Desktop computer question

Page 1 of 3  
Yeah , I'm still dickin' around with my desktop . I've decided it's time to upgrade to a quad core in this comp , Asus M2A-VM mobo , socket AM2 currently running an Athlon X2 2.3 Ghz processor . I have determined (from the Asus support website) that this mobo will support a Phenom 9150 quad processor which is socket AM2+ , but I'll have to update the BIOS . The question is , do I update before I install the new processor or after ? Either way , the suggested method is to flash it from a USB stick . I've found the suggested BIOS on the Asus website , and can download it at any time . Actually , I might do the server comp first , same mobo but a slower Athlon X2 processor . If I'm gonna brick one I'd rather it was that one ...
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:04:59 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:

BIOS updates that I've seen are always backwards compatible, ie the update should work with the old processor. If it won't there should be a warning on the Asus website. So, I'd do the BIOS first, that way if it bricks it, you don't have to go any further.
Whether it's worth this upgrade may be questionable. How much benefit you get with a quad core versus a dual core, etc depends on how much the code you're running can make use of it. And the MB is I guess 10+ years old, no? IDK what the new CPU costs, but for a little bit more you might be able to get a whole used or refurbished MB with CPU that gives you a lot more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4 wrote:

The cpu cost me a whole 13 bucks ... and a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core . I decided to try this before I laid out the cash for a new build , hell I'm not even sure a build based on a new mobo setup will run XP any more . The hard part is the drivers . The latest Windows OS I will even consider is W7 , and I don't have any unused licenses layin' around so ... it may be that a Linux-based OS will be on my next comp . Probably Ubuntu , since I have a little experience with that one .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uncle Monster wrote:

I also have an old Apple , it appears to boot but I've never found a monitor that will plug into it - totally different plug . There are also a couple of older comps still down in Memphis (P4's IIRC) , one a 1.5 Ghz that has both WinXp and Ubuntu on it . The other is a 500 Mhz that I gave to my 15 yr old grandson . He says it's too slow ... I just figgered this would be a cheaper way to have a comp that will run the more complex and demanding software that is out there these days .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I've still got a functional RatShack CoCo2 with both OS9 and A-DOS, plus an MC10 modified to run on 12VDC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For about $ 50 shipped off ebay you can get a dual core 3 ghz desktop with win 7 pro on it.
I don't do anything that requires very much speed and have bought several Dells off ebay over the years. Bought 2 this year with win 7 pro for about $ 140 each just to put win 10 on them. Both were suspose to be refurbished and looked almost new inside and out.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

After you install Ubuntu, what will you install for an Operating System? (Unless you just want a computer that looks like a computer desktop but does nothing useful). Of course with Ubuntu (or any linux), you can change your desktop wallpaper daily so it looks like you have a "Real" computer.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo wrote:

So, Windows is your idea of a real operating system? You poor thing....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo wrote:

Ubuntu will do anything Windows will , in some cases better . You apparently aren't smart enough to tell it what you want it to do ...
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/18/2016 09:21 PM, snipped-for-privacy@unlisted.moo wrote:

You really do have the intelligence of a cow, don't you? Go chew your cud and fart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video editing.
Otherwise, a quad core CPU won't be noticeably faster than a dual core. CPU's spend most of their time waiting for your next mouse click or keypress anyway. For casual use you're not likely to see any difference.
Open your task manager when you have your most common applications running and see what kind of CPU load you have. Unless you're really loading your current CPU, you probably won't see a real world difference.
You can look up the benchmarks for each of the CPU's and see what kind of theoretical improvement you might achieve. But again, those differences only apply if the software can make use of the faster CPU.
These days a hard drive is more of a bottleneck than the CPU.
Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HerHusband wrote:

I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing ....
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Terry Coombs" wrote
| >> a 1.8 Ghz quad has got to be faster than my current 2.3Ghz dual core. | > | > Only if your software can take advantage of the extra cores. This is | > usually limited to processor intensive work like photo and video | > editing. | >
| I'm leaving the task manager open (minimized) and watching the cpu usage , | I frequently see it running over 70% , and maxed out pretty often . | Especially when opening a web browser or loading a newsgroup . I'm just | tired of sitting here waiting for the comp to catch up with a new task and | figgered for under 20 bucks it's worth a try . The wife's "new" Lenovo quad | core I5 machine can dance circles around this thing ....
He's right. Dual 2.3 should be faster than quad 1.8 for most things. And it's XP? That should be faster than Win7. At any rate, it needs less resources. XP can be very zippy. If a dual 2.3 is dragging then you probably have issues that have nothing to do with the CPU.
Temp files that need to be deleted? Insufficient RAM? IE cache too big? (Even if you don't use IE if affects Explorer.) Services? If you haven't inspected and trimmed running services you definitely have bloat there. Unnecessary programs running? Use Autoruns to trim startup programs. Bloated anti-virus and anti-malware software?
You might also look at Procmon (sysinternals.com) to see what's going on in general, to make sure there isn't pointless bloat running.
Also, speed and core count are not the only factors. I had a quad-core Phenom Black or some such awhile back. I built the box with an Asus board. It was fine, but just never really zippy. I don't know why. Maybe that CPU was never a great model? Maybe it didn't like the board so much? I don't know. I currently have an Asus M5A78L-M with an AMD FX-8300 8 core 3.3. It's *very* zippy and I'm happy. I'm tempted to buy another set as a spare. (Though I don't attribute that to 8 cores. I had zippy XP when it was one core.) When I bought the 8-core, late last year, it was about $150 for the two items. The whole box cost me about $300 to build. Not top-of-the-line by any means. That, to my mind, would be a waste of money. Like buying a $4000 TV that will be $600 next year. But what's the point of spending the time if you're only going to use bargain basement leftovers? Last year's best can be had fairly cheap. Isn't your time worth more than a $13 CPU?
It sounds to me like you're enjoying the project as a hobby and it really won't make much difference whether the computer works well when you're done. Especially if you're thinking of a switch to Ubuntu. There's nothing wrong with Linux, but that implies that you're not using any critical software that's tied to Windows, so you're probably not putting a load on the computer in the first place.
One other note: Slow browsers have become a common curse. Firefox and friends are so ridiculously bloated that they can take several seconds to load. There's no excuse for that. It's just sloppy programming. We're going back to the days when software needed splash screens to hide the load time. The difference is that now it's on a 2.3 dual core and back then it was on a 350 mHz single core. But there's not much you can do about that other than stick with older versions of Firefox.
Also, if it's slow online then think about disabling script or using NoScript, and using a HOSTS file. Spyware/adware webpages that are essentially javascript software have become very common. A few years ago, 100 KB was too big for a webpage. Today, 1-3 MB is not unusual. And most of that is javascript that's being stretched way beyond what it was ever meant to do. I hear a lot of complaints from friends about slow pages. Personally I don't see it because 1) I almost never enable script. It's not safe and I don't like webpages that jump around or limit functionality against my wishes. And 2) I use a HOSTS file that eliminates most spying and ads. Ads themselves are becoming a new, serious security risk (malware authors buy ads at sites like NYT anonymously and then link script to them in order to perform "driveby dowloads") but they also cause a lot of drag, causing the browser to load files from numerous 3rd-party locations. I find that FF takes too long to load (about 5 seconds on 1st run) but most webpages load almost instantly without script. Also, Pale Moon is not quite so much a hog as FF. It's virtually the same thing, but with some extras removed.
One last note: housekeeping. I find a lot of people complain about slow speed but then happen to mention that there are "only" 50 tabs open in Firefox. Often each tab will be periodically reloading crap like videos. I have no sympathy for people who can't be bothered to clean up after themselves. What amazes me is that those same people, when told they have too many tabs open, complain that the browser "should be able to handle it". I suspect those are people whose mothers always picked up their clothes from their bedroom floor. (I'm not saying this about you, just noting that if you leave too much running that can be a cause of slow speed.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mayayana wrote:

You've given me a lot to check out ... I got some studying to do .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2016 8:40 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:

Benchmarks... I've used this one.... type in what you have... then what you are wanting to do... you'll get an idea of how much the changes ought to move the numbers around, you can predetermine how much the amount of ram, motherboard, CPUs change the values. I replaced a core 2 with a quad core in an older Dell... just for the fun of it. For what I do... probably not much if any difference but the benchmark went up ! I'd update the BIOS first then make the CPU change. Check the capacitors on the older machines, I had to change a couple on the one I dragged home from a 2nd hand shop. It's a Dell dude... 740 Optiplex built like an anvil. 64 bit Linux Mint on it ... how fast is it? Faster than I'll ever need to go with it. Armchair hot rodding. http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 08:47:52 -0400, "Mayayana"

Windows 7 is GENERALLY faster than XP on the same hardware - and Windows 10 is very often faster than win7.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 8:05:05 AM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:

When was the last time you did a clean OS install? Seeing 70% plus while using a browser doesn't sound right with what you have. In my experience, after several years of use, PCs slow down, due to exactly what, IDK. But at that point, restoring to the factory load fixes it and it's like having a new PC again. In fact, I think that probably half the improvement people see when they buy a new PC in many cases is due to the above, not the new system.
The good thing now is that when you buy a PC it has the factory image on a restore partition. I can get my HP i7 system back to original in about 20 mins. Of course then you still need to install all the updates, all the apps that you've added, etc. I just did this before upgrading to Win 10. Before putting 10 on, I did all the updates, then made a backup image. Once I had 10 on, I made another image. That way I can quickly get back to either of those, if necessary. I can safely say at this point that I won't have to got back to Win 7. Win 10 is performing very well, much faster than Win 7, more reliable, best OS I've had, very happy with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

70% Sheesh, that doesn't sound right.
Mine might jump to 10% when I first open a browser or something, but it usually sits around 2%-3%. I have an i7-4790K quad core with 16GB RAM and Windows 7.
Have you tried cleaning your system with something like CCleaner?
How much RAM do you have in your computer?
Do you have any programs running in the background that could be hogging processor time? The task manager should be able to tell you which programs are using the most resources.

My wife's 90 year old grandmother used to type in her username, then go make a cup of tea while her ancient computer caught up to her eight keypresses. Is it that bad? :)

Well yeah, any improvement under 20 bucks is worth a try. :)
What are your old and new processors?
Anthony Watson www.watsondiy.com www.mountainsoftware.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But, it is. I often get both my CPU and RAM maxxed out by X Windows and my browsers. 98%-100% is not unusual. This on an old P4 w/ .5G RAM. The increased graphics resolution is responsible fer most of it. That and jes old specs fer a 2002 Vaio that was originally made fer XP.
Usta be this sucker was fast. Now, with increased graphics resolution and all those client-side scripts (I've seen 40!), even with Linux, gotta getta new box. ;)
nb
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 11:53:50 AM UTC-4, notbob wrote:

With only .5 GB of RAM, no wonder. Terry has 8GB of RAM and with that CPU and memory, the browser load on the CPU should be negligible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.