[SOLVED] Do I upgrade or start from scratch?

Jlat512

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
63
0
4,630
My current build is from 2012 and it is an ex school computer, so lots of hours with original HDD.
It has an xeon w3550 (4 cores, 4 threads, 3.~ GHZ), 12 GB 1222HMz RAM, GTX 1050 2GB and a 500gb 7200 RPM hard drive. Would it be beneficial to upgrade my GPU to an RX 570 *gb, (~250 CAD) and then throw in an ssd or new hard drive.
Or should I start new and get one with an i5 8400 with 8GB ram and keep my gtx 1050 and wait a bit to upgrade to the rx 570?
What I want to accomplish is 1080p gaming at better than console FPS with similar to console or better graphics. Currently it will play games at 1080p, but not new ones and not without frequent FPS drops that make me sick/unplayable. Thanks for any and all help
 
Solution
Fps is on the cpu. The gpu just has to live upto that number or hopefully do it easily with room to spare. With a weak cpu, ram combo with minimum threads, you have a hard time getting any decent fps, especially in modern games that are optimized for at least 6 and usually 8 thread usage.

I'd upgrade the whole platform, but not to Intel. You pay a brand premium there, a Ryzen 2600/3600 on a decent B450 mobo will cost about the same and outperform the 8400 easily.

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
Fps is on the cpu. The gpu just has to live upto that number or hopefully do it easily with room to spare. With a weak cpu, ram combo with minimum threads, you have a hard time getting any decent fps, especially in modern games that are optimized for at least 6 and usually 8 thread usage.

I'd upgrade the whole platform, but not to Intel. You pay a brand premium there, a Ryzen 2600/3600 on a decent B450 mobo will cost about the same and outperform the 8400 easily.
 
Solution

Jlat512

Reputable
Feb 15, 2015
63
0
4,630
Okay thanks.
I figured it had something to do with the CPU or hard drive. It is a 7200rpm drive but it is old and has been on a lot and figured it could be a cause to the lag
 

gn842a

Honorable
Oct 10, 2016
666
47
11,140
I'm in the process of replacing a 2013 build. Obsolescence these days is not as bad as it was in the 1980s and 1990s when you couldn't buy a computer without someone telling you to wait a year because what you wanted to buy would cost half as much.

But there is obsolescence issues, the RAM is now DDR4 and moving on to DDR5. The psus that were "generally moving to modular" back in 2013 are now almost all modular. (And be warned, never use the modular cables from one company's psu on another company's psu! )

But I will say you know you are driving an antique if:

  1. You have molex in the build
  2. You don't have an SSD
  3. You're playing with less than 8 gigs ram

So it might be time to move on to bigger and better. That's what I'm doing.

But I'm also NOT doing it. I maintain two desktops in the household and during times when the main desktop is down this one is invaluable. It is almost identical to the one I'm replacing downstairs. It loads pages quickly and does home video and is all and all a fine machine. It has more character than the one downstairs because it is in an ATX tower build from, sheesh, I dunno, late 90s or early 00s. It still has a 3.5 inch floppy in it. But it's a 100% 2013 AMD A10-5800k build and it now has 32 (!!!) gigs of DDR3 RAM because when I was pulling the one downstairs apart I said what the heck and put the 16 gigs of RAM upstairs. My son is an intense gamer and for all of its defects this build still allows competitive play.

So one can make a case that a 2013 (or older) build can be great for most people most times. But I would only stick with the older CPU if the board has plenty of room for more RAM (16 gigs) and you can make the move to an SSD. If you don't have SATA....that's a real limitation. I was one of the people who was traumatized by being forced off Win XP which had, as people may recall, a vanishing small limit of 2 gigs of RAM and routine performance on the net was throttled by the combination of no RAM for the intense graphics and massive junk getting downloaded by commercial web sites into the cache. Computers were much more frustrating to use then. I haven't had those experiences since I moved to 16 gigs of RAM builds, I don't know if it's because the net as a whole is getting faster and there is not as much junk, or or whether the computers are just better able to carry the load.

I remember slow computers. Slow pages. Slow web sites. Incredible boot times. I would come down the stairs, turn on the computer, go have coffee and then go upstairs and take a shower, then maybe the computer would be done booting. That was life with XP. Now i wonder why people were sorry to see it go.

So yeah, SSD changes a lot, generous RAM isn't a bad thing to have on a five year build, and I haven't really had a problem with AMD processors. My new mobo has capacity for 64 gigs RAM but I'm sticking with 16. It's just nice to know I can add more if I want to.

Greg N