What to upgrade

[Barrister73]

I built my PC several months ago, and things are going just fine with it. But, I'm sure that I will need up upgrade things in the near future. Is there a way to tell where any bottlenecks are so I can upgrade/overclock the right things at the right time (other than posting my build here and having everyone tell me what I need to replace)?

MRR

[RickyTick]

Your E8400 processor should be more than powerful enough to do nearly anything you want.

If you still have the 7900GS video card, that could stand an upgrade for sure, especially if you're gaming at all.

jmo

[Barrister73]

My, you did a lot of research going through old posts to answer my question. Or you hacked into my system. Impressive either way.

I figured that my next upgrade would be a video card at some point.

So, is there no program that can evaluate a computer and say "the slowest thing on your computer is 'X'"?

MRR

[The Wise Monkey]

My memory isn't as good as Ricky's - are you running Vista? If so, the inbuilt perofrmance analysis tool is a very basic way of finding out the "slowest" part of your system.

[zburns]

Windows Vista has a program called "Windows Experience Index" which does exactly what you are asking in a simplified format, at least simple in the way it displays. My actual readings right now: Max score is 5.9: my CPU rating is 5.3 based on "calc per second"; my HD rated 5.6 based on "data transfer rate"; my Memory, Graphics and Gaming Graphics all rated 5.9 (max score).

My CPU is the AMD 5600; chose this because I wanted the low wattage (85watts), assuming it would make the operating temps lower. I am not a gamer, so speed to me was relavant only to the "tortoise" it replaced.

[Barrister73]

My memory isn't as good as Ricky's - are you running Vista? If so, the inbuilt perofrmance analysis tool is a very basic way of finding out the "slowest" part of your system.

"Basic" sums it up nicely. That's why I was hoping there was another tool or program out there. It would be nice to have something say "nice video card, add a Gig of RAM to use it all.

My computer is at all 5.9s (CPU at 5.7; not getting a new one any time soon). But I know my build is far from the fastest out there.

MRR

[RickyTick]

My, you did a lot of research going through old posts to answer my question. Or you hacked into my system. Impressive either way.


:D I just looked back at your first few post here and found your original setup. :D Nothing to it.

Are you having any performance issues?

[Barrister73]

Are you having any performance issues?

None at all. Just preparing to plan for the future when I will possibly need things enhanced.

MRR

[RickyTick]

I've seen others with the E8400 overclocked to 4.2ghz but that was with some kind of volt mod. I'm sure you could do mild overclock to maybe 3.2-3.4 without much trouble. If you don't have a nice cpu cooler, you might want to get one before doing any overclocking.

With all that said, my first thought was; If your not having any performance issues don't monkey around with it. (oops sorry WM, no offence) :D

[The Wise Monkey]

:p

I'm not aware of any tool that does that for you, but I think that we may be able to give some reasonable advice. :D

[Cirndle]

Sisoft Sandra benchmarking suites are kind of useful.

As far as E8400 overclocking, people have gotten 4ghz or a bit more without volt mods and on air.


I don't know if upgrading is even a good idea.

With the new intel chipset and Core i7s around the corner why waste the money, when your cpus and mobos will be obslete to the new stuff?

[Barrister73]

With the new intel chipset and Core i7s around the corner why waste the money, when your cpus and mobos will be obslete to the new stuff?

Ah, but that is the very reason to know what to upgrade. I held out for the 45 and will be able to use the system I have for a few more years at least. Upgrading only what is necessary and overclocking when required will give me more time out of my current set up and save me money to wait a few more chipset incarnations to build another.

[zburns]

Barrister has started an interesting debate. Hope it continues. Here is my first post on the subject; based on thinking I feel ok on.

My CPU is amd 5600, OS vista 32, 4 gig ram (3.5 usable), etc.. Monitor 24" samsung 1920 x 1200. Picked 5600 for low watts, not a gamer, no overclock desires. Barrister's max score is 5.7 based on his CPU. Windows Perform index is based on "the lowest component score". Mine is 5.3 based on CPU, 5.6 on HD based on data transfer rate being too low. Graphics, Gaming graphics and memory are all 5.9.

I am trying to use Task Manager and the visual performance tools within T/M to tell me about things happening.

For example, on Barrister's basic question about "evaluation", I think my weak point in my system is my monitor. I have many 15 meg RAW photo files stored on HD. Takes about 4 seconds for one RAW file to fully load to the monitor; CPU usage maxes at 70 to 76% max usage during the process and follows the "monitor loading".

My samsung 24" has 2.3 megapixels total, the hor scan rate is 74khz, vertical 60 hz. It takes about 3.5 to 4 seconds to "scan the monitor" to put in 15 meg of new data in the form of a RAW file. I think my calculations point out my conclusion, even tho this is my first effort, because the calculated numbers roughly equal my "visual look" while the picture detail fully appears, all the while there is a note on the image saying "picture loading" which stops about the 4 sec point.

So here I am looking at one of my devices trying to load 15 meg, while all of my other devices run at gigabite speed, except the HD (megbyte per sec). Video card obviously way ahead of the monitor.

The monitor seems to be the "turtle" in this case. (As Shyster put it months ago, we should avoid "technobabble") [In my defense, all of the above is simple arithmetic based on "understanding" the basic terms, megapixel (millions of pixels), kHz (thousands of cycles) etc.. If you are a "computer junkie" or technonerd, sooner or later you pick up the basic terms and their meaning without trying.]

I think Windows Experience Index and all the stuff behind it, TASK Manager, and its sub menus offer a lot of what Barrister is asking for. Microsoft states that they will increase the max score from 5.9 upwards as new stuff warrants the change.

Monitors are a weak point visually compared to the component speed feeding the monitor; the human eye and brain, also can only process so much data at a brief moment in time. So they should only get "somewhat better". The speed behind them, ie all the components, need to keep up with the total number of "tasks" asked for.

Go to Control Panel, System & Maint, System, Performance, Advanced Tools, then choose Task Manager. It is a small window that will sit in the corner and let you see CPU usage and memory usage rise and fall with a short delay time as you view the visual image on the monitor. The delay time is consistent and lets you positively marryup CPU, Memory and monitor activity. Within Task Manager, you can click on Resource Monitor which lets you see real time, CPU, Disc, Network and Memory all running parallel to each other. Good Tool!!