Actually buying a new computer this timeFollow

Why is the CPU so hard to exchange?

The problem with that strategy is that if I'm building a system I want to play games now. I'd like to have a system that can be upgraded for a while without rebuying everything, but if it can't play games now, It's no good. So if I have a limited budget, it's better to cut back on the CPU rather then the GPU. Next time I upgrade I'll already have the case, maybe the harddrives and DVD/whatever, and hopefully a motherboard, so I'll be able to get a good CPU and GPU. If you have the budget, an awesome CPU is awesome, but I'd say that if it's a trade off, settle with a solid CPU and an awesome GPU.

Edited, May 5th 2010 3:23pm by Xsarus

maybe gbaji is talking about socket compatibility. if you want to replace a cpu with a similar cpu, its a piece of cake. if you want to replace an intel C2D with an i7, you're looking at a new mobo and probably new ram.

edit: ^ or maybe not. CPUs are very very easy to replace, just dont be an ape when doing it.

Edited, May 5th 2010 1:33pm by KTurner

See above. Certainly, it's easier to change a video card than a CPU, right? And most of the time, you'll want to upgrade the CPU and the board at the same time anyway...



Except you're dooming yourself to re-buying the most expensive components of your computer over and over each time you upgrade. Do the math. You spend $75 on a CPU and put the $75 you save in a better video card, which the CPU can keep up with, but perhaps just barely. In 2 years, you decide to upgrade, but if you buy a new video card, you now have to buy a new CPU as well or you get a bottleneck. You therefore have to spend the whole $150 at issue again.

Spend that $150 on the CPU and save yourself $75 on the card. Assuming we're still not talking about a bottom of the barrel video card (which we're not in this case), when you decide to upgrade that card, you're only out the cost of the card (which is $75 less than in the case above), but you get to keep the CPU since it's capable of keeping up with whatever card you're likely to buy.

Video cards tend to improve in quality/price comparison faster than CPUs, so it just makes sense to spend a larger amount on a CPU that will work well for you for a long time, so as to allow for future upgrades of the video card over time.

Compared to replacing a video card, the CPU is massively more difficult. While I don't handle interior hardware as much as I used to, I could swap 100 video cards in systems without ever breaking one. I'll probably ***** up the pins on at least a few out of 100 CPU swaps. There's a reason why commonly replaced components use card slots instead of pins, and it's that exact reason why the CPU is the hardest component to replace in a system.

I'm not Smash and I don't have a horse in this race but I assumed that Smash's point was that the "bottleneck" factor in your budget end modern CPU was being well over-inflated.

Er? I assume that any halfway intelligent home user is going to buy board/CPU as one unit when he buys a new system and then never change that until he buys another. That's the heart of your system. Everything else attaches to that. Since CPUs and boards really should be bought as a component set anyway and most places you'd buy them sell them as a set, why on earth would a home user ever ever ever be replacing a CPU? buy a combo with sufficient power/speed and then upgrade components over time.

You're going to buy a cheap CPU and then assume you'd upgrade it later? Why? The board you put it on is probably cheap as well, right? It makes far more sense to buy a good performing board/CPU combo with modest components and then plan on upgrading the components as technology improves than the other way around. It's easier. It's cheaper. And you'll have a better computer for your money as a result.

Huh? Did you not read the same thread? That's exactly what Smash was arguing. He said that instead of spending $150 for a CPU (which is a medium cost CPU at best), he should instead cheap out and just spend $75 on a cheap one and then spend the money buying a slightly better video card. The video card recommended in this thread was and is plenty capable of running any video game you're going to want to play. Spending $75 more on a better one while cheaping out on the CPU is a mistake IMO.

Why?

I have a motherboard that has enough expansion to last me a good while (twice the memory, more PCI slots, etc) and will take anything from an i3 to an i7 processor. I have an i3 in there because it was a good price for me (hundred bucks actually and the $25 wouldn't have upgraded my video... heh) but I sure as hell wouldn't feel compelled to replace my perfectly adequate motherboard should I decide to upgrade to an i5 or an i7 later. Eventually I might but not for a good while to come.

Because CPU performance is significantly related to board chipset and design. In a few years, when you do get around to upgrading your CPU, you're almost certainly not going to want to put it into the same board you have in your system right now, and that's assuming that the offerings available at that time are even reasonably compatible with the board you have right now.

I know this because after years of experience thinking the same thing and almost never actually doing it (and not being really happy with the results when I did), I've come to the conclusion that unless you're someone who's going to tinker with your computer hardware constantly, you're always going to be better off buying the best price/performance CPU/Board you can fit in your budget and then hanging components off of that than any other approach to home computer building.

This may just be my way of looking at it, but I tend to just treat Board/CPU combos as a unit and assess their capabilities that way. I've found that most people who've worked with PC hardware for a long time tend to do the same thing. It's almost certainly why Kao has the same "build your system around the board/cpu" approach. When you do this long enough, you realize that while everyone talks about upgrading their CPU while keeping the same board, almost no one actually ever does it. It's usually because some new chipset has come out, or support for new components on the board, or some other reason that makes buying a new board seem like a great idea. Do this enough, and you realize you may as well just assume you're going to do this the next time as well and plan ahead...

Wow. Backwards there. People were far far more likely to build and assemble boards and cpus (as well as other components) back then than they are today. But what the hell do I know?

Technically, they all have pins, but not in the same sense. AMDs do have external pins I believe, but even with the bga setup on newer intel cpus, replacing it is a more delicate task than just replacing a card. And that's before dealing with the heatsink.

They will be because I won't be upgrading to the ultra high end newest thing. It only takes a moment's thought to plan ahead like that.

It's great I suppose that it works for you but you're not making much of an argument for it.

Having a hobbyist (who has done it) say it's easy is actually a pretty good indication that it legitimately is pretty easy.

Edited, May 5th 2010 5:28pm by Jophiel