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

[Morbus]

I started with an Athlon XP 2600+, then got a Core 2 Duo E6550 and then a i5 4670k. That's my 12 years of personal computing and gaming. I've always played everything I wanted at max settings, or near max settings, and only upgraded when the CPU was holding me back. And yes, by the time I did upgrade CPU, the socket was always dead.

And with my i5, I don't plan to upgrade to a new CPU in at least 6 years. Unless something drastic happens, like a fire or something.

Now, buying a cheap(er) VGA at first and then buying a beefier one later down the line works much better, and is, in my view, the sanest attitude to have. I went from a TI4600 to a 6600GT, from a X1950Pro to a HD4890, and now bought a GTX760, the most expensive card I have ever bought (for 220&#8364 and the only reason I don't regret my buy is that it's so damn powerful and plays whatever I want at maximum settings 1080p (no AA), because I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty happy with a GTX650 Boost or something, and would have saved at least 60€ there... But well, I made my choice, and I'm happy with it.

 

[Cogman]

The problem is that each new generation of CPU seems to be switching sockets. As a result, the prices on old CPUs seems to depreciate very slowly.

Back in the good ole Socket A days, I would have said "Sure, buy cheap upgrade later" However, now-a-days I'm more of the mindset to buy what you need today because in a few years you won't be able to upgrade at a reasonable price.

 

[Compman55]

After leaving AMD socket A, I have gone to buying the middle of the road cpu and leaving it in until the motherboard change.

Take socket A for example. I bought a gigabyte GA-7DXR+ which had the amd 761 northbridge. FSB was capped to 266. I bought a mid level Athlon XP 2100+ palamino core. There was little to no real world performance increase when I hunted down a Athlon XP 2600+ t-bred B core. Yes it benchmarked better, and used less power, but was not worth the price.

Today would be a great example. Two idential 1150 haswell systems, one with a mid i5, and one with a mid i7. Most people cannot "feel" the difference, unless shown on benchmarks. Once you see it, magically you then are able to argue it is faster, even though its not detectible.

I know I will be on the fence when I build my haswell, but you can never go wrong picking the middle.

 

[MrPickins]

In my experience, when I've tried this, the higher end CPUs remain disproportionately expensive because of all the people looking to extend the life of their system with the best CPU that socket has to offer.

 

[crashtech]

Yeah, it's not really a money saving strategy, but one that can allow a user to achieve a platform upgrade without resorting to a crappy motherboard (and GPU, in the case of gamers). Gaming builds in particular exhibit better performance per dollar with an emphasis on the GPU over the CPU, an idea that finds very few friends in this CPU subforum.

 

[Morbus]

Gaming builds in particular exhibit better performance per dollar with an emphasis on the GPU over the CPU, an idea that finds very few friends in this CPU subforum.

Yeah, but if you, like me, plan on upgrading the GPU every 2/3 years, a crappy CPU will start to bottleneck pretty soon... That's why I never skimp too much on the CPU and try to get something that will handle at the very least ONE new graphics card in 2/3 years, and hopefully two... This way you end up spending less.

 

[crashtech]

It's not clear to me how buying a better GPU later instead of up front saves money over buying a better CPU later instead of up front. It's just an alternate method. Seeing how well the new i3s do might influence some gamers to build systems that are heavier on the GPU, who knows:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

 

[piasabird]

Intel has monopoly power and they don't lower their prices too much. That may be news to some people, but that is the reality. I don't usually buy the latest CPU Model #. However, if you buy gear that is already obsolete you will never resell it. Sure you could buy a $49 Intel Pentium, but it will be too far out of date by the time you replace it. I never feel that I should have purchases a CPU with less power. But then I never purchase the top of the line either. That is just because I am kind of cheap. There has to be a balance in all things.

When it comes to purchasing computers maybe people should save for a computer like they do for a Christmas Account. Just put away a little money every payday and you can buy a new computer ever couple of years.

 

[MrPickins]

It's not clear to me how buying a better GPU later instead of up front saves money over buying a better CPU later instead of up front. It's just an alternate method. Seeing how well the new i3s do might influence some gamers to build systems that are heavier on the GPU, who knows:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Keep in mind that the latest and greatest GPU uses the same socket as a GPU from the mid-2000's (with some difference in bandwidth, of course).

You can't say the same for a CPU.

 

[crashtech]

Keep in mind that the latest and greatest GPU uses the same socket as a GPU from the mid-2000's (with some difference in bandwidth, of course).

You can't say the same for a CPU.

I concede, yet no one can say that CPUs from sockets 775, 1366, 1156, and 1155 aren't readily available used.

 

[Homeles]

Keep in mind that the latest and greatest GPU uses the same socket as a GPU from the mid-2000's (with some difference in bandwidth, of course).

You can't say the same for a CPU.

The GPUs themselves aren't socketed. The AIB sockets into the motherboard. If the GPUs were available in PGA or LGA packages like CPUs, we'd run into the same situation. Every time a new memory standard is used, bus width changes, additional components are moved on or off the GPU... you'd need a new socket. However, if you were to do it the CPU way, GPUs would be a lot cheaper.

 

[crashtech]

I think "socket" and "slot" can be seen as analogous for the purposes of MrPickins post.

 

[MrPickins]

I concede, yet no one can say that CPUs from sockets 775, 1366, 1156, and 1155 aren't readily available used.

Very true, but my experience has been that the higher end CPUs (the ones people would want to use in an upgrade) tend to hold their value much more than the lower end models. This stops the upgrade from being a no-brainer.

Again, just in my personal experience.

I think "socket" and "slot" can be seen as analogous for the purposes of MrPickins post.

Yeah, I meant slot, but hadn't had my coffee yet.

 

[escrow4]

I started with an Athlon XP 2600+, then got a Core 2 Duo E6550 and then a i5 4670k. That's my 12 years of personal computing and gaming. I've always played everything I wanted at max settings, or near max settings, and only upgraded when the CPU was holding me back. And yes, by the time I did upgrade CPU, the socket was always dead.

And with my i5, I don't plan to upgrade to a new CPU in at least 6 years. Unless something drastic happens, like a fire or something.

Now, buying a cheap(er) VGA at first and then buying a beefier one later down the line works much better, and is, in my view, the sanest attitude to have. I went from a TI4600 to a 6600GT, from a X1950Pro to a HD4890, and now bought a GTX760, the most expensive card I have ever bought (for 220€) and the only reason I don't regret my buy is that it's so damn powerful and plays whatever I want at maximum settings 1080p (no AA), because I'm pretty sure I'd be pretty happy with a GTX650 Boost or something, and would have saved at least 60€ there... But well, I made my choice, and I'm happy with it.

6yrs?. 6yrs ago we had Core 2 and they are obsolete for gaming now - look at recent Techspot CPU benchmarks. In 6yrs we'll be on what - 10nm or lower? Even with only a 10% incremental improvement each year that is a massive gulf. I seriously doubt a E6550 would have been sufficient over the past 2yrs with a lot of AAA games, it would have been a massive bottleneck.

I tend to upgrade GPU's every year if required and CPU's every two, maybe three years but more like 2. And come Watch Dogs and Witcher 3 I'd bet money that 760 will run out of puff even in basic options like SSAO and soft shadows all turned up at 1080p, never mind all those other options.

 

[Homeles]

Very true, but my experience has been that the higher end CPUs (the ones people would want to use in an upgrade) tend to hold their value much more than the lower end models. This stops the upgrade from being a no-brainer.

Again, just in my personal experience.



Yeah, I meant slot, but hadn't had my coffee yet.

I wasn't trying to pick on you; I was just using the opportunity to make a point.

 

[MrPickins]

I wasn't trying to pick on you; I was just using the opportunity to make a point.

No worries.

Also a socketed GPU would be fun to play around with.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I always build my computers so they'll last 3-5 years easy... by the time I'm looking to put more money into my computer I'm wanting a whole new one. It's nice having an computer left over from it rather than just spare parts at the end of the day.

 

[KingFatty]

People upgrade their computer because of games.

Games necessitate upgrade when they advance to new tech, such as XBox 360 -> Xbox One

Thus, you should expect to upgrade your motherboard/CPU when the consoles upgrade.

With the last gen to the current gen, that was what, 8 years?

 

[mikeymikec]

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.

Perhaps it's just where I'm looking, but I hardly see this at all in the UK for Intel CPUs. Your strategy was something I kept an eye on for AMD CPUs as they steadily came down in price.

 

[cytg111]

Back then, yes. Now? Hell no.
With the minimalistic increments in frequency and ipc we're seeing these days -and the next decade being fought in lesser formfactors than desktop pc's (hence the wattage obsession.), i'd say go all out on the CPU front now, get the best of the best, that CPU will easily last you a decade. Only consideration would be upgradepath for new GPU's and other other perpherials.

The haswell-e coming up is looking mighty interresting .. that rig could last for a loooooooong time. (while a tad lesser frequency, when that begins to matter it might just hit the moar coars reality-curve in the *beep*).

 

[Morbus]

6yrs?. 6yrs ago we had Core 2 and they are obsolete for gaming now

Yeah, but current day CPUs are terribly overpowered in comparison to what C2D were back then. Besides, current day AMD CPUs aren't any faster than 2011 CPUs in terms of single-core performance, so... I'm thinking, like many, that current day CPUs will last a looooooooong time...

I tend to upgrade GPU's every year if required and CPU's every two, maybe three years but more like 2. And come Watch Dogs and Witcher 3 I'd bet money that 760 will run out of puff even in basic options like SSAO and soft shadows all turned up at 1080p, never mind all those other options.

You are out of your mind. My rig was running a C2D 2.4 and a HD4890. It ran everything I needed up until last year. I didn't run Rome 2 or Crysis 3, but then I upgraded. After 6 years with the C2D and 3 years with the HD4890...

GPU every year?! For what, 20% better performance?!

A lol.

 

[crashtech]

There is nothing wrong with upgrading your parts more often if you have the desire and the money. Selling a one year old GPU makes upgrading at that rate a substantially less expensive proposition, too, since it will still have some value. Insulting someone with different wants than you is poor form and has no place here.

 

[Morbus]

I misread his post, to be honest. Specifically the part about "I tend to upgrade GPU's every year". It was uncalled for, even if it wasn't an insult.

What's with everyone calling "insult!" when it's clearly not an insult? Jeez...

 

[crashtech]

"You are out of your mind" might be a compliment to those about whom it is an understatement, but to an otherwise level-headed individual it might be seen as derogatory.

 

[Morbus]

It's not clear to me how buying a better GPU later instead of up front saves money over buying a better CPU later instead of up front. It's just an alternate method. Seeing how well the new i3s do might influence some gamers to build systems that are heavier on the GPU, who knows:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Well, considering the GPU is what matters for gaming, and considering video cards get outdated much faster than CPUs, it's only to prioritize GPU upgrades over CPU upgrades.

The thing is, buying a top of the line GPU today will make it last like 4 years, if you're willing to compromise on the details later in its life. You're likely to spend 500USD in the card, which amounts to 125USD a year on video cards.

If, however, you spend, say, 250USD on a video card today, it will last you 3 years until you need to upgrade. Say the new video card you buy in 3 years for 250USD will last you another 3 years, that amounts to 500USD for 6 years, which means 80USD per year, which is about 50% in savings.

Sure, a GTX760 won't play like a GTX780 today, but, truth be told, the difference doesn't justify paying double.