD and a normal HDD. You can easily re-map My Documents/Pictures/Music/Videos and the Downloads directory to the D: drive (I usually create a sub-folder called "Data" and dump them in there in their own folders). Don't remember for the Downloads directory, but the My* folders can just be moved over, and Windows 7 will automagically link to the new location. Then, all they have to do is to save to My* just like most Windows software wants to do by default, and it will automatically go to the D: drive. After this, the only big issue with data that users may manually save is if they save onto their Desktop. I've never tried moving the Desktop over, so don't know how easy (or not) it would be. One of my aunts does this and it drives me nuts! Plus, she's the next one due for an upgrade, so I'll have to either find a workaround or convince her to not do that.

 

[mmaestro]

Actually, I've moved the desktop, so I can tell you it's pretty easy. I didn't copy those directories over, I created new ones, right clicked each of the directories in turn, went to the location tab, and entered the new path, but it worked for the desktop too. This is on my personal computer, rather than one for friends or family.
So you've not had any problems with files ending up on the C: drive anyway? That's kind of my big fear there, and why I thought SSD caching is probably a better solution. I deal with enough idiot users in my day job who'd find a way of screwing it up that I'm hesitant to allow anyone who isn't technical to even see that there are two drives, but my paranoia may just be getting the better of me, there.

 

[Roy2001]

If price is not a big issue, get 2500+Z68+SSD, with a after market tower heatseak, you can build a fully passive system (except PSU).

 

[Zap]

So you've not had any problems with files ending up on the C: drive anyway? That's kind of my big fear there, and why I thought SSD caching is probably a better solution.

In the ones I've changed, I haven't had any revert on their own back to the C drive. Of course, this won't stop people from manually saving to the C drive, but if they know that much then they can be taught to save to the D drive. If they save to My Documents/etc. then it will automatically be on D.

Of course I don't know what happens if D drive dies. Data loss will of course be as with any other HDD failure, but in this case Windows will keep working, but I don't know how it will handle the pointers towards a (now) invalid location.

One added bonus of this method is that I've used the D drive every time to back up a system image of C, as well as making a DVD system image using the backup utility built-in to Windows 7. Of course it isn't perfect (compression is average, compatibility issues for burning to disc) but it works enough to be useful.

 

[deimos3428]

Of course I don't know what happens if D drive dies. Data loss will of course be as with any other HDD failure, but in this case Windows will keep working, but I don't know how it will handle the pointers towards a (now) invalid location.

Can't tell you for certain what will happen in your situation, but I tried moving my profile onto a remote drive for a while, connected via iSCSI. If the network isn't available on login, Windows 7 just builds a new temporary profile in C: \Users. So things can be slow if the OS is looking in the wrong spot, but Windows should at least keep functioning. That said, you might want to keep an admin profile on C: for emergencies.