Simviation Forum - Upgrade (and to what?) or buy new?

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Computer Hardware & Software Forum › Hardware › Upgrade (and to what?) or buy new?

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

Upgrade (and to what?) or buy new? (Read 1594 times)

Nov 15^th, 2010 at 9:08pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

So my computer is getting on a bit and you may or may not have noticed that I've been out of the FS scene for quite a while - My FPS is too low in most instances, I prefer FSX flying, and the GTA bloom effect is not working and causes the game to not load at all.

Current specs:
Originally a Packard Bell iMedia J2589
Intel Core2Duo E6320 (1.8GHz)
nVidia 8600GTS (512mb)
Thermaltake 550W PSU
Some awful stock motherboard (Cuba MS-7301)
2GB DDR2 PC2-5300 RAM (2 slots, 1GB each)
32 bit Windows Vista Home Premium

I'm just wondering if it is worth reviving this computer or buying a new one.

If you'd recommend sticking with this machine, could you please suggest some upgrades. I think I'll have to keep the motherboard, but GPU and CPU should be doable. I've done GPU installations before, not touched the CPU though.

I was thinking of something like an 8800GT or whatever replaced that (something cheap and fairly powerful), I'm not sure about the CPU though.

If you think I should just get a new machine I would appreciate any suggestions on that.

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 1:50am

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

I would probably go with a new machine, the CPU definitely needs to be replaced, the gpu could use it also, and with vista, you'll want at least 3, if not 4 gigs of ram (yes I know the 4th will be at least partially unusable).

With 32bit, you're limited to 4GB of RAM, including VRAM and random crap on the mobo and other hardware. Realistically, with 4GB in a 32 bit environment, you see 3.25-3.75 depending on other hardware.

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 8:18am

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

machineman9 wrote on Nov 15^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

So my computer is getting on a bit and you may or may not have noticed that I've been out of the FS scene for quite a while - My FPS is too low in most instances, I prefer FSX flying, and the GTA bloom effect is not working and causes the game to not load at all.

Current specs:
Originally a Packard Bell iMedia J2589
Intel Core2Duo E6320 (1.8GHz)
nVidia 8600GTS (512mb)
Thermaltake 550W PSU
Some awful stock motherboard (Cuba MS-7301)
2GB DDR2 PC2-5300 RAM (2 slots, 1GB each)
32 bit Windows Vista Home Premium

I'm just wondering if it is worth reviving this computer or buying a new one.

If you'd recommend sticking with this machine, could you please suggest some upgrades. I think I'll have to keep the motherboard, but GPU and CPU should be doable. I've done GPU installations before, not touched the CPU though.

I was thinking of something like an 8800GT or whatever replaced that (something cheap and fairly powerful), I'm not sure about the CPU though.

If you think I should just get a new machine I would appreciate any suggestions on that.

Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers

You've have got a reasonable machine which will run FS 2004 just fine....

....
The Processor may be a little on the slow side, compared to my ancient Socket A, AMD 2600XP Athlon (2.1 GHz) running on an ancient Gigabyte Socket A, AGP, GA-7N400 S-L Motherboard, and your graphics Card is slightly better than my AGP nVidia 7800GS 256 MB...
...me?... 2GB RAM on a new Win 7 32 bit Installation (from Win XP Pro), and a 700 Watt PSU...
So, if you are prepared to forget all about the snazzy, computer frame-rate-guzzling FSX , you can enjoy FS 2004 maxed out at no extra cost...like the rest of us... Grin

Grin

...!
...that's what I call a bargain... Wink

Wink

...!

Paul...G-BPLF..FS 2004...(and FSX in my bottom drawer).... Smiley

...!

So many newbies get frustrated and confused with trying to run FSX on their present set-up, that I cant understand why they don't try-out FS 2004 FIRST, and possibly avoid all the heartache and expense which is waiting just round the corner!.... Shocked

Shocked

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 9:07am

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

Paul... I do fly FS2004, and it runs quite reasonably... But I still vastly prefer FSX.

Given that advice, elite marksman, I made a bit of a shopping list.

I'm unsure whether I should go for 32 or 64 bit Vista (application compatibility, etc. I've never gone past 2GB RAM before!)

Intel Core i5 760 Quad Core (2.8Ghz)
nVidia GTX 460 (768mb)
4GB Corsair DDR3 1600mhz (2x2GB, might go for a tri-channel kit though)
1TB HDD, Vista, Office 2010, optical drives, card reader, etc.

Came out at around £800-£850, and I will probably just transplant my current PSU into that system as it's in perfect working condition and would be a waste to get anything extra. Come to think of it, this computer wasn't much cheaper when we first got it!

Good deal? That's coming from a site which will make it for me. I really don't feel like mucking up a new computer by damaging it myself.

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 9:11am

NNNG Ex Member

That system looks good.

Do NOT get a tri-channel kit unless you're getting a Core i7 9xx series. Core i5 and Core i7 8xx series have dual channel memory.

Also get Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit, in my opinion.

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 10:17am

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

I'm not really a fan of Windows 7 in the slightest. I've noticed that it has a great boot up time, but besides from that I am yet to notice any useful extra features. The GUI annoys me quite a bit as well, which is my major dislike.

I'll keep with the dual channel kit in that case.

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 11:28am

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

...£850.... Shocked

Shocked

..

Shocked

...

Shocked

....!

A lifetime's savings... Shocked

Shocked

...!

I don't think I could ever afford the vast amount of money to purchase/build a Computer to run FSX, using the same maxed settings as I do on my FS 2004....

Some of the required computer specifications quoted in the FSX and Hardware Forum since the introductions of FSX have convinced me to leave my copy of FSX in my bottom drawer...
......indefinitely! Wink

Wink

...

Wink

...!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...and saving up for my Winter energy heating bill!... Sad

Sad

...!

P.S....if you still have your Windows XP Pro SP3 disc, you wont need Win 7.... Wink

Wink

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 11:42am

NNNG Ex Member

machineman9 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 10:17am:

I'm not really a fan of Windows 7 in the slightest. I've noticed that it has a great boot up time, but besides from that I am yet to notice any useful extra features. The GUI annoys me quite a bit as well, which is my major dislike.

I'll keep with the dual channel kit in that case.

It has the feature of not being Vista.

Suit yourself, but I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot.

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 11:51am

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

Quote:

It has the feature of not being Vista.

Suit yourself, but I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot.

Being Vista is the one feature I like about it Grin

Grin

Lifetime of savings? More like, a couple of paychecks and no luxuries until then Tongue

Tongue

I don't plan to use it just for FSX, I'd like some future proofing from it too. At some point I will invest in Adobe Lightroom or something similar, and I just want something snappy for all the file conversions I have to do. £850 spent tomorrow would be cheaper than constantly having to upgrade for the next few years. Besides, this machine pretty much needs a complete replacement - All the major parts would need to be upgraded to get anywhere.

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 1:41pm

elite marksman Offline
Colonel
Please upload all images
to Simv!

Gender:
Posts: 855

machineman9 wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 9:07am:

Paul... I do fly FS2004, and it runs quite reasonably... But I still vastly prefer FSX.

Given that advice, elite marksman, I made a bit of a shopping list.

I'm unsure whether I should go for 32 or 64 bit Vista (application compatibility, etc. I've never gone past 2GB RAM before!)

Intel Core i5 760 Quad Core (2.8Ghz)
nVidia GTX 460 (768mb)
4GB Corsair DDR3 1600mhz (2x2GB, might go for a tri-channel kit though)
1TB HDD, Vista, Office 2010, optical drives, card reader, etc.

Came out at around £800-£850, and I will probably just transplant my current PSU into that system as it's in perfect working condition and would be a waste to get anything extra. Come to think of it, this computer wasn't much cheaper when we first got it!

Good deal? That's coming from a site which will make it for me. I really don't feel like mucking up a new computer by damaging it myself.

Not a bad system at all, though you can save about $150 ( 80 GBP?) by using open office instead of MS office. Same functions and features pretty much, but its free and supports more file types.

Also might be able to save some by reusing your current optical/card reader, assuming you have them and they are SATA (or your mobo has a PATA or two).

As for the OS, 64bit is king, so long as you don't need to use really old programs. For the most part, vista/7 64 will be compatible with pretty much any recent program. The main difference is that 64 bit programs cannot run 16 bit or 8 bit programs at all, while 32 bit retains the ability. The tradeoff for this is 64 bit gives you access to, for all intents and purposes, unlimited ram (something like 18 exabyte (18E18) theoretical address size.) IIRC 7 64 bit has a limit of 128GB of RAM.

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 2:19pm

olderndirt Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender:
Posts: 3574

A little over a year ago, I decided to upgrade in order to run FSX. My choices were made with a $500-600 budget in mind - here's what I got. ASUS P5/E8500 3.16/8800GTS/AntecEA650W/Antec300case/4gbCrucialDDR2/800. This runs FSX quite well - GPU memory is only 512, becoming a negative. CPU speed is good and is overclockable. Still using XPpro and loving it.

THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 2:33pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

elite marksman wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 1:41pm:

Not a bad system at all, though you can save about $150 ( 80 GBP?) by using open office instead of MS office. Same functions and features pretty much, but its free and supports more file types.

I've never been a fan of OpenOffice. Sure, it's fine for those who really can't afford new software (or need it as a one off) but I've found it to be more annoying to use, and I will be using it nearly daily.

Cheers, Dave, I shall bare that in mind. I was considering a 8800GT but I believe they are out of production, so I tried to find something else which was far better and not too pricey. I bought my 8600GTS about a month or two before the 8800GT was released - That was an awful discovery for me Embarrassed

Embarrassed

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Nov 16^th, 2010 at 9:05pm

olderndirt Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender:
Posts: 3574

One of your choices is a quad CPU of less than 3 GHZ. Curiosity forces me to ask - for FSX, where CPU speed is of the essence, is a quad of lesser speed more advantageous than a duo of higher speed? Are cores more important than Gigahertz? And the Graphics - from what I've gleaned, all other things being relatively equal, the card memory is key and nothing less than 1GB is prudent. Something to ponder while you're trying to sleep

.

THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Nov 17^th, 2010 at 5:20am

Fozzer Offline
Colonel
An elderly FS 2004 addict!
Hereford. England. EGBS.

Posts: 24861

I built my first 32 bit; "Personal Computer" in 1995, (after many years of using 8, and 16 bit Computers since the 1970's).
Upgrading the internal components as required, to handle the next generation of computer games.
I have no idea of the total cost of my enterprise, but the expense was/is spread in stages over the intervening years and so was of no great hardship...

...!
My present build is sufficient to manage my FS2004, and my crates of old computer games, adequately, but any advance towards FSX, and beyond, would now necessitate a complete rebuild of my Desktop case and all its internal components at an expense that I cannot presently justify.
In the end, it all comes down to priorities... Wink

Wink

...

Wink

...!

Paul...G-BPLF...stuck in the World of Socket A, AGP, and FS 2004... Kiss

Kiss

...

Grin

...!

Dell Dimension 5000 BTX Tower. Win7 Home Edition, 32 Bit. Intel Pentium 4, dual 2.8 GHz. 2.5GB RAM, nVidia GF 9500GT 1GB. SATA 500GB + 80GB. Philips 17" LCD Monitor. Micronet ADSL Modem only. Saitek Cyborg Evo Force. FS 2004 + FSX. Briggs and Stratton Petrol Lawn Mower...Motor Bikes. Gas Cooker... and lots of musical instruments!.... ...!
Yamaha MO6,MM6,DX7,DX11,DX21,DX100,MK100,EMT10,PSR400,PSS780,Roland GW-8L v2,TR505,Casio MT-205,Korg CX3v2 dual manual,+ Leslie 760,M-Audio Prokeys88,KeyRig,Cubase,Keyfax4,Guitars,Orchestral,Baroque,Renaissance,Medieval Instruments.

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Nov 17^th, 2010 at 11:02am

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

olderndirt wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 9:05pm:

One of your choices is a quad CPU of less than 3 GHZ. Curiosity forces me to ask - for FSX, where CPU speed is of the essence, is a quad of lesser speed more advantageous than a duo of higher speed? Are cores more important than Gigahertz? And the Graphics - from what I've gleaned, all other things being relatively equal, the card memory is key and nothing less than 1GB is prudent. Something to ponder while you're trying to sleep

.

Speed is only a factor to consider when comparing otherwise identical processors. At cpubenchmark.net you can see that a i5 760 has a score of 4551. It's not particularly scientific, but one faster Intel Core2Duo is the E8600 (which is about 120% the cost of the i5) at 3.33GHz has a score on that website of just 2652 - Pretty much half the actual performance, despite being faster.

It's not about speed... It's about how efficient it is. If ProcessorA runs at 10GHz but takes 100,000 cycles to do a single task, and ProcessorB runs at 1GHz but takes 1 cycle to do a task, the performance is infinately better. So more modern processors and better architecture and better programming means that a slower processor can be better. That said, a i5 760 at 2.8GHz would be beaten by an identical i5 which had a faster clock speed. Imagine a postal centre where they send off parcels... Processor A would be the same as having some sporty blokes in running shoes but they must pass the parcel and send it on hundreds of conveyors to get from A to B. Processor B would be like putting it on a single conveyor by people who are taking it a little more laid back.

As for graphics memory, I shouldn't think it be too much of an issue. At any rate, it's still vastly better than my current graphics card. It also depends on the bandwidth of the memory of the actual RAM on the graphics card.

Paul, I'd love to do a steady upgrade of my computer, but I doubt the physical limitations of the software would allow it. As far as I'm aware, OEM copies of an operating system will only permit 3 critical upgrades (CPU, motherboard, or anything like that) and then you'll get locked out. Retail editions of the software don't really care, but I have OEM installed. I'd be shooting myself in the foot... And ultimately I'd have to buy everything new to upgrade. The only things I can preserve from this computer is the Power Supply Unit and the case, and I'm not sure about the case.

Edit: In other news, I'm going to be waiting for the 2011 processors. The new processors should mean the new i5s are as powerful as a current i7.

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Nov 17^th, 2010 at 9:53pm

olderndirt Offline
Colonel
Flying is PFM
Rochester, WA

Gender:
Posts: 3574

machineman9 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2010 at 11:02am:

olderndirt wrote on Nov 16^th, 2010 at 9:05pm:

One of your choices is a quad CPU of less than 3 GHZ. Curiosity forces me to ask - for FSX, where CPU speed is of the essence, is a quad of lesser speed more advantageous than a duo of higher speed? Are cores more important than Gigahertz? And the Graphics - from what I've gleaned, all other things being relatively equal, the card memory is key and nothing less than 1GB is prudent. Something to ponder while you're trying to sleep

.

Speed is only a factor to consider when comparing otherwise identical processors. At cpubenchmark.net you can see that a i5 760 has a score of 4551. It's not particularly scientific, but one faster Intel Core2Duo is the E8600 (which is about 120% the cost of the i5) at 3.33GHz has a score on that website of just 2652 - Pretty much half the actual performance, despite being faster.

It's not about speed... It's about how efficient it is. If ProcessorA runs at 10GHz but takes 100,000 cycles to do a single task, and ProcessorB runs at 1GHz but takes 1 cycle to do a task, the performance is infinately better. So more modern processors and better architecture and better programming means that a slower processor can be better. That said, a i5 760 at 2.8GHz would be beaten by an identical i5 which had a faster clock speed. Imagine a postal centre where they send off parcels... Processor A would be the same as having some sporty blokes in running shoes but they must pass the parcel and send it on hundreds of conveyors to get from A to B. Processor B would be like putting it on a single conveyor by people who are taking it a little more laid back.

As for graphics memory, I shouldn't think it be too much of an issue. At any rate, it's still vastly better than my current graphics card. It also depends on the bandwidth of the memory of the actual RAM on the graphics card.

Paul, I'd love to do a steady upgrade of my computer, but I doubt the physical limitations of the software would allow it. As far as I'm aware, OEM copies of an operating system will only permit 3 critical upgrades (CPU, motherboard, or anything like that) and then you'll get locked out. Retail editions of the software don't really care, but I have OEM installed. I'd be shooting myself in the foot... And ultimately I'd have to buy everything new to upgrade. The only things I can preserve from this computer is the Power Supply Unit and the case, and I'm not sure about the case.

Edit: In other news, I'm going to be waiting for the 2011 processors. The new processors should mean the new i5s are as powerful as a current i7.

Explaining this stuff to me may be helping you reach a decision

?

THIS IS NOT A PANAM CLIPPER

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:50pm

machineman9 Offline
Colonel
Nantwich, England

Gender:
Posts: 5255

olderndirt wrote on Nov 17^th, 2010 at 9:53pm:

Explaining this stuff to me may be helping you reach a decision

?

There's definately a thought process and research involved at each step.

IP Logged

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge