Yet another post regarding older vs newer CPUs

[ibex333]

I know there have been similar discussions before, but I been thinking lately, how pointless and futile it is to waste money on top of the line CPUs if you don't actually need them.

I've been caught in the loop myself, constantly trying to upgrade every 2-4 years, but I did it because I could, not because I needed to.

Recently I put up for sale, parts from my machine based around a i5-6600k @ 4.2GHz, when I realized just how little of the processing power I have been using. The main reason for an upgrade was gaming, and for that the CPU served it's purpose well handling every single AAA title with ease.

Due to real life demands however, I have been doing less and less gaming, playing mostly 2012 and older games when I do have the time. In light of this, I went back to my Pentium e6300@3.2 GHz machine "mostly" sitting in the closet for last 6 years.

And what a great decision it was! I do notice "some" slowdown, but it's not a night and day difference by far because I am still using an SSD. Certain things take maybe 1-5 seconds more to happen, but it's nothing even remotely annoying or bothersome. There is very little, if any, difference in how quickly websites open and load fully.

I don't pay for electricity in my building(included in maintenance costs) so heat and power usage are irrelevant to me. I calculated that I will get back somewhere between $400 and $600 after selling all my parts I been using and I am a very happy camper.

Maybe many things I said here are moot point, I don't know, but I guess what I am trying to say, is it's mind boggling, how many people, including myself are buying, and using things they don't actually truly, really NEED.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is much along the same vein as my "obsession" with lower-end Pentium / Celeron CPUs. Of course, I overclocked them, so that mitigated much of the drawbacks of a typical Pentium / Celeron.

But I was a big fan of "rightsizing" my builds, and not overbuying, because the value for $ gets really thin at the upper end of Intel's product stack.

OTOH, with the release of Ryzen, I could not ignore the amazing value for $, even though they didn't have any truly "low end" CPUs in their stack. So, that's what I'm running for my crunching rigs these days. Still running KBL Pentiums for my daily-driver mini-PCs though.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

It's always about matching the tool to the job at hand. Buy just enough, but buy it at excellent quality, and use it well.

 

[mikeymikec]

When I changed from a Phenom II 960T to an i5-4690k (both with the same SSD), app start times were noticeably faster. Taking LibreOffice for example, I'd say on the Ph2 it took 3 seconds to start on a good day and about 7 on a not-so-good day (and it wasn't to do with document loading sizes). On the i5, I'd say it takes 3 seconds on a not-so-good day and a second or less on a good day. Similar relative differences for Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird.

Admittedly the only reason I changed platforms was because I thought the AM3 board was up the creek (and it turned out to be mostly the graphics card, and the board only had a few squirrely symptoms that I could easily have lived with).

I also wonder whether the AHCI implementation for the AMD 800 series chipsets really wasn't as good though (and perhaps that was what caused the performance differences I've mentioned), because ATTO showed a significant improvement on the i5 rig for smaller file transfers.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Due to real life demands however, I have been doing less and less gaming, playing mostly 2012 and older games when I do have the time. In light of this, I went back to my Pentium e6300@3.2 GHz machine "mostly" sitting in the closet for last 6 years.

Slightly OT, but oh well. The newest small core Apollo Lakes are hitting first gen C2D(/Q) levels of IPC. So if one doesn't have an old C2D handy, one would likely be happy with one of those. They also share Skylakes Gen9 graphics, which are a good deal better then anything you'll find on Socket 775.

Maybe many things I said here are moot point, I don't know, but I guess what I am trying to say, is it's mind boggling, how many people, including myself are buying, and using things they don't actually truly, really NEED.

All things considered PC tinkering is still a relatively inexpensive hobby...

 

[ibex333]

Slightly OT, but oh well. The newest small core Apollo Lakes are hitting first gen C2D(/Q) levels of IPC. So if one doesn't have an old C2D handy, one would likely be happy with one of those. They also share Skylakes Gen9 graphics, which are a good deal better then anything you'll find on Socket 775.



All things considered PC tinkering is still a relatively inexpensive hobby...

Agreed, the Apollo Lakes are great, but I also find it awesome that I pretty much get the same level of performance from my "worthless rig" when Apollo Lake PCs usually go for $100 and higher.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Agreed, the Apollo Lakes are great, but I also find it awesome that I pretty much get the same level of performance from my "worthless rig" when Apollo Lake PCs usually go for $100 and higher.

I am continuously surprised how much milage people have gotten out of C2D/C2Q systems. Conroe really was a revolution, the base-line performance is still good enough 11 years after launch. It was that good.

 

[richierich1212]

I am continuously surprised how much milage people have gotten out of C2D/C2Q systems. Conroe really was a revolution, the base-line performance is still good enough 11 years after launch. It was that good.

Well Windows 7 helped a ton. That was the first Windows version in a long time that didn't feel as bloated and you could run on a wide variety of hardware without issue.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yeah, Windows 7 (official 64-bit support, yeah!) helped immensely, compare to XP.

 

[daxzy]

IMO, Windows 7 didn't feel much faster than Windows XP. It doesn't really offer any significant advantages that a well kept Windows XP system had (Windows 98/ME to XP, OTOH.... wow that was a huge difference).

I think Windows 7 to Windows 10 was a far bigger leap in terms of snappiness and stability. I have C2D/Athlon 64 systems with modern SATA3 controllers/SSD's and they run Windows 10 as fast as any modern system.

 

[ub4ty]

I know there have been similar discussions before, but I been thinking lately, how pointless and futile it is to waste money on top of the line CPUs if you don't actually need them.

I've been caught in the loop myself, constantly trying to upgrade every 2-4 years, but I did it because I could, not because I needed to.

Recently I put up for sale, parts from my machine based around a i5-6600k @ 4.2GHz, when I realized just how little of the processing power I have been using. The main reason for an upgrade was gaming, and for that the CPU served it's purpose well handling every single AAA title with ease.

Due to real life demands however, I have been doing less and less gaming, playing mostly 2012 and older games when I do have the time. In light of this, I went back to my Pentium e6300@3.2 GHz machine "mostly" sitting in the closet for last 6 years.

And what a great decision it was! I do notice "some" slowdown, but it's not a night and day difference by far because I am still using an SSD. Certain things take maybe 1-5 seconds more to happen, but it's nothing even remotely annoying or bothersome. There is very little, if any, difference in how quickly websites open and load fully.

I don't pay for electricity in my building(included in maintenance costs) so heat and power usage are irrelevant to me. I calculated that I will get back somewhere between $400 and $600 after selling all my parts I been using and I am a very happy camper.

Maybe many things I said here are moot point, I don't know, but I guess what I am trying to say, is it's mind boggling, how many people, including myself are buying, and using things they don't actually truly, really NEED.

You are correct in many of your points. I feel a good number of people grow out of the enthusiast phase after they grow older and develop grounded experiences. When you're young, you like to break through barriers and walls. As you grow older, you bare the scars as such and are worn by such adventures/misadventures. I've been building PCs for myself and needs for some time and I have to say that I have grown more conservative, upgrade less, and splurge less as I have gotten older. Namely because I have learned from my experiences and know there to be little value in what I once used to to do. I also know that I used to do it to (feel) like I was on the cutting edge. Now, I know that I am due to my work and don't need to create that feeling artificially by wasting money on over spec'd tech for my needs.

The young need these feels and need to go through these phases and I can understand that. I no longer do. My builds now only occur if my hardware has ran itself in the ground/died or if I have a need that can't be resolved by my present platform. I research my purchases heavily and no longer jump on the early adaptor train (I have learned from this mistake). Depreciation is a real concept and I value it. It takes a long time for me to decide on a purchase.

All of my builds have been intel based up until now. However, after having evaluated the ryzen platform, I am making a switch. Far better value. Intel's pricing is ridiculous as are the associated heat/power draws. That matters to me now that I have matured. I am currently waiting on threadripper to debut for which I will either decide based on heavy evaluation of the micro-architecture, throughput, and latency whether or not it is worth it to go threadripper or a ryzen 8 core. My needs focus on heavy multi-process/multi-threaded high throughput compute. The price/performance has to be right for me to go threadripper. Intel is out of the question with their Skylake architecture for cost/heat/power issues. I have no problem saying that and maturely moving away from my historic intel builds towards a platform that offers more bang for the buck. Gaming is the least of all drivers for my builds/upgrades. I stopped overclocking some years ago but will likely do it now to extract better value out of the lower priced chips to match the higher priced chip performance. I will likely only do this during select periods in which I am actually pushing the limits of the hardware.

 

[SPBHM]

just curious, what were you using before the 6600K? the e6300?

anyway, it's missing the point but, if you want to have some cheap fun and already have a decent 775 board, those $30 771 Xeons can probably run near 4GHz with 4 cores and 12mb l2,

 

[mikeymikec]

I am continuously surprised how much milage people have gotten out of C2D/C2Q systems. Conroe really was a revolution, the base-line performance is still good enough 11 years after launch. It was that good.

I'm just doing a second Windows upgrade for a customer on a C2D system: XP to Vista (I think they had a licence for it already), then Vista to Win10. The only real fly on the ointment of the latest upgrade is that the NIC won't come out of standby or hibernation properly, so time for another one.

 

[ibex333]

just curious, what were you using before the 6600K? the e6300?

anyway, it's missing the point but, if you want to have some cheap fun and already have a decent 775 board, those $30 771 Xeons can probably run near 4GHz with 4 cores and 12mb l2,

Actually I was using an overclocked i5-2500k. Would have been still fine with it, I am sure. But back then, I was obsessed with getting high FPS in Fallout 4 at 1440p so I got the 1070 GTX and 6600k.

 

[2is]

While I agree that there appears to be less reason to upgrade as frequently these days, I cannot relate to the C2D example given. Even with basic web browsing, there's a gigantic difference between those Core 2's and even something as old as a Sandy Bridge i5. Even with an SSD, basic windows operation is far snappier, partly due to the faster CPU/RAM and partly due to the much faster SATA operation and even light-moderately demanding games are virtually unplayable with a Core 2 Duo and just barely acceptable on an overclocked Core 2 Quad.

I can understand a certain level of "fun factor" with older hardware. There are some older hardware configurations that are still viable, power consumption not withstanding. I'm typing this out on an i7 860, 12GB RAM, 2GB HD 6950 and it does well for basic tasks and I use it to play through some of my older backlog of games. Currently playing through RAGE and fire up GRID: Autosport for an occasional race. I could play these on my main rig, but it handles these games just fine and there's a certain level of satisfaction being able to make rather good use of stuff you have laying around that has lost nearly all it's value.... I just think Core 2's have fallen out of that realm of usefulness today.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

On Windows for sure. On Linux they're more bearable, though the Web is still massive and bloaty and it hits the poor Conroe/Wolfdale CPUs really hard, especially with no dGPU.

 

[mikeymikec]

While I agree that there appears to be less reason to upgrade as frequently these days, I cannot relate to the C2D example given. Even with basic web browsing, there's a gigantic difference between those Core 2's and even something as old as a Sandy Bridge i5. Even with an SSD, basic windows operation is far snappier, partly due to the faster CPU/RAM and partly due to the much faster SATA operation and even light-moderately demanding games are virtually unplayable with a Core 2 Duo and just barely acceptable on an overclocked Core 2 Quad.

It depends on the usage scenario and largely on the user's own preference. On one hand I've done CPU upgrades for Athlon II X2 users to X4s because they complained about browsing performance (and yes I checked it was CPU bound), and on the other hand I have customers still using Pentium D CPUs, AMD Turion, etc.

IMO it can be a bit like monitor size choice. I was perfectly fine using a 17" 4:3 monitor, but when that died I had the choice of another 4:3 or a 1080p monitor for £30 more. I went with the latter, however, I can't imagine ever being fine going back to a 1280x1024 monitor; grudging acceptance perhaps if the situation required it.

 

[LightningZ71]

I've personally got a handful of friends and family that are still happily using C2D q8400 machines (mainly dell 780s with cheap SSD swaps) every day. Windows 10 went on them just fine and is reasonably responsive. Granted, aside from kids playing web games and parents surfing, they don't see a lot of heavy use, but it's just fine for their daily needs.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Older CPUs are perfectly fine.
My "butt dyno" doesn't notice much difference between my FX 8320, OCed X6 1045T, OCed 4770K, dual X5690, OCed 2500K/3570K systems for day-to-day use.

 

[Roland00Address]

This is much along the same vein as my "obsession" with lower-end Pentium / Celeron CPUs. Of course, I overclocked them, so that mitigated much of the drawbacks of a typical Pentium / Celeron.

But I was a big fan of "rightsizing" my builds, and not overbuying, because the value for $ gets really thin at the upper end of Intel's product stack.

OTOH, with the release of Ryzen, I could not ignore the amazing value for $, even though they didn't have any truly "low end" CPUs in their stack. So, that's what I'm running for my crunching rigs these days. Still running KBL Pentiums for my daily-driver mini-PCs though.

Wait your daily driver is KBL pentiums and own Ryzen computers...I thought you only loved atoms and amd-e2 processors

 

[Yongsta]

While I agree that there appears to be less reason to upgrade as frequently these days, I cannot relate to the C2D example given. Even with basic web browsing, there's a gigantic difference between those Core 2's and even something as old as a Sandy Bridge i5. Even with an SSD, basic windows operation is far snappier, partly due to the faster CPU/RAM and partly due to the much faster SATA operation and even light-moderately demanding games are virtually unplayable with a Core 2 Duo and just barely acceptable on an overclocked Core 2 Quad.

I can understand a certain level of "fun factor" with older hardware. There are some older hardware configurations that are still viable, power consumption not withstanding. I'm typing this out on an i7 860, 12GB RAM, 2GB HD 6950 and it does well for basic tasks and I use it to play through some of my older backlog of games. Currently playing through RAGE and fire up GRID: Autosport for an occasional race. I could play these on my main rig, but it handles these games just fine and there's a certain level of satisfaction being able to make rather good use of stuff you have laying around that has lost nearly all it's value.... I just think Core 2's have fallen out of that realm of usefulness today.

My friends rig is a Q6600 at 3.7ghz, 8GB DDR2 ram, 240GB Toshiba SSD, and GTX 1050 Ti. His system felt just as snappy for desktop usage as my Ryzen 5 1600/GTX 1070 rig. His rig boots into Windows 10 around 5 seconds faster (although I have more things loading at boot). Watched 4K YouTube videos on his computer through Chrome and it was smooth. In games, he can't do high settings at 1080P (some he can get it at 60FPS on high) but most of the time it's at medium settings and that's fine.

 

[2is]

My friends rig is a Q6600 at 3.7ghz, 8GB DDR2 ram, 240GB Toshiba SSD, and GTX 1050 Ti. His system felt just as snappy for desktop usage as my Ryzen 5 1600/GTX 1070 rig. His rig boots into Windows 10 around 5 seconds faster (although I have more things loading at boot). Watched 4K YouTube videos on his computer through Chrome and it was smooth. In games, he can't do high settings at 1080P (some he can get it at 60FPS on high) but most of the time it's at medium settings and that's fine.

I personally ran an OC'd Q6600 for over 5 years before upgrading to my current platform. They were great processors and I'm well aware of what they're capable of. That said, you're either not very sensitive to the overall responsiveness of a system or Ryzen isn't very good if you can't tell the difference or if you're actually losing some performance metrics.

 

[Zor Prime]

I've been using a Phenom II X6 rig (w/ 960 GTX 4GB, SATA SSD, 1080p) for years. I recently built a Ryzen 1700 rig (w/ 1070 GTX, NVMe SSD, 1440p).

The old Phenom box does everything the Ryzen box does for me. The difference is the Ryzen box does everything on Ultra and almost instantaneously. But, they're both still usable.

 

[kwalkingcraze]

I think 2012 A10-5800K APU was the most-advanced processor ever, and it doesn't show its age at all today for 2018. Graphics still more faster than Kaby Lake. Processors were also a lot more cheaper back then. Now the top-of-the line Ryzen cost $2,000 today, vs. $149 for A10-5800K before.

Eventually, I need to quit soon keeping up with all the new CPUs, and buy only used, obsolete CPUs from now on due to rising costs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Now the top-of-the line Ryzen cost $2,000 today, vs. $149 for A10-5800K before.

WUT?

Are you referring to ThreadRipper?

Or did I miss a sudden price hike?