PC Upgrade ?
 

My sister has an asus mobo that supports at the max, a 1.2 ghz P3. Currently it has a 900 mhz Celeron. A 1.2 P3 goes for about 75 at stores or 50 used on eBay. Is it worth the upgrade or should I look into a new mobo/processor combo? Money is an issue, and more speed is important, but it should not be top of the line.

I need more info before I vote, specifically is this for gaming?

For day-to-day use I have a p3 800 that does all I would ever need. For gaming I use an athon 2.1ghz (2400+).

If it's not used for gaming, there's no reason to upgrade. If it is, then definitely. What's it gonna be used for?

-Lasereth

Are you serious? :eek:

I wouldn't want to use that system if it were only to email people. Way too slow for me. Hell, I have what everyone would consider a gaming rig, and I bet I only play games about once every few weeks. I'd rather be outside doing stuff, or most important, fucking my girlie. But when I want to play a game I want the best possible. My system may be a little overkill, but at least I never have to worry about it slowing me down. ;)

Anyway, get a new CPU & MOBO. If you looked around you could probably find something pretty good for $100.

that was a rather redundant paragraph ;) he said if it's not used for gaming, there's no reason to upgrade. and it's the truth. if you keep it clean (no spyware or adware) then it's fine! XP Pro would run like a dream on it.

of course if you play games you will have to upgrade....but he hasn't mentioned if he's playing computer games or not.

Her son has an Xbox and PS2 so games arent played on it.

Then keep it the same.

With the FSB that the mobo has on it, you wouldn't see that much of an increase with the P3, espcially on the normal day-to-day stuff. I had a Compaq Ipaq desktop with an 800Mhz celeron that I wanted to upgrade to the 1Ghz P3. Needless to say the upgrade didn't show much that I could tell; the bench scores were higher, but not much of a noticable difference.

Go with the mobo/proc/ram upgrade and see a big difference.

-SF

Why does every damned person think that Windows XP requires a super computer to run? Another thread is yielding the same results. I used XP on a 400 MHz K6-2 and it ran just as fast as my 1.8 GHz Athlon XP. I'm talking Photoshop, Office, etc. ran fast as hell. I've installed XP on a 166 MHz before, and it ran as well.

If you have a fucking 900 MHz computer and you're wanting to upgrade without playing games, it's simply a money drain. If it's slow, it needs Ad-Aware and Spybot ran and a nice uninstall of useless shit. Defrag the son of a bitch!

I can't stress this enough: upgrading a 900 MHz computer with no plans on gaming is <B><U><I>USELESS</B></U></I>. If you upgrade that system, you will see <B>NO performance increase</B>. If the current 900 MHz computer is slow, then it's the user's fault. Defrag it, get rid of the spyware and adware, and uninstall the useless programs on it.

If you want to upgrade it, go ahead, but it's wasted money. Keep in mind that if she was going to play games, it would be a different story. It's as simple as this: Tom's Hardware Guide, Anandtech, and even Intel as well as AMD have commented that a 600 MHz PC will run any of today's programs perfectly fine, especially simple ones that come with an OS. Any processor made after that is for extreme video editing and gaming, end of story. The same goes for videocards.

One last bit: if the PC doesn't have 256 MB or more, then I'd upgrade the RAM and leave it alone. Windows XP is a bit slow with less than 256 MB of RAM.

-Lasereth

All I'm saying is even without playing games I would bring a 900MHz cpu to it's knees. Maybe I multitask too much. ;) :p

Hell, I think my dad's 2.4 Celeron is a slow ass pile of fucking shit, and he has 256 megs of RAM..... I won't use his PC to browse the internet when I visit because the damn thing is too slow for me. To say a 900MHz cpu will run XP like my 3200+ is ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous...it's the truth. Windows XP requires a CPU about as fast as a horse-drawn carriage. After a certain speed, anything after is 100% overkill. If a 900 MHz PC is slow in Windows XP, the user has bogged it down with spyware and adware. The same goes for an Athlon 64 FX-53. I know some people that could get it running like a 386 after a few hours. It all depends on who's using the computer. If someone doesn't install useless shit (screensavers, toolbars, etc.) and runs Ad-Aware and Spybot once a week, I guarantee a 400 MHz PC will run XP as fast as an Athlon XP. I can guarantee this because I have the K6-2 beside me right now, and there's simply no difference in speed within Windows XP.

-Lasereth

Straight from Microsoft's site: looks like Bill recommends a 300 MHz PC for Windows XP, and a 233 MHz PC is "required." That's all the info I need to give.

<B>Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional:

PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

Super VGA (800 × 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

CD-ROM or DVD drive

Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device </B>

-Lasereth

<-- Runs XP Pro on an Amd K6-266, beleive it or not it's fast!

Small programs do take a lot of proc time and Adaware does take a while to run, but still it's a whole hell of a lot faster than Win98SE.

-SF

i'm running XP Pro on a P3 - 933MHz. 512 PC133 RAM. it runs great. it keeps up with the P4 2.4GHz machine i've got at work.

i've also installed XP Pro on a P2 - 250MHz, and P2 350MHz. both run very well. albeit, they probably can't handle photoshop, they work for regular home usage. (no gaming.)

if money's an issue. save it.

Well, you're certainly excited about XP speeds; and, really sure you're right too.

That crap, though, I gotta call you on. I can see the Office part, there's not a lot of CPU intensive tasks to Office. I see you being right there. Opening a file is more dependant on how fast the computer can move the data around; as well as process it.

The Photoshop bit, is sheer bullshit. It also casts doubt on the rest of your claims. Photoshop is a very CPU dependant application. If it runs the same task, and takes the same time to complete, on a 400 MHz K6-2 as it does ANY speed Athlon XP, there is something very wrong. Very. Wrong.

Personally, I have XP running on three boxes: an Athlon XP 1.4Ghz, a Celeron 400, and an AMD K6-2 at 550.

There are so many different hardware variables responsible for any computer's performance, and so many differences between each of those three boxes, that I'd be a fool to expect any of them to run anything at the same speeds. There are very noticeable differences in XP's response time, and many reasons why.

I'll just mention that my boxes have very nice builds, and are kept lean and clean. (Even if I do say so myself.)

One of those reasons is CPU speed. When XP, or any software, runs it sends X amount of code through the CPU. All things being equal, the faster CPU will execute the code, FASTER.

CPU speed is maybe not THE factor in responsiveness, but it's a damn big one.

Certainly if I put a faster HD in the 400 cellie, it'd open files quicker. The apps would open a bit quicker too. But even if I put the fastet HD in there, with even more badass PC100 ram, that PC would still be slower than my Athlon box, because it's CPU wouldn't be able to keep up.

I'll say this and be done:

Your partially right. But you're sure that you're 110% right, and that's where you're wrong.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!!

When my dad's PC came home from the store, I was there because I helped him pick it out, it took about 30 seconds longer than my PC just to bot up, everything loads slower, and his cpu is a 2.4 Celeron. There is no fucking way in hell that a 900MHz cpu will run XP like my XP3200+.. Period. This isn't even worth discussing.

You're trying to say that a system just over the minimum requirements will run as fast as a system that is overkill...... Are you even listening to yourself? I'll stack my PC up next to yours and I'll bet my life on the fact that everything runs twice as fast.

You can call me out on Photoshop and Office if ya want, but I don't need someone to tell me I'm wrong if I have the damn computer sitting here. I can open Office XP in under 1 second with this computer. I can open Photoshop in the same amount of time it takes my Athlon XP. Loading images takes longer, but after it's loaded, it's fine. And when I say longer, I mean a few seconds. Of course, I'm not talking about 50 MB files here. If you're into hardcore rendering, then that's a different story.

You can keep me informed on how the processor determines how fast the computer is, but none of that blatantly obvious information matters when running an OS designed for 300 MHz computers. You're saying there's a big difference in Windows XP. I'm saying there's not. I don't need any proof other than the computers laying around my room. If you even notice a "response time" in Windows XP then something's fucked up on all of your computers. There is no response time in XP. There is no difference using Windows XP on a 400 MHz than on a 1.8 GHz Athlon XP if you know what you're doing. I can also asure you that the biggest factor in Windows XP that determines how fast it runs is if you have enough RAM. CPU speed will only get ya so far, and it's *definitely* not a big factor after you breach the 400-500 MHz mark. 128 MB of RAM will get ya slowdown, 256 MB will get you running almost seamlessly, and more than that will have it running perfectly. RAM is the big factor, not CPU speed.

I'm fully right. I'm sure that I'm 110% right, and that's where I'm not wrong.

I posted the Microsoft system requirements right there...what else do you need? That's suggesting that after 300 MHz, you won't notice a difference in operating speed, and ya know what, that's exactly what I'm saying. The recommended specs are 300 MHz. Not required, recommend! That means that if everyone ran 300 MHz PCs, Microsoft would have a OS designed for them, and nothing faster.

-Lasereth

Uhh, you're comparing a store bought computer to a custom built computer. The thread starter is building it himself. A store-bought computer comes with a hundred useless programs on it, some of which are considered spyware and adware out of the box. Store bought computers are the slowest pieces of shit on the planet, and you simply can't compare them to custom-built PCs. You're computer savvy, so I'd give his PC a nice FCKGW and make it fast again. My computer would take forever to start up too if it had 50 useless programs installed on it from day one. I bet all of those are set to boot into task manager when Windows starts as well. No wonder it's slow! Your Athlon XP 3200+ would be that slow if it had that much store-bought ad shit on it.

I'm not saying that a system just over minimum requirements is overkill. I'm saying that a system over the *recommended* requirements is overkill, but ONLY overkill if the person isn't gonna go video editing/50 MB Photoshop files/gaming. If it's just a casual PC, then a 900 MHz will do the job fine.

Your dad's PC may be able to store digital photos and inverse the colors with that awesome store program, it may be able to tell you what time it is on 3 different clocks, it may be able to record your voice and distort it for your family members so you can send it through e-mail in trade of jokes littered with spyware, it might even have the power to have 13 printer drivers installed...but Jesus, it's NOT going to start up fast if you bought it from the store. There's no comparison. Even browsing Windows is a pain on those shitcans. I formatted and reinstalled Windows on my mom's PC when she bought it from the store. I couldn't take it anymore.

-Lasereth

Lasereth is absolutely right in the matter. I've found that my computer here at work (PIII 600) Compaq with my work's own build of Win2k and, outside of security and startup scripts starts up just as fast as my custom-built (P4 2.4) at home. If you don't use a PC for gaming, and you have a fresh install of XP or 2k of your own, then having a computer that exceeds 500 Mhz is almost absolute overkill.

My dad's PC, a 1.4 Gateway suffered from the exact same crap that we've been talking about. An absolute infestation of spywarez and other various forms of bloat can make a 3.2 HT feel like you're going about 500 Mhz or less. Storebought computers are notorious for being incredibly filled with shit.

For further background, it was a cutom built pc and does not have any bloatware. Just office, Media Player, nero and explorer are used. Somehow it still feels slow, but not slow like someone installed gator.

Maybe I wasnt too clear. I guess what I wanted to know was will the P3 be noticably faster than the celeron or for about the same money should I upgrade the mobo/processor?

Do you run AdAware/SpyBot?

Has the drive been defragged?

Are you running a mix of fast/slow ram?

Are you running a ATA100 drive with an ATA66 Cable?

Is your swapfile size 1.5-2x more than your ram?

Is all the hardware working correct? (Device Manager, x'd out?)

Running all current OS patches?

Please tell me that you're running XP and not 98 or ME.

-SF

How much RAM does it have? Windows XP is a bit slow with less than 256 MB of RAM.

-Lasereth

- Its 98SE for now (remember its not my computer) ...
- 256 MB RAM.
- Has been defragged lately.
- Did Run Search and Destroy.
- Devices all work correctly.

My sister and brother and law are clueless on how to upgrade. My brother in-law asked me what I could do for cheap.

The best way to upgrade their computer is buy Windows XP Home OEM for $85, format the hard drive, and reinstall Windows on it. It would run incredibly fast after that. I still don't understand how it's running slow if it's free of adware and spyware, though. There must be something slowing it down...probably spyware and adware that's not found yet on top of years of clutter.

If you really want to upgrade (useless), then buy a new motherboard and processor. That P3 won't be much faster technically speaking, and you certainly wouldn't notice a difference within Windows. I'd go with a low-end Athlon XP and low-end Athlon XP motherboard. They could be bought for under $100 easily. You'd have to buy RAM, however, and RAM is really high right now.

Just a forwarning: if you upgrade their PC with a new motherboard and processor, you'll have to format the computer and reinstall Windows, which makes the entire process useless anyway. Reinstalling Windows is the key option here. It would make their computer way faster. I'd simply buy Windows XP Home OEM and format the hard drive.

If you upgrade to a P3, you won't notice a difference, but you won't have to format and reinstall Windows either.

-Lasereth