Looking to Upgrade my Late 2008 Nehalem System


Recommended Posts

So I've been out of the loop somewhat insofar as how the various components have developed over the years. What I'm trying to get at is I want to ensure there isn't some new tech in a particular area that's coming out between new and the remainder of 2015 that I might want to hold off for in order to implement in the build.

Current:

CPU – Intel Core i7 920

Mobo – Asus P6T Deluxe

RAM – 6 GB (3x2) DDR3

Primary Drive – SATA 7200 HDD

Optical – DVD Drive

GPU – GTX 460 (Was originally a GTX 260 Core 216 that needed replacing when it failed)

Monitor - Acer x223w 22" LCD 1680x1050

As you can tell my current system is pretty standard fare for a new system back in late 2008. The goal was to wait until both system began to truly struggle to run the software I wanted and the hardware developed far enough in every area to justify what is essentially building an entirely new system as most of my parts cannot be upgraded in the traditional sense at this point. I already have most of the parts locked down, but there are a couple I'm on the fence about.

I'm not sure what monitor to replace my current one with. It wasn't quite full HD so to speak when I bought it, but I'm unsure if I should just stick with the traditional 1920x1080 this time around or consider going into 2k at the very least with a 4k monitor a possibly another 7 years down the line. I'd also like the replace my HDD with a SSD, but I'm not sure if there's a particular form factor and interface i should be looking into. As far I understand it, The upcoming M.2 form factor PCI Express using NVMe is considered to be the most recent option in that area. Is that about right? If so, I'll hold off for that

If you choose to upgrade your existing rig, then upgrade your ram, gfx card , and add a normal size ssd. As for your monitor, a 1080p monitor should be sufficient. Anything beyond 1080 is more costly down for the time being. 

An SSD and a new monitor would make it feel like a whole different computer.  I have the same processor in mine and it still runs great.  Over the years I added a new monitor and SSD drive and it felt like a whole different computer.  Mind you I went from 17" to 28" and then to 32" 3K.  Still pretty happy with the performance.

At first i thought i could eek by with just a bit more RAM since the 6 GB I have know is far from cutting it which in 2015 makes sense. The number of times I've seen the Windows you don't have enough RAM left please close X programs is much too high. Turns out I can also bring the i7 920 to its knees with a single high bitrate video. I have to keep Process/Task manager open to kill processes before they make my regularly slow unresponsive system melt. It's kind of funny. It's become increasingly apparent especially with the installation of Windows 10 that my current machine just isn't up to the challenge anymore.

I prefer to build new systems only after my current one has gotten a lengthy period of use (in this case 7+ years) and avoid the whole minor upgrades in certain areas every couple years or so unless a component fails and needs replacing. That is to say I prefer to get the most I can out of my parts as they were first assembled. Again I could slap 6 more GB of DDR3 RAM in there, but I'm also well aware I'd only be delaying the inevitable more so given DDR4 is the current standard anyway. It would only be a temporary solution to a problem that involves my whole system. 

Same deal with an SSD. I'm not going to add an SSD to this motherboard when i know perfectly well I'd be forcing myself to use an already outdated interface. Remember my current Mobo lacks an M.2 slot. it would be sort of like willingly installing a 5200 HDD when you could go with a 7200 one only far more extreme a difference. You obviously don't necessarily need 2015 hardware to run high quality 2015 files/software, but it does allow a system to last a long time without any upgrades all the same. 

I'm going to hold of a little longer for the parts I'm waiting on to actually be released. I'll keep everything y'all have mentioned in mind as well. Thanks a lot for your replies. I greatly appreciate them.

 

At first i thought i could eek by with just a bit more RAM since the 6 GB I have know is far from cutting it which in 2015 makes sense. The number of times I've seen the Windows you don't have enough RAM left please close X programs is much too high. Turns out I can also bring the i7 920 to its knees with a single high bitrate video. I have to keep Process/Task manager open to kill processes before they make my regularly slow unresponsive system melt. It's kind of funny. It's become increasingly apparent especially with the installation of Windows 10 that my current machine just isn't up to the challenge anymore.

I prefer to build new systems only after my current one has gotten a lengthy period of use (in this case 7+ years) and avoid the whole minor upgrades in certain areas every couple years or so unless a component fails and needs replacing. That is to say I prefer to get the most I can out of my parts as they were first assembled. Again I could slap 6 more GB of DDR3 RAM in there, but I'm also well aware I'd only be delaying the inevitable more so given DDR4 is the current standard anyway. It would only be a temporary solution to a problem that involves my whole system. 

Same deal with an SSD. I'm not going to add an SSD to this motherboard when i know perfectly well I'd be forcing myself to use an already outdated interface. Remember my current Mobo lacks an M.2 slot. it would be sort of like willingly installing a 5200 HDD when you could go with a 7200 one only far more extreme a difference. You obviously don't necessarily need 2015 hardware to run high quality 2015 files/software, but it does allow a system to last a long time without any upgrades all the same. 

I'm going to hold of a little longer for the parts I'm waiting on to actually be released. I'll keep everything y'all have mentioned in mind as well. Thanks a lot for your replies. I greatly appreciate them.

 

You never once stated what you use your computer for so any suggestions by default become random noise.

The 920 is not a bad CPU even by 2015 standards. You can O/C it a bit to get an extra year or two or if you just browse the web, another decade or two...

3 8 gig DIMMs will get you 24 gis RAM.

M.2 is no big advantage unless you get the faster version showing up with Skylake mobos and then the drives for that such as the Samsung 950 are about $200 extra for the same size giving you unknown advantage yeah depending in what you do with a computer. Video editing comes to mind for super-fast transfer rates but usually even in that scenario, there needs to be multiple fast drives and most mobos only have a single M.2 slot.

Going from SSD on SATA 3 to SSD on M.2-PCI-e x4 will be more like 7200rpm to 10,000 rpm but less for most people.

Buying a large Samsung 850 today will be the largest performance improvement you can make and again depending on how you actually use a computer might make the eventual complete rebuild produce rather boring results. There is no way this would be a bad move since the SSD would be easily transferable to a new build.

Your video card is reasonably modern and depending on what it is used for may or may not have a lot of lifetime in it. A new GPU is also not dependant on a rebuild.

Your descriptions of performance issues seem software related perhaps. If you did an upgrade install of Windows 10, sometimes weird things can be leftover that don't work well with 10. In particular anything that installs an explorer add-on which is common for up to 50% of all software can be problematic. Try sorting your software installs from oldest to newest and try to guess which of the older ones installed some "right-click" handler.

 

 

 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      453
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!