Wisdom (or lack thereof) of choosing weakest CPU for socket; upgrading later?

[VirtualLarry]

Just curious what the opinions are on this practice. I saved a chunk of money in the 775 days, getting the cheapest dual-cores I could and overclocking them (E2140). Then I later upgraded them when Microcenter was clearing out Q9300 quad-cores for $100.

 

[Rakehellion]

Might as well get a mid-range CPU for an older socket if you're trying to save money.

 

[escrow4]

Just buy the equivalent 2600K | 3770 | 4770 and forget about the rest. Can't go wrong.

 

[BrightCandle]

The best performace/price usually runs at the middle area of performance. Buying the cheapest is rarely a good strategy unless its necessary, but buying the halo products is equally poor value for money in the long term.

 

[coolpurplefan]

I've bought $100 CPUs and $100 GPUs a number of times. And often can only play 2 or 3 year old games. I'm almost overwhelmed at how the industry continues to succeed in forcing changes and stable prices. I would have thought over time they wouldn't be able to do it anymore. But it looks to me like you consistently want (rather than need I suppose) $200 CPUs and GPUs. When I get my birthday money, that's very well what I may get.

I used to think it was "cool" to get $100 CPUs and GPUs. But now I finally see the folly in my decision. The result is this, I get less than satisfaction right from the start, then the experience over time becomes worse. The next time, I might get tremendous satisfaction right from the start then relatively satisfied over time. (If I want to get into the tiny details, this to me means getting a "reasonable" quad core next time instead of a dual core. And the card may end up being a $150 GTX 750 Ti but then I could replace it later and keep the CPU/motherboard/RAM. I still have machines with 2GB of RAM. My next one may be 8GB. Usually, I find the computer industry cycle forces you to change motherboard to get a new CPU and even the RAM on the previous generation becomes more expensive. Also, previous generation motherboards that are very popular become either scarce or even impossible to get, even on eBay. So my plan is, quad core, 8GB RAM, solid enough motherboard then get the GTX 750 Ti with the intention of replacing it later.)

EDIT: To make it clear, I find usually you buy CPU/motherboard/RAM once. So I think it's more realistic to buy one reasonable CPU/motherboard/RAM then add a video card you can replace later.

 

[Dahak]

I had the same thought when I was building a new computer for my mother. I build it with an athlon II X2 dual core, for 1 hoping at that time i could unlock a 3rd or 4th cores, which was common. and if needed to upgrade the cpu later.

Well it would unlock a 3rd core but was not sable, but it was fine with dual core. Now when looking to upgrade its hard to find a cpu now for it.

So I would say it would depend on a few factors.

1) how new is the platform (for example the recent release of the 8-series for haswell)
this will allow for possibly the longest upgrade time frame. That way the cpus could still be available

2) can you get by with the low cost cpu for a time 2-3years. it does not make much sense in spending $100 now and have to spend another $100 in a year or so when you could possible spend a bit more and have it last longer

For myself personally I tend to overbuild my computers as I like to keep them longer, I had a c2d that lasted me until the haswell release and this computer was about 5 years, just had 1 gpu upgrade

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Whether or not we ever discussed it, Larry and I have a similar experience in this regard.

It would seem a "worthwhile project" to build a low-end machine and possibly even overclock it. In my case, there are two other computer users in the house. One of them prefers to game on a Playstation; the other one doesn't game. They both surf the web, read e-mail, draft documents, manage their personal business.

So last time around, I rebuilt their machines with $100 mATX Gigabyte motherboards and E21x0 processors. We OC'd those processors right away. After about two years, we replaced one of those processors with the last (or near-last) Wolfdale dual-core E6700 release for another $100.

I could say it's time to upgrade those systems again, but they work fine, and the family is happ-ity. They don't want -- and don't ask -- for anything. But it really made a difference putting an SSD in the system that didn't have RAID0.

So it all depends on who wants what, and for whom you build those systems.

 

[SPBHM]

Just curious what the opinions are on this practice. I saved a chunk of money in the 775 days, getting the cheapest dual-cores I could and overclocking them (E2140). Then I later upgraded them when Microcenter was clearing out Q9300 quad-cores for $100.

overclocked e2140 could be as fast (or almost) as the high end CPUs from Intel at the time, I think right now the performance difference is bigger (once you consider OC is gone), and the i5s are pretty affordable,

 

[KingFatty]

Buy enough for what you need now, not the future.

 

[crashtech]

There's a sweet spot in price/performance that seems to live somewhere about halfway up in the product hierarchy.

Right now with Intel it's not really clear where that point is, somewhere right between an i3 and low-end i5 it would seem, with the tiebreaker being the usage scenario.

 

[jhu]

I had the same thought when I was building a new computer for my mother. I build it with an athlon II X2 dual core, for 1 hoping at that time i could unlock a 3rd or 4th cores, which was common. and if needed to upgrade the cpu later.

Well it would unlock a 3rd core but was not sable, but it was fine with dual core. Now when looking to upgrade its hard to find a cpu now for it.

Hard? Just go to Amazon. A Phenom II x6, Phenom II x4, and Athlon II x4 should work just fine.

 

[coolpurplefan]

There's a sweet spot in price/performance that seems to live somewhere about halfway up in the product hierarchy.

Right now with Intel it's not really clear where that point is, somewhere right between an i3 and low-end i5 it would seem, with the tiebreaker being the usage scenario.

Yes, with the new tri-core i4. :biggrin: (Just kidding obviously.)

 

[Homeles]

Buy enough for what you need now, not the future.

This is rather dangerous view to hold.

 

[crashtech]

This is rather dangerous view to hold.

Not if you are burying the money you save in the backyard.

 

[podspi]

This is rather dangerous view to hold.

Yes, 10~15 years ago, when things in the PC industry were changing so quickly. Those days are over, and "good enough" machines are very cheap. No reason to spend as much as you can if its unnecessary.

Of course, there are exceptions to this. But for most home users (even on here) -- it makes better sense to go mainstream and wait for higher performance levels to decline in price, rather than go all out.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

If it is a purely budgetary constraint then I believe it is wiser to grab the best and latest socket motherboard one can afford. CPU's and GPU's can be bought, swapped, and old parts sold, with relative ease.

If a person has budgetary freedom it's often a once and done scenario for the CPU and mobo now. They are going to be used together until end of life.

 

[richierich1212]

With overclocking of anything else besides K-series processors in Intel's lineup impossible, I don't see this being the case anymore.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I haven't found this to be the best strategy. By the time you want to upgrade the CPU the entire platform is so old it's really not worth your time.

 

[crashtech]

I haven't found this to be the best strategy. By the time you want to upgrade the CPU the entire platform is so old it's really not worth your time.

This is true, if "you" wait too long to upgrade. Lately it seems that platforms have a lot of staying power, though. Look at the 2500K, it is 3 years old and still a contender...

 

[Concillian]

This is true, if "you" wait too long to upgrade. Lately it seems that platforms have a lot of staying power, though. Look at the 2500K, it is 3 years old and still a contender...

I think this hardens the original argument being made. The CPU has staying power, but the motherboard may not. You generally want to use the CPU and mobo as a pair, and there aren't nearly as many cases of CPU upgrade in the original socket as there used to be.

So it seems much more prudent than it used to be to buy a better CPU than the low end.

This is largely because Intel finally engineered a reliable way to lock the low end CPUs. If we could unlock i3s and OC them to 5 GHz, then we'd probably still be buying the low end, because a Haswell i3 at 5 GHz would be good enough for many cases that a Haswell i3 at 3.3 GHz is not.

 

[BrightCandle]

One of the big things to change in the industry is that CPU prices have really come down at the more normal performance points. If you think back to the early pentium days the mid parts (like the 100Mhz ones) were still £600 just for the CPU, whereas today you can get their top clocked fully capable and unlocked processor less than half that price.

I do see this as one of the big things that changed, as the CPU prices got squeezed on the low end (where the server features aren't necessary, making the server CPUs insanely overpriced comparatively!) means that now the difference from the best to the worst is a lot smaller. It does make the mid range point really unclear and by and large the higher end mainstream parts are the parts to get due to the price squeeze.

I haven't actually done a Performance/Price chart in a while but I doubt it looks anything like what they did 10 years ago.

 

[crashtech]

I think this hardens the original argument being made. The CPU has staying power, but the motherboard may not. You generally want to use the CPU and mobo as a pair, and there aren't nearly as many cases of CPU upgrade in the original socket as there used to be.

So it seems much more prudent than it used to be to buy a better CPU than the low end.

This is largely because Intel finally engineered a reliable way to lock the low end CPUs. If we could unlock i3s and OC them to 5 GHz, then we'd probably still be buying the low end, because a Haswell i3 at 5 GHz would be good enough for many cases that a Haswell i3 at 3.3 GHz is not.

I don't see that. The example I gave, the 2500K, is LGA1155, which is still quite viable as a platform even though it has been superseded. Most older 1155 boards can accept IB with a BIOS upgrade, but in the case of my example that's not even necessary. The 2500K is a drop-in replacement for any SB CPU. Said another way, most three year old Z68 motherboards can be flashed to accept a 3770K, which packs enough punch for almost anyone.

 

[Concillian]

But the point is what did you really gain?

In the past you've been able to pick up a significantly discounted CPU for your socket as an upgrade, your total outlay for a low end CPU plus a midrange CPU would be less than the midrange CPU was new... but now a 2500k is doing so well it's not even discounted that much in the used market over what it was new. The most recent 2500k that wasn't part of a mobo bundle in FS/FT was sold in NOVEMBER 2013. They're still so good that they're not even a real upgrade option.

By the time a 2500k is obsolete, the platforms will be DDR4 or whatever and have whatever replaces SATA and the platform will be obsolete... so what is the reason to buy a low end CPU these days? In the past you could OC it to acceptable performance... not anymore. It's slightly more viable for AMD platforms, but the cost difference between is also less.

Current price differences have it making sense to buy into the mid to top tier of the consumer CPUs vs. the "good old days" of buying into the low end and OCing to get midrange to near top end performance. This is no accident, and by design of the marketing of Intel to increase average selling price to enthusiasts. The one that really shocks me though is motherboards. Used to be a pretty decked out board was $150ish, while $60-80 were standard fare. Now it seems like the starting point is close to what used to be reserved for top tier, all while more of the motherboard core features have moved to the CPU.

 

[crashtech]

I see your point. What I was thinking of is someone who is budget constrained can get a platform upgrade with a lower tier CPU, then upgrade the CPU when more money becomes available. While I agree that CPUs like the 2500K are holding value pretty well, it's a lot easier for most people to pay for a higher end CPU if it doesn't come at the same time as a platform upgrade.

 

[john3850]

In the early days intel would release chips before they were even ready and then optimized there yeilds on the fly so there were always some good overclockers.
Upgrading is dead with with tick tock but as op said you get a better cheaper chip from the start.