• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

New build or scavenge old PC...

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

rbico

Registered
Joined
May 3, 2012
A friend of mine bought an HP small for factor PC in late 2008. She has had notihig but problems with it being slow.
Basic components:
Intel Q6600 2.4ghz
4 gb DDR SDR RAM 800mz
1 serial ATA 250gb HD (a few external for storage)
integrated video card Intel GMA 3100
240 Watt power supply
Windows 7 32bit


Her PC habits are having lots of browser windows open while also working mostly in photoshop and/or illustrator.

Her problems are lots of "please wait" and/or "not responding" when working, searching for files, etc.

I have wiped her hardrive and reloaded windows several times which results in very minor speed improvements. I have also turned off someof the windows 7 features that can slow the PC down. My guess is the power supply has something to do with it but it is a small form factor case so there's not much I can do to fix that.


She now wants a new PC but I can gut her old PC for DVD burner, RAM, etc but not sure where I should stop. I think she can spend about $400-500. My main question is if I should use her old Q6600 or get a lower end combo like one of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Store/ComboDeals.aspx?ComboStoreID=1&name=CPUs-Motherboards&Page=2

AMD FX or AMD a10

I did a basic benchmark check and either of these seem to be faster than the Q6600, but I have been out of the PC loop for awhile so I would appreciate any help.


Also, with Photoshops new Mercury engine, it uses video cards to make things fast so I am looking into one of those too. A radeon with 1 gb memory and 256-bit engine seems to be ideal

any thoughts there?

Thanks!
 
The only parts I would salvage from the PC would be the HDD and the OS (if possible?). I see email deals from newegg where you can spend 300-500 dollars on a barebones computer kit, may want to look into one of those.

As for a gpu, if you don't go barebones, look into a 750Ti.
 
What exactly is wrong with the setup? If the hardware is fine, then upgrading to 250GB ish SSD (I recommend MX100) and 8GB RAM with windows 7 64bit OS you should be fine. That would be a very cheap upgrade.

Also, if something is still messed up after the upgrade, she's only out the RAM (use the SSD in the next build). Look for used options in the forums or on ebay, they're likely around 50 bucks.

If that doesn't work, I would look to building a system around a used 2xxx or 3xxx series i5 or i7. With photoshop she NEEDS an intel CPU.

The Q6600 is old, but without going to a quad core i5/i7 you're not giving much of an upgrade. SSD will be the most important thing IMO, even with a heavy CPU workload of photoshop/dreamweaver.
 
The only parts I would salvage from the PC would be the HDD and the OS (if possible?). I see email deals from newegg where you can spend 300-500 dollars on a barebones computer kit, may want to look into one of those.

As for a gpu, if you don't go barebones, look into a 750Ti.

i disagree with the salvaging of the hdd, my thoughts is this is what is slowing the machine down, a q6600 is still plenty, the 4gb of ram might not be, bring that up to 8 and replace the HDD with something newer and faster or an SSD and i bet all will be fine with that machine, unless OP isnt installing the correct drivers or something.
 
Thanks for all of the replies.

I wanted her to get out of the small form factor case because her PSU is only 250 watts which seem really low and options for a larger one seem limited.

So maybe instead I will talk her into keeping her old hardware, but upgrading to a SSD, GPU, RAM and larger power supply.
 
The RAM/HDD she currently has may be having problems. Have you run Memtest on her machine? You should.

I would look into a current gen Intel build, personally, but she's going to have to spend more than $500, honestly. She just has to.

http://pcpartpicker.com/user/mistersprinkles/saved/9tpD4D

Take a look at that build. $700. ($500 w/o storage) Million miles per hour faster than the Q6600 build. Has an SSD, faster RAM, decent GPU (even for gaming if she wants to get into it). It's a great system for her. $200 over budget but that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
You can cut the price down by reducing the SSD to 128GB if you want.

If, on the other hand, you just plain want to spend $500 and there's no convincing you otherwise, ditch the SSD and HDD and re-use the old HDD. If that's what's causing the problems, though, expect them to follow her to her new PC.
The CPU/MOBO/RAM/CASE/PSU/GPU are $500. It's $700 with the 1TB HDD and the SSD.

BTW I notice you say she has a few external HDD's. If they're 3.5" you might want to consider throwing one of those in the new build instead, just incase it's the main drive in the Q6600 rig causing problems...
 
The GA-970A-UD3P is the lowest board I would run an FX on.

Grab a 500W PSU, you'll want it since the AMD motherboards worth having don't have an integrated GPU.
 
Thanks again for the feedback. Rad a lot about AMD versus Intel for Photoshop and can't see any difference.

So here's my build. Feedback appreciated:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/b3QXhM

There's a difference. It's rare to find a case where FX (we're talking about 8 core here, all other FX is a joke) can keep up with i5, let alone i7. You need about 5Ghz out of an 8 core FX to keep up with a 3Ghz i5 in gaming, and sometimes it can't even keep up. In other tasks the FX falls behind too due to it's terrible instructions per clock ratio and the fact that it's just a terrible design. They do some serious drugs over at AMD. How else could they have come up with the design in the first place? :p

Seriously though, an i5 is going to be a better choice here. Yes, it's an extra $100, but it's worth it.
 
There's a difference. It's rare to find a case where FX (we're talking about 8 core here, all other FX is a joke) can keep up with i5, let alone i7. You need about 5Ghz out of an 8 core FX to keep up with a 3Ghz i5 in gaming, and sometimes it can't even keep up. In other tasks the FX falls behind too due to it's terrible instructions per clock ratio and the fact that it's just a terrible design. They do some serious drugs over at AMD. How else could they have come up with the design in the first place? :p

Seriously though, an i5 is going to be a better choice here. Yes, it's an extra $100, but it's worth it.

Thanks for the input, it is appreciated but my friend has a Intel Q6600 and I have a AMD Phenom II, same RAM, same hard drives, same work habits, etc, and my machine blows hers out f the water. i wont debate it with you becuase you surely know more about computers than I do, but from waht I have read and what I have experienced, AMD is just fine for what we are doing.

Is that the only issue with my components?
 
Thanks for the input, it is appreciated but my friend has a Intel Q6600 and I have a AMD Phenom II, same RAM, same hard drives, same work habits, etc, and my machine blows hers out f the water. i wont debate it with you becuase you surely know more about computers than I do, but from waht I have read and what I have experienced, AMD is just fine for what we are doing.

Is that the only issue with my components?

You're comparing a CPU based on 2006 tech to a CPU based on 2009-2010 tech. Obviously the Phenom II is a superior CPU. If you don't compare apples to apples, your results will be skewed.

Current gen AMD is so vastly inferior to current gen Intel that it's really a joke.

Phenom II is slightly faster than FX per core, per clock. That's sad. That also means that AMD hasn't really improved it's IPC (instructions per clock) performance since about 2009. Intel has improved it's IPC by leaps and bounds. Phenom II was inferior to first gen i7. Now you have Phenom II equivalents going up against 4th and 4.5th gen i7 and the FX just rolls over and dies in pretty much every comparison. AMD is for people on a budget and is inferior to Into.
 
Last edited:
You're comparing a CPU based on 2006 tech to a CPU based on 2009-2010 tech. Obviously the Phenom II is a superior CPU. If you don't compare apples to apples, your results will be skewed.

Current gen AMD is so vastly inferior to current gen Intel that it's really a joke.

Phenom II is slightly faster than FX per core, per clock. That's sad. That also means that AMD hasn't really improved it's IPC (instructions per clock) performance since about 2009. Intel has improved it's IPC by leaps and bounds. Phenom II was inferior to first gen i7. Now you have Phenom II equivalents going up against 4th and 4.5th gen i7 and the FX just rolls over and dies in pretty much every comparison. AMD is for broke people and suckers. Winners don't use drugs, and they don't use AMD. :)

If, however, you fall into the category of broke or sucker, you should definitely consider AMD. Just be aware that it's not as good as an i5.

Hate to tell you, but this setup is WAY better off with an AMD system.
You know why? It leaves room in the budget for a GPU.
A GPU that will render Photoshop a lot faster than any Intel or AMD CPU can. Period. End of story.

Also, with this budget, I wouldn't try to squeeze in the SSD.
I would definitely be replacing the system drive though, as old HDDs can definitely cause the issue she's seeing.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/rRKY23

This gets her a build that'll be pleasant to use for years to come, with some room to upgrade.
 
You're comparing a CPU based on 2006 tech to a CPU based on 2009-2010 tech. Obviously the Phenom II is a superior CPU. If you don't compare apples to apples, your results will be skewed.

Current gen AMD is so vastly inferior to current gen Intel that it's really a joke.

Phenom II is slightly faster than FX per core, per clock. That's sad. That also means that AMD hasn't really improved it's IPC (instructions per clock) performance since about 2009. Intel has improved it's IPC by leaps and bounds. Phenom II was inferior to first gen i7. Now you have Phenom II equivalents going up against 4th and 4.5th gen i7 and the FX just rolls over and dies in pretty much every comparison. AMD is for broke people and suckers. Winners don't use drugs, and they don't use AMD. :)

If, however, you fall into the category of broke or sucker, you should definitely consider AMD. Just be aware that it's not as good as an i5.

This contradicts everything I have read, except here and by Intel fanboys (not saying you are one, but they exist for sure)

Phenom II came out in 2008 and that's when I built my PC and she bought hers. At the time, the q6600 was about $100 more than my Phenom II. At at the time I built mine, forum members (here I think but not sure) were trying to talk me into the Q6600.
 
Hate to tell you, but this setup is WAY better off with an AMD system.
You know why? It leaves room in the budget for a GPU.
A GPU that will render Photoshop a lot faster than any Intel or AMD CPU can. Period. End of story.

Also, with this budget, I wouldn't try to squeeze in the SSD.
I would definitely be replacing the system drive though, as old HDDs can definitely cause the issue she's seeing.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/rRKY23

This gets her a build that'll be pleasant to use for years to come, with some room to upgrade.

Thanks for the reply.
GPU only helps with some Photoshop elements though. She will not be doing 3-d rendering which is where the GPU really shines, from what I understand. I use Photoshop almost daily and I just upgraded to a Radeon HD7700 from the onboard integrated video and saw very little performance improvement in PS, for what I am doing (photo retouching, layers, blending).
 
Thanks for the reply.
GPU only helps with some Photoshop elements though. She will not be doing 3-d rendering which is where the GPU really shines, from what I understand. I use Photoshop almost daily and I just upgraded to a Radeon HD7700 from the onboard integrated video and saw very little performance improvement in PS, for what I am doing (photo retouching, layers, blending).

Even with 2D a GPU helps a fair amount. Even more so as images get larger.
 
This contradicts everything I have read, except here and by Intel fanboys (not saying you are one, but they exist for sure)

Phenom II came out in 2008 and that's when I built my PC and she bought hers. At the time, the q6600 was about $100 more than my Phenom II. At at the time I built mine, forum members (here I think but not sure) were trying to talk me into the Q6600.

Yes but lest we forget that the Q6600 is based on C2D, and is just 2 C2Ds stuck together. C2D is 2006. Phenom II was 2008. That's two whole years, at a time when CPU design was advancing at a fast rate (look at what happened from 2004-2008. We went form Single core P4 to quad core i7. Massive leaps and bounds). CPU design has not really leapt forward, from an IPC or from an "overall processing power per core" standpoint in the consumer sector, since 2011, and the launch of Sandy Bridge. Ivy Bridge and Haswell have made small improvements in both categories, but they have been more about platform upgrades and optimization for mobile than they have been about adding raw power.

AMD hasn't improved in either category since 2008. That's what I'm trying to get across. They haven't been able to innovate in a meaningful way that gives their CPUs an edge in a direct comparison.
We are, in many ways, still living in 2011 with Intel, but with AMD we're living in 2008. That's a big difference.

Skyrim.png


This graph is representative of the situation in 99% of cases, across many games and applications.
Look at how the AMD quad core FX 4170 (2011) utterly fails against the i5 2500K (2011) Even the 8 core FX8350, released much later, can't keep up with the quad core 2500K from 2011.

Sorry for saying AMD was for broke people and suckers. I should have worded that differently. I hope I didn't offend anybody. I just don't want anyone to be under the misconception that a 4/6/8 core AMD is as good as a 4 core Intel.
 
how does the AMD chip compare the the Q6600 though. That is the difference that will matter to her/me.
 
Back