So I bought a new processor...

[Lheticus]

BEFORE I heard about this thing with "form factors" that may somehow mean it won't even work in the motherboard I have. I do not know what motherboard I have, I don't think I'm going to know what motherboard I have short of actually opening my casing and failing or not to install the darned processor, a hassle I really don't want to go through. I know there are programs out there I can download that may be able to tell me. I may well wind up resorting to one of those, but that's not what I'm asking about here. I just thought I'd put it out here and see if anyone can give me an idea of how much chance I have to NOT have to get a new motherboard.

Really, come to think of it I probably will have to get a new motherboard because the processors are different brands. What I have now is an Intel Core 2 Duo something whatever, and what I want to install is an "AMD a8 7670k."

[Winter_Wolf]

*snip*
I just thought I'd put it out here and see if anyone can give me an idea of how much chance I have to NOT have to get a new motherboard.

Really, come to think of it I probably will have to get a new motherboard because the processors are different brands. What I have now is an Intel Core 2 Duo something whatever, and what I want to install is an "AMD a8 7670k."

No expert myself, but I have an interest in computer hardware. Thinking you have about a zero percent chance of not having to get a new motherboard for the processor you got. After all, there are a lot of Intel processors that you simply have no chance of getting to work with a motherboard because of slot incompatibility: you won't get a CPU that needs a 1175 socket to fit into an 1150 socket, and that's the same brand. Based on a quick google check, your AMD processor is this: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-A8-Series%20A8-7670K.html and requires a FM 2+ socket on the motherboard.

Seriously, a friendly "been there", do your research BEFORE buying computers/parts.

[Grinner]

Yes. Intel and AMD use different sockets. You did keep a receipt, right?

[Lheticus]

Yes. Intel and AMD use different sockets. You did keep a receipt, right?

I'm not gonna return the dang thing. I'm willing to get a new board because, I mean, it's as old as my processor is, it stands to reason an upgrade would be at least somewhat beneficial. So the question then becomes what board WILL work that I can afford? It seems a lot harder to find a motherboard in the $50-$100 range than it is to find a CPU.

[Grinner]

I'm not gonna return the dang thing. I'm willing to get a new board because, I mean, it's as old as my processor is, it stands to reason an upgrade would be at least somewhat beneficial. So the question then becomes what board WILL work that I can afford? It seems a lot harder to find a motherboard in the $50-$100 range than it is to find a CPU.

That is a far harder question. The problem is that the motherboard is sort of the nexus of all your computer's parts. So when you ask for a board that will work with your current processor, you're also asking for a board which will work with the rest of your current hardware. If your current hardware is as old as you say it is, there's no guarantee that such a thing has been made.

If you're determined to go through with this, we will need the specs of your current hardware.

[Seerow]

That is a far harder question. The problem is that the motherboard is sort of the nexus of all your computer's parts. So when you ask for a board that will work with your current processor, you're also asking for a board which will work with the rest of your current hardware. If your current hardware is as old as you say it is, there's no guarantee that such a thing has been made.

If you're determined to go through with this, we will need the specs of your current hardware.

So much this. Even if you get a new board to go with your new processor, you're very likely to find out "oops, now my RAM doesn't fit in these RAM slots, guess I need new RAM too" then come to find out you have a really sad motherboard that doesn't even have SATA ports for your drives. And hey, does this new motherboard even fit in my old case?


Unless you're prepared to possibly be building a whole new computer from scratch, you may want to seriously consider returning the processor you bought.

[Gnoman]

I'm not gonna return the dang thing. I'm willing to get a new board because, I mean, it's as old as my processor is, it stands to reason an upgrade would be at least somewhat beneficial. So the question then becomes what board WILL work that I can afford? It seems a lot harder to find a motherboard in the $50-$100 range than it is to find a CPU.


FM-2+ Motherboards (the same socket as the CPU you claim to have) start at $47. Every board under this link will be compatible with the CPU, but may not work with your existing RAM. Any IDE drives you might have would also be incompatible.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007625%20600469846&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

[Lheticus]

So much this. Even if you get a new board to go with your new processor, you're very likely to find out "oops, now my RAM doesn't fit in these RAM slots, guess I need new RAM too" then come to find out you have a really sad motherboard that doesn't even have SATA ports for your drives. And hey, does this new motherboard even fit in my old case?


Unless you're prepared to possibly be building a whole new computer from scratch, you may want to seriously consider returning the processor you bought.


FM-2+ Motherboards (the same socket as the CPU you claim to have) start at $47. Every board under this link will be compatible with the CPU, but may not work with your existing RAM. Any IDE drives you might have would also be incompatible.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007625%20600469846&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

Okay, what in the heck is a SATA port and an IDE drive? And I need a motherboard that is compatible with the AMD card I said, the A8 7670k. I'm assuming that is what you meant, but also verifying.

[Grinner]

Okay, what in the heck is a SATA port and an IDE drive? And I need a motherboard that is compatible with the AMD card I said, the A8 7670k. I'm assuming that is what you meant, but also verifying.

SATA means "Serial Advanced Technology Attachment". It's a newer standard for connecting hard drives to motherboards.

IDE means "Integrated Drive Electronics". I believe it's also referred to as PATA, meaning "Parallel Advanced Technology Attachment". It's the older standard for connecting hard drives to motherboards.

Before we can recommend anything with confidence, we have to have those specs. This isn't a simple thing you're asking. You really would be much better off returning the processor.

[Gnoman]

Okay, what in the heck is a SATA port and an IDE drive? And I need a motherboard that is compatible with the AMD card I said, the A8 7670k. I'm assuming that is what you meant, but also verifying.

IDE is an obsolete method of connecting optical and hard drives, also called PATA. It was replaced by the SATA standard in the early 2000s, but remained in use for quite some time. To determine if you have this sort of interface on your drives, open up your case and look at the cables coming out of your CD/DVD drive and your hard drive. PATA uses a wide, flat 40 or 80 wire ribbon cable, while SATA uses a round, narrow 7 wire cable. Unless you have cables half the width of your palm, you're running pure SATA.

[Lheticus]

Oh, just call the whole thing off. I don't think I CAN return the darn thing anyway, but at the very least I am officially out of capacity to give a crap about keeping trying this. Seems really sick and wrong that something like changing processor brands is such a gnarled process. Whatever. I'm out, I'm done.

[Gnoman]

Seems really sick and wrong that something like changing processor brands is such a gnarled process.

The Core 2 Duo came out almost ten years ago, and is eight technological generations old IF you have the very last version made. All computer technology from that era is wholly obsolete, and expecting plug-and-play replacement of a single core component with an up-to-date one is asking way too much.

[Lheticus]

The Core 2 Duo came out almost ten years ago, and is eight technological generations old IF you have the very last version made. All computer technology from that era is wholly obsolete, and expecting plug-and-play replacement of a single core component with an up-to-date one is asking way too much.

I don't expect that. What I DO expect is to be able to not have to build a whole other dang machine and not have to worry about fifteen kajillion different ridiculous buzzwords that have to do with how all the little dinguses fit together!

With today's technology, basically the ONLY appeal of the desktop computer (in my eyes) is the capacity for modular upgrading. If that's not a freaking THING anymore, then it's like you have to buy a whole new computer every 5-6 years or something to stay something resembling current, and frankly that is COMPLETELY ASININE!

[Mando Knight]

The modularity is a thing, but a decade is a decade... if you only update your computer once a decade, you'll have to expect to upgrade the whole thing because the whole thing is a decade out of date.

For a bit of perspective, the time between the Core 2 Duo's release and today is a similar length to the time from the release of Windows 3.1 to the release of Windows XP.

[Alent]

I don't expect that. What I DO expect is to be able to not have to build a whole other dang machine and not have to worry about fifteen kajillion different ridiculous buzzwords that have to do with how all the little dinguses fit together!

With today's technology, basically the ONLY appeal of the desktop computer (in my eyes) is the capacity for modular upgrading. If that's not a freaking THING anymore, then it's like you have to buy a whole new computer every 5-6 years or something to stay something resembling current, and frankly that is COMPLETELY ASININE!

This is kind of an unrealistic expectation. Like Mando Knight said, Modularity IS a thing. Depending on what they are, some of those old parts can transfer. Some are obsolete because to make that module go faster, they had to change the way it worked. When they change the way something works, they typically change the socket to keep you from accidentally plugging something in that isn't compatible with the new way of doing things.

For example, your new CPU uses less voltage than the old one, so if you could put your new CPU in the old CPU's socket, it would make a pop sound, develop a discolored crack on the top, and let out this lovely smelling green smoke. (One of my more expensive mistakes in life, back when AMD was trying to save money by not changing socket types and Windows 2000 had yet to walk the earth.)

The good news about all this is that it is substantially easier to buy parts than it was back in 2004, so if you're down, everybody here can probably steer you towards a pretty reasonable upgrade.

[factotum]

It's not like this is a new thing. Processor sockets change every few years, in order to support new technology that didn't exist when they were originally designed. Basically, you have to consider the motherboard, CPU, and possibly the RAM as well to be one "module" that you can only replace in its entirety, and even then you may have compatibility issues when your system is so old. If you're going to do partial upgrades of your machine (as I've been doing since 1993) then you need to be doing it a lot more frequently than once every ten years--e.g. you'd replace the motherboard and CPU in one upgrade cycle, then a couple of years later you'd replace the hard drive, then it'd be time for another motherboard/CPU upgrade a couple of years after that, etc. (and you'd probably be replacing graphics cards on a fairly regular basis as well).

[snowblizz]

If that's not a freaking THING anymore, then it's like you have to buy a whole new computer every 5-6 years or something to stay something resembling current, and frankly that is COMPLETELY ASININE!
You really need to check your expectations.
It has never been "a thing" the way you expect. A Toyota motor won't fit in a Ford car and no one expects it to either, especially not several generations of technology apart. Same thing here. And yes to stay reasonably current you *have* to buy a whole new computer in an interval of about 5-7 years.

I can't swap out motors in old BMW's like my friend does, certainly not without learning what all that stuff is first. Which means I'd have to buy a new car to "upgrade". Computers move a lot fast in tech than cars, but the principle is the same. Not everyone wants or needs to learn it, so instead go for the "buy entirely new option".

It's not anyone else's fault but yours that you didn't bother checking what you bought first.

[Brother Oni]

To be fair, people with unrealistic expectations, limited to no knowledge of the subject and a reluctance to rectify either (wilful or otherwise), are the main reason why computer shops usually have a nice earner performing upgrades and building computers.

It's not even a particularly hard subject to learn, especially with all the resources available on the internet, plus forums like this where you can get personal answers to your specific problem.

[snowblizz]

To be fair, people with unrealistic expectations, limited to no knowledge of the subject and a reluctance to rectify either (wilful or otherwise), are the main reason why computer shops usually have a nice earner performing upgrades and building computers.

It's not even a particularly hard subject to learn, especially with all the resources available on the internet, plus forums like this where you can get personal answers to your specific problem.

Last 2 new computers I paid them to do it for me, even though I could do it myself. Just no worth the hassle to assemble it all from scratch.

[Chen]

Note too that other parts are certainly more modular. Things like video cards, hard drives and the like tend to be easily replaceable (I just added a new video card and SSD to my 5 year old machine with no other changes needed). That said, the processor and motherboard are the heart of the machine. Changing those is a MUCH bigger deal, as you can see here.

[Kato]

Yup, really can't add much to what was said... It seems your problem, OP, is taking a bit long to upgrade. Assuming all your things are 10+ years old, you may be able to keep your disks... and possibly any extension cards. RAM I don't think is downward compatible and with a new board and CPU you'll also likely need a new... what's the English word... power source.... thingie :smalltongue:


sidenote: I also just (had to) replace parts of my PC because... something stopped working. Still not sure which part but I got a new CPU, board and now also PSU (is that the word) Oh, and case, but that was... well, not necessary. I might need a new GPU, too, but as is RAM and GPU and hard disks are doing fine with the new board and all the old bits are close to ten years in age as well. (I think from around 2008?)

[Grinner]

...you'll also likely need a new... what's the English word... power source.... thingie :smalltongue:

"Power supply unit" or "PSU", often shortened to just "power supply". :smallsmile:

[shawnhcorey]

You should buy a new motherboard for your processor. Just replacing the processor does not improve the performance your computer. Processors run at the speed of the system clock, which is on the motherboard.

And make sure the memory socket on the new motherboard are compatible with your current memory or you'll have to buy new memory for it too.

[Adderbane]

You should buy a new motherboard for your processor. Just replacing the processor does not improve the performance your computer. Processors run at the speed of the system clock, which is on the motherboard.


To quote a certain Lich, "Your [CPU] shenanigans are real flashy, but they had one weakness; they were shackled to your lame mid-level [Motherboard/RAM]"

Bringing one part of a computer up to modern levels does nothing if it constantly has to wait on the other components to catch up with it.

[shawnhcorey]

To quote a certain Lich, "Your [CPU] shenanigans are real flashy, but they had one weakness; they were shackled to your lame mid-level [Motherboard/RAM]"

Bringing one part of a computer up to modern levels does nothing if it constantly has to wait on the other components to catch up with it.

True but realizing that the processor, motherboard, and memory are highly dependent on one another means you should upgrade them all at the same time. Video cards, monitors, and printers (if you're still using one) can be done separately.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, expecting your ten year old components to be compatible with modern ones is completely unreasonable.

Consider - ten years ago, the kind of processing power we casually sling around in smartphones was the domain of bulky desktop machines. Ten years before that, only supercomputers wielded such awesome power. Ten years before that, the computational power of the entire world wasn't up to the challenge of rivaling what's in my pocket.

You're trying to modernize a horse and buggy by replacing the horse part with a rocket ship.

[snowblizz]

You should buy a new motherboard for your processor. Just replacing the processor does not improve the performance your computer. Processors run at the speed of the system clock, which is on the motherboard.
Ofc the system clock *is* variable and adjustable (in a certain sense) to fit those processors and memory the motherboard is intended to take. So replacing a processor will in fact improve performance. If I'd swap my current i5 for a suitable i7 I'd improve the performance.

[Flickerdart]

Ofc the system clock *is* variable and adjustable (in a certain sense) to fit those processors and memory the motherboard is intended to take. So replacing a processor will in fact improve performance. If I'd swap my current i5 for a suitable i7 I'd improve the performance.
Well, it depends on what your bottleneck is. If you're playing a video game with your i5 and a dumpy laptop-tier graphics card, upgrading to the i7 won't really help you.

[snowblizz]

Well, it depends on what your bottleneck is. If you're playing a video game with your i5 and a dumpy laptop-tier graphics card, upgrading to the i7 won't really help you.

In general. Can always split the specific hairs. Saying you won't get any improvement from a new CPU unless you change MB isn't right.
Sometimes even within a supposed generation you could get a better graphics chip. Also I don't count the graphics part of a CPU as actually existing.:smalltongue:

[NotThog]

Yup, really can't add much to what was said... It seems your problem, OP, is taking a bit long to upgrade. Assuming all your things are 10+ years old, you may be able to keep your disks... and possibly any extension cards. RAM I don't think is downward compatible and with a new board and CPU you'll also likely need a new... what's the English word... power source.... thingie :smalltongue:
The PSU is the thing that's changed the least, and it may actually still be usable, at least with a 20->24-pin ATX plug adapter (costs maybe a fiver).

Regarding bottlenecks, I've been thinking about a CPU upgrade, because my CPU usage hits 100% "not uncommonly" and I have an FX-6100. Yes, that's a Bulldozer. By swapping in an FX-8370 (which the latest BIOS supports, the mobo power delivery has been designed for and my cooler can handle) I'd get 33% more cores, 20% higher base clock, architecture refinements and there's a good chance the power draw might go down. That's 60% more performance minimum for software that manages to peg all cores, for a drop-in replacement. The downside is that it costs money. :D More memory would be nice too, 16 GB isn't all that much nowadays...

[Flickerdart]

That's 60% more performance minimum for software that manages to peg all cores
How much software is that, these days? From what I understand, the vast majority of software runs on single core.

[snowblizz]

Problem with older PSUs is that a) they are not designed to provide the power outputs needed and b) the older ones are wildly inefficient. I'm not expert but have been told a newer PSU uses a lot less electricity for it's output. A new one providing 600W is more likely to be able to supply your requirements than a old one saying 600W. And it needs to fit the case, and the case needs to fit the MB, etc etc etc etc

Any way one tries to cut it it's hard to reuse old computer components if leaving the upgrades for a long period of time. Last comp was 7 years old and the only salvageble parts were the memory and HDD that were both significantly newer than the rest of the components.

[factotum]

How much software is that, these days? From what I understand, the vast majority of software runs on single core.

Depends what software you're using. CPU-intensive stuff like Photoshop and video editing software has been able to utilise multiple cores for a long time now, and games have been starting to do it more and more as well--for example, Far Cry 4 won't even start up if you have a dual-core CPU; quad core or better is needed for that game.

[Brother Oni]

Last 2 new computers I paid them to do it for me, even though I could do it myself. Just no worth the hassle to assemble it all from scratch.

This depends very much on whether the cost of having it assembled and troubleshot is greater than the value you assign to the time it would have taken to do it yourself.

If you value your time more, it's perfectly reasonable to pay someone to build it for you, although the prices some places charge are ridiculous - over here, PC World charges upwards of £25 to install hardware (£30 for software!) and before they took down the pricing, it was something like £50 to install a RAM stick.

£30 to run an install.exe on an administrator account is a bit steep for most people, likewise installing a RAM stick is maybe 5 minutes work, if you take the time to read the instructions out loud. :smalltongue:

[snowblizz]

This depends very much on whether the cost of having it assembled and troubleshot is greater than the value you assign to the time it would have taken to do it yourself.

If you value your time more, it's perfectly reasonable to pay someone to build it for you, although the prices some places charge are ridiculous - over here, PC World charges upwards of £25 to install hardware (£30 for software!) and before they took down the pricing, it was something like £50 to install a RAM stick.

£30 to run an install.exe on an administrator account is a bit steep for most people, likewise installing a RAM stick is maybe 5 minutes work, if you take the time to read the instructions out loud. :smalltongue:
Yeah it varies a lot it does. And on what ones does. Oldest I order online from parts but with assembly, that assembly was 20e, the new one was almost 60e for assembly and installing Windows.

Now sticking a few RAMs I do still, and the odd harddrive. But assembling everything from scratch? I'm done with that. Slipped with a screwdrvie on an older AMD where install was much trickier than today and escaped by the skinny-skin neck or however it goes from getting a new cpu and mobo. My peace of mind is worth the 60e every 7 years.

[halfeye]

A lovely piece of trolling, really effective, and no real hard feelings aroused.

:smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

[Brother Oni]

A lovely piece of trolling, really effective, and no real hard feelings aroused.

:smallbiggrin: :smallamused:

I really wish it was, but based on Lheticus' posting history, all accounts indicate he's being truthful.

[Flickerdart]

Depends what software you're using. CPU-intensive stuff like Photoshop and video editing software has been able to utilise multiple cores for a long time now, and games have been starting to do it more and more as well--for example, Far Cry 4 won't even start up if you have a dual-core CPU; quad core or better is needed for that game.
Ugh, Photoshop - that program where GPU acceleration doesn't work with a real graphics card (AMD) but does work with Intel's on-board graphics in a way that makes everything render hideously. I'm shocked they managed to get it multi-core without the whole thing melting down into a cascade of pixels.

[Max™]

You're trying to modernize a horse and buggy by replacing the horse part with a rocket ship.

To be fair, that does sound like a kind of awesome idea at first.

Rockets have a lot of issues with a buggy behind them though, and a buggy couldn't handle the acceleration... may as well make it into a high-G worthy life-support compartment, and that hunk of wood and leather and iron used to hitch the horse simply won't do... perhaps a long strand of carbon nanotubes... though the rocket would need to vent to the sides, not a problem, just need to design for that... course if you're doing that anyways and you've got so much natural buffer between you and the exhausts anyways you may as well go for something with a higher specific impulse like mini-orion pushers... yeah, that is the best horse and buggy upgrade ever!

*cracks whip* Hyah! To the stars!


Seriously though, about the only things that will be really useful from a 10 year old system are the case, maybe the psu, and stuff that doesn't get used anymore like the cd drive?

http://pcpartpicker.com <--- go there before buying a processor or motherboard or whatnot, grab yours from the list, it'll filter everything incompatible for you, then you can sort by money/Ghz/GB/rating/whatever.

[Brother Oni]

Seriously though, about the only things that will be really useful from a 10 year old system are the case, maybe the psu, and stuff that doesn't get used anymore like the cd drive?


On a separate note, I also wouldn't discount peripherals - keyboard, mouse, speakers and monitor are often overlooked but can add a fair bit to the price if you want high end versions (eg gaming mouse, mechanical keyboard, full surround sound setup, multi-screen displays).

[Flickerdart]

10 year old peripherals though...or possibly even older, given that people do tend to reuse them. We might be looking at the world's worst LCD panel or even a chunky CRT, and quite possibly PS/2 port keyboard and mouse.

[halfeye]

10 year old peripherals though...or possibly even older, given that people do tend to reuse them. We might be looking at the world's worst LCD panel or even a chunky CRT, and quite possibly PS/2 port keyboard and mouse.

Nothing wrong with CRTs if they still work. In 2000, maybe 1999, I had a 1600 x 1200 CRT, it was Awesome until it died.

I've got rid of LCDs that weren't up to scratch, but good CRTs were good. Naff ones on the other hand started out naff.

[Flickerdart]

Nothing wrong with good CRTs, but I've never met anyone except slightly crazy image editing professionals who had CRTs above 800x600 resolution. And now OLED gives you the same crisp blacks as a CRT, without the headache-inducing flicker, the need for degaussing, the killer energy consumption, and the mini-fridge size.

On the flip side, if you have a cat, he will love sleeping on top of the warm, chunky CRT.

[halfeye]

Nothing wrong with good CRTs, but I've never met anyone except slightly crazy image editing professionals who had CRTs above 800x600 resolution.

I had an 800*600 CRT, it came with a second hand DOS/Win 3.1 computer. It was a step up from the 640 * 400 monochrome ST monitor it replaced, which was a step down from the colour 320 * 200 16 colour / 640 * 200 4 colour monitor that sadly died. On the whole, I'd much rather have had the ST in colour than the PC, but it wasn't to be.


And now OLED gives you the same crisp blacks as a CRT, without the headache-inducing flicker, the need for degaussing, the killer energy consumption, and the mini-fridge size.

Mini-fridge size? at 800 * 600? now you are extracting the urine. Small CRTs were medium size not huge.

[Flickerdart]

Mini-fridge size? at 800 * 600? now you are extracting the urine. Small CRTs were medium size not huge.
You may be surprised to discover that the resolution and the size of a monitor are not the same thing, and there were plenty of large CRTs with low resolutions in the consumer market. A 19 inch CRT (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Dell-M992-19-inch-CRT-Monitor-Refurbished/2176221/product.html) is 17.7 x 17.3 x 18.3 inches (and yes, this particular CRT can do 1600x1200, in case you are determined to snag on every last detail of what I say). This is comparable to this mini-fridge (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Haier-1.7-cu-ft-Refrigerator-Black/42490114) at 18.86 x 17.6 x 20.55 inches - the fridge is just an inch wider and two inches deeper.

[halfeye]

You may be surprised to discover that the resolution and the size of a monitor are not the same thing, and there were plenty of large CRTs with low resolutions in the consumer market.
Yeah? I don't remember any. Most low resolution monitors were also relatively small.

I still think this thread is a joke.

[wumpus]

Yeah? I don't remember any. Most low resolution monitors were also relatively small.

I still think this thread is a joke.

I remember more than a few in the 1980s. I think I saw them at school and they were presumably for the visually impaired. I doubt many were produced, but there is always a market for goods that have odd uses (such as the visually impaired monitors) or simply made in shoddy ways you weren't expecting. If you ever heard of Packard Bell you know what I am talking about. I even bought one: it turned out the "VGA graphics" were exactly that. While it could display 640x480 it would only do so with 16 colors (a limitation by the cheap graphics chip, not by the expensive LCD. Some of the weirder "hacked" modes worked in things like FRACTINT and Quake). Roughly the same time there was a (Christmas?) cartoon for Doonesbury where a kid with a new computer fiddled with it for awhile and then demanded to know "WHERE IS THE L2 CACHE"? (In those days the L2 cache was on the motherboard. Companies like Packard Bell could save a few cents by leaving it off (for drastic performance penalties).

[multilis]

Upgrading a computer that is a few years old is usually a bad idea. Instead, buy a "cheaper" new computer more often.

The reason is speed of progress... every few years you can get double the power for same money or less, and even if you can upgrade, cost of the upgrades is more expensive than the newer version... eg last generation of RAM tends to cost 2x as much as the newer type of RAM.

Second reason is by buying an new computer, all the parts from old computer still work together and can be used as backup computer, etc.

Third is labour, both what you expect, and the extra for when things go wrong.

...

If you don't need better, then I suggest look into "stick computers", and similar TV media player computers, you can now get Windows 10, 2gb ram, small hard drive for $100 USD. (Intel and microsoft are selling dirt cheap to compete with the android media players) Add $50 for USB hard drive or flash drive if you want more room for storage. 3 years from now the next generations of "stick computer" will likely be more powerful than a $300+ computer today, and you will still be able to use the old one for making some TV an "extra smart" TV. You also will save up to $100 on power consumption over life of computer...

[factotum]

I even bought one: it turned out the "VGA graphics" were exactly that. While it could display 640x480 it would only do so with 16 colors (a limitation by the cheap graphics chip, not by the expensive LCD.

But that *is* the VGA graphics standard--that's all the original VGA could produce. Any more than that would be sVGA, XGA, WXGA or some variant thereof, so it's not like they were lying to you when they said what the machine supported.

[halfeye]

Upgrading a computer that is a few years old is usually a bad idea. Instead, buy a "cheaper" new computer more often.

The reason is speed of progress... every few years you can get double the power for same money or less, and even if you can upgrade, cost of the upgrades is more expensive than the newer version... eg last generation of RAM tends to cost 2x as much as the newer type of RAM.

It used to be that way, but the changes in processor performance aren't that big any more. Currently, DDR4 is a lot more expensive than DDR3, that will probably change in a couple of years as DDR4 production ramps up and DDR3 production ramps down, but for now, new is expensive.

Ten years ago is long enough that there are big performance gains to be made buying new, but five years ago computers weren't much slower than they are now. SSDs are much faster than HDDs, so that's a change worth making, but the changes are not that big for the rest.

[DigoDragon]

I can understand some of the frustration with the op. The last time I built a 'modern' pc that had parts within a couple generations of the day was back in 2003. :3

Since then I have had hand-me-downs and Frankenstein cobbled machines. I've learned a good bit about the quirks of partially upgrading a system. I am glad for having a bro whose career is all about computer technology and building machines, so I went to him for lessons. Research is indeed important. I had spent four hours yesterday researching parts to ensure I had compatible parts for the new system I want to build.

Hopefully this experience is as good as my last one 12 years ago.

EDIT-- did I mention I'm bad at remembering tech buzz words? It confounds my bro when I keep confusing Gigs with Megs.

[137beth]

A related question for the techies here: is pcpartpicker (http://pcpartpicker.com/) reliable in terms of checking whether parts are compatible? I've spent awhile amusing myself by messing with different builds on that website. If it's accurate, it would make the process of picking PC components a lot easier. But that seems like a big if....

[snowblizz]

EDIT-- did I mention I'm bad at remembering tech buzz words? It confounds my bro when I keep confusing Gigs with Megs.
Please don't refer to (probably) centuries old words for magnitude as "tech buzz words". These were already in use for when the metric system was "invented" and then naturally found their way into IT useage.

[Kato]

Please don't refer to (probably) centuries old words for magnitude as "tech buzz words". These were already in use for when the metric system was "invented" and then naturally found their way into IT useage.

Really? I mean, the idea of possibly using the terms might be old but I'm sceptical about a) them being used as "gigs" and "megs" and b) there being many applications for words of such magnitude.
How would you use them? Megamiles/Megameters? :smallconfused: Gigagrams/Gigapounds? It's not even something you really need today, I can't imagine them being more common earlier. Hertz and bits are about the only occasions where they'd fit and short of the last (or two) century when radios and other EM wave matters became more relevant I can't think of a use earlier than that. And people using "gigs" instead of gigahertz in these fields...

[snowblizz]

Ever heard of the kilometer? The kilogram? Millimeter? Nanometer? Power consumption in larger settings are megawatts or megawatt hours, sometimes even gigawatts. And so on and on. They are not tech buzz words. They have found a more common useage in the computing field, but that does not make an established practice into a buzz word.

[Brother Oni]

Really? I mean, the idea of possibly using the terms might be old but I'm sceptical about a) them being used as "gigs" and "megs" and b) there being many applications for words of such magnitude.
How would you use them? Megamiles/Megameters? :smallconfused: Gigagrams/Gigapounds? It's not even something you really need today, I can't imagine them being more common earlier. Hertz and bits are about the only occasions where they'd fit and short of the last (or two) century when radios and other EM wave matters became more relevant I can't think of a use earlier than that. And people using "gigs" instead of gigahertz in these fields...

Dude, you're German, you should be metric anyway. :smalltongue:

Megagrams aren't as popular as the more colloquial tonnes, neither are gigagrams as kilotonnes.

I see them quite often in energy terms (megajoules, megawatts, etc).

[Kato]

Ever heard of the kilometer? The kilogram? Millimeter? Nanometer? Power consumption in larger settings are megawatts or megawatt hours, sometimes even gigawatts. And so on and on. They are not tech buzz words. They have found a more common useage in the computing field, but that does not make an established practice into a buzz word.
Yes, and "kilo" for kilogram is literally the only application for such a shortening I have ever come across besides the aforementioned "megs" or "gigs". Nobody calls a kilometer a "kilo" or "kils", or a millimeter a "mill" or something. And nanometers have only been relevant for maybe a hundred years, two tops, since we discuss things on molecular or atomic scales. And the same is true for larger numbers. And power consumption, as far as electricity goes which really is the one field where you usually discuss on such scales, can't be older than two centuries.


Dude, you're German, you should be metric anyway. :smalltongue:

Megagrams aren't as popular as the more colloquial tonnes, neither are gigagrams as kilotonnes.

I see them quite often in energy terms (megajoules, megawatts, etc).

Yes, I know the metric system :smalltongue:
My point is, opposed to what snowblizz said, nobody has or even does use things like "meg(s)" or "gig(s)" beside people who talk about IT to shorten words there, and people certainly have not been doing so for centuries. Maybe "buzz words" isn't really right, but they are definitely modern terms, for a rather specialized field, not something people have been using in normal language for hundreds of years.

[Max™]

A related question for the techies here: is pcpartpicker (http://pcpartpicker.com/) reliable in terms of checking whether parts are compatible? I've spent awhile amusing myself by messing with different builds on that website. If it's accurate, it would make the process of picking PC components a lot easier. But that seems like a big if....

I swear by the site, there are a couple similar with different aims, but if a build isn't totally compatible, then it generally lists exactly why and what reasons/steps would need to be taken to fix it. Pretty sure it uses crowdsourcing methods to keep the compatibility filters in line.

[BannedInSchool]

Nobody calls a kilometer a "kilo" or "kils", or a millimeter a "mill" or something.

Kilometers are indeed referred to both as "klicks" and just "k", as in "an eight k run". A "mil" is also the official term for a thousandth of an inch in the US.

[DigoDragon]

Please don't refer to (probably) centuries old words for magnitude as "tech buzz words". These were already in use for when the metric system was "invented" and then naturally found their way into IT useage.

While the prefixes Giga and Mega have been around a long time to describe a billion and a million in terms of magnitude, I have not seen the terms "gigs" and "megs" refer to anything other than memory and storage capacity.

For example, I have not personally heard anyone say that the sun is 93 megs of miles away. :3

[BannedInSchool]

For example, I have not personally heard anyone say that the sun is 93 megs of miles away. :3
But we do shorten "Astronomical Unit" to just saying the letters "AU", refer to the speed of light as just "c", and units of 9.8m/s^2 of acceleration as one G. Kilos of cocaine are also referred to as such. :smallwink: If we repeatedly use a long word we're going to shorten it in context.

[Mando Knight]

For example, I have not personally heard anyone say that the sun is 93 megs of miles away. :3

Of course not, a megamile would be mixing your measurement systems. Saying it's 150 gigameters away would be much more appropriate.

[137beth]

10 year old peripherals though...or possibly even older, given that people do tend to reuse them. We might be looking at the world's worst LCD panel or even a chunky CRT, and quite possibly PS/2 port keyboard and mouse.
I used a keyboard from 1995 through 2009. In hindsight, I'm impressed that it kept working so well for so long. After 14 years, every one of its keys still worked perfectly, but the PS/2 connector eventually wore out and made it unusable. During the same time period I went through four moniters, four motherboard/cpu combinations, five operating systems, and lots and lots of broken/worn out mice.



I swear by the site, there are a couple similar with different aims, but if a build isn't totally compatible, then it generally lists exactly why and what reasons/steps would need to be taken to fix it. Pretty sure it uses crowdsourcing methods to keep the compatibility filters in line.
Thanks, I'll keep your recommendation in mind when I'm building my next computer.

While the prefixes Giga and Mega have been around a long time to describe a billion and a million in terms of magnitude, I have not seen the terms "gigs" and "megs" refer to anything other than memory and storage capacity.

For example, I have not personally heard anyone say that the sun is 93 megs of miles away. :3
I was about to make a comment about how miles aren't metric and it would actually be 149.6 gigameters away, but Mando Knight beet me two it by an hour more than three kiloseconds.

[DavidSh]

Of course not, a megamile would be mixing your measurement systems.
That doesn't necessarily stop anybody. Consider that there are industries where the "kilofoot" is a standard unit.

[Max™]

I was about to make a comment about how miles aren't metric and it would actually be 149.6 gigameters away, but Mando Knight beet me two it by an hour more than three kiloseconds.
For those who don't know, a kilosec is about 16 minutes, a megasec is about 12 days, and a gigasec is about 31 years.

[Brother Oni]

Nobody calls a kilometer a "kilo" or "kils", or a millimeter a "mill" or something.

We regularly refer to 'migs' and 'mills' as shorthand for milligrams and millilitres in pharmaceutics. It all depends on the industry


Maybe "buzz words" isn't really right, but they are definitely modern terms, for a rather specialized field, not something people have been using in normal language for hundreds of years.

I think some sort of industrial shorthand or slang (eg military) as 'buzz words' tends to have a derogatory meaning in English.


That doesn't necessarily stop anybody. Consider that there are industries where the "kilofoot" is a standard unit.

Tell me about it. I recently discovered that the standard unit to describe the roughness of the finish of a metallic surface is in µin or micro-inches. :smallsigh:

There's a lot of established industries where the terminology is a hodgepodge of old legacy Imperial terms coupled with metric prefixes to get down to the desired scale.

[BannedInSchool]

I think some sort of industrial shorthand or slang (eg military) as 'buzz words' tends to have a derogatory meaning in English.

"Jargon" feels a neutral word to me.

I do still hope that one GB is 2^10MB and 2^20B. :smalltongue:

[Brother Oni]

I do still hope that one GB is 2^10MB and 2^20B. :smalltongue:

Oddly enough Windows uses that definition when formatting drives, but the manufacturers use the standard metric ones to make their products look bigger.

I think that the prefix for the 'proper' ones are mebibyte and gibibyte (Wiki link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte)).

Another common inflation tactic are from broadband companies advertising their download/upload speeds where you have to divide by 8 to get the real value (they advertise in bits not bytes).

[factotum]

Another common inflation tactic are from broadband companies advertising their download/upload speeds where you have to divide by 8 to get the real value (they advertise in bits not bytes).

The division factor is higher than 8, because the transmission stream isn't just the bits of the individual bytes streamed one after another--there are control bits in there as well. In old-fashioned serial communications you'd have start and stop bits on every single transmitted byte, but I suspect modern ADSL is a bit cleverer than that!

[BannedInSchool]

The division factor is higher than 8, because the transmission stream isn't just the bits of the individual bytes streamed one after another--there are control bits in there as well.
Depending on what higher layers you're using as well no one can predict what your actual useful data rate will be either. So not only do you need extra bits to transmit bytes, you need extra bytes to transmit data. I think YModem had the least overhead? :smallbiggrin: IMO, it's entirely necessary and honest to just specific the bitrate of the line. The overhead is variable.

[FLHerne]

Yes, and "kilo" for kilogram is literally the only application for such a shortening I have ever come across besides the aforementioned "megs" or "gigs". Nobody calls a kilometer a "kilo" or "kils", or a millimeter a "mill" or something.

Hm? :smallconfused:
I very rarely hear anyone not use 'mil' for either millilitres or millimetres (which is its own problem, of course).
- "Pass me a 12-mil spanner."
- "I make it 320 mil."
- "Do we have any hundred-mil beakers left?"

Kilometres are often shortened to 'kay' ("It's about 15 kay"), or sometimes 'klicks'.

No-one is going to pronounce a four-syllable word every minute given any choice, so I'd be astonished if anyone working with metric units didn't abbreviate them.

[Kato]

No-one is going to pronounce a four-syllable word every minute given any choice, so I'd be astonished if anyone working with metric units didn't abbreviate them.

So either I'm working in the wrong field or Germans just aren't as lazy to pronounce longer words :smallbiggrin: I never heard someone shorten kilometres, rarely dropping it when it is obvious what unit is implied.

I guess people who said it depends on the field are right, but that only works if you're really specialized and mainly using one kind of unit. e.g. if you're constantly using milliliters, millimeters, milligrams, you can't just use mil because it would require you to specify which mil, making the shortening pointless?


In regards to unit mixing... so, what do Americans measure atomic distances or masses in? Femto-inch? Micropound? (Honest question, not trying to make fun of anyone)

[cobaltstarfire]

In regards to unit mixing... so, what do Americans measure atomic distances or masses in? Femto-inch? Micropound? (Honest question, not trying to make fun of anyone)

In science stuff we use metric for most things.

For blue print reading we use both, though we have to keep an eye out for which country the print is for/from because the way blue prints are oriented is flipped in most other countries.