My computer is nearing its third year (I think) and I'm mainly asking this because, one, I've been noticing a bit of lag-time when opening some of the bigger programs and when trying to multitask and two, I'm thinking of getting Windows 7.

Not being so amazingly proficient in all that is hardware, I thought I'd ask around here. I've been noticing that 2GB of RAM is now out the window in favour of 4 and CPU speeds seem to be up at the 2.5-2.6 range.

I use my computer for 3D games (TF2, HoN, Sims, Spore), the internet and homework. Occasionally I find myself using Photoshop, Camtasia (screen capture) and some video editing software. These programs tend to be getting some lag too.

So, my question is, is it time to be upgrading my hardware?

All specs. provided are from DxDiag, if you need more information just ask.

The only thing I can see there worth upgrading is the Processor and RAM, and although I'm not so sure of the prices, I'm pretty sure you can get a Core i7 (or better for home use, a Core i5) with compatible RAM and motherboard, relatively cheap.

DirextX 10 comes with Vista/I guess 7 too - so I don't think you have to worry about that.

Seek a REAL pro, though

Core i5 minimum upgrade:
Core i5 750 - $200
Intel 1156 board - $100
4G DDR3 - ~$90

And considering you keep the rest of your stuff you're looking @ a $400 upgrade

Just upgrading your shit:
E7500 Core 2 Due - $120
same board
2G additional RAM - $50

So just upgrading some basic stuff will cost you less than half and you should be able to keep your OS even if it's OEM. (since OEM OS is linked to the montherboard, if you don't have retail - if you upgrade to i5 you'll need to buy new OS. that's of course if you're planing to use legal stuff)

Other than that you should consider upgrading your graphics card to make a real difference. using the $200 left from the not-getting-i5 you can get the awesome EVGA GTX 260 card with 25 bucks to spare!

bottom line:

you need to set yourself a budget, and think if you're planing on expanding your system use dramatically the next 3-4 years or so (3D shit, or serious multi-tasking). Because the i7 and i5 systems are still less than a year old, you'll save plenty of money if you set yourself 2 years behind the curve.

400 bucks spent on simply upgrading your LGA-755 will do you much better than spending the same amount just on getting a very basic i5.

That's my personal opinion.

update
since you might forget everything I said to you... here's the updated version:

since your mobo is shit, you'll need a new mobo either way. but a standard LGA775 board can cost as little as $70 (while the cheapest 1156 board - for i5 - is $100).

opt a:
new E7500 Core 2 Due, LGA775 motherboard, 2G additional RAM, ATI 4770 Card = $120 + $70 + $50 + $100 = ~$350
keep case & PSU, HDD, Optical, 2G RAM

opt b:
new Core i5 750, LGA1156 motherboard, 4G DDR3 = $200 + $100 + $90 = ~$400
keep case & PSU, HDD, Optical, graphic card

Opt a will out perform opt b in gaming and be much more powerful than your current system.
Opt b will out perform opt a in technical stuff like 3D rendering and large file manipulations, more powerful than your current system - but not much better for gaming.

Opt a will be cheaper in the long run, because if you buy a i5 system 3 years from now it'll be much cheaper.
Opt b will be less work, because upgrading graphics, and other small parts will work for you for the next 5-8 years without much effort.

I say get a 180-240$ higher-end/mid-range graphics card and then you're pretty much set. ati 4850/4870 are good choices, along with the nVidia equivalent (I think its the GTX 200 series) for about the same price. Your CPU is already good enough to game with (I used to game on a single core p4, and now use single core AMD, works fine). You have enough ram to do what you do effectively (If you want more then you will have to see how many slots your motherboard has, or even can support upto). I have less powerful hardware than you and I have no issues running adobe cs4 products or gaming online, and this is on vista ultimate.

Also go and buy a 100 dollar sound card.

Dont listen to barak, his head is up his own ass, he thinks that he's on a high horse just because he spent a lot of money and so people told him his shit dont stink.

Don't be jealous, Mark. I mean, sure I'm smart, good looking and beast in bed - but that doesn't mean you have to tell Benjy to piss 100 bucks on a Sound Card he clearly doesn't need if he gets a decent CPU for his multitasking needs.

I maintain you're chatting a touch of rubbish telling him to buy 2gigs of Ram when he's running XP. No point putting more than 3 gigs in on it.

If you were to upgrade to Windows 7 then 4 gigs would be semi-worthwhile. I say semi since it does benefit W7 but, actually, unlike Vista W7 works perfectly well on 2gigs.

I would probably upgrade the graphics card, I'm unsure how much you'd spend but probably opt for something like the GTX 250 series or the Geforce 9800 series. Best bet is often to just hunt around websites for clearance shit and see if you can pick up a good deal.

Processor wise, you could opt for the E7500 as Barak suggested, or for less than half the price and about 3/4 of the performance you could get the E5200, which overclocks easily to 3.5 with a cheap but efficient heatsink.

Other than that, your hardrive's fine and I can't comment on your Mobo since I've no idea what it is.

If the lag is recent then you may also just want to look into cleaning up your registry a bit and deleting old programmes.

Oh also, $100 soundcards are only worthwhile if you have good sound systems, preferably running through HDMI. Otherwise, a $20 will be fine.

His cpu IS decent, sir.

And on-board sound is so shit, you wont realize until you actually use a dedicated card. Try running on-board graphics, yeah its the same deal there.

It's not the same. sound uses so much less processing power that it's a joke for modern CPUs. (btw, his current CPU is a re-branded Pentium D. It is slowing him down for sure)

the largest plus when using off-board sound is that it's off-board. you don't get as much electromagnetic noise from the motherboard. But for that, as rob said, you could just as well opt for a 20 buck sound card (which is basically the same chip as the one on your motherboard) only give him some distance and place him as far away from the power units and south/north gates.

as to 4G ram, not necessary if you keep XP but he would feel a difference with 4G on W7(I don't say 3G, because using 3 sticks on a dual-channel system is stupid. and 2x512mb kits cost almost as much as 2x1g kits)...

Last think rob said is important as well... do a serious clean up for your machine. use Pcpitstop.com's scan if you're unsure where to start.

I bought a Creative Audigy SE because my on-board sound was broken. It didn't make a difference at all.

Option C: back up everything you need(to cd's or borrow a external hd) and reinstall your OS(or upgrade to windows 7) your computer will run like new again, guaranteed.

Cost: a few hours.

Everyone knows that, but what if new isn't good enough. He wants newer.

You listen to 92 bitrate songs

No sir, 192 or more pls

May I put in my 2 cents if it is not too late already?

Screw Intel, Go AMD!

[AMD fanaticism]
Seriously, AMD based .computers are much more user friendly to upgrade and generally get you better bang for buck.

Assuming your RAM isn't compatible, a cheap triple core setup (including a new motherboard and compatible RAM) will run you ~$173 if you budget, and these are not the cheapest hardware around either, you can budget even more if you wish!

By making the AMD switch, you save money in the long run by not having to buy a brand new board every time you want to upgrade your processor. So far, an AM2+ board will support the top of the line PhenomII quad core processors. And since most AM2+ boards are Also AM3, future upgrading will be a breeze.
[/AMD fanaticism]

Also, make the switch to a Windows 7 64-bit OS. Being able to pop in more RAM is a great thing, you wouldn't believe the speed increase you get from a simple upgrade from 2 to 4 gigs of RAM.

If you insist on sticking with Intel however, then I must urge you to make the quad core jump. Don't go to core iWhatever just yet. A Core 2 Quad will easily suffice, and the performance difference from that and the top is noticeable only in server, and heavy gaming environments(ex. maxed out Far Cry 2).

The cheapest Core 2 Quad on Newegg was $150, best part is, no MoBo or RAM change.

A graphics upgrade from your Nvidia 8600 to a Radeon 4850, won't break the bank, but will still provide a noticeable performance boost.

Also, maybe make a hard drive upgrade while you're switching to Windows 7. I'm assuming you have a 5400 rpm hard drive. 7200rpm has become the new standard, and performance is noticeably better.

Before you do anything however, make sure your power supply can handle the upgrades you throw at it.

Quick Recap

* Switching from Intel to AMD involves more work, but is much cheaper than the other options provided, provides better performance than you already have, and will be easier to upgrade later on.

* Jumping to a 64-bit operating system will allow for even more upgrading options to open up.

* Sticking to Intel provides some no hassle upgrades, however you are limited in what you can turn to without breaking the bank or replacing everything.

* A graphics card upgrade will become necessary, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but you will need it eventually.

* Why not upgrade your hard drive while you upgrade to Windows 7? More storage, faster read time, not much more work than you would have with swapping your OS.

* Before you buy, check your Power Supply, it might not be able to provide enough wattage.

Wow you guys are nerds.

Get Windows 7 for the hell of it, why not try it anyways?

AMD

You dont even know what you're talking about.


And neither do you

You can't chuck two opinions out the window with absolutely no other information.

But please, enlighten us O wise one.

AMD make very good single core processors, but currently don't match Intel in multi core procs. Buy AMD for nostalgia but not for future proofing.

As for the rest of your propaganda, 775 socket has been standard for most intel chips for years now.

Quad cores cost a fortune in cooling, don't bother with them. The iSeries procs are by far and away the best processors on the market at the moment

Radeon cards are only used by pretentious faggots who love to see things break. They're the macs of the graphics industry. All the cool kids still use Geforces.

Toe, you do realise that there aren't many, if any, games that support quad core? That means you're left with only 2 cores which run considerably slower than most core 2 duo's. Rob already said the other stuff I wanted to say. But you are right at the one point where AMD is cheaper. Now you know why.

And also, indeed Ati cards are crap. I've had 4 so far, and 2 of them have a big problem which makes it hard if not impossible for me to play games. I really regret buying an 4850 (even though the specs are brilliant for its price), and from now on I am staying away from ATI graphics.

I have an ATI Radeon HD 3450. That was because there wasn't really a better deal in computers at the time I bought mine, and because I misunderstood it and found out the hard way that it is designed for HD videos, but sucks at gaming (it is still very competent, though - with the right drivers and lower graphics settings and all).

GeForce isn't just better, it has a cooler icon, sounds better, and they usually give free games for it. Next time I get a graphics card, ima getting GeForce. To hang with Rob's gang of cool kids.

Well, Nvidia isn't really better, Ati usually provides more bang for buck, but their HD series (From 2000 upwards) has had some terrible issues. Which is a shame, because there are some amazing cards out there. Like the HD4890. Also, 1 year ago, the 4850 was a really great card for it's price. Any nvidia card with the same specs was at least 50 euros more expensive.

AMD/ATI are budget builders saviors. I suggested these because not everyone can afford to purchase a Core i7 and GTX295 based rig. And no Rob, those LGA 1156 and LGA 1366 sockets seem to disagree with you. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the quality of the 4850 force Nvidia to drop its prices to try and compete?

Also, while games and programs may not support quad core now, how long until they do? Purchasing a quad core processor is future-proofing your machine no matter how you try and twist it.

You do realize that the average lifespan of a gaming pc is about 3 years, right? And also, all the current games wont be taking advantage of that quad core anyway. I really don't see the point in getting one.

And you should never go for the budget parts if you can afford proper ones. No one here suggested he should get an i7, Barak suggested a cheap but great C2D.

I'm so terribly sorry Toe. I didn't realise that you'd completely fail to listen to sense and just read what you wanted to see. Let me restate that then:



In the category of most processors, we have every Intel processor except the iX series. Hence it being most. The iSeries make up a fairly small proportion of Intel processors and they are the top of the line. Again, terribly sorry, I'll idiot proof all further posts.

Future-proofing is a myth. Always has been and always will be. As Maarten said, games aren't developed for quad-core processors. So let's say you design a pc around a quad core with 4 gigs of ram, a top of the line graphics card a nice terrabyte or two harddrive and a good blu-ray reader/writer which'll likely be 8x. And since you're doing this you'll need to chuck in the extras like a decent sound card, keyboard, mouse etc. A rig like this will cost you about £1500 and will be completely unnecessary for - at a guess- 3-4 years. Now, I don't know if you know how quickly hardware developments are made, but I'm going to throw it out there that a bit like how in the past 4 years we've gone from single cores to dual cores to quad cores, within 4 years processors will have changed a fair bit. And similarly how in the past five years we've gone from 256mb graphics cards being top of the line to 1gig being standard, graphics cards will have improved a bit as well. The bottom line is that if you buy a computer with the intention of it being future proof you're wasting your time. A computer is outdated the day you buy it. Of course you can update individual parts, but you can't predict that next year Corsair won't revolutionise RAM design and discover that by changing the shape and reducing the number of pins but using completely different coding, they can improve RAM clock speed tenfold. In 2006 IBM released a news story saying they were hoping to have their optical processor out by 2009. I've not heard anything more about it since then but I'd imagine it's likely to be around within the next few years. The crystal processor they were working on should produce speeds of up to 300ghz. That rather makes a quad core look mediocre. There are any number of projects across the globe any of which could come to fruition within the next year or two. You just can't account for them.

The 4850 didn't do a whole lot really. It was cheap, but it also didn't match any Geforce cards in performance. The 4870 X2 shook Nvidia since it was faster than the GTX 280. But at the moment the things to watch are the RV870 GPU series. I still wouldn't buy a Radeon because I've had too many problems with them and I know of too many people who've had problems with them in the past.